Exploring evidence of Peshitta primacy

[ltravis]

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

 

[Nita]

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 followed the other thread for awhile, but I don’t see what difference it makes to know exactly which words Jesus used in the Aramaic. **It doesn’t alter the fact that there is **only one subject in the passage that Jesus identified as anything resembling “rock”. So, when He says “THIS rock”, it has to refer to Peter, since there is nothing else in the immediate vicinity that has been labelled something like rock. The word “this” means it is something He is clearly identifying - either through a verbal identification (and He has just called Simon “Rock” in the very same sentence) - or by pointing, or holding in His hand, etc. However, I think we can forget the last options. Jesus doesn’t say “a rock” or “the rock”; He says “this rock”. Big difference.

Nita

 

[ltravis]

When I address the various proofs put forth by the peshitta proponents, I plan to simply introduce each of the arguments presented in Glenn David Bauscher ‘s research document “Proofs of Peshitta Primacy” (aramaicnt.com/Research/Proofs%20of%20Peshitta%20Primacy.pdf) in the order it lists them. That way we can all score at home . That said, argument #1 presents tests for bible codes. I don’t particulary subscribe to the idea of codes myself, but in fairness to the argument, it must bear study. The author has the document copy-restricted, so I can only invite you to read it for itself.

Anyway, as I understand it in the simples of terms, a code is a word that shows up in a text when letters at equally spaced intervals are analyzed. For intance “xxxJxxxExxxSxxxUxxxS” would be an example of a code of “Jesus” found in a text (I just used x’s in substitution for acutal letters). Such and instance of the name would then be repeated throughout the text. That is how I understand this in anyway. It is technical so I may well not be completely accurate in my explanation, so if I am please feel free to clarify for me. Now, a computer code testing program was used to check the entire text for repetition of specific words like this, and in this peshitta/greek comparison the test was for divine names. I won’t get overly technical, but the test supposedly found that the peshitta had repeated regular instances of these divine names showing up while the greek sample’s test had nothing significant, putting it on par with a control set of other classic literature. Now, how do we explain this? If the codes really exist as this computer program finds, how can a translator rewrite an existing text (i.e. the greek) and insert these codes? Is the computer testing program somehow cheating? How else can we explain this? Like I suggested, I think the idea of codes is rather hokey personally, but I need specific evidence and logic to refute them. Any ideas or insights?

LT

 

[PC_Master]

I honestly have never subscribed to Bible codes myself, but they’ve had some similar ones in both Greek and English versions of scripture. I simply see no reason to believe that such codes were intentionally inserted – they seem to be present in many words in my experience.

 

[ltravis]

I honestly have never subscribed to Bible codes myself, but they’ve had some similar ones in both Greek and English versions of scripture. I simply see no reason to believe that such codes were intentionally inserted – they seem to be present in many words in my experience.

PC, thanks for lending an eye to the thread here. I apologize for saying this, but your quick, rather nonspecfic response was the kind of thing I wanted to get beyond in these studies. Can I ask you to provide some examples, or exterior sources/studies, that show these similar codes in Greek? Bear in mind, the Peshitta/Greek test here was computer driven, by the highly regarded “Codefinder” software (the-matrix.tv/). This was not one guy with an agenda poking around manuscripts to prove a presupposition. The process was evaluated by a respected statistician who had worked at the world’s largest accounting firm. Check the following source:aramaicnt.com/Research/Peshitta%20Codes%20Results.pdf. It explains all this, and lest anyone think it is fabricated, there is a high level statistical analysis at the end if anyone wants to get *really *academic.

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

 

[ltravis]

Also, PC, I should have clarified one other thing. You mentioned you have seen code effect in other words in your experience. *If *I grant this is true, I am really looking at the specific Peshitta vs. Greek example here. This code search seems to conclude that the Greek doesn’t have the codes while the Peshitta does. The fact the Greek *doesn’t *have them would seem to be a strike against it. I wan’t to nail the reason behind that. Do you see what I mean?

LT

 

[icxc_nika]

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.

 

[thistle]

When I address the various proofs put forth by the peshitta proponents, I plan to simply introduce each of the arguments presented in Glenn David Bauscher ‘s research document “Proofs of Peshitta Primacy” (aramaicnt.com/Research/Proofs%20of%20Peshitta%20Primacy.pdf) in the order it lists them. That way we can all score at home . That said, argument #1 presents tests for bible codes. I don’t particulary subscribe to the idea of codes myself, but in fairness to the argument, it must bear study. The author has the document copy-restricted, so I can only invite you to read it for itself.

Anyway, as I understand it in the simples of terms, a code is a word that shows up in a text when letters at equally spaced intervals are analyzed. For intance “xxxJxxxExxxSxxxUxxxS” would be an example of a code of “Jesus” found in a text (I just used x’s in substitution for acutal letters). Such and instance of the name would then be repeated throughout the text. That is how I understand this in anyway. It is technical so I may well not be completely accurate in my explanation, so if I am please feel free to clarify for me. Now, a computer code testing program was used to check the entire text for repetition of specific words like this, and in this peshitta/greek comparison the test was for divine names. I won’t get overly technical, but the test supposedly found that the peshitta had repeated regular instances of these divine names showing up while the greek sample’s test had nothing significant, putting it on par with a control set of other classic literature. Now, how do we explain this? If the codes really exist as this computer program finds, how can a translator rewrite an existing text (i.e. the greek) and insert these codes? Is the computer testing program somehow cheating? How else can we explain this? Like I suggested, I think the idea of codes is rather hokey personally, but I need specific evidence and logic to refute them. Any ideas or insights?

LT

There is NO Bible Code! Its all nonsense.

 

[ltravis]

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 don’t know, I guess the point is that the code does not contain the “message”, but shows where the message is. It would be a protection of the pristine message. But it is a very good point you state. We have only had the power to see these supposed codes in the age of high technology. What about all generations past - why wouldn’t God have given them a way to know the true message? Thanks, this is good reasoning to me.

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.

I am not the biblical scholar, so this may be off base, but could a NT author know greek, know the septuagent, and then quote it in his original aramaic NT writing? As far as history and tradition, I would like to know that myself. I hadn’t read anything either way but am not enough of a scholar to give an opinion there. I would love to know this, as I would be definitive for me.

There is NO Bible Code! Its all nonsense.

sigh I knew I would get responses like this. I mentioned already, I don’t subscribe to them either, and personally regard them as silliness. However, I am looking for logical arguments refuting them. I knew codes might be a touchy subject to address, and I would rather not have to talk about them. However, in fairmess to the Peshitta primacy proponents, I have to address all the arguments they put forth, codes unfortunately being one of them. Rest assured though, I will be bringing up much more plausible, and palatable, arguments that seek to prove peshitta primacy. Please revisit the subject when they are addressed. Thanks!

LT

 

[icxc_nika]

I am not the biblical scholar, so this may be off base, but could a NT author know greek, know the septuagent, and then quote it in his original aramaic NT writing? As far as history and tradition, I would like to know that myself. I hadn’t read anything either way but am not enough of a scholar to give an opinion there. I would love to know this, as I would be definitive for me.

The reason that the Latin Vulgate gets it’s validity is through it’s translation of the original Greek.

The Septuagent was used by the Jews ( again Greek ) for over 400 yrs. prior to the arrival of Christ.
It was the best language that all Jews from all over the world would understand, thus the reason for the translation.

Some of the protestant bibles screw up a lot of the NT and OT translation. We know this specifically because Christ himself quotes the Spetuagent on a number of different occasions. Everyone understands that he himself was working with the Spetuagent as far as OT versions goes.

With the NT, the Greek was used in Rome and in the East for the better part of 200-300 years, before the Vulgate came around.

There is little doubt that the peshitta is older than the Vulgate, however I have never heard the claim that it was the “original”.

This assertion is inaccurate as far as anything I have ever read.

Again, the peshitta is ancient, a direct translation from the Greek ( as is the Vulgate ), and a valid canon, with a couple more books than the Vulgate has.

I’d love to hear anyhting different from this point.

 

[PC_Master]

Well, there are many sites and books on the subject, but a quick Google turned up this site. I’ll trust that the codes they claimed to have found are valid. These codes, btw, are statistically far less likely (based on random pattern statistics that most people quote, which are really not valid) than what was found in the Peshitta.

So, did God make sure the King James Version contained messages about upcoming stuff in America? Heck, he even had a passage that shows who would find the Bible Code.

They’ve also historically found stuff in the Hebrew torah (from which the Aramaic Peshitta had to be a translation, at least for the Old Testament – Syriac didn’t exist as a language at the time some of it was written). For more on that, you’d want to check out the books “Bible Code” and “Bible Code II”. I never read the books, but saw about half a dozen documentaries on the subject a few years back. One of them showed that each literary work has such codes, and that if you spend enough time looking for messages, you’ll find something “amazing”.

It’s all nonsense – just the natural result of written words.

I will mention, however, that if there were a work with incredibly amazing “codes” that really did defy that found in all other works, it would seem to indicate a validity in the way of us seeing something “impossible” in an age when we (that is, people in general) want to doubt the validity of scripture in general.

 

[ltravis]

Well, there are many sites and books on the subject, but a quick Google turned up this site. I’ll trust that the codes they claimed to have found are valid.

So, did God make sure the King James Version contained messages about upcoming stuff in America? Heck, he even had a passage that shows who would find the Bible Code.

They’ve also historically found stuff in the Hebrew torah (from which the Aramaic Peshitta had to be a translation, at least for the Old Testament – Syriac didn’t exist as a language at the time some of it was written). For more on that, you’d want to check out the books “Bible Code” and “Bible Code II”. I never read the books, but saw about half a dozen documentaries on the subject a few years back. One of them showed that each literary work has such codes, and that if you spend enough time looking for messages, you’ll find something “amazing”.

PC, I appreciate the info. The link does show an example of what I understood codes to be before I saw this Peshitta study. Frankly, I think they are examples of looking through scripture waiting for something, *anything *which looks more than a random effect until something interesting *happens *to turn up. The Peshitta test appears different. It preselects what will be looked for (divine names) and finds not just one instance of the name, but a repetition of it over and over again of the name throughout the NT. Do you see the difference here?

Also, I grant that if there are NT Peshitta codes, there may be OT Hebrew codes as well. That would make sense to me. In fact, if I accepted original NT codes, I would accept original OT codes as well…

Also, the key thing here: Whether or not there are real codes in any other writings, why did this comparison between the Peshitta and Greek **only **find them in the Peshitta? Remember, this was a computer with no ulterior motive scanning the texts, doing nothing but letter crunching.

You know my disposition is regarding codes (skeptical) but I would really like to know how to explain this away. It would be of interest to me but, moreso for you, could be determinant for you in your search for the truth about Peter’s name and role.

Bear with me on the code issue here. I don’t particularly like engaging in it but once we have it nailed down I will explore more palatable arguments for Peshitta primacy .

I will mention, however, that if there were a work with incredibly amazing “codes” that really did defy that found in all other works, it would seem to indicate a validity in the way of us seeing something “impossible” in an age when we (that is, people in general) want to doubt the validity of scripture in general.

I appreciate your open-mindedness there

LT

 

[ltravis]

The reason that the Latin Vulgate gets it’s validity is through it’s translation of the original Greek.

The Septuagent was used by the Jews ( again Greek ) for over 400 yrs. prior to the arrival of Christ.
It was the best language that all Jews from all over the world would understand, thus the reason for the translation.

Some of the protestant bibles screw up a lot of the NT and OT translation. We know this specifically because Christ himself quotes the Spetuagent on a number of different occasions. Everyone understands that he himself was working with the Spetuagent as far as OT versions goes.

With the NT, the Greek was used in Rome and in the East for the better part of 200-300 years, before the Vulgate came around.

There is little doubt that the peshitta is older than the Vulgate, however I have never heard the claim that it was the “original”.

This assertion is inaccurate as far as anything I have ever read.

Again, the peshitta is ancient, a direct translation from the Greek ( as is the Vulgate ), and a valid canon, with a couple more books than the Vulgate has.

I’d love to hear anyhting different from this point.

This is all good stuff, icxc nika, and I can definitely say I am getting a good education . I will grant that the idea of Peshitta predating the Greek flies in the face of conventional wisdom and understanding.

Yes, I am aware of Christ’s using the septuigent, and accept the Greek was the prevailing translation of the OT at the time. I was wondering if it was remotely possible though, for the original NT writer to use the Greek OT and Christ’s quotes from it, but yet create his own manuscript in Aramaic, which was then translated into the Greek. In any case, the thread right now is concentrating on the code theory, but later I will bring up the other evidence the peshitta proponents have used and that may lend itself to more of this historic kind of perspective and we can get some really good discussion going. Thanks so much for your attention!

LT

 

[PC_Master]

The Peshitta test appears different. It preselects what will be looked for (divine names) and finds not just one instance of the name, but a repetition of it over and over again of the name throughout the NT. Do you see the difference here?

Admittedly I can’t seem to look at most of the so-called supporting articles on this right now (sites are offline), but it seems to me there are a couple of flaws here…

1. The shorter the text searched for, the more likely (exponentially) it is to find a match.
2. Are they saying every name they searched for they actually found? If not, this is not different at all from how others do it – search with different terms until you find something.

Also, the key thing here: Whether or not there are real codes in any other writings, why did this comparison between the Peshitta and Greek **only **find them in the Peshitta? Remember, this was a computer with no ulterior motive scanning the texts, doing nothing but letter crunching.

The differences in language, vocabulary, relevance of the letters in the name in relation to the whole language (while E may be the most common letter in the English language, its equivalent in other languages might not be so popular), and other similar factors are good reasons.

You know my disposition is regarding codes (skeptical) but I would really like to know how to explain this away. It would be of interest to me but, moreso for you, could be determinant for you in your search for the truth about Peter’s name and role.

How do you explain away that they have a Bible Code showing who would discover the Bible Code, and when? Could it be that in such a large work, with the right finessing of the search term, you can find many, many things by random chance?

Bear with me on the code issue here. I don’t particularly like engaging in it but once we have it nailed down I will explore more palatable arguments for Peshitta primacy

Frankly, I don’t see what there is to disprove unless I can get more information about the searches done.

 

[icxc_nika]

How do you explain away that they have a Bible Code showing who would discover the Bible Code, and when? Could it be that in such a large work, with the right finessing of the search term, you can find many, many things by random chance?

Quite frankly, I would have to ask:
Have you ever seen the bible code being applied to Moby ****? I have, it is quite amazing to see how the same sort of nonsense comes out of that lit. piece as well.

Furthermore, the originators of the “bible code” are a bunch of Jewish guys. I have also seen them sell your name… you give them your name, they find it in the code, and tell you of all the interesting things about you!

I quite honestly find much of the bible code nonsense a bit blasphemous.

To imagine that out Holy Church Fathers took so much time to pray and meditate on Christ, the LOGOS ( the word of God ), and how our beloved Lord revealed himself to us in Scripture, and now to imagine that another Western marvel, the computer… a man made devise… has finally been able to “crack” the LOGOS… is insulting to say the least.

To me, it’s a heck of a lot easier, inventing the computer from scratch, and devising the bible code vs. truly knwoing how to pray and meditate on scripture.

If the bottom line of this discussion is that we wish to know Christ better through his WORD, than I suggest we take part in the ancient Christian practice of ascetisism: pray, fast, prostate yourself, partake of the mysteries of the church, and read the bible if God has blessed you with the capacity to read.

Steer away from modern inovations that have no place in true Christian worship and learning. You’d be better off with tea leaves, they likely derive their fortune telling from the same source.

 

[ltravis]

Well, I could explore the data and rules in the codefinder, but studying that code stuff just makes me feel “icky”. I will defer it for now and move to the next proof assertion - word pairs. When comparing both the greek and aramaic, sometimes a word in the greek is represented by more than one word in different places in the aramaic, and vice versa. Apparently, the data has shown that the aramaic has more derivatives of a particular greek words then the other way around. To illustrate hypothetically, the greek word “limb” might show up several places. In those places in the aramaic, it wouldn’t just be the aramaic word for “limb”, but also have “arm” and “leg”. That is overly simplistic, but shows the logic. The actual mathematical description is listed on the aramaicnt site, and I could type it if you wish, but will spare you the dryness for now. Trust me, it makes sense. Anyway, when comparing both directions, the aramaic inevitably has more derivatives of greek words than greek words do of the aramaic. The assertion is that translations more often simplify terms than make them more complex. Also, the aramaic text has more specificity in many examples, so this seems to be a function of that. What do you all say? Would a devout holy translator seek to add extra complexity and meaning not originally in the text, or would he more likely simplify when he can’t find a direct translation for particular words?

LT

 

[123rock]

It is my understanding that textual critics have determined that the Gospels did not show signs of translation into Greek from another language. This is what they use to discredit the misunderstood quote of Papias as Matthew having originally written his sayings in Aramaic, although it is possible if the sayings only, and not the whole gospel were originally Aramaic, but were written down in Greek in the composition of the Synoptics.

 

[123rock]

Quite frankly, I would have to ask:
Have you ever seen the bible code being applied to Moby ****? I have, it is quite amazing to see how the same sort of nonsense comes out of that lit. piece as well.

Furthermore, the originators of the “bible code” are a bunch of Jewish guys. I have also seen them sell your name… you give them your name, they find it in the code, and tell you of all the interesting things about you!

I quite honestly find much of the bible code nonsense a bit blasphemous.

To imagine that out Holy Church Fathers took so much time to pray and meditate on Christ, the LOGOS ( the word of God ), and how our beloved Lord revealed himself to us in Scripture, and now to imagine that another Western marvel, the computer… a man made devise… has finally been able to “crack” the LOGOS… is insulting to say the least.

To me, it’s a heck of a lot easier, inventing the computer from scratch, and devising the bible code vs. truly knwoing how to pray and meditate on scripture.

If the bottom line of this discussion is that we wish to know Christ better through his WORD, than I suggest we take part in the ancient Christian practice of ascetisism: pray, fast, prostate yourself, partake of the mysteries of the church, and read the bible if God has blessed you with the capacity to read.

Steer away from modern inovations that have no place in true Christian worship and learning. You’d be better off with tea leaves, they likely derive their fortune telling from the same source.

If they have used the Hebrew Bible (since it was Jewish guys) then the Bible codes are most certainly inventions because the Hebrew Bible that is used today is textually corrupt, arising out of a different tradition, whereas the Septuagint is the noncorrupted text as attested to by the Dead Sea Scroll fragments.

 

[Pax]

It is my understanding that the OT used by the Jews was either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint. Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews even though it had been replaced by Aramaic for everyday use. The NT primacy issue of Aramaic vs. Greek has little or nothing to do with either the Hebrew OT or the Greek Septuagint.

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Can we move on to more worthwhile claims?