Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Age of the Peshitta
#46
Congratulations on the bundle of joy, Brother Steve!

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#47
Shlama Akhan Memradaya,

Why don't you post the whole inscription from 6 AD, and let's compare it to the Peshitta language, shall we? Here is it in its entirety (first line is from the original inscription, the second line is "Peshitta Aramaic", and the third line is obviously the translation into English): (I hope this puts to rest how much "Syriac" changed from the 1st century, to the 5th century)

Byrx )dr $nt (317)
Byrx )dr $nt (317) - exact same
(In the month of Adar, year 317)

)n) zrbyn br )b[gr] $ly+) dbyrt)
)n) zrbyn br )b[gr] $ly+) dbyrt) - exact same
(I, Zarbeyan, son of Abgar, the governor of Berta)

Mrbyn) d)wydlt [br] m)nw br m)nw
Mrbyn) d)wydlt [br] m)nw br m)nw - exact same
(guardian of ?widallat son of Manu son of Manu)

)bdt byt qbwr) hn) lnp$y wlhlwy)
)bdt byt qbwr) hn) lnp$y wlhlwy) - exact same
(made this grave for myself and for Halwiya)

Mrt byty wlbny ... yd (undecipherable)
Mrt byty wlbny ... yd - exact same
(Lady of my house, and for my children .... )

kl )n$ dy)t) bbyt qbwr?) hn)
kl )n$ dn)t) bbyt qbwr?) hn) - slight difference, instead of Y, N for the third-person masculine (attested in other Aramaic dialects as well)
(Everyone who comes to this grave)

Wyxz) wy$bx ybrxwnh )lh) klhwn
WNxz) wN$bx Nbrxwnh )lh) klhwn - slight difference, instead of Y, N for the third-person masculine (attested in other Aramaic dialects as well)
(and sees and gives praise, let all the gods bless him)

x$y glp) wslwq .... ] ywt[? (undecipherable)
x$y glp) wslwq .... ] ywt[? (undecipherable) - exact same
(Khashay the engraver and Seluq ....)

There you have it - FIVE centuries, and there's only ONE slight letter difference in how the 3rd-person masculine verb is constructed. ONE LETTER. And that is common today in Neo-Aramaic dialects, and other dialects from that time. They differ slightly in the rules of conjugation of verbs, some colloqialisms are unique, idioms are local, etc.

ONE LETTER. FIVE CENTURIES.

+Shamasha
Reply
#48
'It is submitted,---FIRST, that there is ground for belief that this text has been so correctly copied, that it has come down to us WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE FROM THE FIRST CENTURY. As Dr. Scrivener says, "The Syriac was cited by Melito as early as A.D. 170," and history leaves "no room to doubt what that version was." It was the Peshito.' -William Norton, 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, page CCXXIII (220)
Reply
#49
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:'It is submitted,---FIRST, that there is ground for belief that this text has been so correctly copied, that it has come down to us WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE FROM THE FIRST CENTURY. As Dr. Scrivener says, "The Syriac was cited by Melito as early as A.D. 170," and history leaves "no room to doubt what that version was." It was the Peshito.' -William Norton, 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, page CCXXIII (220)

The difference between any two Aramaic dialects of any geographic area during that time period is like the distance of the crack between two slabs of concrete on a sidewalk.

The distance between any of the Aramaic dialects of that time, and any dialect of Greek, is like the gulf from one end of the Grand Canyon to the other.

"Scholars" today have no issue with straining at the gnat (the laughingly simple differences in Aramaic dialects), but have no problem swallowing a camel (that the Greek is somehow superior to *any* dialect of Aramaic.)

The GNT was the perfect vehicle, we are told, because the particular dialect was the most widely spoken Greek dialect.

But the ANT isn't afforded the same logic - it needn't be written in the most widely spoken Aramaic dialect, in order to reach the most people. No, that's a ridiculous suggestion.

These "Scholars" would rather that the NT was written in such a foreign language, a language so far from Aramaic that it might as well be Japanese ... Instead of fathoming the possibility that the apostles might just have written the third-person masculine imperfect verb with a Nun, rather than a Yodh - if for nothing else, for the sake of the millions of Aramaic speaking Jewish and Gentile souls to the east just waiting to be evangelized. One letter is much, much worse than - Greek.

Oh, and if they had written it originally with a Yodh, instead of a Nun, then of course that would render it next to impossible for "Syriac" speakers to understand it. Those Syriac speakers were obviously not smart enough, unlike our modern scholars, to understand what the apostles were trying to say. They must've been idiots - unread and uneducated barbarians. Unlike the Greeks.

I wish I was being sarcastic, but this is the hubris we have to deal with. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#50
Quote:The GNT was the perfect vehicle, we are told, because the particular dialect was the most widely spoken Greek dialect.

It doesn't really make since that the Koine Greek dialect of the Greek New Testament would be the commonly used version considering the many Semiticisms you find in it. Scholars say that the Greek language was spoken in Israel primarily by the higher class, but the apostles, especially Peter, James, and John, were clearly not people who would fit that bill. It is very unlikely that Jesus would fit the bill of being in the higher class either. I know people make a big deal about no translator being mentioned in Jesus's conversations with Pilate (obviously a Greco-Roman), but is there any reason to think that Pilate couldn't speak Aramaic? He had been governor in Israel for 4-7 years at the time of the crucifixion.
Reply
#51
I think if Jesus (being God manifested in the flesh) wanted to speak to Pilate in Latin or Greek, He could...just saying. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: --> <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#52
We must also consider the testimony of Josephus who points out that Greek wasn't a spoken language of first century Israel due to Jewish Nation not encouraging the learning of Greek. Josephus points out that Greek was an unaccustomed language to Jews. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity in terms of Jews knowing Greek.

We also know that Pilate knew three languages - Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, because he wrote the inscription on the cross (John 19:19-22).

Josephus' testimony is in agreement with Acts 1:19 where field of blood was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language as Akeldama (transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama" in Peshitta).
Reply
#53
konway87 Wrote:We also know that Pilate knew three languages - Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, because he wrote the inscription on the cross (John 19:19-22).

I must say Konway, you have a very fresh approach. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Indeed, Pilate said: "What I have written, I have written." he said not: "What my writer wrote..."
Reply
#54
distazo Wrote:
konway87 Wrote:We also know that Pilate knew three languages - Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, because he wrote the inscription on the cross (John 19:19-22).

I must say Konway, you have a very fresh approach. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Indeed, Pilate said: "What I have written, I have written." he said not: "What my writer wrote..."

And you Akhan Distazo have a very fresh way of complimenting. Or criticizing. So fresh, I cannot tell which.
Reply
#55
Quote:Scholars say that the Greek language was spoken in Israel primarily by the higher class

I don't see why the galilean who could speak in Eddesan Aramaic, couldn't speak Greek when there were Greek towns 3 miles further. And the business with that.

Quote:ONE LETTER. FIVE CENTURIES.

I put the exact terminology. And one of the difference between old Syriac (132 BC - 242 AD) and classical Syriac is this -n. The same way someone who says "neighbour" will be reconized as "British", and the others who say "neighbor",as "American". I never said that the difference would be incredible.

But first, I have to find in my thousand of files the ones about the evolution of the syriac, overall the inscriptions...
Reply
#56
Galileans didn't speak Greek, because Jewish Nation didn't encourage the learning of Greek. Like Josephus pointed out, Greek was an unaccustomed language to Jews in first century AD.

Like Scorpio pointed out, Peshitta can be seen even during the time of Melito in 170 AD and Khabouris manuscript is copied from an earlier Peshitta manuscript that is dated around 165 AD.

When Khabouris Manuscript was found, the news article "US Library gets an Ancient Bible" appeared in the New York Times on March 26, 1955 reporting on the oldest known New Testament Bible written in the language "used by Christ". The article noted how it was taken to the White House where President Eisenhower viewed it. The Bible was said to be insured for "an hour and a half" in the amount of $1,500,000 US dollars. When the Khabouris Codex was first revealed to America in April 1955 it was referred to as "the NT Time Bomb."

This completely contradicts your idea about the antiquity of Peshitta Aramaic.
Reply
#57
Quote:The same way someone who says "neighbour" will be reconized as "British", and the others who say "neighbor",as "American". I never said that the difference would be incredible.

Is that the kind of difference? Please....

What we have in the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts, is the same content as was 1st given to the 1st Christians of the Church of the East in the 1st century...as early as 78 A.D. I have seen nothing that shows otherwise.

This talk about an "old Syriac" version, which is said to be different...where is it?

And if you know where it is, and can see it is so different than the Peshitta Aramaic text, then show us what is so different, please.

Lets look at the evidence and stop talking about what might be or what might have been. Otherwise, it's all just empty conjecture and assumptions. Guesswork.

Don't waste time...show us what has been lost or changed in The Aramaic Scriptures. What are we missing, and what should we be concerned about when we read and study what we have in the Peshitta Manuscripts? Can you give us, say the big five differences, if you know at least that many?

I have been going through, verse by verse, word by word, letter by letter, every day to see what is found in the Eastern Peshitta text, and is found in the Khabouris Codex, and the Manuscript that was given to Dr. Ashael Grant in the 1840s by the Patriarch of the Church of the East at the time, both Manuscripts said to be from about the 9th-11th centuries, and then comparing them to the readings from other Manuscripts such as 14470, 14475, 14473, 14453, all of which are said to be from the 5th-6th century... and that of the Mingana Codex (1613 A.D.) and the Mosul printed edition of 1886 ...and I see nothing of any concern, as to being different in the content of the message and wording, as found in the Eastern Peshitta text.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#58
konway87 Wrote:When Khabouris Manuscript was found, the news article "US Library gets an Ancient Bible" appeared in the New York Times on March 26, 1955 reporting on the oldest known New Testament Bible written in the language "used by Christ". The article noted how it was taken to the White House where President Eisenhower viewed it. The Bible was said to be insured for "an hour and a half" in the amount of $1,500,000 US dollars. When the Khabouris Codex was first revealed to America in April 1955 it was referred to as "the NT Time Bomb."

This completely contradicts your idea about the antiquity of Peshitta Aramaic.

Shlama:
It's time that we set the record straight. The Yonan (Younan) Codex was paraded around the U.S. in 1955. It was sold by Norman (Malek) Younan to the Van Kampen Scriptorium. It has found its present resting place in the Holyland Museum in Tampa Florida. I have communicated with The Holyland Museum and pictures were taken of a page sent to me which I transcribed, and which appear in a PDF file at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->. We have also a large file selection of the Khabouris Codex and its complete transcription. The Yonan Codex and the Khabouris Codex appear to be virtually identical but are two separate manuscripts copied from a now extant, yet unknown original. The Khabouris Codex surfaced in 1967 and pictures of its 510 pages surfaced on the Internet around 2002.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#59
Thanks for correcting my errors, Stephen Silver.
Reply
#60
Still chipping away when I have the odd hour to spare. :-)

...

konway87 Wrote: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).

Middle Aramaic starts in the 3rd century AD, not 200 BC.

konway87 Wrote: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. [...]

/Reshyana/ means "reproach" or "indictment." The reading "blameless" comes only from the circumlocution /d-la reshyana/ ("without reproach"). The /reshe'a/vs./reshyana/ argument does not work.

Additionally, I'm not convinced by the argument that this quirk of the Peshitta that is not shared with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus proves that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are translated from the Peshitta. Their other readings simply don't match up.

konway87 Wrote:On the top of that, Khabouris Manuscript is a copy of manuscript which can date as early as 2nd century AD.

The interpretation of the colophon from the Khabouris codex is suspect. It is worn and severely damaged damaged and difficult to make out. No one has actually produced a transcription of it to date due to this difficulty, but seem to intrinsically trust the interpretation of Norman Yonan. Where Yonan (a teller of fantastical tales who was trying to hype and sell the codex to the tune of $1.5 million in 1955) insisted it read 165 AD, after his death this was questioned thoroughly. Most conventional scholars reject this interpretation completely.

Quote:"The Society of Biblical Literature at its annual meeting in New York City on December 28?30, 1955, wishes to go on record as opposing some of the publicity attending the efforts currently being made to raise by popular subscription $1,500,000 for the purchase of the so-called Yonan Codex. This codex is a manuscript of the Syriac New Testament which is reported to be ?the oldest surviving complete New Testament written in Syriac-Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus? (Washington Evening Star, March 25, 1955).

According to members of our Society who have examined the manuscript, the Yonan Codex is a copy of the Syriac Peshitta, a version which was made from the Greek New Testament at about the beginning of the fifth century and which contains twenty-two of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Edessene Syriac, the language of this version, differs considerably from the Palestine Aramaic used by Jesus more than four centuries earlier. About three hundred manuscripts of the Peshitta version are known to exist in the libraries of this country and Europe. Several of these are older than the Yonan Codex, which some of our members who are expert in Syriac palaeography date to the seventh or eighth century. According to certain members of the Society who have frequently arranged for the purchase of biblical manuscripts, a fair estimate of the value of a manuscript like the Yonan Codex is about $5,000."

What was instrumental to this declaration was that Yonan was using Dr. Bruce Metzger (of Princeton)'s name (and other scholars' names) in promotion of the codex to gain approval (from the then Governor of Virginia to Library of Congress officials) and Metzger was not aware of it. When he was made aware, he told Yonan to stop and he turned on him and Yonan sent lawyers after him to shut him up. He wanted his $1.5 million dollars, truth be damned.

konway87 Wrote:[...] 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.

That is irrelevant as the form of Estrangela handwriting used in this copy of Josephus is from the 11th century at the earliest (or so say the experts who have dedicated their lives to handwriting analysis; I'd tend to trust them).

konway87 Wrote: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.

Will you please stop referring to me in the 3rd person? I've tried to afford you courtesy, and I've seen that you've furiously edited your posts several times to little effect, but please, enough is enough. I understand that you're zealous in your position, but that's no excuse for this exercise in impropriety. Mockery makes a weak argument.

Will respond to more when I have another hour to spare.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)