Exploring evidence of Peshitta primacy

[ltravis]

Right – the Peshitta Old Testament can be nothing other than a translation. I don’t think anyone would argue that.

As for the Bible Codes…I see no reason to assume that these sorts of things can’t exist in any work of literature…it’s just the way it is.

Hey PC - was this conclusion of yours a reply to Pax quote? If so, I think his quote is saying that while Hebrew/Greek primacy is pertinant to OT scripture, but the question of the NT translation remains open. Do I represent you correctly, Pax?

In any case, the hypothesis I am presenting is that the OT scriptures were indeed in Greek and Hebrew, but the NT writers, while reading and understanding said OT writings, penned the original NT in the vulgar tongue of Aramaic, and that is the Peshitta, from which the Greek was translated from. That is logically plausible. Is it likely? Well, that is the purpose of this thread and the current argument I am looking into now is the evidence that the peshitta has more specificity when the common word pairs between the two are compared (i.e. “limb” - “limb” - “limb” in the greek might be “limb” - “arm” -“leg” in the Peshitta, but not vice-versa). Please look at my prior post for further explanation. If it is unclear, I can rewrite the acutal proof text from the source argument, which explains it mathematically.

I am leaving the codes arguments aside for now, if that’s alright. There are just too many perjorative connotations around that topic to make a worthwhile presentation on it here. If anyone wants to re-raise the arguments about them, though, we can.

Thanks for indulging me in this trip outside the accepted conventional wisdom.

LT

 

[icxc_nika]

In any case, the hypothesis I am presenting is that the OT scriptures were indeed in Greek and Hebrew, but the NT writers, while reading and understanding said OT writings, penned the original NT in the vulgar tongue of Aramaic, and that is the Peshitta, from which the Greek was translated from. That is logically plausible. Is it likely?

I would argue against this notion.

What you are attempting to state is that the NT writers knew both languages, but had to “translate” one to another.

If we were to ask any person that is completely fluent in two or more languages, that last thing they would tell you is that they have to “translate” one thing to another.

The entire arguement here would have to be if the NT writers were truly fluent. This as actually the question to posit.

For in fact, the very nature of a fluent writer is that they can think in the languages effortlessly; thus no translation, simply documentation.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Would not the fact that Jesus did not want either the Jews, nor the Romans to know that he was the messiah until after his ressurrection rule out him using a language that both the Jews and Romans would easily understand if overheard in Matt 16?

I think it is verse 20, where Jesus charges the apostles not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am having problems with all of this. The OP says he/she does not subscribe to Biblical codes. Never says why.

Then we find ourselves off on a hunt for codes purportedly to find some way to dismiss them. If we find the codes, then how can we dismiss them? If we don’t find the codes, how can we know we have looked enough?

The science for all of this goes as follows: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

We must ask ourselves WHY we want to find a version to replace the Septuagint. And why would that version be in Aramaic? What was the lingua franca in that region at that time? Koine, right? Why would Jesus and therefore his apostles use anything but the lingua franca to teach, especially since the Gospel was meant for a much wider audience than those who spoke Aramaic.

This all sounds complicated to me and therefore suspect.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jesus quotes the Septuagint in 80% of his Old Testament References. link

Since so many parallels were drawn between the OT and Jesus’s teaching (which eventually went into the NT) it just seems needlessly complicated to write everything in Aramaic. Remember these guys were busy and writing everything by hand took a long time. Also, there was that lingua franca hurdle which the Peshitta has to overcome. The lingua franca was not Aramaic.

 

[ltravis]

I am having problems with all of this. The OP says he/she does not subscribe to Biblical codes. Never says why.

Then we find ourselves off on a hunt for codes purportedly to find some way to dismiss them. If we find the codes, then how can we dismiss them? If we don’t find the codes, how can we know we have looked enough?

The science for all of this goes as follows: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

We must ask ourselves WHY we want to find a version to replace the Septuagint. And why would that version be in Aramaic? What was the lingua franca in that region at that time? Koine, right? Why would Jesus and therefore his apostles use anything but the lingua franca to teach, especially since the Gospel was meant for a much wider audience than those who spoke Aramaic.

This all sounds complicated to me and therefore suspect.

I am sorry for the confusion in the direction of this thread. It might help for you to know this thread was an offshoot of another thread on the linguistics of Matthew 16 regarding Peter the rock. PCMaster, the author of that thread, had been engaged in a search to find the real original terminology used by Christ at the time. He felt the Greek was inconclusive and was proposing different terminology that might have been used by Christ in his Aramaic speaking. This thread was supposed to be information to help him in that search, because if the peshitta is the true original, it becomes conclusive for his argument as it would remove the ambiguity behind the greek.

Unfortunately, this thread has not achieved its aim. I was submitting all the available evidence for peshitta primacy item by item, but thus far each point brought up hasn’t really been directly addressed much less refuted on its own merits. Also, PCMaster has not shown the interest in this direction of his issue, which somewhat surprised me since he is the one engaged in a very detailed and thorough search for the truth. If anyone is interested in exploring this further (there is much more evidence), I will be glad to oblige, but thus far I don’t see the interest…

LT

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ltravis:

Unfortunately, this thread has not achieved its aim.

If it’s aim was to establish the primacy of the Peshitta, then you’re right. If it’s aim was to stimulate discussion, then you got discussion. It may not have been the discussion you wanted, but it was discussion.

ltravis:

I was submitting all the available evidence for peshitta primacy item by item, but thus far each point brought up hasn’t really been directly addressed much less refuted on its own merits.

Occam’s Razor. Folks are not going to go on a rabbit chase. They are going to be interested in investigating an hypothesis further if there if that hypothesis at least addresses what we already know, even if it overturns it.

We know that 80% of what Jesus taught from the OT, he taught in Greek. It makes sense to continue in the Greek rather than remember everything in the Greek and then write it down in Aramaic.

That is addressing the Peshitta. It may not have been a point you raised. In fact it was a point I raised. Perhaps you believe that a discussion is only responding to points you raise?

ltravis:

Also, PCMaster has not shown the interest in this direction of his issue, which somewhat surprised me since he is the one engaged in a very detailed and thorough search for the truth.

Perhaps he found the Truth. Did you ask him?

 

[Pax]

Since so many parallels were drawn between the OT and Jesus’s teaching (which eventually went into the NT) it just seems needlessly complicated to write everything in Aramaic. Remember these guys were busy and writing everything by hand took a long time. Also, there was that lingua franca hurdle which the Peshitta has to overcome. The lingua franca was not Aramaic.

I’m not so sure that there is a hurdle here. Jesus and the apostles were Jews and would have spoken Aramaic as their primary language. Their fluency in other languages could have varied greatly. Likewise, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Aramaic and Greek versions of the gospels were not recorded simultaneously. The Jews were not completely warm to the idea of writing on religious matters in Greek or Latin per Josephus. If they did so, they surely would not have abandoned their own tongue.

If they did write them down in their own language which seems likely, then there is no reason to discount the validity of translations going from the Aramaic to the Greek. The Eastern Churches have some very old Aramaic copies and in the early days of Christianity the Aramaic speaking peoples apparently relied upon Aramaic NT scriptures.

Conventional wisdom may give the nod to the Greek but it is not an open and shut case.

My particular interest in this is not ultimately the primacy itself. Instead, I am interested in seeing whether or not enough light is shed on this subject to show that Matthew 16:18 says “kepha” for Peter and “kepha” for the rock upon which Jesus will build his church. So far the Aramaic translations all say kepha and kepha rather than kepha and shua. This, however, is not enough to convince PC MASTER. If Peshitta primacy could be established this would end most of the Protestant speculations concerning Matt 16:18.

Personally, I happen to believe Jesus said “kepha” and “kepha” just as is indicated in the oldest available Aramaic copies of the NT scriptures. Unfortunately, some folks do not accept this and believe that the Aramaic scriptures were translated from the Greek. I see absolulely no reason to believe that claim when Jesus and the apostles first language was Aramaic.

 

[ltravis]

Ani ibi - I am just exploring the theory of primacy here. If it is proven false, fine. I just think the proof points are interesting, and am looking for and asking for comments specifically about them. Other commentary is certainly welcome…and allowed

Pax - thanks for your open mind and interest here

In review, the points so far, in simplified form:

1. The peshitta exhibits a specific type of recurrent bible code that is quite rigorous and computer checked. Now, whether or not the codes are divine or fabricated, they are not seen in the Greek using the same criteria.
2. The peshitta has more versions of the same term at the word’s location than the Greek. An Aramaic translater of original Greek would have had to invent more specific Aramaic versions of recurring greek words. This phenomenon is not in evidence going from Aramaic to Greek (it gets more general).

Does anyone have any logic that can refute these?

Now, the third proof - historic data:
The common tongue of the Jews at the time was Aramaic, and Greek was very hard for them to accurately write and for the audience to understand. In the first century, Josephus wrote *Antiquities *in Aramaic and then had it translated into Greek for the Roman citizens, confessing that he couldn’t even pronounce it fluently, much less write it. In fact, as he admitted, the Rabbis forbade the teaching of pagan tongues to young men. The question is whether it was possible for the scripture writers to write in original Greek, and why they would do it given the prohibition and difficulty of the audience understanding it.

I can answer part of this: I think the scripture writers, being inspired, could write in darn well any language God thought they needed to write it in. What about the other points, or the validity of the factual data here? Again, feel free to go to aramaicnt.com for the specific argument I highlighted here.

LT

 

[thistle]

Ani ibi - I am just exploring the theory of primacy here. If it is proven false, fine. I just think the proof points are interesting, and am looking for and asking for comments specifically about them. Other commentary is certainly welcome…and allowed

Pax - thanks for your open mind and interest here

In review, the points so far, in simplified form:

1. The peshitta exhibits a specific type of recurrent bible code that is quite rigorous and computer checked. Now, whether or not the codes are divine or fabricated, they are not seen in the Greek using the same criteria.
2. The peshitta has more versions of the same term at the word’s location than the Greek. An Aramaic translater of original Greek would have had to invent more specific Aramaic versions of recurring greek words. This phenomenon is not in evidence going from Aramaic to Greek (it gets more general).

Does anyone have any logic that can refute these?

Now, the third proof - historic data:
The common tongue of the Jews at the time was Aramaic, and Greek was very hard for them to accurately write and for the audience to understand. In the first century, Josephus wrote *Antiquities *in Aramaic and then had it translated into Greek for the Roman citizens, confessing that he couldn’t even pronounce it fluently, much less write it. In fact, as he admitted, the Rabbis forbade the teaching of pagan tongues to young men. The question is whether it was possible for the scripture writers to write in original Greek, and why they would do it given the prohibition and difficulty of the audience understanding it.

I can answer part of this: I think the scripture writers, being inspired, could write in darn well any language God thought they needed to write it in. What about the other points, or the validity of the factual data here? Again, feel free to go to aramaicnt.com for the specific argument I highlighted here.

LT

This is not an answer to or a comment on your post but I’m curious. Why would anyone think that Paul would write to the Romans in Aramaic or write to the Greeks (Corinthians) in Aramaic?

 

[Pax]

This is certainly a good point concerning the letters of Paul.

 

[PC_Master]

Unfortunately, this thread has not achieved its aim. I was submitting all the available evidence for peshitta primacy item by item, but thus far each point brought up hasn’t really been directly addressed much less refuted on its own merits. Also, PCMaster has not shown the interest in this direction of his issue, which somewhat surprised me since he is the one engaged in a very detailed and thorough search for the truth. If anyone is interested in exploring this further (there is much more evidence), I will be glad to oblige, but thus far I don’t see the interest…

I offer my sincerest apologies. Unfortunately I don’t check this forum as often as I should to make sure to respond to this thread. In fact, I had forgotten about it – I’ll try not to let that happen again.

This is not an answer to or a comment on your post but I’m curious. Why would anyone think that Paul would write to the Romans in Aramaic or write to the Greeks (Corinthians) in Aramaic?

This is an excellent point which I had not thought about before. Paul wrote largely to Gentile churches, and there would be even less reason for that writing to be in Aramaic than there would for the gospels to be in Greek.

Please allow me to clarify something. We’re not discussing Aramaic Primacy here. We’re discussing Peshitta Primacy. Personally, I currently consider it about a 50/50 that some of the original works in the New Testament were written in Aramaic. However, I do not believe that those works are survived to the present in any Aramaic form.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew, Mark, and John, and perhaps other works. However, Luke and Acts were written directly to a Roman Governor (I think), and thus would have been penned in Greek, which Luke (a disciple of Paul) was probably well versed in. The Pauline letters were all largely to Gentile groups, and so should have been originally penned in Greek (by a scribe apparently, given a comment about Paul’s poor handwriting found in one letter).

However, let’s put these works aside for the moment. Just considering Matthew, Mark and John, which conceivably might have been originally penned in Aramaic (just for the sake of argument), can we show that the Peshitta is even old enough to definitely be a copy of these originals?

That’s a very generous, but simple argument which should let us consider if it’s even remotely possible.

So, to sum up. There are a couple of flaws I see with the Peshitta primacy argument. These include…

• The gospel of Luke, Acts, and the Pauline letters are very unlikely to have been authored in Aramaic. We’re going to ignore this point for a moment.
• A very small minority of scholars support it. This in itself doesn’t disprove it, but it seems to at least indicate the evidence is controversial at best.
• The earliest example of Old Syriac is dated to 243AD (a bill of sale, according to the potentially-wrong Wikipedia). We have several first-century fragments from the Greek NT. This clearly lends itself to the idea that the Greek NT existed before the Aramaic Peshitta (or any currently extant Aramaic version).
• The Diatesseron and various other gospel harmonies dominated the Syriac church for two centuries, and only later was the Peshitta introduced. How could the original version of scripture escape use in this fashion for two centuries?
• The Old Testament simply had to be a translation. Again, let’s ignore this for now, because it’s a very obvious point.

 

[ltravis]

Thistle & PCM, thanks for the thoughts - they are good points. Regarding Luke and Paul writing to Gentile audiences, I would love to hear the Peshitta communities response to that. I am thinking they believe that these authors still were most fluent in Aramaic and used it as a common medium, translated as needed soon after (similar to how the Church now uses Latin). Anyway, it is strong evidence, perhaps the best, against Peshitta primacy. I might dive into the Peshitta community and ask them their opinion on it; they surely must be well acquainted with the argument.

Also, this begs a question…is it possible some NT writings were originally Greek and some Aramaic? I was thinking that because just as the Luke’s and Pauls writings were to Gentiles, Matthew’s was primarily to Jews. The “intended audience” argument in this case supports Aramaic originality.

PC, regarding the age of the extant Peshitta compared to surviving Greek fragments, that just suggests to me that Greek culture had overtaken the Semitic by that time. The original Peshitta copies may well have been discarded once Greek influence became pervasive. Also, regarding the Diatesseron, its use as I understand it, was because of its simplicity and convenience as a harmonious account of the sayings of Christ. The faithful preferred it, but that does not preclude the existence of the Peshitta, which simply wasn’t the preferred sacred text at the time.

Finally, PC, I agree few scholars contest Greek primacy. I think we both know that something being contrary to conventional wisdom is not prima facie evidence to its validity. I grant your “shu’a” argument, while not in line with conventional wisdom, is argumentatively valid as well so I think we are on the same lines of thinking here

Again, I think these are all good points, which I have tried to explain how they “fit” into a Peshitta primacy model. Now, again, I would really appreciate if any of you would return the favor of addressing the proof points (3 so far) I have brought up. How can they be explained away in a Greek primacy model?

LT

 

[Returnee]

Again, to refute the code argument here, at least one of two things must be achieved: (1) prove the methodology is faulty or deceptive or (2) prove the same effect can be seen in the Greek NT (but not the Aramaic) with this methodology, or any equally rigorous one. Also, it would help to have an explanation why the codefinder did not find the same number of codes in the Greek in this particular example. I have an open mind on this and would like to see anyone else’s opinion, from either persuasion. I would like to think bible codes are a non-issue, but I would really like to see the logical or statistical proof first.

Thanks again!
LT

I attempted to access the article mentioned in the .pdf you linked to, but the site dave.ultimasurf.com/ doesn’t seem to be working.

The reason I attempted this, was to read more the methodology used, to determine if it indeed was different than most (if not all) Bible Code searches. Most likely it was not, and the reason this is faulty is because, again, the data is misrepresented and manipulated in such a way as to appear spectacular. (Whether or not this is intentional, is not at issue here, IMO).

Read here: skeptoid.com/episodes/4048 (a less than charitable title for those who subscribe to Bible codes, but the content is easy enough to understand)

Basically, the reason Bible Codes (and the software “CodeFinder”, which is based on the same technique) are flawed is because they look into the text for something that can be found merely by a random convergence of letters in a text sufficiently large.

The main data generated by “Bible Codes” are the ELS, or, equidistant letter separations (or skips). This very data is flawed, because the larger the “skips” between letters, the much larger the probability that any word searched for will be discovered.

The author of the .pdf claims in the first point that “Hundreds of thousands of Divine Name ELS’s found at skips 2-230,000 throughout The Peshitta NT, with a computed probability of 0.001 per ELS, or a composite probability of …etc.”

This raises the question of how many ELS’s were found at the lower skip range, and how many were found at the upper limit of 230,000? Also, it is not explained in the .pdf link (I assume it may be on the website linked to in the .pdf, but again, that link didn’t work for me) how the “computed probability of 0.001 per ELS” was obtained, statistically speaking. Thus, that remains just a claim for now. However, I will say this regarding that seemingly low probability: If the mere presence of an ELS at lower skips was given an arbitrarily lower probability than that of a higher skip, then a sufficiently low enough probability could give an AVERAGE value of 0.001 per skip, if the, say, one 2 skip found gave a probability very low.

One must ask oneself though, if only a few 2, 4, 10, or even 20 skip ELS’s were found, how convincing is the entire data set? Again, it really comes back to a question of how the probabilities were generated, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the probabilities of the ELS’s were generated using some arbitrary (and not unbiased) method, using assumptions without base, and ultimately, may have been MATHEMATICALLY sound, but not METHODOLOGICALLY sound.

Briefly, also, it’s not of any concern that there is a great difference between the Peshitta text and Greek text, in terms of ELS’s found, since they are different languages, and thus, the number of ELS’s found would be different. Also, the term “Divine Name” isn’t defined in the .pdf, so we have no idea what the search parameters were, and thus, no idea how significant they were with relation to Greek.

 

[ltravis]

Thanks so much Returnee. That was just the kind of discussion I was looking for regarding codes. These stats get really complicated for me, so I must accept your arguments for the time being. Your explanations seem quite valid to me. However, as to why the search could find codes at a certain skip frequency, but not others, I assumed the software loops through all frequencies to find the authentic “signature” which only exists at one of them. Again, I am no expert and may well be mistaken there.

By the way, site dave.ultimasurf.com/ was Dave Bauscher’s original site, which I believe was replaced by aramaicnt.com, which is where all his data now resides. The stats and explanation are in aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20Codes%20Results.pdf. It gets into higher level stats and probabities that I can’t get my brain around since I studied it so long ago in school. Feel free to read if you haven’t, and I will check the site you gave me. I really appreciate it!

LT

 

[Jim_Baur]

Itravis

This seems most interesting.

I do not have the time to read all of the posts.

Would it be possible to give me a summary of this thread?

If so, please post it, thanks!

 

[ltravis]

Itravis

This seems most interesting.

I do not have the time to read all of the posts.

Would it be possible to give me a summary of this thread?

If so, please post it, thanks!

Hi Jim, welcome to the conversation. Actually, you haven’t missed too terribly much. The thread was started to explore the linguistics of Matt. 16 and the naming of Peter. It had been proposed in another thread that the original Aramaic words of Christ could be using different words to refer to the rock the that the church was built on, which the Greek didn’t pick up on - which in turn has ramifications to whether it irrefutably means Peter. However, there is evidence that the Aramaic Peshitta is the true original, and if so, its verbage could be taken face value, rendering the Greek ambiguity issue moot.

The purpose of this thread was to explore that, and I have been presenting the various arguments used to support the Peshitta as the original. Prevailing scholarly opinion is that it is a translation from Greek, but if so, I expect there to be an explanation available to refute each pro-Peshitta arguments, or at least show how they could be false. I have posed three so far, bible codes, the greater amount of terms for the various contexts of a word vs. the greek, and historical evidence regarding the greater ignorance of the audience to greek as well as prohibitions to teach in pagan languages. I go into more specificity with these in preceding posts.

In response, we have gotten several arguments against Peshitta primacy, which have merit, such as Church tradition, Luke and Paul’s gentile audience, and the influence of the Septuigent, which I have replied to. However, only one which directly addresses any the proofs posted , that being a questioning of the statistical method of the codes evidence. I expect more will follow, and I will also provide more of the evidence the Peshitta primacy supporters are using.

LT

 

[Jim_Baur]

Itravis

Thanks!

Again, I did not have the time or energy to read all of the posts.

Thanks!

Could the actual Gospels be original (even St. Luke)?

Could the Gospels of St. Matthew or John be original in the Peshitta? etc…

Again, thanks!

 

[PC_Master]

The purpose of this thread was to explore that, and I have been presenting the various arguments used to support the Peshitta as the original. Prevailing scholarly opinion is that it is a translation from Greek, but if so, I expect there to be an explanation available to refute each pro-Peshitta arguments, or at least show how they could be false.

I would love to argue a competent reply as to exactly why the Peshitta ELS codes are not spectacular as they seem, but until we know more details about exactly what spacing, what texts, and what words were being used, there’s simply not much that can be said.

I’d also like to know if these same ELS codes are found in the Peshitta Old Testament, which we know to be a translation.

Could the actual Gospels be original (even St. Luke)?

It’s possible there was an Aramaic original of Matthew, and perhaps Mark and John (I don’t know about those for sure), but Luke (and its companion volume, Acts) were written to a Roman Governor (in or near Rome, if I recall), and would have been written in Greek.

Could the Gospels of St. Matthew or John be original in the Peshitta? etc…

Possibly, but there’s simply no sure evidence that any copies of the Peshitta existed before the third or fourth century.

[edit] This whole thing strikes me much like Baptists who claim that the King James Version of the Bible is totally inerrant.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

PC. Master,
I think that just looking at the statistics page is enough to determine much about the code techniqe.
The open statement notes that the long sequences are all facets of letters with giant skips – so much so, that the spacing is larger than the bible text itself. This is modulo arithmetic, and as the author notes – the long words would not exist if the “the edited” version were changed by even one letter.

Comment #1: Only short words do not rely on the particular editing of the text, and perhaps the ordering of the books…

The data does not say that any of the NT books were omitted – hence all of Luke’s GREEK originals affect the outcome, as does the particular choice and ordering if edited to remove those books.

Hebrew/Aramaic is appoximately a 22 letter alphabet – so taking a purely random approach, a 1 letter word should have the odds of 1 in 22 ( ~5% chance of locating in a random 1 letter sequence) That’s 1 sample only.

A two letter word would have 1/22 * 1/22 = 0.206% chance/sample. (1 sample only).

A three letter word would have (1/22)^3 = 0.0094% chance for every sample. (1 sample only). (Eg: the word for light on the very page is only three letters.).

The odds are much higher than 1.64 in a million of finding a three letter word THE VERY FIRST TRY in a single random three letter slot machine – (one in a million is 0.0001%) EVEN IF THE TEXT WERE TOTALLY RANDOM.

So it is hardly impressive to say a three letter word, looked for MULTIPLE times in a new testament text is found LESS often (1 in 1.64) million than the odds of finding it on the first try in a non-inspired random three letter text. (If I have a larger text, the odds go UP) — So this 1 in 1.64 million refers to what? The
deficiency of the bible over a random text? (Think about it.)

The author chose (arbitrarily) to make a cylinder (circle) out of the text (him inspired, not God) – and that allowed the researcher to go on picking skips bigger even than the text itself. In fact, theoretically he could pick an infinte number of skips and words…
And so could find ANY number of copies of word – depending ONLY on the number of times searched.

Anyone knowing that standard deviation is a CLUE not a proof that something is NONRANDOM will realize that given enough time and searches (If I can pick them…) that every deviation possible will be found… Notice, the author doesn’t list the failures – only the “successes” It’s like the gambler who won $100 once on the lottery – how many losses happened to get that one win – USUALLY MORE THAN $100 worth!

The point is, stastistics don’t lie – but statisticians can easily select what they want you to know…