Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Loan words again...ugh
#1
Shlama Akhay,

Someone on one of my forums began bringing up that tired old excuse that the Peshitta cannot be original because of Greek loan words in it. I gave my standard response, which is that Greek loan words reflect the reality of Jews under Roman domination, and that words like "denarii" and "centurion" are inevitable. Also explain about the "kristianay" reading being attributed to the Peshitta redactors accurately recording what Greek Gentiles in Antioch physically said.

However my opponents' take seems to be that "eucharist" should not be there, but a more Jewish term 'bread offering". I still think this is a case of Gentile influence mixing in first century text, but I also recall that either Paul Younan or someone else posted a rather scathing rebuttal of the loan word-debunking-Peshitta school. Does anyone know where that is?

These people tried to do an endrun around me also. The thread was titled "Eucharist" but when you opened it up it reads 'eucharist: a Peshitta problem", and they addressed it directly to Joe Viel, not to me, because they knew I would have major problems with what they were saying.

Any insisghts would be greatly appreciated.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Andrew Roth,

A guy under the name of drmlanc was asking my favor to submit "his passion" for the benefit of answering your question:

1. Numerous Aramaic loan words in the Greek ??? Luke 1:15 / Matthew 12:10 / Luke 2:41 et al
No KJV ref is given here, as we focus on the specific Aramaic words that are in the Greek.

???Here is a question you should ask the next Greek NT scholar you meet.
If Luke was written in Greek, why does the Aramaic word for "Strong Drink" (Shakira) appear in the Greek manuscripts as "Sikera"??? (Luke 1:15) Is it not because Greek lacks an original word for "Strong Drink?" So, they just transliterated the Aramaic word? The frequency of this type of thing is astounding, to say the least.

And then, people ask why there is a handful of Greek words in the Peshitta?
How about the 5-fold quantity of Aramaic words in the Greek manuscripts???
How about the Aramaic loan-word in Greek "Sabbata" (Matthew 12:10).....what, the Greeks had no word for "Saturday"?????
How about "Pascha" (Luke 2:41), the Greeks couldn't make up a word like the English people did......"Passover"?
How about these following Aramaic words in the Greek texts.......???????????
Lebonthah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11)
Mammona (Luke 16:9)
Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13)
Rabbi (Matthew 23:7,
Beelzebub (Luke 11:15)
Qorban (Mark 7:11)
Satana (Luke 10:1
cammuna (cummin, Matt 23:23)
raca (a term of contempt Matthew 5:22)
korin (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7)
zezneh (tares, Matthew 13:25)
Boanerges (Mark 3:17)
....and Amen, which appears about 100 times in the Greek text of the Gospels.
Why is it that nobody talks about these Aramaic words in the Greek manuscripts???? ??? Paul Younan
Reply
#3
Quote:A guy under the name of drmlanc was asking my favor to submit "his passion" for the benefit of answering your question:

You playing the middleman here does no justice George. Mister Lancaster frequents many different forums, and he has the ability to contact Mister Roth through email firsthand. He even has his own forum to spout his particular beliefs.

His comments towards Paul was quite unneeded, and his removal by Paul was permanent. So let it be.
Reply
#4
Dave,

. . . . . . . . . And you are playing as if you are the "owner" of this site!

Only Akhi Paul Younan has the sole power and authority to give warning as well as to ban some one like me.

By highlighting my post in such away you are implicitly imposing me as the "next target". What's your motive Dave? Hope I am wrong in my perception.

Dave, seems that it is soooooo difficult for you to love Chris.

george
Reply
#5
George,

Is there any particular reason why the last 2 or 3 messages you have posted have to do with Chris Lancaster? Why is it that you keep bringing his name up?

George - I terminated Chris' account priveleges here for good reason. That doesn't mean that I want him speaking here through you.

None of the answer that you posted to Andrew has anything to do with Chris. That was 100% my explanation, and Andrew has heard it many times. There was no reason to mention "drmlanc."

Please give your own input and ask your own questions. Chris was warned many times. He chose to continue to insult people, several people who have been here for many years. It's over. Deal with it and move on - or move to Chris' forum.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
I'm not gonna answer your post George, I think Paul did already.
Reply
#7
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.)
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#8
Akhi Andrew Roth,

You know me more than every one else in this forum, and I have no hidden agenda of whatsoever.

I do apologize for "unintentionally spoiling" your can.

Respectfully yours,

george
Reply
#9
Akhi Paul Younan,

I have made a "blunder" by dispatching the said message --- and I feel sorry for my mistake. I do apologize for the inconvenient caused.

Respectfully yours,

george
Reply
#10
Quote:Also explain about the "kristianay" reading being attributed to the Peshitta redactors accurately recording what Greek Gentiles in Antioch physically said.

I was wondering actually - isn't the proper Aramaic word for 'christian' nasreye?
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#11
Gentile Wrote:
Quote:Also explain about the "kristianay" reading being attributed to the Peshitta redactors accurately recording what Greek Gentiles in Antioch physically said.

I was wondering actually - isn't the proper Aramaic word for 'christian' nasreye?

"Christian" is "Msheekhy??."

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
'Just your average Antithetical Italian "Protestant" House-churching Charismatic Evangelical Karaite "Fundamentalist" for Aramaic Primacy... Drat I think I left something out... One sec.. I'll add on more as I think of it.
Reply
#12
What is nasreye then? I read somewhere that some Church Father referred to the early [Semetic] followers of Christ in this way.
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#13
shlomo,

The word "noSroyo/naSraya" which means a Nazarene, or a Christian. I believe this word was used by some people to refer to Christians in the old days

In Acts 11:26 you have the word "kreesTyon??/kreesTyan??" (Christian) appearing in the Aramaic Bible. They were called with this Greek Word first in Antioch (those people of Antioch who spoke Greek). The word, has an Aramaic termination for singular and plural.

The word "mSHeeHoyo/mSHeeHaya" which means a Christian, belonging to Christ (mSHeeHo/mSHeeHa which means anointed). This is the word that we currently use to refer to ourselfs, and we've been using this word since the beginning.

Hope This Helps!

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Gentile Wrote:What is nasreye then? I read somewhere that some Church Father referred to the early [Semetic] followers of Christ in this way.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)