Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A greek primacist question...
#1
Quote:How does one who believes in Peshitta primacy, account for elements such as "awangelion" which is obviously a transliteration of the Greek word "euangeliou", in many places in the Aramaic NT

This was sent to me today.
Reply
#2
My question is, was this word known and used among Aramaic speaking peoples, before the Christian era? And is the word found in any places other than in the Aramaic NT, or was it only a Christian term?
Reply
#3
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:How does one who believes in Peshitta primacy, account for elements such as "awangelion" which is obviously a transliteration of the Greek word "euangeliou", in many places in the Aramaic NT

This was sent to me today.

Shlama Akhi

The presence of any Greek loan words in the Aramaic NT is actually expected, given the milieu in which that Aramaic variety was present.

If we found no Greek loan words in the Peshitta, but say instead we found Persian or other loan words, then it could not be a product of Aramaic-speaking Jews who lived in a Greek-speaking empire.

The existence of Greek (and, Latin) loan words in the Peshitta is actually a marker of its authenticity.

It does not make sense, for instance, to assume that a theoretical Aramaic translator of Mark would simply transcribe euangelou in 1:1, but translate the instance in 1:14 to "sebartha" (the pure Aramaic form.)

Do you see what I mean? Why transliterate verse 1, but translate verse 14 ?

This only makes sense if Mark himself wrote the first instance as its loan word from Greek, which yes was known in the LXX and from everyday life in a Greek and Latin empire.

The presence of loan words is a very weak evidence. I don't put much weight in the Aramaic loan words in the GNT. Because, again, loan words can creep in for any number of reasons, and don't really carry any weight in this debate.

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
Thanks for that reply, Shamasha. I have noticed that throughout the Peshitta, this switch from the two terms happen often.

Here is another reply they made, when I posted your statement about the decade long challenge...it wasn't an error in translation from a supposed Greek original, but... they said.

"I have just realized that I may have already answered that challenge in my statement above.

Now I cannot read Aramaic (not even as poorly as I can read Greek or Hebrew), BUT in answer to your challenge,

I will say that ANY of the Aramaic verses that match the known LXX quotes and illusions over the Hebrew, would indicate your text was of Greek Origin. They would not write an Aramaic letter to churches already using Greek Scriptures when we know they were already speaking greek.

for example: mary the virgin - if the aramaic text has may the young women, that would indicate hebrew origin, if it is mary the westernised virgin or OT kjv - who hadn't *known* a man - that would be lxx origin.

and here we probably run into the same issues - there is no set lexicon for Aramaic, so Aramaic primacists are free to say what they like knowing that no one could prove them wrong hence, the challenge becomes null and void anyway."

.
Reply
#5
wow - I wrote this before seeing the reply of Shamasha Paul !

I do not know if there are testimonies to use of "awnglwion" in the times of Jesus, beyond NT records, but a question, if I may:

1/ If "awnglwion" was not preserved in the Peshitta (but sbrta was used in all paces where you find euangelion on the Greek side), would that make the case for Peshitta Primacy stronger or weaker ?

2/ Was the word "good news" used by Jesus ? If yes, which one would he be using, the "hellenized" versions or sbrta ? How does Mark 1 read ? If Peshitta is a translation why the translator of Mark's gospel used two different words for the same Greek one, in a span of (only) a chapter?
Reply
#6
Mark 5: 20 (RSV):

[20] And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decap'olis how much Jesus had done for him; and all men marveled.
Reply
#7
Akhi Jeremy, thanks for your thoughts as they echo mine exactly. The presence of Aramaic loan words are expected in the Greek, we are told, because after all the authors were Semites writing in Greek. BUT, Greek and Latin loan words present in the Aramaic cannot be explainable by the fact that those same Semitic authors lived in a Greco-Latin empire.

Does that seem fair?

Akhi Chuck: the person replying to you isn't really giving any of the sort of examples that I am looking for. My challenge was to show a *mistake* that a supposed Aramaic translator made when translating from a Greek source.

Ask the person replying to read the history of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Nikon's controversial revisions of Russian texts in the 16th century, due to the errors made when translating from the Greek into Slavonic. And how this led to the schism of the Old Believers sect.

Or better yet, invite him here so we can have some fun. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
Thirdwoe Wrote:...
Now I cannot read Aramaic (not even as poorly as I can read Greek or Hebrew), BUT ...

And here your discussion ends .. right on the big "BUT" .. again someone who does not know a word of Aramaic "knows" ... that the first churches (read synagogues) used Greek scriptures ... right ... and how do they know that ? And "knows" there is no Aramaic dictionary .. Something is not right here. I would refer them to reading first some basic Aramaic primacy intro .. here comes the post which I held onto first, waiting for explanations but after this I think it is in place. Good luck, and also wish you finding out WHY your friend is asking/disputing Aramaic Primacy - are they going to learn anything from it ? Would it change anything for them ? Would it answer a burning question? If not, then maybe there are better things in life ... <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> When I see a message which does not show real knowledge but includes "buts" and words like "well known", "obviously" , then I ask myself - is it worth the time, is it a friend, what is the agenda ?

My reply to your (i.e. your asking person) first question ...

---
> How does one who believes in Peshitta primacy, account for elements such as "awangelion" which is ...

Loanword.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=405">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=405</a><!-- l --> ?

I'm an "Aramaic Primiacist" and my account for this is : John 7:24 (look at the full evidence please, not pick and choose "issues" ). A good accountant should provide full information to the management, not only figures for the two summer months in the year.

Other "problems" <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=331">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=331</a><!-- l --> ?

Hope it helps.

One can find Greek loanwords in the Peshitta (e.g. this key word, and other such as Pentecost, loaned from Greek, long, long ago by Jews, or the "Christians" term) - If (euangelion) was not a loanword or never appeared in the Peshitta, wouldn't life be simpler, if all was black and white ? Someone on the forum even suggested a theory that is actually an Aramaic "lion" ending. But IF I 1balance ALL pros and cons then for me Aramaic Primacy makes more sense.

I was once told that the first thing people are ready to sacrifice to preserve their beliefs is the truth. If someone comes with an opinion (is and "-ist" from the start) and being challenged throws an argument or two to defend it and is not ready to make a full research (e.g. actually learn the language to a level of understanding, or check historical facts thoroughly, or put any real effort on their part), but rather trusts "the books" or "the authorities", then it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion. I'm not saying that the person asking is not looking for truth, however - are they ready to pay the price of deeper research rather than going for quick answers ? If I'm too mean here, tell me.

Now, here come some questions :
1/ if "awnglwion" was not preserved ...
[...]
---

So, ... what now remains as the question ?
The extra Peshitta evidence of existence of the loanword amongst Jews/Christians in the region and time of Jesus?
Reply
#9
Quote:Now I cannot read Aramaic (not even as poorly as I can read Greek or Hebrew), BUT in answer to your challenge,

I will say that ANY of the Aramaic verses that match the known LXX quotes and illusions over the Hebrew, would indicate your text was of Greek Origin. They would not write an Aramaic letter to churches already using Greek Scriptures when we know they were already speaking greek.

for example: mary the virgin - if the aramaic text has may the young women, that would indicate hebrew origin, if it is mary the westernised virgin or OT kjv - who hadn't *known* a man - that would be lxx origin.

and here we probably run into the same issues - there is no set lexicon for Aramaic, so Aramaic primacists are free to say what they like knowing that no one could prove them wrong hence, the challenge becomes null and void anyway."

Well, I now know how little he knows. He said that there is no way one could prove us wrong because there is no set lexicons or dictionaries... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/">http://dukhrana.com/</a><!-- m --> has 6 different ones on it.
Reply
#10
To their defense, from the standpoint of a linguist, I believe that they were referring to the language vs dialect problem or the neologism problem rather than any particular "physical" lexicon. These are both things that tend to give conventional academics frustration when discussing any sort of modern linguistic primacy as these phenomena shrink or eliminate common ground.
Reply
#11
Akhi Steve,

After more responses with him and another, I found out that they don't have any working knowledge of the ANT, to begin with, so they wont be able to meet the challenge. Can you? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

James E Snap Jr. stepped up to the plate and actually is giving a good swinging effort at meeting the challenge. Here is some of his post.


He said:

"I'll have to get back with you on this to answer the question in detail, but off the top of my head, I seem to recall a Syriac variant which confused stoas (porches) with stoles (robes) -- which is understandable via a misunderstanding of a Greek exemplar in which the letters A and L were miswritten, but not so understandable in the Syriac-->Greek direction."

Then later he said:

"Some time ago I went through the trouble of making a fresh Word document out of Michaelis' introduction to the Peshitta, combined with supplemental materials on the same subject. Michaelis mentioned a number of passages which, on my first impression, appear to meet the challenge that you mentioned.

Here are some of them: Acts 10:3. Philippians 1:1. I Tim. 3:1. Mt. 27:65. I Cor. 7:2, 7:6, and 7:7. Mt. 28:1. Acts 2:30. Mt. 27:36. Acts 2:42.

The reason why each of these verses poses a problem for the theory of Syriac (or Aramaic) Primacy varies from case to case, and the strength of the reasoning might vary as well. Nevertheless there's a list, for consideration; for additional information see the whole introduction."

He then provided this detailed article which deals with these verses and others, here below. I haven't yet looked it over, but plan to...I thought you and others might want to see it as well.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordVie">https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordVie</a><!-- m --> ... c+2013.doc

.
Reply
#12
PY-

I cannot directly answer your request for an example of a mistake that a supposed Aramaic translator made in translating from Greek to Aramaic. I can, however, give an intermediate position on why there were intentional mis-translations. The question is, "In what direction were the mistranslations and why?"

1. You are correct in EXPECTING Loan Words to occur.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.icr.org/article/92/">http://www.icr.org/article/92/</a><!-- m -->
The Scribes at Ebla, 1000 years before the Biblical OT times, were concerned - without intentional Guile and Misdirection - in providing understandings for various languages that were in use at the time of their use of what Pettinato calls Paleo-Canaanite. From his book - as I dimly recall - there were several pictographs of Sumerian words that did make it into the script. Among them a word for "Ruler" or "KIng" that I can only print here as "w". The nurses here at the home tell me that I do remember some things OK and that this might be one of those times.

2. I quoted the Mark 5:20 verse above to make a small point that Jesus is sending the Lunatic into The Decapolis. The Decapolis is a ten city league of Greek settlements and there was a Culture War going on between the Greeks and the surrounding Cultures - especially the "Jewish Culture". I assume that Greek was spoken in a group of Greek cities and that Aramaic/Hebrew was spoken as well. We should be surprised if there would NOT be a melding of languages or at least phrases here. I recently finished a book by Stavans, Resurrecting Hebrew, that gives a somewhat modern day look at the idea of "The Holy Language" and its reconstruction as the Official Language of Israel. You think there are some stiff necks arguing about Greek Primacy? Woof!

3. Which brings us to what we see today. I want to bring in Bauscher's point about "Gabbatha" again:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9MRZqY0C&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=bauscher+gabbatha&source=bl&ots=c_Fp0nqxsA&sig=EeW5TqPmnZV957WzOIZN1T2l64U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CyqnUoiCIYaNkAfv7oDIDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bauscher%20gabbatha&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9M ... ha&f=false</a><!-- m -->

Gabbatha is a "one way transliteration" according to Bauscher: "The Greek [Gabbatha] would not be mistaken for the Aramaic [Gpiptha]". Why is this important?

4. Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

The English word "lamb" has been translated, supposedly, from the Greek word "amnos" - or a variant, see the literature.
"So, what's the problem?!??"
In one of the listings of the Greek, there is this: "The Aramaic immerin refers to lambs as sacrificial victims ( Ezra 6:9 )."Immerin"?
The Aramaic for lamb, transliterated, is "Immar"

"So, what's the problem?"

1 Chronicles 24: 6 and 14 (RSV):

[6] And the scribe Shemai'ah the son of Nethan'el, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahim'elech the son of Abi'athar, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the priests and of the Levites; one father's house being chosen for Elea'zar and one chosen for Ith'amar.
...
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,

If you look up "lamb" and "Immer" in Strong's Hebrew and other places, you get similar looking words, different only in the Hebrew diacritical markings ("Niqqud") - which only came into use centuries after the OT and NT times. Without the diacriticals, the words appear identical.

Thus, there is an automatic word-play on "Lamb" and the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer".

5. This leads to my "Intermediate Position": "Were the Gospels written in Greek?" Yes. "Were the Gospels written in Aramaic/Hebrew/ ?" Yes.
How can that be?
It is assumed that there was a "finished" NT that provided a completed set and that this set was then translated into, say, Greek. With the examples given above and others, there is another alternative and it goes to heart of intentionality. Above, it was asserted that the Eblaite Scribes wrote their dictionaries without Guile or Indirection. I believe that to be true but a dilittante may believe many things that are not true. Be that as it may, the Eblaites may be contrasted with what we find here.

We are taught that Jesus was a "Second Moses" and the parallels between, say, what is written in Matthew and the OT descriptions of Moses are of a Type. The Type is given for a reason.
There is another "TYPE" given here but it has been hidden. "Gabbatha" is a one way transliteration. "Immer" - I'm sorry, "Immar" - is the lamb of God, at least in Revelation 5. This leads to a conclusion that, IF the completed set of NT Documents were written in Greek 'First" - or, "Almost First", or "Somewhat First" - they were written that way to hide the Type that WAS written in Aramaic.

The Lunatic goes to The Decapolis. Why? "Whose face is on the coin?", this from someone who knows that faces are NOT to be placed on coins. Why?
I know it drives people crazy when I Post here at times and for that I apologize. It's just that there is something here - HERE, on this site - that is very important and I keep wanting to explore it. This "something" runs through the Mishmarot courses, from Immer maybe even back to Jannaeus and beyond. I used to write "It's there, it really is there!" I still believe it.

Thank you,

Charles
Reply
#13
I think the strongest evidences for Aramaic primacy are poetry & wordplay, as well as split words. These things cannot be accounted for when assuming a Greek original. Loan words are not very strong evidence. At the end of Stephen King's The Stand, some indigenous people are shown speaking Spanish. This does not prove that The Stand was written in Spanish.
Reply
#14
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I think the strongest evidences for Aramaic primacy are poetry & wordplay, as well as split words. These things cannot be accounted for when assuming a Greek original. Loan words are not very strong evidence. At the end of Stephen King's The Stand, some indigenous people are shown speaking Spanish. This does not prove that The Stand was written in Spanish.

Names for officials, places, ranks, monetary units, measurement, etc. are often turned into loan-words in the subjugated peoples language. If the Peshitta was an Aramaic original made in the Roman empire, we would expect loan-words like "Centurian", "Decapolis", "Evangeliou", "Legion", etc, in the text of the Aramaic. If they weren't there, that would be a problem for Aramaic primacy.

You cannot have a "pure" Aramaic text coming out of the Roman empire. You cannot have a "pure" Aramaic text coming out of America (you'll often see words like "poleesa" (police) and "interneet", etc.)

Loan-words betray the milieu of a text. The presence of them actually proves the Peshitta came from the Roman empire, not the Persian empire where the CoE was.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)