Exploring evidence of Peshitta primacy

[adriancombe]

I guess I am interested as well in this discussion for a number of reasons.

If I am to understand this correctly, the claim is that the Peshitta was actually the original biblical writings from the St.s or their emissaries?

Even though2 the Greek Septuagent is quoted in the Greek NT??
This certainly does not jibe with church history and tradition either. I’d like to be corrected if I am wrong.

As far as the biblical code implications:
Are we really to believe that God hid his messages in scripture, so that only a computer could decipher these codes???

I would argue that the meaning in scripture is hidden to those who have not been illumed… not to those who have not studied enough computer science and actuary.

Thanks for any feedback.

I agree most NT citations of OT books are LXX - but that could simply mean that the translator was familiar with the LXX and used those passages to save steps while translating.

I agree the salvifically meaning of Scripture is revealed by the Holy Spirit but that does not preclude the use of the natural sciences in studying Scripture. Archaeology, history, geography and linguistics are some examples of this in mainstream biblical scholarship. The fact that there are some mathematically significant numbers in Scripture is not in dispute. Thus it cannot be ruled out that other algorithmic features are ‘hidden in plain sight’ in the Holy Writ.

 

[adriancombe]

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.

That is very interesting and seems to muddy the waters. For instance, the Greek of John is very simple compared to that of Paul. I’m not certain it is necessary or even beneficial to postulate fluency. In fact, some of the arguments on the fora at peshitta.org claim the translation errors themselves are the evidence of Aramaic primacy.

I’m also not certain about the applicability of what you write with respect to thinking in multiple languages. For instance, I’m bilingual (fluent in German) and I certainly do speak and write in German spontaneously without having to think in English first and then translate in my head. However, were I to write a multiple-page document in English and then in German, (or vice versa) I most certainly would do some translating simply because I wouldn’t have memorized the first autograph.

 

[adriancombe]

This thread is to be dedicated to studying the evidence put forward suggesting the Aramaic peshitta New Testament were the original writings, which they were the basis for translation into Greek. Prevailing opinion now is that the Peshitta was translated from Greek originals, so I wish to explore the claims in more depth. The conclusions here have ramifications for another issue, the language of Matthew 16, which is somewhat ambiguous in its terms for “rock”. The prevailing opinion is that Petros/petra was kepha/kepha when originally spoken by Jesus in Aramaic. However, there is a suggestion that he might have used another aramaic word (shu’a) which could have been translated to petra as well. The thread discussing that is forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=159292. Now, since the Peshitta proponents purport it to be THE original, if that can be proven, we can rely on its rendition of Matt. 16 rather than worry guessing what the Greek writer had heard. Incidentally, the Peshitta uses “kepha/kepha”, or “keepa/keepa” in that particular dialect of Aramaic.

That is the basis of this thread. Tonight I will begin presenting some of the arguments that have been used to support Peshitta primacy. If you want a firsthand look at what I will explore, you can visit peshitta.org and aramaicnt.com/.

LT

I also realized recently thanks to Copland3 that the translation of kecharitwmenh is resolved by recourse to the Peshitta (assuming Aramaic primary).

 

[adriancombe]

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

Regarding point two: I find it interesting but not conclusive. For instance, there are more distinct terms in English than German (although German has more compound words owing to its distinctive morphology) and generally speaking one uses less distinct terms conveying the same concepts in German than in English (although of course there are exceptions).

For instance, Germans typically use the same word Uhr for a clock or a watch. Although there is a distinctive term for a wristwatch (Armbanduhr) it is rarely used unless one needs to avoid ambiguity in context.

Also, I have a limited knowledge of French and Spanish. When expressing myself in these languages, I definitely use less words than in English or German because I’m trying to make up for my lack of vocabulary. So the paucity of words in the Greek manuscript could simply reflect the fact that the authors knew Aramaic better.

Of course, if that is true, they probably wrote in their mother tongue first anyway

 

[patrick457]

Just my two cents here - if it’s already been said before, then apologies for the repetition:

One of the things we need to consider first is that Aramaic is not one, monolithic language that many people make it to be. Linguists today see it more as a family of closely-related languages (aka “dialects”), not all of which are mutually intelligible.

The P’shitta is in (classical literary) Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic. Syriac originally began as an unwritten spoken dialect of Old Aramaic in northern Mesopotamia (as such, is is grouped among the Eastern Aramaic family); in 132 BC, the kingdom of Osrhoene was founded in Edessa with Syriac as its official language. As such, Old Syriac was given a relatively coherent form, style and grammar that is lacking in other Old Eastern Aramaic dialects because of its official status. Syriac did not crystalize until around 200 AD and did not become a major literary dialect until 400 AD.

The Aramaic of Jesus, meanwhile, is a Late Old Western Aramaic dialect. In addition to the formal, literary dialects of Aramaic based on Hasmonaean and Babylonian there were a number of colloquial Aramaic dialects. Seven distinctive, yet mutually intelligible dialects of Western Aramaic were probably spoken in the vicinity of Judaea in Jesus’ time: Galilean Aramaic (Jesus’ native dialect), Samaritan Aramaic and Old Judaean (the dialect of Jerusalem and Judaea province) among them.

Let’s say the P’shitta as preserved today is the original, the real thing. First of all, why would it be written in a different dialect than the one Jesus and His apostles probably spoke? (then again, Jewish Aramaic and Syriac are probably intelligible on some level) Would it not be kind of like recording a conversation conducted in Scottish English as, say, New York English? (okay, the analogy may be a bit off)

Number two. There are actually two Syriac translations which are different from the P’shitta and which probably predate it: the Curetonian Gospels, found in a Syrian monastery in Egypt and published by Orientalist William Cureton in 1858, and the Sinaitic Palimpsest found in St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.