Loan words again...ugh

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama all--

Akhi Paul is right. Chris can and has contacted me, and my questions here have nothing to do with that issue. Let's stay focused on the text and only the text. I do not want my linguistic inquiries used as a springboard for something I never intended.

But since this thread has elicited some interest, I will post here my responses to the issue for your review/consideration:

***

Interesting question Akhi Rick,

Bottom line for sure: earliest Greek NT mss with this word go back to the
2nd century. Furthermore, the Greek word "eucharist" simply means
"thanksgiving", so I believe the closest Hebrew equivalent is HODU. As to
when this became an institutional term as the Catholics use it, I believe
that is around the fourth century or so. From where I sit though, the
Peshitta and Greek witnesses (there are no other extant Semitic witnesses as
we will see), simply arise from a mixed language environment. I never said
Jews did not speak Greek but only that they were not as proficient at it as
Hebrew and Aramaic, as Josephus himself says. That being the case, I think
it is "illogicalistic" in the extreme to expect that a Greek word would
never penetrate the Aramaic curtain as a descriptive term, even if it is in
a sacred context. How many Jews, even today, still call the Bible books by
their Greek names even as they read them in Hebrew and know the Hebrew
names?

Now, usually when people propose a "Peshitta problem", they then postulate
what they feel is a superior vessel, such as Dutillet/Shem Tob/Munster
Matthew, or the Old Syriac mss (Cureton and Siniaiticus). However, these
mss only cover the Gospels and a smattering of Acts COMBINED, whereas the
Peshitta is a 22 book canon.

Here's the gig though. EUCHARIST does not appear in the Gospels or Acts
where a more "Jewish" choice like Hodu could be contrasted with any of the
other Semitic witnesses. Instead, EUACHARIST appears only in these
passages:

2 Corinthians 4:15, 9:11, Philippians 4:6, Colossians 2:7, 4:2, 1 Timothy
4:3, 4:4 and Revelation 7:12.

In every case except Revelation--which is not in the Eastern canon
anyway--the only Semtiic witness to these books is the Peshitta text. So,
there is no "Peshitta problem" because there is no semitic antecedent to it
with HODU or any other Hebrew/Aramaic synonym.

Now, for Greek primacists, this might be viewed as a minor leg up as one
potential "proof" and a very interesting loan-word. If so, it is a
completely isolated case. This is why I express my belief in the Peshitta
text as " the original New Testament from the pens of the apostles,
preserved in a Messianic Masorah. Or, at the very least, THE CLOSEST THING
TO THAT MASORAH THAT HAS SURVIVED INTACT INTO MODERN TIMES." I make this
distinction though because the people I debate these issues with are most
often--as I said--alleging a Hebrew Matthew or Old Syriac over Peshitta.
Neither they, and certainly not myself however, would say the Greek came
before SOME SEMITIC ORIGINAL.

But for the Greek school, I will say this much. If they feel that one
instance proves primacy, then I have hundreds of other examples that clearly
go against it. Last time I checked 500 to 1 is still a pretty impressive
victory. From this point on though, I readily acknowledge, I enter a place
of faith, and a gap between what I believe and what I can prove. Still, the
degree to the things that I CAN PROVE is such as to make that gap a real
small one. I maintain that the day will come in the future when the minor
issues that remain will validate my text over the pretenders, and I think
those who disagree with me realize that such a statement of belief cannot be
weighed or quantified. Like them, I weigh the evidence, interpret as best I
can, and faith takes me the rest of the way.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xlibris.com/SignsoftheCross.html">http://www.xlibris.com/SignsoftheCross.html</a><!-- w -->

The CD-ROM version of RUACH QADIM, Recovering the Aramaic Origins of the New
Testament and the Lost Vision of the Nazarenes, is also available for
purchase through this link:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=andrewgabriel77%40hotmail.com&item_name=Ruach+Qadim&item_number=RQ1&amount=25.00&no_note=1">https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business= ... &no_note=1</a><!-- m -->??cy_code=USD

($25, including shipping. Credit cards, checks and money orders are
accepted.)

>From: "Rick Carpenter" <gra_jrc@shsu.edu>
>Reply-To: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:beitavraham@yahoogroups.com">beitavraham@yahoogroups.com</a><!-- e -->
>To: <!-- e --><a href="mailto:beitavraham@yahoogroups.com">beitavraham@yahoogroups.com</a><!-- e -->
>Subject: [beitavraham] Re: The Eucharist / Communion Debate: A Peshitta
>Problem
>Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:06:38 -0000
>
>When (approx what date) did the Eucharist become the Eucharist? The Last
>Supper was a Passover. Yeshua's followers would have known, as per His
>instructions, to remember His sacrifice when they observed subsequent
>Passovers. And do any of the issues of the Quartodecimian controversy,
>particularly the 'East "vs" West' aspect of it, have any bearing on the
>Peshitta
>Eucharist issues being discussed here by Joe and Andrew?
>
>Rick


**AND HERE'S ANOTHER ONE:

Here's what a Catholic website, <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org">http://www.newadvent.org</a><!-- w -->, had to say about
EUCHARIST origins. I will return with commentary after:

The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar its twofold aspect of
sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present
under the bread and wine. Other titles are used, such as "Lord's Supper"
(Coena Domini), "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini), the "Lord's Body"
(Corpus Domini), and the "Holy of Holies" (Sanctissimum), to which may be
added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive
meaning: "Agape" (Love-Feast), "Eulogia" (Blessing), "Breaking of Bread",
"Synaxis" (Assembly), etc.; but the ancient title "Eucharistia" appearing in
writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Iren??us, has taken precedence in
the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians. The expression
"Blessed Sacrament of the Altar", introduced by Augustine, is at the present
day almost entirely restricted to catechetical and popular treatises. This
extensive nomenclature, describing the great mystery from such different
points of view, is in itself sufficient proof of the central position the
Eucharist has occupied from the earliest ages, both in the Divine worship
and services of the Church and in the life of faith and devotion which
animates her members.

***

Now, Ignatius of Antioch, was a disciple of Kefa, who took over Antioch
after Kefa's first successor, Evodius, died 67. The Antiochian Assembly
became known later as the Syrian Orthodox Church, and for 500 years they
preserved the original eastern Peshitta text, before revising and adding to
it in the 6th century. Here is more from new advent:

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50;
died at Rome between 98 and 117.

More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence,
though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the
child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is
also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp,
he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter,
Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of
Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.",
I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter
appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special
emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal
consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV.
587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art.
xvi, p. 53).

***

Now, since the EUCHARIST as an evolving institution began in the first
century, within 40 years of the resurrection, this is obvious a very early
term. The Church of the East confirms this indicrectly, as they never tell
us in their writngs that at point X this word entered their terminollogy.

We also need to look at Antioch itself. It was the most throughly bilingual
(Greek and Aramaic) city in the entire Middle East. Antioch was in Syria
and had a large Aramaic Jewish poopulation but it also was a seat of Roman
administration and political power, which would require mastery of Greek.
So, if there was ever a place where Greek and Aramaic words could mix
freely, this is it. This fact is also why we see KRISTIANAY as a term
arising in Antioch first. ALl EUCHARIST then is, is just one more word
coined in that process. There is no "Peshitta problem".


Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xlibris.com/SignsoftheCross.html">http://www.xlibris.com/SignsoftheCross.html</a><!-- w -->

The CD-ROM version of RUACH QADIM, Recovering the Aramaic Origins of the New
Testament and the Lost Vision of the Nazarenes, is also available for
purchase through this link:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=andrewgabriel77%40hotmail.com&item_name=Ruach+Qadim&item_number=RQ1&amount=25.00&no_note=1">https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business= ... &no_note=1</a><!-- m -->??cy_code=USD

($25, including shipping. Credit cards, checks and money orders are
accepted.)