Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why did Rabulla make his own Aramaic gospels?
#16
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi,

Because the Peshitta didn't agree with his theology. He revised it according to a Greek manuscript that better agreed with his theology and called the result "Evangelion de Mapherreshe."

Hi Paul,
Where would the peshitta not have agreed with his theology. Hebrews 2:9 and Acts chapter 20 come to mind. Is this what you mean?
Are there other places?
Reply
#17
Thanks for your insights. It seems then that the SOC was so shocked with the OS that they made a more "toned down" version of it. Still using a Peshitta base with some Greek influences in it.
Reply
#18
Shlama Akhi Michael,

For instance, the Monophysites do not believe that Meshikha's Humanity was kept intact after the Resurrection. The term "Mono-Physite" is Greek meaning "single essence" - in other words, they believe that the Humanity of Meshikha was swallowed up by the Divinity after the Resurrection. To them, there was no Humanity left after the Resurrection.

If you examine Old Scratch, you will notice that the two manuscripts are missing Luqa 24:40 - "...Having said this, He showed them His hands and His feet."

Guess what the only other version missing this verse is? You got it - Bezae. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#19
Interesting stuff Paul!

Something I'm finding wrong here though, why is the Peshitta quoting the Septuagint? I mean, here we supposedly have an original or at least a copy of the original, then why use the Greek OT? I'm seeing this in the Gospels, Pauls letters, etc.

What gives?

I'm starting to find info on such things as this on the web, suposedly which lead people to reject the originality of the Peshitta (at least one of the main reasons it seems).

I started seeing some of this on the web as I was looking into the western text.
Reply
#20
Shlama Akhi Dave,

The Peshitta is not quoting the Septuagint....it's quoting what the Septuagint is quoting..... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> (the LXX is a translation, of course!)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#21
hmmmm,

so your saying that the Peshitta OT quotes are from an original Hebrew text (that's what I understood the LXX was translated from)????

Doesn't read right. Something is wrong!?!

I look at the oldest one, the DSS, and the Peshitta reads nothing like that in english. I understand there would be some differences here and there, but there would be some similarities also, even if it is english.

Something is wrong here.
Reply
#22
Shlama Akhi Dave,

As you know, the LXX was translated by 72 Jews in Alexandria from a Hebrew source (not necessarily identical with the DSS.)

The logic is quite simple: If the LXX has a Hebrew source as it's background text, then there MUST have been a Hebrew text which, at one point in time, read that way (DSS or no DSS - it doesn't matter.)

Many times the Peshitta NT seems to be quoting from the MSS, sometimes it seems like the LXX, other times you would swear it's from the POT or an Aramaic Targum like Onkelos (there are examples of this).....sometimes it appears to be quoting something which is not currently in existence (there are examples of this as well.) In other words, there is no one single OT source that the NT quotes from.

The fact of the matter is, the Peshitta NT is not quoting directly from any of these sources....it's quoting from the text that these sources are quoting from.

Think of it this way:

(1) Several versions of Text (A) exist, each with slight variant readings.
(2) Text (B) is a translation of Text (A)
(3) Text (C) quotes Text (A)
(4) Over the centuries, Text (A) becomes Text (A-standardized). All the original variant manuscripts of Text (A) are eventually lost due to the standardization efforts of scribes. Only Text (A-standardized) remains in the original language.

Now, when someone 2,000 years later examines Text (C) and says AHA! LOOK! Text (C) is quoting Text (B), because there are no copies of Text (A-standardized) that read this way!

But, Akhi, that begs the question. Text (A) is lost.....and Text (C), while it appears to be quoting Text (B), is in reality quoting Text(A)....of which Text (B) is a faithful witness.

It only appears that Text (C) is quoting Text (B).

Legend:
Text (A) - Pre-Masoretic Hebrew originals with variant readings. (Dead Sea Scrolls are surviving example)
Text (B) - LXX
Text (C) - NT (any language)
Text (A-standardized) - MSS Hebrew
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#23
Interesting Paul!
I'm not sure if I can accept that as a correct determination though, I get a check inside, and I have to trust The Lord foremost, in all things.

You were right though, Ephrem is quoting Tatian's Diatesseron, but the quotes that can be attributed to actual scripture he says, are sometimes closer to the OS or western text, and at other times closer to The Peshitta, and sometimes different than both!

The particular book that I have is from the Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2: Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron
An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with introduction and notes. by Carmel McCarthy Oxford University Press 1993

This has a very thorough discussion and translation of the Syriac text with the Armenian differences and fill-ins over the missing folios within the Syriac.

From everything I gather, Tatian's Diatesseron is the oldest according to the scholarly world, at least from what bits and pieces they have dating to around 170 AD. The problem is that the quotes that can be attributed to scripture here from Ephrem, only line up with The Peshitta infrequently.

What I'm trying to figure out is what happened here? There is a considerable gap. If I look at this from a distance and remain unbiased (of which that is quite easy for me to do), then I'm noticing a couple things:

1) there was several of these "western" style texts in many languages (IE, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, Old Dutch, Western text Greek = Bezae, etc, and these were spread out over many, many countries). Eventually, down through the centuries, all these types were re-written and replaced with what we have witnesses for the most now, the traditional/Byzantine/majority vulgate type text. This simplification process does agree with what most people tend to do naturally. Mankind just loves to simplify things, this is common in many areas, doesn't make it right in this sense, but it just tends to happen. If we look at the Hebrew OT, there we see this sort of "standardization" or simpification that happened there also in places. This standardization of the Hebrew OT can be seen more in comparison with the DSS. Really, I'm being nice here, there is also the heretics that would removes sections that didn't agree with their form of belief, in the new testament.
2) With the knowledge that this old text was prevalent throughout many countries in this "western" form, and the natural tendacies that mankind has towards "simplifying" things, one has to ask how this longer version came about, if we are to believe it was not there in the first place???

The Peshitta is uniform and dated. But,.....and a big but here...., why would mankind (Westener, Greek, Aramean, no difference here in the tendacy inherited within the person of mankind), take something that they would know to be uniform and "original" and lengthen it in structure (/boggle), then turn-around years later and condense it back to it's roots??? This again makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, all of these "western" style texts in all of these different languages have the semetic idiom underlying it! Every single one! It's quite noticable in some.

Again, where is the textual proof here? The majority of the church fathers from the apostolic times are quoting the western style text. Ephrem was around the timeframe of approx 363 AD (give or take) and is quoting the Diatesseron with no mention that he quotes from The Peshitta. He does make quotes from the Greek and states it as such in his commentary, and he appears to read it well.

Anyways, if we are to say that the whole biblical scholarly world is completly wrong, then we are wrong. The process of taking old manuscripts and rewriting them to comform with the vulgate style version is verifiable, all over the place. Hence, the simplifying process.

So what happened around the 3rd and 4th century?? It seems that was the timeframe when everything changed. Again, where did this condensed version come from? Who made this?
Reply
#24
shlomo oh Dave,

here's something that might interest you, there's something called "The Rabulla Gospel" around 586AD. This Gospel was the work of Rabulla, note the same Rabulla that we've been discussing. It's also the source where the worlds icons originated from in style, and also the original source for Byzantinian Icons. Since this gospel is illustrated (i.e. Icons), it has text written on it, and these text follow the Peshitto.

Consider this, in Western Aramaic where there was numerous attempts at creating a Greek translation into Syriac, they all failed, and the Peshitto always won over, to this day the Peshitto remains the Official Aramaic Bible, and the added books and sentences that were translated from the Greek aren't read in Church.

Another thing to consider is this, the Diatesseron is said to have been originally written in Aramaic, we have an Arabic translation of the Syriac that agrees 100% with the Peshitta. Which means that the Diatesseron originated from the Peshitta.

Imaging this, despite thousands of years, the Peshitto/a have always won over, even in the times when the Greek Byzantinian forced their text down peoples throwt.

The only conculsion that one can draw is that the Peshitta/o held a great reverance amongst the Syriac people, despite extreme Hellenization attempts. Another thing to think about, when the Apostles and Jesus Himself went out of Isreal, they went into countries that spoke the same language as they did (ie. Syriac-Aramaic). Their first attempt at speading the Good News happend amongst the Aramaic speaking people. Also recall that Saint Thomas reach India in the year 52A.D., and Aramaic became the language of their Church.

There's a reason why we love the Peshitta/o so much, and our ancestors preserved it, it's because it's the original, even though people in Western Aramaic have forgot this, they show hostility to anyone who tries to change it, you can call it genetic knowledge transfer of the importance of the Peshitto. :)

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
P.S. The people that the gospels reached initially was the Aramaic speaking public, why would the apostles turn around and give them a Bible in Greek? Given that Hellenization to this day is seen by the Syriac people as a hostile act in all our History books.
You can't study the history of the Gospels and by-pass the people who it reached first.


Dave Wrote:Interesting Paul!
I'm not sure if I can accept that as a correct determination though, I get a check inside, and I have to trust The Lord foremost, in all things.

You were right though, Ephrem is quoting Tatian's Diatesseron, but the quotes that can be attributed to actual scripture he says, are sometimes closer to the OS or western text, and at other times closer to The Peshitta, and sometimes different than both!

The particular book that I have is from the Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2: Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron
An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with introduction and notes. by Carmel McCarthy Oxford University Press 1993

This has a very thorough discussion and translation of the Syriac text with the Armenian differences and fill-ins over the missing folios within the Syriac.

From everything I gather, Tatian's Diatesseron is the oldest according to the scholarly world, at least from what bits and pieces they have dating to around 170 AD. The problem is that the quotes that can be attributed to scripture here from Ephrem, only line up with The Peshitta infrequently.

What I'm trying to figure out is what happened here? There is a considerable gap. If I look at this from a distance and remain unbiased (of which that is quite easy for me to do), then I'm noticing a couple things:

1) there was several of these "western" style texts in many languages (IE, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, Old Dutch, Western text Greek = Bezae, etc, and these were spread out over many, many countries). Eventually, down through the centuries, all these types were re-written and replaced with what we have witnesses for the most now, the traditional/Byzantine/majority vulgate type text. This simplification process does agree with what most people tend to do naturally. Mankind just loves to simplify things, this is common in many areas, doesn't make it right in this sense, but it just tends to happen. If we look at the Hebrew OT, there we see this sort of "standardization" or simpification that happened there also in places. This standardization of the Hebrew OT can be seen more in comparison with the DSS. Really, I'm being nice here, there is also the heretics that would removes sections that didn't agree with their form of belief, in the new testament.
2) With the knowledge that this old text was prevalent throughout many countries in this "western" form, and the natural tendacies that mankind has towards "simplifying" things, one has to ask how this longer version came about, if we are to believe it was not there in the first place???

The Peshitta is uniform and dated. But,.....and a big but here...., why would mankind (Westener, Greek, Aramean, no difference here in the tendacy inherited within the person of mankind), take something that they would know to be uniform and "original" and lengthen it in structure (/boggle), then turn-around years later and condense it back to it's roots??? This again makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, all of these "western" style texts in all of these different languages have the semetic idiom underlying it! Every single one! It's quite noticable in some.

Again, where is the textual proof here? The majority of the church fathers from the apostolic times are quoting the western style text. Ephrem was around the timeframe of approx 363 AD (give or take) and is quoting the Diatesseron with no mention that he quotes from The Peshitta. He does make quotes from the Greek and states it as such in his commentary, and he appears to read it well.

Anyways, if we are to say that the whole biblical scholarly world is completly wrong, then we are wrong. The process of taking old manuscripts and rewriting them to comform with the vulgate style version is verifiable, all over the place. Hence, the simplifying process.

So what happened around the 3rd and 4th century?? It seems that was the timeframe when everything changed. Again, where did this condensed version come from? Who made this?
Reply
#25
Shlama Akhi Dave,

I think Akhan Keefa wrote a very important point above:

Keefa Wrote:Another thing to consider is this, the Diatesseron is said to have been originally written in Aramaic, we have an Arabic translation of the Syriac that agrees 100% with the Peshitta. Which means that the Diatesseron originated from the Peshitta.

The only surviving Semitic witness to the Diatesseron, the Arabic translation, reads 100% the same way as the Peshitta against the Western-style texts (including Old Scratch.)

I'd like to bring up another couple of points. I don't know why they did the things in the west that they did. I don't pretend to have the answers. I know that it resulted in no less than FOUR major textual families.....FOUR major textual traditions.

I only know that I'm thankful the east didn't do the same things. If they had, we might have EIGHT major textual families today.

Akhi - this is a very important question I need to ask here: If the eastern church refused at all costs (even estrangement) to include 5 extra books from the Greek canon into their own canon - why would they alter the 22 books they already held to be canonical?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#26
Don't get me wrong, I understand completely that the original is a Semetic form, there is no dought in my mind, and everything that I've come across; everything that Paul and others here have proved, leaves no dought as to the Semetic style and idiom. It is explainable only when you look at it in the Aramaic/Syriac form, no dought.

I question the form of the original. How can the shortened vulgate form called The Peshitta be the original?? It does not make sense. Mankind always simplifies things, not extend them from a simplified version then condense back to the original later on.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at here?

Yes, indeed the original must be a Semetic form, it is from the Semetic people. The eyewitness accounts, the collections of oral traditions all spell Semetic form.

Quote:Another thing to consider is this, the Diatesseron is said to have been originally written in Aramaic, we have an Arabic translation of the Syriac that agrees 100% with the Peshitta. Which means that the Diatesseron originated from the Peshitta

That I can't agree with at all, I'm sorry. I have bought several different harmonies. I even have the Leige Manuscript of which it is based on an Old Latin Vorlage from Amsterdam. Very much in the western vein. The Arabic harmony is the only one that is in the Peshitta form. The only one. Now we have a problem. Whoever made the subscription that that particular one is a copy from Tatian's original Diatesseron, must of got his source wrong and did not read Ephrem's Commentary. Again, Ephrem is quoting a direct source from around the 3rd century or earlier, and this Arabic one was of the 9th I think, If I remember. As I stated, Ephrem's commentary does not quote the Peshitta directly all the time, it has a mix of influences throughout the text.

So, we have someone lying here. Is it the person that made the Arabic Diatesseron or Ephrem? Also, there are a couple copies of Ephrems Commentary in Armenian that almost fits word for word to the Syriac commentary, plus a Greek fragment of the Diatesseron that is even older than Ephrem's commentary that does not quote the Peshitta.


Quote:The only conculsion that one can draw is that the Peshitta/o held a great reverance amongst the Syriac people, despite extreme Hellenization attempts.

I agree. But I want to know when this particular version came about though. Here we have numerous Western text styles in languages galore that witness to a semetic form. These particular texts are very ancient in many cases, moreso than the Peshitta, yet I'm to believe they are not from an original Semetic form and that the shortened form called The Peshitta was the original all along?? How can that be?

Does anyone grasp what I'm getting at?

You have Greek that is not Greek but a Semetic form in quite a lot of ancient manuscripts, you have Old Latin that is not Latin but a Semetic form in numerous ancient manuscripts, etc, etc, etc, covering multitudes of languages.

Yet all of these manuscripts that are alive with Hebrew/Aramaic idioms behind them are all wrong and the Peshitta was the original that all these sprung from in the beginning. So I'm to believe that someone took The Peshitta and added all the extended readings throughout its text real early in the apostolic age, and this includes Pauls letters, then showed them to numerous people who copied them into their languages, then later on down the line, people decided to go back to the shortened original form??

That is not how human nature does things. That would make no sense. I could see people perverting it and changing text early on, but deliberately extended the text throughout all the Gospels and Paul's letters???

I don't see how scholars could be completely wrong here.
Reply
#27
shlomo oh Dave,

The Peshitto that we have in the Western Aramaic Tradition, has been the official Bible since the beginning of our Churches, and we belong to the Antiochan Church which Saint Peter sat on after the Church of Jerusalem, our Patriarch has the name Peter added to his name (to show an unbroken line). Our Church tradition reflect those of Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The end of the service of the Word, before the pre-Anaphora, has the ancient Jewish dissmissal of the Service of the Word. Our oldest liturgical text, that are considered older than that of Rome, reflect Peshitto readings. Our Traditions extend to the time of the Apostles, and much of those Apostolic Traditions are still followed in our Churches. The only constant text that we've known through out our Church Tradition is that of the Peshitto/a, and our oldest texts reflect that. The books and few sentences added from the Greek, are well documented, and aren't considered as part of the Peshitto Tradition, but were added due to the forced Hellenization of our Churches, many of these Churches fought wars against Byzantine, because fo these forced Hellenization attempt.

The only Bibilical Tradition that we have is that of the Peshitto/a, anything else that has been introduced was eventually rejected.
We're the Semitic people that first wittnessed the Good News, and this is our History and Traditions.

If you want to take a Western approach, to us Eastern Semitic people you'll fail, because Western thought, and Eastern thought are totally different.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#28
Quote:Akhi - this is a very important question I need to ask here: If the eastern church refused at all costs (even estrangement) to include 5 extra books from the Greek canon into their own canon - why would they alter the 22 books they already held to be canonical?

Either The Church of The East was isolated and those books did not make it into the canon, or they were originally in Greek and the Assyrians of that day refused to consider them as canon. They would not convert them.

I not sure. I don't wanna make great speculations that are offensive in nature. I just don't know for sure.

I don't wanna offend anyone here. This work that has begun here is just as important as any other, even moreso I believe. Some things started to be revealed to me and I keep getting witnesses to it. I can't deny a confirmation from within.
Reply
#29
Shlama Akhi Dave,

I think the main issue is that you are combining Western and Eastern church textual history and trying to make sense of it all. You can't do that with any reliablility, any conclusiveness.

There were two empires in which the Apostles travelled and in which the scriptures circulated. It is imperitive to treat these two traditions seperately. They did not interact very much as the empires they lived in were in constant battle and the churches themselves were not all that friendly towards one another.

Ephrem belonged to the western empire. In fact, when Persia conquered Nisibis, his home town, he fled to Edessa so that he could be within his own western Church.

In the Western church, again, many copies circulated. And all scholarship points to the "Western-style" textual family as being full of additions......people added to the stories.

You say that's it's not in human nature to add, rather you would have expected people to subtract instead. But that is completely inaccurate, as the story of the woman taken in adultery shows. People very many times ADD stories rather than subtract.

Again, I don't pretend to have all the stories about why all these different Greek textual families exist. Perhaps the footnote on Codex Vaticanus I posted a few days agio gives us a clue. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#30
The one about leaving the old reading alone? Yea probably so, Heh.

I understand the differences of the outreach of Jesus's ministry to a small degree. Much to learn still.

Ephrem was a very respected individual within his culture of his day, highly educated, and very intellegent. I can't dismiss what he would say as false just because he is of the western arena. If he is quoting from Tatian, then I can get a rather reliable witness to the faithfulness in the text he used, because of his character. I can't just write him off cause he was of the western area. That's a little extreme.


Quote:You say that's it's not in human nature to add, rather you would have expected people to subtract instead. But that is completely inaccurate, as the story of the woman taken in adultery shows. People very many times ADD stories rather than subtract.

No, what I was getting at was not just sections and small additions, that was happening, we know that. I was talking about the complete rewrites of sections that the western text exhibits at times, not just additions in small areas. Even though the OS is from your view a Greek background, it still has the idiomatic Semetic expression, it is still a Semetic form. Don't know what it's original was, yet it is Semetic, very poorly translated and copied, as you have shown us.


Many answers I guess that are lost in history, huh?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)