new testament really written in greek?

[judge]

Now obviously the oldest fragments of the NT and the oldest NT mss survibg are written in greek but I'm not sure this means much. After all until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest OT mss were in greek also but no one believed the OT was written in greek.

So does anyone have any hard evidence or any particular reason to believe that the NT was originally written in greek?

Thanks in advance

[rlogan]

Hi Judge.

I don't have a stake in this one way or the other. I could care less. I did post this earlier:


vitriol (http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm)

Here is their evidence, besides the undisputed fact that the oldest copies we have are Greek, and that there was a substantial difference between "old" syriac (no texts in this) and "new" syriac (the texts we have):


As an example of this, let us look at the Greek New Testament where Jesus is quoted speaking Aramaic, and compare these passages to Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta. Mark 5:41 reads in the AST:

"And taking hold of the child's hand, He said to her, 'Talithe koum,' which is, being translated,
'Little girl, I say to you, rise up!'"

Now if these are the original words of Mark, then it is clear that he was writing in Greek because he found it necessary to translate the Aramaic into Greek so his reader could understand. Also, if the Peshitta were a translation made from the Greek, then it should show that these are the original words of Mark. Lamsa's translation of this passage reads:

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, rise up."

Now if the Scriptures were written in Syriac or Aramaic originally, then a translation of the words talitha koomi would be unnecessary because the reader would naturally understand them. So if Lamsa's translation is correct, then it is impossible for the Syriac to be the original language of the New Testament. Even if the Syriac did not say that and Lamsa's translation is wrong, it still would not matter, because throughout the Syriac there is similar internal evidence that shows that it was a translation of the Greek, while the Greek shows no signs that it was a translation of the Syriac.

Knowing all of this, we need to look at why it has become a popular Jewish contention to claim that the New Testament was written in Aramaic. The first major reason is that claiming the New Testament was written in Aramaic helps the case for the Jewish Masoretic Text. Anyone can look at the Greek New Testament and see that the quotes from the Old Testament are from the Greek Septuagint. The Jews who support the Jewish Masoretic Text often resort to saying that the Greek New Testament is a corruption of the original Aramaic New Testament just as the Septuagint is a corruption of the Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, the reality is just the opposite, and the quotations as contained in the Syriac agree more with the Septuagint than the Jew-perverted Masoretic Text. For example, in Romans 3:11-18, the Apostle Paul quotes Psalms 14:1-3 from the Septuagint. Only Romans 3:11-12 are found in Psalms 14:1-3 as it reads in the Masoretic Text, but Romans 3:13-18 are found exactly, word for word, in the Septuagint and not in the Masoretic Text. This means that the Apostle Paul absolutely had to be quoting the Greek Septuagint, because these five verses only exist in the Greek Septuagint. Now the question is, are these five verses in the Peshitta? And the answer is yes. This means that the author of Romans spoke Greek because he quoted the Greek Septuagint, the only source for the quotation in existence, and then the Syriac was translated from a Greek copy of the book of Romans, because it also contains the quotation. Furthermore, this means that the Peshitta, or what Lamsa calls 'the Aramaic Bible' is a witness against the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and it is therefore ridiculous to assert that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.

Judge - Again, i don't care one way or the other. But I thought these were good arguments, and since Greek was so widely spoken I would think that evidence would have to be offered on the "old syriac" authorship.

Take care...

[Javaman]

Originally posted by judge
So does anyone have any hard evidence or any particular reason to believe that the NT was originally written in greek?
As the books of the NT have different authors, it's not unreasonable to assume that the first people to document them spoke different languages. From what I've read, though. I think it's more than reasonable to accept that Paul, a worldly man from a port city, spoke and wrote as his first language koine Greek.

In another thread, the following took place and you didn't respond. It touches on what I posted here and also reiterates a question from another member:

Originally from me
Judge, I'm no scholar but I've read through some of the HRV page and, admittedly, some of it makes sense. I honestly don't know enough to see where you're going with this other than you seem to want a better translation out there. Is that all you're after? The books written by Paul would still be translated from the Greek, right? And RUmike asked you a question earlier that I'd like to see an answer to.


quote:
_________________________________________________
Originally posted by RUmike
Why isn't this changed in the current versions of the bible, then? Also, does God expect one to know Aramaic in order to understand the reason why the current version makes no sense?
_________________________________________________


This, to me, is a very valid point which, if you're right, then casts doubt on the veracity of any bible.

[judge]

thanks for the reply!

Originally posted by rlogan









"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, rise up."

Now if the Scriptures were written in Syriac or Aramaic originally, then a translation of the words talitha koomi would be unnecessary because the reader would naturally understand them.

I'm not sure why Lamsa might have done this, but the peshitta does not contain any explanation here. It merely has the the words in aramaic.







Knowing all of this, we need to look at why it has become a popular Jewish contention to claim that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.

Although there may be jewish people or groups who make this claim, the real and oldest claim is that of the Assyrain Church of the East. They are not jewish they are a christian church who hold there services in Aramaic.
Their liturgy is believed to be the oldest in existence.

[rlogan]

You're welcome, Judge.

Again, I don't have a stake in this. On the other post you had asked why I gave credence to the source quoted. I don't know what kind of credence to give, and gave it just as an example. A search would produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this subject, I would think.

I did believe the issue of differing dialects in the "old" vs. "new" syriac was particularly important in that we have no surviving texts in the old syriac and cannot therefore establish an unbroken chain. I'm not a linguist and cannot evaluate how substantive this distinction is.

In this post, of course it was more of a direct case being made for the Greek original, which was what you had asked for.

Regards, R.

[judge]

Originally posted by rlogan
You're welcome, Judge.

Again, I don't have a stake in this. On the other post you had asked why I gave credence to the source quoted. I don't know what kind of credence to give, and gave it just as an example.

No probs




A search would produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this subject, I would think.


One would expect so. However I don't think the subject has been subject to peer review.
Following the reformation the protestant churches of course rejected the authority of Rome and instead said that the only authority was the scriptures.
Thus there was a need for them to turn the scriptues into something they were not. additionaly if one is to rely solely on the scriptures then one must defend them .

European protestants then began to look to the various greek manuscripts (which all differ) and just assumed that these were the originals.
No one has ever bothered to really examine this assumption deeply for hundreds of years. It is just a myth.
Meanwhile aramaic speaking churches continued (outside europe) to continue to use the original aramaic.


I did believe the issue of differing dialects in the "old" vs. "new" syriac was particularly important in that we have no surviving texts in the old syriac and cannot therefore establish an unbroken chain. I'm not a linguist and cannot evaluate how substantive this distinction is.

The dialect of the Syriac in the peshitta is almost identical to that used by Jesus.


http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29

The Christian seperatist does not know or speak Aramaic

[rlogan]

here's your peer review outlet:


journal for the aramaic bible (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1PRMoor.html)

cheers, all...

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by rlogan

vitriol = the stuff from christianseparatist.org (http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm)

Here is their evidence,


Dear rlogan,

Sorry, but this stuff you've posted from the christianseparatist.org website is just a load of ignorant rubbish. I don't even know where to begin to untangle all these misconceptions...


besides the undisputed fact that the oldest copies we have are Greek,


The oldest Old Syriac manuscript of the gospels (OS Sinaiticus) is about the same age as our best Greek manuscripts of the gospels (what Nestle/Aland's is based on).


and that there was a substantial difference between "old" syriac (no texts in this)


The Old Syriac manuscripts of the gospels _do exist_. See my webpage,

Ancient Aramaic Texts (2002)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/aramaic.htm


and "new" syriac (the texts we have):

As an example of this, let us look at the Greek New Testament where Jesus is quoted speaking Aramaic, and compare these passages to Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta. Mark 5:41 reads in the AST:

"And taking hold of the child's hand, He said to her, 'Talithe koum,' which is, being translated,
'Little girl, I say to you, rise up!'"


None of this stuff is relevant in any way... as judge already explained.


Knowing all of this, we need to look at why it has become a popular Jewish contention to claim that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.


The Jews have nothing to do with this. (This is just the christianseparatist.org take on things...)

The fact remains that currently there doesn't seem to exist _even one_ valid argument for the idea that Matthew was written originally in Greek. If you (or anyone else) find any such argument, I'd be very happy to see it here.

And, please, I'm sure that some more respectable sources can be found on the Net, other than christianseparatist.org.

Regards,

Yuri.

[rlogan]

Yuri, thanks for your comments. Edited by moderator to remove mildly inflammatory remark

As I already said, I could care less. I cited this without "championing" it, and without claiming it as scholarship. I stated what it was - vitriol. Nothing more.

I further stated that I thought a search should show up peer-reviewed scholarly work. I did not see any in a cursory search. Judge claims there is none.

I am not going to argue this. The Greek authorship was not invented by me. I am not a proponent one way or the other. Judge states:

"obviously the oldest fragments of the NT and the oldest NT mss survibg are written in greek"

So I don't know why you are criticising me for this.

Sincerely, R.

[Radcliffe Emerson]

Actually, orthodox Jews do not make the Armaic contention. They say Jesus is a Greek legend to begin with. His attributes are not Jewish in origin, they're Greek.
That makes it highly unlikely that the stories about Jesus were written in Aramaic before they were Greek.
Most scholars do not support the Aramaic contingent.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Actually, orthodox Jews do not make the Armaic contention. They say Jesus is a Greek legend to begin with. His attributes are not Jewish in origin, they're Greek.
That makes it highly unlikely that the stories about Jesus were written in Aramaic before they were Greek.
Most scholars do not support the Aramaic contingent.

I would really like to see some evidence that the gospel of Matthew was written originally in Greek. I've been looking for such evidence for years now, and so far I've found zilch.

All the arguments that I've seen to this effect have proven to be completely phoney. Some of them even looked like jokes, they were so weak...

So I guess if there's no hard evidence to this effect, then we should all agree to accept it on faith?

Yuri.

[rlogan]

I apologize for my "mildly inflammatory remark". I thought putting the smiley face next to it showed it was in jest.

But since it was not taken that way, i apologize.:)

[Bernard Muller]

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, I say to you, rise up."

I wonder. If the gospel was first written in Aramaic, then translated in Greek, why would the alleged translator make a point to preserve some tidbit of Aramaic?
Why would "Talitha, koumi" be kept as is?
How come the alleged translator did not know "I say to you" is not included in "Talitha, koomi"?

Best regards, Bernard

[Radcliffe Emerson]

Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?

Because of the linguist on the grassy knoll.

godfry

[Bernard Muller]

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, I say to you, rise up."

I wonder. If the gospel was first written in Aramaic, then translated in Greek, why would the alleged translator make a point to preserve some tidbit of Aramaic?
Why would "Talitha, koumi" be kept as is?
How come the alleged translator did not know "I say to you" is not included in "Talitha, koomi"?
Best regards, Bernard

I may have been misunderstood. I wanted to say it does not make any sense for a translator from Aramaic to Greek to keep some Aramaic words (and very regular words at that) and then mistranslate them (by adding "I say to you").
It makes a lot more sense for a Greek author to keep some Aramaic words, well remembered by himself and his audience, as spoken to them by an only Aramaic speaking eyewitness (and rendered in Greek all along by somebody else). And the later Greek gospel author, knowing little Aramaic, assumed "I say to you" was part of "Talitha, koumi".

Best regards, Bernard

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller

I may have been misunderstood. I wanted to say it does not make any sense for a translator from Aramaic to Greek to keep some Aramaic words (and very regular words at that) and then mistranslate them (by adding "I say to you").
It makes a lot more sense for a Greek author to keep some Aramaic words, well remembered by himself and his audience, as spoken to them by an only Aramaic speaking eyewitness (and rendered in Greek all along by somebody else).


Hi, Bernard,

You mean like there were some eyewitnesses who actually saw this miracle, and reported on it for years to come, reporting the dialogue word-for-word? Just like the Bible says?

But I'm afraid that many people here don't really believe in such miracles...


And the later Greek gospel author, knowing little Aramaic, assumed "I say to you" was part of "Talitha, koumi".

Best regards, Bernard

This addition of "I say to you" just seems like a later literary embellishment in Mk. Not much to build on, I'm afraid...

Regards,

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?

I think you're wrong about this. Lots of them say that the earliest stories were first written in Aramaic. But the question now is about the original language of Matthew as a whole.

Yuri.

[judge]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?

If you mean most scholars then most scholars in the west ignore the peshitta.

No one in the west has ever bothered to sit down and point by point examine the peshitta and compare it with the greek manuscripts and outline why one would underlie the other.

If you ids agree with this then lets have a look at the specific arguments proposed by these people.

Just what are the arguments that people use to say that the peshitta was translated from greek.
If there really are people who study this thing for a living and who beleive that the peshitta is a translation from the greek then they must have specific reasons...right?.
Well what are they?

[Radcliffe Emerson]

All I've ever seen is the Greek manuscripts are the oldest, outdating anything Aramaic by a couple of hundred years. Whether that's true, I don't know.
I do fully believe the Orthodox Jewish view however that Jesus in general is a Greek myth, not a Jewish myth.


Here's a link that says the evidence supporting the NT originally being written in Greek is overwhelming.


http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm

[Bernard Muller]

Yuri wrote:
You mean like there were some eyewitnesses who actually saw this miracle, and reported on it for years to come, reporting the dialogue word-for-word? Just like the Bible says?

But I'm afraid that many people here don't really believe in such miracles...

Well this is not what I wrote on my pages (that is no miracle here).
Here is an extract:

>> Jairus' daughter: Mk5:41a "He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koom!" ..."
And what does happen next?
Mk5:42-43 "Immediately the girl stood up and walked around ... He gave strict orders
[to all the present eyewitnesses: Jesus' three disciples (Peter, John and James) and the child's father & mother (5:37,40)] not to let anyone know about this ..."
Comment:
That does not make any sense: how could the parents hide it?
By arranging for a fake burial and keeping secret the aliveness of their child, for the rest of their days?
An absurd & unrealistic proposition and Jesus could not have said that. This can only indicate that nobody had been telling about any revival, and for good cause. ...

The eyewitness must have told as far as Jesus saying "Talitha koom!" and raising the (inert) body. Then he probably became silent and troubled. "Mark" added the successful ending (Elijah did revive a boy in 1Ki17:22 and Elisha did the same in 2Ki4:32-35!) and the "strict orders not to let anyone know about this" to explain the well noticed silence. <<

A lot more about that on my page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2.shtml

Yuri wrote:
This addition of "I say to you" just seems like a later literary embellishment in Mk. Not much to build on, I'm afraid...

That may look trivial to you, but there is no reason why an Aramaic to Greek translator would add up "I say to you" to his translation of "Talitha, koumi". Certainly, he would not want to demonstrate: I am embellishing everything as I go along, or I do not know what "talitha, koumi" means first hand (that is, I am incompetent).
I am quite sure if I would translate 'little girl, get up' by 'petite fille, je te dis, met toi debout', I would loose my credibility as an accurate translator.

Best regards, Bernard

[judge]

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
All I've ever seen is the Greek manuscripts are the oldest, outdating anything Aramaic by a couple of hundred years. Whether that's true, I don't know.
I do fully believe the Orthodox Jewish view however that Jesus in general is a Greek myth, not a Jewish myth.


Here's a link that says the evidence supporting the NT originally being written in Greek is overwhelming.


http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm

Thanks ...we have recently looked at this link here but it is really rubbish.
Here is another link.
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

Note the conclusions.
*

The Syriac versions of the New Testament are written in the language that Jesus actually spoke, (only the dialect is different).
*

The extant Syriac manuscripts of the New Testament are very old, at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek.
*

The sayings of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic. Therefore, the best way to understand them is to read them in Aramaic.

Note that the link I provide does give some references including William Cureton who says the language of the peshitta is virtually identical that spoken by Jesus

[rlogan]

Yuri - You admonished us regarding citing sufficient scholarly authority. The link you just provided doesn't even have an author noted. Who is the author?

One of the things that bothers me about the discussion there is saying that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are "at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek"

Scholarship would put a date in there and not fudge. Is it 5th century?

Another thing:

"it also follows that the early apostles and disciples spoke, taught and wrote in Aramaic as well"

The early apostles and disciples were scribes? Who?

It is an attractive hypothesis that if Jesus existed and spoke Aramaic that the first texts would be written in Aramaic. But that is all it is - a hypothesis.

If he didn't exist or if the gosples we have are the result of much later Greek-dominated poitcal forces, then the argument does not hold.

You seem to want feedback. I won't lose sleep over it one way or the other. (Which language the myths were originally written in).

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by rlogan
Yuri - You admonished us regarding citing sufficient scholarly authority. The link you just provided doesn't even have an author noted. Who is the author?


That wasn't me. It was judge who gave than link...


One of the things that bothers me about the discussion there is saying that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are "at least as old as many ancient manuscripts written in Greek"


The truth of the matter is that the oldest Syriac manuscripts are as old as our *best Greek MSS* (what the canonical gospels are actually based on).

This is what _I_ say.


Scholarship would put a date in there and not fudge. Is it 5th century?


4th and 5th century.

Regards,

Yuri.

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
thanks for the reply!

Originally posted by rlogan

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, rise up."

Now if the Scriptures were written in Syriac or Aramaic originally, then a translation of the words talitha koomi would be unnecessary because the reader would naturally understand them.

I'm not sure why Lamsa might have done this, but the peshitta does not contain any explanation here. It merely has the the words in aramaic.

judge is clearly correct here.

However, there is a nice paradox from the Greek: why did the Greek only translate such a trivial statement from Syriac, when there were so many others of more importance that could have been given from the Syriac if we indeed had Jesus's original words recorded in that language? The fact that there weren't indicates that the Syriac was not available to the "translators" of the Greek gospels, ie it is secondary and based on the Greek and not vice versa.

The talitha kumi fragment shows us that someone has supplied just these few words (and there are a few other cases of this sort of sourcing) to a writer which gets incorporated into the text.



spin

[judge]

Originally posted by rlogan
Yuri - You admonished us regarding citing sufficient scholarly authority. The link you just provided doesn't even have an author noted. Who is the author?
.

Hi again ..Yes the link is not the greatest reference but at least it does provide references at the end.
Compared to the Christian seperatist link it is great though.
IIRC the author's name is Steven Ring

all the best

[Radcliffe Emerson]

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by spin
However, there is a nice paradox from the Greek: why did the Greek only translate such a trivial statement from Syriac, when there were so many others of more importance that could have been given from the Syriac if we indeed had Jesus's original words recorded in that language?

If I remember correctly, aren't all examples of Aramaic in the Greek NT words spoken by Jesus while performing miracles? That suggests to me that the author was treating them like incantations or words of power or something along those magical-thinking lines and he may have felt it was only appropriate to present them in the original language. Or, from a more HJ-centric perspective, the "words of power" were retained in Aramaic by an oral tradition precisely because they were "words of power" spoken by Jesus to enact miracles.

Of course, if I remember incorrectly, and there are other examples that don't conform to the above, forget I said anything. :)

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by judge
The sayings of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic. Therefore, the best way to understand them is to read them in Aramaic.

I would be interested in reading examples where you find the meaning to be significantly different, if you feel like providing them.

[judge]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I would be interested in reading examples where you find the meaning to be significantly different, if you feel like providing them.

That was a quote from the nlink I provided, not my own view.
As far as I am aware the meaning is not signifigantly different ..but then again I suppose it depends on what is meant by signifigantly.

There are a couple of old threads on the kind of differences we find.

One is that it becomes apparent that Mary's father was named Joseph and that this leads to supposed contradictions in the geneologies in Matthew and Luke.

Another is a slight mistranslation of Romans 5:7, another might be Mark 9:49 about which there is another thread here.
They are not signifigant IMHO.
Other misunderstandings seem to arise by the literal reading oif idiomatic constructions and idioms in Aramaic.

One well known one is when the guy tells Jesus that he needs to bury his father. The mans father is not dead , rather the man wants to care for him until he dies.

There is an Aramaic translation online at www.v-a.com that tries to give a dynamic equivalence translation. Victor Alexander, like George Lamsa before tries to bring ouit idioms from the text thast may escapr modern readers.

Aramaic speakers I have beeen in touch with do however think that Victor goes too far many times:confused:

But it is interesting to look at his reading I have found

[rlogan]

Yuri & Judge - sorry for mixing you up. Thank you both for answering.

So I have a further question. When would the first Aramaic gospel have been written? Is this something the Eastern Orthodoxy makes any assertion about?

[judge]

Originally posted by rlogan
Yuri & Judge - sorry for mixing you up. Thank you both for answering.

So I have a further question. When would the first Aramaic gospel have been written? Is this something the Eastern Orthodoxy makes any assertion about?

Yes the Church of the East does (I'm not sure this is the same thing as Eastern Orthodoxy).

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East

April 5, 1957

This is from here......
http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

I have made enquiries with a member of the Church of the East about the history of this claim.
It seems that they had always taken the above to be true and perhaps even find it a bit strange that we westeners might think that the NT was written in Greek. Although this Church was by some reports tha largest on earth in the 12th or 13th century in modern times it has been small and more isolated from western expressions of the faith, probably due to thier tendenct not to proselitise.

Their liturgy (which uses the peshitta) is believed to be the oldest in existence.

"Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East., New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141


One indication of ot's age is that it lacks the Words of the Institution (this is My body....) the words of the Institution are present in all other liturgies by the end of the second century

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
Victor Alexander, like George Lamsa before tries to bring ouit idioms from the text thast may escapr modern readers.

One simply doesn't know enough about the various substrata under non-standard Greek formations. This sort of conjectural reconstruction has little solid value other than to show the erudition of the would-be reconstructors.

Diachronic linguistics through trasnlation interfaces is somewhat difficult, if you don't mind the understatement.


spin

[judge]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I would be interested in reading examples where you find the meaning to be significantly different, if you feel like providing them.

Another quite interesting difference is in the undrstanding of the trinity.
The COE speaks of three qnoma not three persons.
There is no equivalent english word for qnoma but it does not mean person.

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by judge
Another quite interesting difference is in the undrstanding of the trinity.
The COE speaks of three qnoma not three persons.
There is no equivalent english word for qnoma but it does not mean person.

Does the absence of an equivalent English word mean we don't know have any clue what it meant?

Also, since I've got your attention:D, I'll ask you a question I asked Yuri but he either missed it or got too busy to address it or thought it wasn't worth answering:).

Do Aramaic originals have any relevance to questions of dating, authorship, or textual relationships (i.e. priority)?

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Amaleq13

Also, since I've got your attention:D, I'll ask you a question I asked Yuri but he either missed it or got too busy to address it or thought it wasn't worth answering:).

Do Aramaic originals have any relevance to questions of dating, authorship, or textual relationships (i.e. priority)?

In my view, the Aramaic priority theories don't really provide us with any magic answers at this time. Besides, there's more than one Aramaic priority theory, so they need to be sorted out first.

In my experience, the Old Syriac gospels are generally more authentic than any Greek text. But even the OS gospels are clearly not the "originals" IMHO.

You don't have to accept that all 4 gospels were originally written in Aramaic in order to hold (as I do) that the OS gospels are overall more authentic. For example, Jn may well have been written originally in Greek, but the OS John can still be preserving a text that happens to stand closer to that original Greek Jn.

All the best,

Yuri.

[judge]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Does the absence of an equivalent English word mean we don't know have any clue what it meant?

No we know what it means. It is alittle hard to define exactly (for me anyway) it is an abstract term.
Here si a couple of discussions on itfrom peshita.org.
You can find more if you use the search platform in the archives in the links section.

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/939.html

http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/927.html



Also, since I've got your attention:D, I'll ask you a question I asked Yuri but he either missed it or got too busy to address it or thought it wasn't worth answering:).

Do Aramaic originals have any relevance to questions of dating, authorship, or textual relationships (i.e. priority)?

No one has studied the subject thouroughly WRT to peshitta.
Western textual critics have for the most part just assumed that the books were forst written in greek.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
In my view, the Aramaic priority theories don't really provide us with any magic answers at this time. Besides, there's more than one Aramaic priority theory, so they need to be sorted out first.

In my experience, the Old Syriac gospels are generally more authentic than any Greek text. But even the OS gospels are clearly not the "originals" IMHO.



Yuri.

Hi yuri, hope you are well:)
ou may be interested there is a new thread at peshitta suggesting that the Old Syriac are in fact Rabbula's translation from the greek back to Syriac. Have you heard this theory previously?

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Besides, there's more than one Aramaic priority theory, so they need to be sorted out first.

Anything approaching a consensus?

As I sort of implied earlier, I'm really not familiar with this issue. That bothers me, actually, because I consider myself fairly well read on NT scholarship and this is the first I've heard of Aramaic originals. It certainly doesn't appear to be common knowledge among some of the more knowledgeable Christians I know, either.:confused:

Is there anything that might qualify as Papias' reference to Matthew?

You don't have to accept that all 4 gospels were originally written in Aramaic in order to hold (as I do) that the OS gospels are overall more authentic. For example, Jn may well have been written originally in Greek, but the OS John can still be preserving a text that happens to stand closer to that original Greek Jn.

I guess I've got some reading to do.:) Thanks for the information.

[Amaleq13]

Judge,


Thanks for the links. I see what you mean about the concept being difficult to describe.:)

[judge]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Anything approaching a consensus?

As I sort of implied earlier, I'm really not familiar with this issue. That bothers me, actually, because I consider myself fairly well read on NT scholarship and this is the first I've heard of Aramaic originals. It certainly doesn't appear to be common knowledge among some of the more knowledgeable Christians I know, either.:confused:




Yes...it is a bit confusing.
It seems that for quite some time now western bible scholars have bee trying to piece the NT together. They have followed hard on the heels of protestant christians who have used greek mss of the NT.
That the NT was written in greek has almost become a theological affirmation amongst western protestants.

Anyway ....then along comes the Church of the East saying..."Huh?...what on earth are you guys talking about we have the NT in the original Aramaic?"

There was no real reason for anyone to believe that the NT was written in greek. It was just assumed to be the case.
Western scholars have made no effort to examine claims that the peshitta might in fact underly the greek.

Those who have spent much time and money studying ancient greek are not suprisingly resistant to the idea the greek may only be a translation. It is all a myth.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Hi yuri, hope you are well:)
ou may be interested there is a new thread at peshitta suggesting that the Old Syriac are in fact Rabbula's translation from the greek back to Syriac. Have you heard this theory previously?

Hi, judge!

Well, actually, I haven't really heard this theory previously... I don't think Akhi Younan really has all that much basis for such a claim. Most critics believe the Old Syriac is much older than Rabbula's time.

Sorry I've not been contributing more at the peshitta.org site recently. Too busy with other stuff... But I'll be back soon.

Cheers,

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Anything approaching a consensus [re Aramaic priority theories]?


Not really, Amaleq.

There's the Peshitta camp. Quite active, but almost totally ignored by the academic mainstream.

There's the Old Syriac camp. Mostly represented by James Trimm, with some supporters here and there. Trimm is not a recognised textual scholar. But he often does have some pretty good analyses, and he often bases his stuff on respectable older studies.

There's the Jerusalem School camp. These are the Hebrew prioritists. They _are_ recognised scholars, (i.e. professional NT scholars), but unfortunately they seem to be quite weak on textual criticism. They know very little about the Aramaic priority theories, in my experience. And they know very little about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. They like Luke a lot, though, which is what I also like.

So these are the main camps, and they hardly ever interact with each other.


As I sort of implied earlier, I'm really not familiar with this issue. That bothers me, actually, because I consider myself fairly well read on NT scholarship and this is the first I've heard of Aramaic originals. It certainly doesn't appear to be common knowledge among some of the more knowledgeable Christians I know, either.:confused:


Well, this just proves my point! It's the Great Aramaic Coverup!

Today's NT studies is nothing other than Jesus the Greek Cult! IMHO, it's a sort of a systemic racism in our academic NT studies that is to blame...


Is there anything that might qualify as Papias' reference to Matthew?


Try the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for that. This text (first published in 1987) is the best candidate for what Papias mentioned.


I guess I've got some reading to do.:) Thanks for the information.

Good luck to you!

Yuri.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Try the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew for that. This text (first published in 1987) is the best candidate for what Papias mentioned. A very late text. Looking like a translation (because for instance it cares to explain what would be obvious for Hebrew speaking people). But very interesting nonetheless.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Johann_Kaspar
(re the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew)

A very late text.


Have you read it, Johann?


Looking like a translation (because for instance it cares to explain what would be obvious for Hebrew speaking people).


For example?


But very interesting nonetheless.

The best evidence for the antiquity of Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is its strong textual connection with the Old Syriac Aramaic Matthew. Such evidence is abundant.

I'm not denying that this medieval Hebrew text also includes some later glosses and corruptions.

All the best,

Yuri.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Hi, judge!

Well, actually, I haven't really heard this theory previously... I don't think Akhi Younan really has all that much basis for such a claim. Most critics believe the Old Syriac is much older than Rabbula's time.



Yuri.

Hi again Yuri,
how old is the Old Syriac believed to be?
I notice that here (http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/aramgosp.htm) the following dates are given.

1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century.

I believe that Rabulla died in 433 a.d.

This seems pretty close

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Have you read it, Johann? Yes, some years ago.

For example? For examples read p. 186: "Late Revisions of the Hebrew Text". But how do we know when the "revisions" occurred and if they are revisions at all? I mean there could be an old text not in Hebrew explaining the translated explanations.

The best evidence for the antiquity of Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is its strong textual connection with the Old Syriac Aramaic Matthew. Such evidence is abundant.

I'm not denying that this medieval Hebrew text also includes some later glosses and corruptions. Thanks for that information. Seems that new studies are done since 1987, which is very good news. Will read carefully the link to your pages provided below.

All the best,

Yuri. Thanks! All te best for you too.
Johann

[Quixote]

"After all until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest OT mss were in greek also but no one believed the OT was written in greek."


they were? Better not tell all those Hebrew reading Jewish people *s*

The NT texts, the oldex codex we have is dated around 130 AD and is in Greek are the first written texts. But the orginal stories about Jesus and the desciples are in several languages and one of those would have been Aramaic. In manys esnes the Greek texts are in fact translations themselves.

The writers are also diverse, with John cosidered not to be an Aramaic speaker at all. We should also bear in mind the NT we have was codified by King James, and there were several other gospels and fragments written not all of them in Greek. Some were in Hebrew and none are considered older than our oldest codex.

*s*

[Haran]

Quixote
"After all until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest OT mss were in greek also but no one believed the OT was written in greek."

they were? Better not tell all those Hebrew reading Jewish people *s*

They were. Before the discovery of the DSS, the oldest known OT manuscripts were of the Greek Septuagint (LXX).

Quixote
[b]The NT texts, the oldex codex we have is dated around 130 AD...

You are probably refering to papyrus 52. It is not a codex, it is a fragment of one page of what was most likely the Gospel of John.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Hi again Yuri,
how old is the Old Syriac believed to be?
I notice that here (http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/aramgosp.htm) the following dates are given.

1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century.

I believe that Rabulla died in 433 a.d.

This seems pretty close

Judge,

It is clear that the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, and the OS Curetonianus MSS both depend on a shared archetype, that existed already well before the mid- or late-fourth century date of the OS Sinaiticus MS.

Burkitt said that the OS gospels originated some time in the 2nd century.

And to Johann, I recommend the following article, where the connection of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to the ancient Aramaic and other MSS is laid out in some detail,

The word "Behold!" in Matthew, according to the most ancient manuscripts
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/idhmt1t.htm

All the best,

Yuri.

[judge]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Judge,

It is clear that the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, and the OS Curetonianus MSS both depend on a shared archetype, that existed already well before the mid- or late-fourth century date of the OS Sinaiticus MS.

Thanks Yuri,
Can you explain how it is clear?



Burkitt said that the OS gospels originated some time in the 2nd century.

What were his reasons?

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by judge
Thanks Yuri,
Can you explain how it is clear?


Many passages in the OS Sinaiticus and OS Curetonianus are identical word-for-word. This indicates that they share a common OS archetype.

But great many passages in these two MSS are also quite different, so this indicates a substantial editorial activity for each MS -- independently of each other. Such extensive editorial activity must have taken lots of time.

Hence, I conclude that they both depend on a shared archetype, and that this archetype can probably be placed some time in the 2nd century, at least.


What were his reasons?

Probably the same that I gave?

Best,

Yuri.

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Many passages in the OS Sinaiticus and OS Curetonianus are identical word-for-word. This indicates that they share a common OS archetype. But great many passages in these two MSS are also quite different, so this indicates a substantial editorial activity for each MS -- independently of each other.

Is there any pattern to the shared passages? How about the variations?

Such extensive editorial activity must have taken lots of time.

Why?

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
And to Johann, I recommend the following article, where the connection of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to the ancient Aramaic and other MSS is laid out in some detail,

The word "Behold!" in Matthew, according to the most ancient manuscripts
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/idhmt1t.htm
Hi Yuri,

Thanks for the link! It look quite interesting! Give me time to read it all (i will be checking the links you are providing there) and I will come back.
May I ask you what languages you are mastering?
Do you know French and do you know of the work by French researchers? Especially about the Cercle Ernest-Renan?

Best Wishes,
Johann

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Is there any pattern to the shared passages? How about the variations?


Don't know exactly what you mean.



YURI: Such extensive editorial activity must have taken lots of time.

Why?

Because it's so extensive.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Johann_Kaspar
Hi Yuri,

Thanks for the link!


You're welcome, Johann.


It look quite interesting! Give me time to read it all (i will be checking the links you are providing there) and I will come back.
May I ask you what languages you are mastering?


Oh, I've lost count by now. :)


Do you know French and do you know of the work by French researchers? Especially about the Cercle Ernest-Renan?

Best Wishes,
Johann

Yes, French is one of my stronger languages. In fact, I think that the French biblical scholarship is the best in the world right now!

Especially I like Loisy, who was of course strongly influenced by Renan.

Best,

Yuri.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Hi Yuri,

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Oh, I've lost count by now. :) Hey, I did not ask how many! Just which ones...!? ;)
Yes, French is one of my stronger languages. In fact, I think that the French biblical scholarship is the best in the world right now!
Especially I like Loisy, who was of course strongly influenced by Renan. And in that case, you know Massé and Roy!?

Wow, it is 10 years I studied all this. Time to come back.

Best Wishes,
Johann

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Johann_Kaspar
Hi Yuri,

Hey, I did not ask how many! Just which ones...!? ;)


Well, all the usual ones, plus some more...


And in that case, you know Massé and Roy!?


Actually, I don't really know much about them. I've heard about Daniel Massé, but not about Roy.

All the best,

Yuri.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Actually, I don't really know much about them. I've heard about Daniel Massé, but not about Roy. Massé was thinking/writing about Yeshua being the son of Yehudda the Galilean (and not of Galilea!) and as such a independance fighter.

Raoul Roy is a Canadian who wrote "Jésus guerrier de l'indépendance." Quote: "Jésus n'a rien fait d'autre que mener une guérilla contre l'impérialisme romain pour la libération de la Palestine". [Jesus did nothing else but lead a guerilla against the Roman imperialism for the freedom of Palestine.] Editions Parti Pris, Montréal, 1975, 415 pages.

Still I do not know if Yeshua has any historicity as a man (and I do not care very much), but the core of the gospels supports those ideas very well. My main interest is the ideology and how it fits into the historical period.

Best Wishes,
Johann

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Originally posted by Johann_Kaspar
Massé was thinking/writing about Yeshua being the son of Yehudda the Galilean (and not of Galilea!) and as such a independance fighter.

Raoul Roy is a Canadian who wrote "Jésus guerrier de l'indépendance." Quote: "Jésus n'a rien fait d'autre que mener une guérilla contre l'impérialisme romain pour la libération de la Palestine". [Jesus did nothing else but lead a guerilla against the Roman imperialism for the freedom of Palestine.] Editions Parti Pris, Montréal, 1975, 415 pages.


Well, Johann, I don't think these ideas are too unusual even in the context of N American scholarship. For example, Richard A. Horsley argues that Jesus was some sort of a social revolutionary...


Still I do not know if Yeshua has any historicity as a man (and I do not care very much), but the core of the gospels supports those ideas very well. My main interest is the ideology and how it fits into the historical period.

Best Wishes,
Johann

The whole N American NT scholarship today is basically a fraud. And especially the Historical Jesus scholarship...

1. The first step should be to describe honestly the early history of the Church.

2. Then, the history of early Christian writings must be outlined. What were the earliest texts? They were obviously very different from what we have now.

Of course, these two projects must go hand-in-hand, because they are related projects.

3. Then, on this basis, the third step is to describe the real teachings of the earliest Christian missionaries (some of whom presumably were the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus).

4. And only then should come the final step -- determining who was the real Historical Jesus.

But our modern NT scholars want to ignore these preliminary 3 steps completely, and so they jump directly to the most difficult question of them all!

That's why the whole thing is a FRAUD!

Loisy, OTOH has basically answered the first question conclusively, and he also advanced significantly in answering the second... That's why nobody reads him today! He's like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. :(

All the best,

Yuri.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Well, Johann, I don't think these ideas are too unusual even in the context of N American scholarship. For example, Richard A. Horsley argues that Jesus was some sort of a social revolutionary... As said before I have no idea if he existed or not. What I know is how the hebrew literature is elaborated. I tend to favour the idea of French geograph Elysée Reclus. That is: the figure of "Jesus" is the summary of different people who lived at that time (before the fall of the temple). "Social revolutionary"... not much more than the Machabeans...

The whole N American NT scholarship today is basically a fraud. And especially the Historical Jesus scholarship...

1. The first step should be to describe honestly the early history of the Church.

2. Then, the history of early Christian writings must be outlined. What were the earliest texts? They were obviously very different from what we have now.

Of course, these two projects must go hand-in-hand, because they are related projects.

3. Then, on this basis, the third step is to describe the real teachings of the earliest Christian missionaries (some of whom presumably were the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus).

4. And only then should come the final step -- determining who was the real Historical Jesus.

But our modern NT scholars want to ignore these preliminary 3 steps completely, and so they jump directly to the most difficult question of them all!

That's why the whole thing is a FRAUD!

Loisy, OTOH has basically answered the first question conclusively, and he also advanced significantly in answering the second... That's why nobody reads him today! He's like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. :( Basically I agree with you except that I will put step 3 before steps 1 and 2. Why? Because the ideology is all what is left and it is what is evident throughout the "first" texts and confronted with the historical context will help to date them relatively. I find that the biggest fraud is to think that any text has only one layer written at one time. The first layer of the gospels is zealot, then came the other layers and the contradictions are beginning to spread.

And I will have a step 0: that is how the texts were transmitted or NOT transmitted, and which ones and why.

About step 1, we know very little, I am thinking. I shall still read Loisy of course. But so many texts have been destroyed that we do not know what was the first messianist (=christian) assembly (=ekklesia, = church). Too many texts destroyed or interpolated when they should have described precisely that assembly (Papias, etc.). Why? Because it was quite different from what it was said to be later.

I am very amazed every time I see scholars not able to understand the very simple meaning of words (it is true that you cannot force someone to see what he does not want to see - true too: it is happening even with scientific researchers).

Best Wishes,
Johann