Peshitta Forum
Bart Ehrman. - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Bart Ehrman. (/showthread.php?tid=2697)

Pages: 1 2


Re: Bart Ehrman. - Thirdwoe - 01-23-2013

I don't know that The Aramaic that was spoken in Edessa, Babylon, and Northern Israel, was that far apart from each other...and since The Apostles certainly gave a copy of their writings to the Christians in each of these places...in Aramaic, then we have, in The Eastern Peshitta Scriptures, the only surviving witness of what those words were in Aramaic form...no matter which dialect was 1st.

Shamasha Paul Younan says that the Aramaic words as given in the Greek copies are identical to that of the Peshitta's Aramaic, so, if the Greek is a translation of the original form...it was what?s found in The Aramaic of The Peshitta!

Are we ok with saying that The Original Words of God, as spoken through The Apostles are lost in some other Aramaic dialect copy/copies that no longer exist? I'm not...Maybe we don?t have all the words that God wanted us to have? I say we do.

But how do we know for certain that The Peshitta Text is a version (not translation) of another Aramaic dialect? Syria and Northern Israel are right next to each other on the map...and many Syrians crossed over the border to see and hear Jesus preach in the Galilee. In fact ALL Syria heard about Jesus and what He was teaching up there, next door (Matt 4:24)...and according to Church tradition, The King of Edessa wrote to Jesus, asking Him to come heal him...and Jesus is said to have written him back. It seems to me that there wasn?t much difference in the lingo...nothing that needed to be translated much anyway, though we see some of that with the Judean vs Galilean words in some places.

I say, we have the real deal with The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text, as close as you can get to the Autographs themselves, which have not been seen since the early centuries A.D. if they still exist someplace.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Bart Ehrman. - The Texas RAT - 01-23-2013

Thirdwoe Wrote:I don't know that The Aramaic that was spoken in Edessa, Babylon, and Northern Israel, was that far apart from each other...and since The Apostles certainly gave a copy of their writings to the Christians in each of these places...in Aramaic, then we have, in The Eastern Peshitta Scriptures, the only surviving witness of what those words were in Aramaic form...no matter which dialect was 1st.

Shamasha Paul Younan says that the Aramaic words as given in the Greek copies are identical to that of the Peshitta's Aramaic, so, if the Greek is a translation of the original form...it was what?s found in The Aramaic of The Peshitta!

Are we ok with saying that The Original Words of God, as spoken through The Apostles are lost in some other Aramaic dialect copy/copies that no longer exist? I'm not...Maybe we don?t have all the words that God wanted us to have?

But how do we know for certain that The Peshitta Text is a version (not translation) of another Aramaic dialect? Syria and Northern Israel are right next to each other on the map...and many Syrians crossed over the border to see and hear Jesus preach in the Galilee. In fact ALL Syria heard about Jesus and what He was teaching up there, next door (Matt 4:24)...and according to Church tradition, The King of Edessa wrote to Jesus, asking Him to come heal him...and Jesus is said to have written him back. It seems to me that there wasn?t much difference in the lingo...nothing that needed to be translated much anyway, though we see some of that with the Judean vs Galilean words in some places.

I say, we have the real deal with The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text, as close as you can get to the Autographs themselves, which have not been seen since the early centuries A.D. if they still exist someplace.

Shlama,
Chuck

Chuck, I absolutely positively agree with you 100%, the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA is as close as we have if not an exact copy/version of the Apostolic writings.
For any one that may still be in doubt of the Eastern PeshittA's Aramaic being that of the 1st century they should read Paul Younan's point about this @: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3181&p=19519#p19519">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3181&p=19519#p19519</a><!-- l -->

So it is long over dew, according to the evidence, for people to either believe that the Eastern Aramaic Text's origins date back to the 1st Century or bring forth evidence showing that it does not, instead of continuing to speculate conjectures based off of a bunch of hoopla! Well we be waiting for any eventual proof to backup the speculation that the Eastern PeshittA's Aramaic is not that of the 1st Century. And please keep in mind that we have already heard the hoopla, enough already with such, simply bring forth the evidence in which such a claim is based. <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: --> ?


Re: Bart Ehrman. - Paul Younan - 01-23-2013

Thirdwoe Wrote:English is English, even though some folks sound funny when they speak it, in their part of the world...such as in the Southern USA, the Western USA, the Eastern USA...and In England.

Is Aramaic like this?...in it's various dialects, and if not now, perhaps back then?

Shlama Akhi Chuck,

Aramaic is like this in all of its modern dialects. And it certainly was back then as well.

Today there is a modern "koine" in Neo-Aramaic, a more or less standardized version just like modern American English. But just like modern English, there are variants spoken by communities when they are amongst each other. But when he crowd is mixed, the "koine" is employed.

People today can and do switch dialects depending on whose company they share. Christ and the Apostles certainly did this as well.

+Shamasha


Re: Bart Ehrman. - SeekEmet - 02-06-2013

Shalom all,

I was not aware of the emergence of the Ehrman Project until it was mentioned in this thread. Perhaps the existence of a site such as that serves to underscore the aforementioned concerns many have regarding Ehrman's technique in bringing truth to the table for resale. Doubting the validity of the scriptures has always been in vogue; however, I submit this: when the efficacy of the very words of Meshiah are in doubt by a textual scholar, chances are that all translations are equally held suspect, resulting in a blockage of truth. In a way though, Ehrman can't really be faulted for this not-so-novel approach, as historically it has always been the natural course one takes when he or she is unable to adequately grasp the simplicity of the scriptures in any written language. There is always the danger in studying the scriptures where scholarship becomes blended with intellect-worship resulting in books like Ehrman's. Hearing and yet not hearing. Seeing and yet not seeing.


Re: Bart Ehrman. - distazo - 02-06-2013

What he essentially says: "Is this really said? Can we 100% be sure what is written, really happened?"

WEll, is this new stuff? But still, not a valid doubt, because many greek filosophers we have less, much less evidence they really said, what has been said or written.

Some about his doubts are very very valid. Did the jews really understand Greek in Jesus time and environment, so who wrote the NT? He says: no, they cannot have done it! We agree right?


Re: Bart Ehrman. - DrawCloser - 02-07-2013

Thirdwoe Wrote:Is Aramaic like this?...in it's various dialects, and if not now, perhaps back then?

Paul Younan Wrote:Aramaic is like this in all of its modern dialects. And it certainly was back then as well.

Today there is a modern "koine" in Neo-Aramaic, a more or less standardized version just like modern American English. But just like modern English, there are variants spoken by communities when they are amongst each other. But when he crowd is mixed, the "koine" is employed.


+Shamasha

So, which leads me (the newbie) to ask: Is the Peshitta a "Koine" Aramaic?


Re: Bart Ehrman. - distazo - 02-07-2013

Hi Draw,

no, I'm a newbee. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Your question is very valid. I think the Syriac dialect was a common understood language.


Re: Bart Ehrman. - Paul Younan - 02-08-2013

Aramaic back in those days, much like English today, had a "lingua franca" status. In fact it had been a lingua franca for centuries (and 3 different world empires.)

Today, in a city like Chicago, you will find ethnic groups that cling to their native tongues with each other, but also use English with each other and outside groups. They will even begin to incorporate English into their own languages. Living languages continue to evolve. Dead languages are fixed in time.

When we speak of Aramaic (or, English for that matter), we are not pointing to a rigidly fixed set of rules. It (Aramaic) is a broad term used to describe a language that has always enjoyed a lot of variation and local color. Think of English today in the various continents and islands it is used today. Now expand that by about 3,000 years. That's "Aramaic."

+Shamasha