Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Age of the Peshitta
#31
You have no proofs to support your theories.

Just words coming out of your head to create your own plans to misguide others.

Even Church Bishops clearly confirms that Aramaic Peshitta is the original. I am talking about Aramaic Peshitta preserved wonderfully by Church of the East.

Five Scholars on the Peshitta .

1. With reference to the originality of the Peshitta text the Church "received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself...which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." - Mar Eshai Shimun, California, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, April 5, 1957.

2. "I have no reason to doubt that the Peshitta is superior to that of the Greek. It was handed down to us by the Apostles through the scribes and preserved to us in our very own generation. No other version written in any other language can claim such authenticity and antiquity." - Patriarch Mar Dalin I, China in the 1800's, Assembly of Jerusalem

3. "Undoubtedly the Peshitta, written in the Aramaic language of the East, contains the pure and untainted Word of the Messiah." - Mar Yokhanan Dalin III, Portugal in 1980, Assembly of Jerusalem

4. "We have in the Aramaic Peshitta the preserved word of Our Lord unchanged from the time of the Apostles." - HH Patriarch Mar Michai, Detroit in 1989, Assembly of Jerusalem

They are not just Church Bishops. They are also Aramaic scholars who know very well about Aramaic. Another funny thing is you use Greek NT manuscripts which is filled with contradictions.
Reply
#32
Now that you've simply brushed a very real counter-example to your argument off and have retreated to dogmatic assertions, my confidence that this can be a productive dialog from this point onwards has evaporated. Still I will try again...

The whole of the field of Syriac Studies and the greater field of Aramaic Studies does not find merit in the claims of those "Five [sic] Scholars on the Peshitta " (although I count four) as their statements do not weigh against the bulk of the evidence. They are statements of faith.

The crux of the issue with Josephus is that he wouldn't have written in 11th-12th century Syriac (which is a huge, unbridgeable gap).

The crux of the issue with the Peshitta is that Jesus did not speak 4th-5th century Classical Syriac (which is a much smaller, albeit still very significant gap), and the fact that we have Old Syriac and Post-Old-Syriac-Pre-Peshitta texts (that carry readings from before the Peshitta's standardization)... well you can make the appropriate conclusions yourself. :-)

The crux of the issue of separating Syriac (in the academic sense) from "Syriac" (in the equivocal sense) is that different languages called themselves different names from what other languages called them. See if you can follow this example: To an English speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Galilean Aramaic." To a Galilean Aramaic speaker, Galilean Aramaic is "Suriston" ("Syriac"; this is attested). To an English academic, the language of the Peshitta is "Classical Syriac Aramaic." In the language of the Peshitta, Aramaic words are referred to as "Evarith" ("Hebrew") and in one case it calls them "Armaith" ("Aramaic"). However, in Galilean, "Armaith" only means "Pagan" or "Gentile" (again, attested) and in English "Hebrew" never refers to any Aramaic language. Because of all of these interconnections, one cannot pick and choose which is convenient. Those titles must be taken in context. As such, what an ancient speaker of Koine Greek calls "Suristi" ("Syriac") is categorically different what a Modern English-speaking person calls "Syriac." We cannot conflate the old meanings with modern meanings without appropriate, demonstrable context.

Speaking of demonstrable context, may I ask you to demonstrate that I have intentions to misguide anyone?
Reply
#33
First of all, you are still putting false information.

Just like Josephus said, Aramaic (a.k.a Syriac) he spoke was the same spoken in Galilee, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, remotest Arabian regions, and beyond Jordan.

The word "aramaith" also mean "Aramaically." The word "Ebraith" also mean "Ebraically." That doesn't mean anything. It is just basically saying that this word was the common word for Hebrews while other word was common word for Arameans.

For Example, the word "Gagultha" was the common word in Judea while "Qarqaptha" was the common word in Galilee, Lebanon, Syria, and other regions. This is just like the word "Eraser" commonly used in America while "rubber" is the word commonly used in England and in India.

Another example is "restroom" is the common word used in America while "toilet" is the common word used in England and in India.

Josephus himself points out the extreme rarity in terms of Jews knowing Greek in first century AD. Second, Greek NT manuscripts are filled with script tamperings and contradictions.

You are using Greek for your misguiding theories just like Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew as a part of his messianic idealogy for misguiding 580,000 people. Greek NT are not reliable.

For example, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are 2 Greek NT manuscripts highly valued by so called Greek scholars.

According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies" (1914) volume 2, there are 3,036 textual variations between Greek NT manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" and Greek NT manuscript "Codex Vaticanus" in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.

On the top of this, these manuscripts have tamperings (For Example, Matthew 27:9) and errors. Josephus himself criticized Greek scholars for neglecting the real truth of historical facts (Jewish Wars, Preface, Paragraph 5).
Reply
#34
SteveCaruso Wrote:...Jesus did not speak 4th-5th century Classical Syriac ...

Shlama Akhi Steve,

Can you please point out the specific differences between the Aramaic language of Jesus, as it was graciously preserved in the GNT, and the Aramaic of the Peshitta (what you call, "Classical Syriac")?

Specifically, "Talitha Qumi", and also the last words on the Cross (in the terrible Greek transliteration)...oh, I suppose we can leave "Abba" out, one word is too simple. Please use only these two examples.

Thank you in advance.

+Shamasha

PS - also helpful, if possible, would be precise evidence of what Jesus actually spoke, other than the couple of phrases and words that the GNT graciously preserved. I want to see His actual words, preserved somewhere, that would back up your statement above.

BTW, your statement above is loaded with an obviously misleading assertion - because no one is able to speak something you label as 4-5 centuries later than when that person actually lived. It's impossible for me to speak 25th-century English, right?

Apparently, Eusebius didn't raise an issue with Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa communicating via letter. Eusebius was Bishop in the Holy Land in 314. He was probably born before 270. (the historicity of this account, btw, is irrelevant to my point). Perhaps, just maybe, the language of Edessa and Israel during the first century was nearly identical ?

You have no problem with Jews going around Europe and preaching in Greek to their fellow Jews there, but apparently, you see an insurmountable challenge when the same Jews travel in the opposite direction and encounter, gasp!, a different dialect of the SAME language they happen to speak. Oh my! How did the Apostles evangelize the east, the language was SO different from their own, that they might as well have used GREEK like they did in Europe, right ?

OK, I said all that smiling, you know that already. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#35
Aside from Jesus' words on the cross, Abba & Talitha Cumi, we also have Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22. Aramaic Primacist William Norton who was both an Aramaic scholar & Greek scholar points out what Josephus wrote.

Aramaic Primacist William Norton provided this information (below) in his 1889 book ?A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John: with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881 (1889).?

Page ix-x (Introduction) ? ?Josephus is a very important witness in proof of the extent to which Syriac was known and used in the first century. He took part in the war against the Romans which led to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. He was taken captive by them, and was well acquainted with all the events connected with the war. He wrote a history of it in Syriac; and states how great a multitude of people, living in different nations, from near the Caspian Sea to the bounds of Arabia, could read and understand what he had written in Syriac. He afterwards wrote the same history in Greek, that those who spoke Greek, and those of the Romans, and of any other nation who knew Greek, but did not know Syriac, might read it also.?

Norton also shows a huge list of condemned readings in Greek NT in his 1889 book ?A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John: with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881 (1889).?
Reply
#36
But Akhi Konway, you're preaching to the choir.

I find it absolutely absurd how much emphasis is put on "dialectal" differences, by the same people who have *no* issue with how far apart KOINE GREEK is from "Galilean" Aramaic.

It's OK, apparently, for the NT to have been written in Koine Greek, because that would have reached the widest possible audience in the West (so their reasoning goes.) However, if the same people are speaking about Aramaic, then they don't care which dialect was the most widely spoken one ... you know, the one that would've reached the widest possible audience in the East.

No, no, no. If the NT was written in Aramaic, then it had to have been written in a *very* specific dialect, one that the *least* number of people would have understood very easily.

Do you see the double standard here, or is it just me ?

My goodness.

+Shamasha
Reply
#37
Brother Steve, I'm still trying to figure out if you at all believe that the words of M'Shikha and His Shlikha, being inspired by Alaha, have been preserved at all in their original form? In any language, and in any manuscript copy.

Do you say it was all written down in Greek 1st?, if so, which Greek form of the NT can we say preserves them then? Which Greek Manuscript would you recommend, as faithfully preserving the inspired Words and Message of Christ?

And if you think that the 1st Aramaic NT books, which were given to the Christians in the East, in the latter part of the 1st century, by the Shlikha and their helpers, (maybe you don't) then, if so, what exactly has been lost of it's Words and Message, from the text we can see today in the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts?

And, can you show us a verse in The Eastern Peshitta Text, as seen in The Eastern Manuscripts, where it isn't original to the 1st form of the text that was given to the 1st Bishops of The Church of the East, in the 1st century?

And if you don't believe that The Church of the East existed at that time, then show us a verse in this "old Syriac" text, which you seem to believe is more true to the original form of the 1st Aramaic text. I'd like to examine it. And show us a few verses, if you know of more.

M'Shikha said, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, and my words will not pass away. Yet, it seems you think they have, along with His language....show us which ones then, if you know of any.


Shlama,
Chuck

.
Reply
#38
SteveCaruso Wrote:Job was not written in Syriac. Where did you get this idea from?

konway87 Wrote:Book "Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible" by Martin McNamara, Page 96 - In Septuagint manuscripts (Manuscripts- Aleph, A, B, and C), there is an epilogue in Book of Job which is introduced with the words: "houtos hermeneutai ek tes syriakes bibliou."
Reply
#39
And then everyone "gangs up." <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Six replies to sort through. You'll have to excuse me if I pick at them one-by-one over the next few days as I have a very pressing distraction:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...372&type=1 <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

That said:

konway87 Wrote:Just like Josephus said, Aramaic (a.k.a Syriac) he spoke was the same spoken in Galilee, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, remotest Arabian regions, and beyond Jordan.

Where did he say it was "the same" Aramaic?

konway87 Wrote:The word "aramaith" also mean "Aramaically." The word "Ebraith" also mean "Ebraically." That doesn't mean anything. It is just basically saying that this word was the common word for Hebrews while other word was common word for Arameans.

Now we're dealing with Special Pleading, choosing one definition over another common and well-attested one where it suits your argument. :-)

konway87 Wrote:This is just like the word "Eraser" commonly used in America while "rubber" is the word commonly used in England and in India. Another example is "restroom" is the common word used in America while "toilet" is the common word used in England and in India.

No, one is nomenclature where the other are shibboleths. They do not represent the problem I've presented.

konway87 Wrote:Josephus himself points out the extreme rarity in terms of Jews knowing Greek in first century AD.

And yet, the vast majority of Jewish funeral inscriptions were in Greek and the very wide use of the Greek LXX among the diaspora also paint a much more complex picture. This isn't a black and white issue when it comes to Greek and Aramaic. Some enclaves of Jews were Aramaic speakers, others were predominantly Greek speakers (such as those in the Diaspora). Josephus came from a monied, predominantly Aramaic-speaking culture and due to that status had to learn Greek. His situation was not typical by any means.

konway87 Wrote:Second, Greek NT manuscripts are filled with script tamperings and contradictions.

You are using Greek for your misguiding theories just like Bar Kokhba revived Hebrew as a part of his messianic idealogy for misguiding 580,000 people. Greek NT are not reliable.

For example, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are 2 Greek NT manuscripts highly valued by so called Greek scholars.

According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies" (1914) volume 2, there are 3,036 textual variations between Greek NT manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" and Greek NT manuscript "Codex Vaticanus" in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.

Whenever you have a large body of copies made by hand, there will be variants. Josephus' works have variants. Even Peshitta manuscripts have variants (and I'm talking about beyond spelling or word division; the Leiden Institute are documenting these). Of course we can squabble all day as to their significance.

konway87 Wrote:On the top of this, these manuscripts have tamperings (For Example, Matthew 27:9) and errors. Josephus himself criticized Greek scholars for neglecting the real truth of historical facts (Jewish Wars, Preface, Paragraph 5).

Josephus was also not a "saint" when it came to facts. :-) There were several (including Eusebius) who complained about inaccuracies in his work.

History in that day and age was not about literal, objective fact as it is today. Historians were much more interested in the character of the people they portrayed more than the most appropriate preposition to use in describing their actions. If we lose sight of this, then we're stuck arguing motes.

In any case, this loses sight of the issue once more: How could Josephus write using language 1,000 years younger than him? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#40
Shlama Akhi Steve,

Take your time, brother! What a blessing, congratulations! (cute picture)

+Shamasha
Reply
#41
Aside from the disciples and followers of Jesus, Josephus is the only reliable historian from first century AD.

You write false information and you have the nerve to judge an honest man like Josephus. His honesty was well approved by Titus, Vespasian, and Domitian. Domitian even punished the false historians who tried to make false histories and lies against Josephus.

There are Jewish inscriptions in Greek, because if anyone was punished under Roman Empire through death, then Romans were required to write Greek and also Latin inscriptions on their grave or cross due to the fact that Greek and Latin represented Roman Empire. Look at the sign on the cross of Jesus - Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

Look at your laughable statement - "Whenever you have a large body of copies made by hand, there will be variants." What a laughable justification for 3,306 variants in the Gospels alone!

This is worse than the points of false historian Apion who went against Josephus. You don't know anything about History and you come in here with words coming out of your head for your deceiving plans.

Below is an interesting information for everyone other than Caruso.

Aramaic (a.k.a Syriac) was the spoken language of Jews during Maccabean Period (1 Maccabees 12:37 of Both Peshitta Tanakh and Septuagint). So there are only Aramaic versions (Peshitta Tanakh in Codex Ambrosianus) and Greek versions (Septuagint) of Maccabees.

Whenever "Kh" (khet) is mentioned in a name or word in Aramaic (a.k.a Syriac), it is replaced with "Alpha" in Both Septuagint and Greek NT manuscripts.

In Peshitta NT, we read "Khqel Dama" (Acts 1:19) which is transliterated as "Akel Dama." "Kh" (Khet) in Peshitta and Aramaic Historical manuscripts are replaced by "Alpha" in Greek NT & Greek Historical manuscripts.

This can also be seen in Peshitta Tanakh in Codex Ambrosianus.

1 Maccabees 2:1-5 (My attempt in translating 1 Maccabees 2:1-5 - Ceriani Veteris Testamentum Pg. 104) - "In those days arose Mattitha, the son of Yukhanan, the son of Shimeon, a priest from the sons of Yonadab, from Jerusalem, and has dwelt in Moraim. 2. He had five sons, Yukhanan called Gaddaz. 3. Shimeon called Tarsaz. 4. Yuda called Maqabaya. 5. Eleazaran called Khoran and Yonathan called Khaphus."

1 Maccabees 2:1-5 (Septuagint) - "In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modin. 2 And he had five sons, Joannan, called Caddis: 3 Simon; called Thassi: 4 Judas, who was called Maccabeus: 5 Eleazar, called Avaran: and Jonathan, whose surname was Apphus."

Notice the shift from "Khet" to "Alpha." "Khoran" is transliterated as "Avaran" and "Khaphus" is transliterated as "Apphus" in Septuagint.
Reply
#42
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Steve,

Take your time, brother! What a blessing, congratulations! (cute picture)

+Shamasha

Thanks, Akhi. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#43
shalom 'aleykhem

Steve, you're not alone.

I am not using the term "Syriac" in its strictest academic sense. "Syriac" was the term used before the 4 Century, to refers to all colloqual dialects of (what we call now) Aramaic language spoken in the territory of Palestina, syria ON THIS SIDE Euphrates. The term "Aramaic" refered to the Bablilonian Aramaic.

Edessa was in the middle (between the Euphrates and Tigris), but its dialect didn't belong to "Syriac" Aramaic. I know it's weird: our Syriac isn't that one that was called Syriac before.

In the first century, the tongue used in Edessa was what we call "OLD SYRIAC". It deffers a little from an another written language used in the Mesopotamia and called East- mesopotamian. Our earlist testimony of Old Syriac tongue is given by the the so-called "Inscription of Birecik", coming from Birecik (6 CE), on the Euphrates.
Here an extract "kl ?n? dy?t? b[byt qbwr?] hn?" [...]everyone who will come to this [tomb]. You can see that the 3rd masc sing afformative is "y" in "y-?-t-?".

We found the "y" preformative still in two other stone inscriptions dated from 73 AD and 165 AD. As a matter of fact, the first appearance of the "CLASSICAL SYRIAC" - n preformative goes back to "I don't know because I don't want to read Harviainen to know it" but I konw a 240 AD inscription. So. The Peshitta is not written in Old Syriac the only one state of the langue known in Edessa in 1st Century, but in post Old Syriac " classical Aramaic".

There's a old text however, that we have in classical Syriac which was without a doubt composed in Old syriac: The Edessene Chronicle. So it is not impossible to convert old syriac in classical syriac (it has been done)...
Reply
#44
Peshitta Aramaic is Middle Aramaic (which is usually dated from 200 BC to 130 AD for Israeli Jews while for Arameans from 200 BC to 200 AD).

Caruso is trying to claim that Peshitta Aramaic is Late Aramaic (which evolved in 4th century) which doesn't make any sense considering the fact that Codex Sinaiticus (330-360 AD from mid-4th century AD) and Codex Vaticanus (early 4th century AD) are translations of Peshitta Aramaic.

Here is an example from Codex Sinaiticus.

Romans 5:7-8 (H.T Anderson Translation of Codex Sinaiticus) - "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; though for the good man perhaps some one would even dare to die; but God renders his love for us conspicuous in this, that, we being yet sinners, Christ died for us."

This error can only come from Peshitta Aramaic (Estrangela script). Check this video out.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w</a><!-- m -->

On the top of that, Khabouris Manuscript is a copy of manuscript which can date as early as 2nd century AD.

Dead Sea "Scrolls" are considered very old. But they are criticized due to the fact that the authorship of Dead Sea Scrolls are given to Essenes of Qumran who had reputation of using old worn materials. Just like that, Greek NT manuscripts are old. But not good at all in showing any degree of originality.

The funny thing is Caruso forgot to point out is Jewish Wars Six is written in Estrangela script while the scribe writes in swadaya & serto scripts for the last part of Peshitta Tanakh in Codex Ambrosianus.

With Caruso, I feel that he lives in a fantasy world where Santa Claus really exists. It is when you tell a young child that Santa Claus doesn't exist, he/she wouldn't accept it. That is the case with him. He just can't differentiate between his fantasy and reality.
Reply
#45
Memradya,

What text do you say was read during the Liturgy, in the gatherings of The Church of the East, during the 1st century and 2nd centuries?

And if it isn't the same as we have today, as seen in the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts, then what can you find, that you think isn't the same as what was in the earlier text, that you might believe was different? Are we talking about only the shape and form of the letters themselves, or the content of the text itself?

I believe it is the very same content, and if you can show us that it is not, in some instance, I would be very glad to take a look at it.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)