Exploring evidence of Peshitta primacy

[Aramaic_Albion]

Shlama Fred,

It’s my understanding that the several ‘Hebrew Matthew’s’ all date from the Middle Ages, and of course, were not authentic copies of Matthew’s Gospel rendered into Hebrew.

You can research this more here on the net.

I would suggest a Google search looking under ‘Shem Tov Matthew, in Hebrew’.

Second question. Yes, we believe that the P’shitta NT texts represent ‘the Original Autographs’. As the scholars say.

I hope that this answers your question Fred, if not, ask again, and if I can, I’ll answer you.

Shlama, Albion

I’m curious - do folks that believe Matthew was written in Aramaic as an exception to Greek primacy believe that the Peshitta represents a text close to the original?

 

[thistle]

“Are you suggesting Paul wrote to the Romans in Aramaic and to the Greeks (Corinthians) in Aramaic. That just wouldn’t make sense.”

I am suggesting that the 22 Books of the Syriac P’shitta were written for the Eastern Church (today known as ‘The Holy and Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East’…or just ‘The Assyrian Church of the East’), and written IN THEIR LANGUAGE, and then at a later time, they were translated into other languages, Greek, Armenian, etc., etc.

So, yes, that IS what I’m saying, but it (The P’shitta NT) went EAST first, BEFORE going WEST!

Shlama, Albion

It is totally illogical to think Paul wrote a letter to the Greeks in any language other than Greek!

 

[ltravis]

It is totally illogical to think Paul wrote a letter to the Greeks in any language other than Greek!

Yes, I admit I have difficulty seeing the logic of this as well. Albion, could you provide a basis for you understanding here? Of course, on the reverse side, I have difficulty understanding how Matthew’s gospel to the Jewish people would have been Greek. The primacy argument seems to use the assumption that every original NT author used the same language, whichever it was. Perhaps that is a mistaken assumption. Perhaps uniformity in language only came after an eventual “compilation” of orignal writings in different languages?

I hope all you folks more studied than me can forgive my ignorance on these points; I really knew next to nothing about this issue when I raised the thread

LT

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Dear LT,

 Let's see, let's go with the imagination here.

I’m originally from Arkansas. From Western Arkansas to be precise.

Let’s imagine for the purpose of this experiment that I have a written document in English. I want to bring it to you, and let’s say that you live in Oklahoma (which is of course, to the West of Arkansas) and you are a Southern Cheyenne (‘Indian’) who does NOT speak English.

It would not do either of us any good if I brought you this document written down in English, would it?

No, you only speak Cheyenne.

I have bring you the document in your own language.

I’m not sure if the Southern Cheyenne’s have a written alphabet or not in real life…but let’s assume that they DO.

I’d need to learn that language enough to speak it fluently, and that would require learning the Cheyenne alphabet and it’s particular sounds first wouldn’t it?

And of course, I’d need to also learn the idioms of Cheyenne too to aptly understand what certain words actually mean.

Then, and only then, would I be prepared to bring you the document written to where you could really understand it and appreciate it, in your own language.

What happened with Aramaic and it’s close cousin Syriac, is not so different than this, really.

The folks who were bringing the New Testament as they concieved it to be (a 22 Book Canon) had it in a Western Palestinian Aramaic version, that they took “to the folks across the river” who spoke Syriac, who wrote it down in the First Century, and who Faithfully transmitted it forward through time, to US.

As it was taken to other people, the Greeks, and the Armenians, the Copts, etc., etc., it was later written down in their languages.

Why would the Good News NOT be in the language of those first followers of Eshoo (Jesus), ARAMAIC?

And LATER, it was written down in other languages??

What’s so strange about THIS?

It only amazes YOU, because your NEW to this idea.

I’ve been studying this since 1989, and it no longer seems so amazing to me at all.

On the other hand, it seems sequential and logical that it happened in such a manner, as the Good News about Messiah spread out geographically, from It’s home base.

Why are the word plays and poetry in the P’shitta NT, all MISSING IN THE GREEK??

Because the Greeks did NOT understand most of the idioms contained in the Aramaic.

If I’m taking something as important as the Good News to my neighbor, I want it IN HIS LANGUAGE.

The Assyrians WERE EVANGELIZED FIRST. Please read this AGAIN!

The Assyrians WERE EVANGELIZED FIRST, with a Syriac version of the New Testament.

It’s really as simple as THAT!

Shlama, Albion

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear LT,

 Let's see, let's go with the imagination here.

I’m originally from Arkansas. From Western Arkansas to be precise.

Let’s imagine for the purpose of this experiment that I have a written document in English. I want to bring it to you, and let’s say that you live in Oklahoma (which is of course, to the West of Arkansas) and you are a Southern Cheyenne (‘Indian’) who does NOT speak English.

It would not do either of us any good if I brought you this document written down in English, would it?

No, you only speak Cheyenne. . . . . . .

The Assyrians WERE EVANGELIZED FIRST, with a Syriac version of the New Testament.

It’s really as simple as THAT!

Shlama, Albion

Hi Albion,
try this:
The Assyrians were evangelized first, but only with a verbal approximation of Matthew, written in the hearts of pious story-tellers, (apostles, and their apprentices). The language of course was Syriac, or if you like, Aramaic, but no hard-copy existed, other than some road-notes gathered by Matthew, now postulated as ‘Q’.

As the story spread, variations crept in, so to discipline the tale, schools were organised to unify the stories into an single account, and eliminate what was spurious.

These accounts could still be traced back to Matthew and his apprentices, and the story then crystalized as what is essentially what we see now, and some story-teller wrote down the text. There were of course, several versions.
There then came another story-teller, who had travelled more widely, and picked up tales from other districts, including Rome and Corinth.

This man had apprentice himself to St Justin in Palestine, as the Latter was gathering and rationalizing the Matthean account. This apprentice, worked with St Justin on this, and his familiarity with local and diverse dialects was of great help. He went though one step further. He incorporated the accounts that he had picked up on his travels into the Matthean account, and compiled a greater whole.

The result was a weaving of four provincial accounts into a single universal account. His writing and speaking skills were renowned, and his Diatessaron was quickly written down, and spread like wild-fire. The name of the apprentice of course was Tatian.

This was the form of the New Testament in the East for a couple of centuries, until Bishop Rabula had the Diatessaron recalled, and replaced with the four Gospels we now have.

These Gospels, from the West, where they had been standardized, were in Greek, or Latin, I will not argue that point yet, and had to be translated into Syriac therefrom.

As happenned Later with St Jerome’s Vulgate, with beloved texts in the Old Latin being reincorporated in place of unpopular ‘modern’ translations, the account became mixed, and the Matthean thread of the Diatessaron was reincorporated into the the Syriac Matthew.

Likewise, recognisible sections in the Diatessaron were incorporated into their appropriate places in the other three Gospels. Thus the Diatessaron was unpicked lovingly, and preserved in the Four Syriac Gospels.

So you have in the Peshitta Gospels great tranches of the original tongue account, but they are built into a back translation from the West. Like our modern Vulgate, they are mixed versions, containing old and new accounts interwoven.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear LT,

 Let's see, let's go with the imagination here.

I’m originally from Arkansas. From Western Arkansas to be precise.

Let’s imagine for the purpose of this experiment that I have a written document in English. I want to bring it to you, and let’s say that you live in Oklahoma (which is of course, to the West of Arkansas) and you are a Southern Cheyenne (‘Indian’) who does NOT speak English.

It would not do either of us any good if I brought you this document written down in English, would it?

No, you only speak Cheyenne.

I have bring you the document in your own language.

I’m not sure if the Southern Cheyenne’s have a written alphabet or not in real life…but let’s assume that they DO.

I’d need to learn that language enough to speak it fluently, and that would require learning the Cheyenne alphabet and it’s particular sounds first wouldn’t it?

And of course, I’d need to also learn the idioms of Cheyenne too to aptly understand what certain words actually mean.

Then, and only then, would I be prepared to bring you the document written to where you could really understand it and appreciate it, in your own language.

What happened with Aramaic and it’s close cousin Syriac, is not so different than this, really.

The folks who were bringing the New Testament as they concieved it to be (a 22 Book Canon) had it in a Western Palestinian Aramaic version, that they took “to the folks across the river” who spoke Syriac, who wrote it down in the First Century, and who Faithfully transmitted it forward through time, to US.

As it was taken to other people, the Greeks, and the Armenians, the Copts, etc., etc., it was later written down in their languages.

Why would the Good News NOT be in the language of those first followers of Eshoo (Jesus), ARAMAIC?

And LATER, it was written down in other languages??

What’s so strange about THIS?

It only amazes YOU, because your NEW to this idea.

I’ve been studying this since 1989, and it no longer seems so amazing to me at all.

On the other hand, it seems sequential and logical that it happened in such a manner, as the Good News about Messiah spread out geographically, from It’s home base.

Why are the word plays and poetry in the P’shitta NT, all MISSING IN THE GREEK??

Because the Greeks did NOT understand most of the idioms contained in the Aramaic.

If I’m taking something as important as the Good News to my neighbor, I want it IN HIS LANGUAGE.

The Assyrians WERE EVANGELIZED FIRST. Please read this AGAIN!

The Assyrians WERE EVANGELIZED FIRST, with a Syriac version of the New Testament.

It’s really as simple as THAT!

Shlama, Albion

The problem is that the bulk of the NT is written by a Greek speaker (St. Paul of Tarsus, a Greek, not Aramaic, town) to Greek speaking cities. Even Hebrews and St. James are addressed to those in diaspora (who, we from various other sources were Greek speakers).

There is something to say for the Aramaic vorlage, there are things lost in the Greek, but the Pshitta isn’t it. Syriac (the language it’s written in) is not a cousin but a daughter of Aramaic, and not a direct daughter of the Aramaic of Palestine.

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Part 1

This is directly from Paul Younan, a Deacon in the Assyrian Church of the East, and Founder of www.Peshitta.org forums.

He can speak and write Syriac fluently. He is an historian of sorts too:

Shlama Akhay,

Read almost any encyclopedia or commentary on the New Testament, and you are bound to come across a reference to Rabbula (died 433 A.D.), the Monophysite “Tyrant of Edessa”, supposedly “suppressing” the Diatesseron - which they claim was the “earliest” gospel in Aramaic.

If we are to believe that, then how does one explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East?
Quote:
Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu’l Faáraáj ÔAbdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali’ al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.

A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca’s Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider’s Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.

Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the “Borgian” and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)

So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years after Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic.

Notice, also, that this is the only translation of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was made from the Syriac (Aramaic). No other manuscript makes this claim (not the Latin nor the Armenian.)

Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be a trademark of Tatian’s harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states “Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word.’”)

But I thought Rabbula “suppressed” the Diatesseron? At least the dated material in encyclopedias and commentaries state this. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula, verbatim:
Rabbula wrote:
“Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel,” i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel.

The truth of the matter is: while it’s possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron.

The subscription to a 600-year later Arabic translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves that Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron - at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his maniacal rantings.

This Arabic translation so exactly matches the Peshitta AGAINST the so-called “Old Syriac”, that F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. (c.f., Burkitt, Evangelion de-Mepharreshe (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200)

In Burkitt’s worldview, the Peshitta couldn’t have existed before Rabbula’s time - so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn’t possibly read like it against the so-called “Old Syriac.” All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his “Rabbula created the Peshitta” theory, which has already been disproved by many scholars.)

It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian’s Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic Gospels.

End of Part 1

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Part 2 (Paul Younan)

Of the 3 surviving translations of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other.

Since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn - I submit that Tatian’s Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.

Occam’s Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.

The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. It then fell out of popular use. This was not a problem - since they had the distinct Gospels in Aramaic from day one. Tatian’s harmony was popular at one time in the life of the church - just as any number of contemporary gospel harmonies are popular today. But that doesn’t mean that it predates the Peshitta Gospels.

In fact, if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation (and not Burkitt’s personal opinion) - the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian.

And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D. Exactly what Burkitt refused to believe.

This is the end of this post by Paul Younan.

I hope that this helps, this is a VERY COMPLEX subject!

Shlama, Albion

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

When Maryah (The Lord Yah) spoke to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus, which language did He speak to Saul in?

It says “in Hebrew”, but this actually means ‘in Aramaic’.

Maryah did NOT speak to saul IN GREEK, did HE?

The problem is that the bulk of the NT is written by a Greek speaker (St. Paul of Tarsus, a Greek, not Aramaic, town) to Greek speaking cities. Even Hebrews and St. James are addressed to those in diaspora (who, we from various other sources were Greek speakers).

There is something to say for the Aramaic vorlage, there are things lost in the Greek, but the Pshitta isn’t it. Syriac (the language it’s written in) is not a cousin but a daughter of Aramaic, and not a direct daughter of the Aramaic of Palestine.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Albion,
You have bee trapped in a myth.
Maybe you should actually look at the excellent Hope W Hogg translation of Ibn atTayyib’s work.
Arabic and Syriac are close languages, as tour quoter says.
Semitic and Romance langusges are about as similar as English and Chinese, as he also says.
Yet reading the Arabic translated by a skilled scholar, and even back-compared with Ciasca’s Latin, you find an utter mess of repetitions and translation artefacts, which just should not be there IF the Arabic is what it claims to be.
You see, we have with the Arabic, something like you claim for the Peshitta. In terms of perported history, they are both pious forgeries.
Yes Ibn atTayyib did translate a Syriac vorlager, but that Syriac was translated from a post AD710 syriac forgery, or at best, work of imagination, using Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the Diatessaron, of which ALL originals are lost, and no near copies exist, and the Codex Amiatinus, copied in Northern Britain.
The witness to this is the British weather predicting proverb:

Red sky at night,
Shepherds’ delight;
Red in the morning,
Shepherds’ warning.

You will find this proverb in essence in Matthew 16: 1-3, only in post Amiatinus Gospels.

So look at the Arabic translated, do not take my word, you can find it here:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.html

And you might compare it with my translation of the Latin, for which you will find a link in my signature.

Poor though my translation is, you will see straight away that it hangs together far better than the Arabic, and has far fewer translational artefacts. BTW, you need to read beyond the first couple of pages, which are virtually identical before the differences begin to show, that is because, apart from a few verses from John, the opening text is a huge tranche straight from Luke.

The Diatessaron was not compiled from the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Peshitta is compiled from an unpicking of the Diatessaron overlaid on thre skeleton of Rabula’s Gospels. Today, as much as 85% of Matthew and John can be restored from the Latin Diatessaron, for Luke and Mark, the position is not as good.

Fear not, I am supporting Peshitta originality in a way, but not a direct way. I will support 85% of Matthew and John being virtually original, but for Luke, think 30%, and for Mark, less than 10%.

Thus your Gospels are a mixed text, aspproximating 40% Tatian’s witness, and 60% Rabula’s Gospels.

Incidentally, can it be a coincidence that Rabula’s name means four: ‘rabu’ is Arabic for ‘four’.

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Dear Dave,

I have book marked your website, I’ll investigate it as I have the time.

I’m a simple man, I’m certainly not a scholar like Paul Younan and other Peshitta scholars like Andrew Gabriel Roth and Dave Bauscher.

I’ve done the best that I could to relate what I feel is the historical truth about the Syriac P’shitta NT.

In the end, we’re all gonna have our opinions, and that’s pretty much what they’ll remain, unless someone unearth’s a new copy of the New Testament.

I believe the witness that the 11th Century Khabouris Codex was literally copied from a First Century P’shitta NT.

Until The Dead Sea Scrolls were found the earliest Tanakh (Old Testament) MSS that we had came from the 8th Century (if I remember correctly).

And then The Dead Sea Scrolls were found and the 8th Century Isaiah Scroll, were almost completely identical!

It’s wrong to distrust the witness of history, I’ve found.

The Khabouris Codex is BASED on a MS that is far older than the 11th Century!

Shlama, Albion

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Albion,
In spite of any other claims on the net, the only witness to anything like a complete Gospel prior to AD 200 is Ephrem Syrus’ witness of Tatian’s Diatessaron.
It has been claimed that Taian used written Gospels in his compilation, but that cannot be proven, and there is sufficient difference between the text reported by Ephrem Syrus, and any present text, to indicate that the narative was still fluid when Tatian made his compilation.
Assyria, without exception, used the Diatessaron as its Peshitta until the arrival of Rabula.
Thus any pre-Rabula reference to a Peshitta, is in fact a reference to Tatian’s Diatessaron, much of which was grafted back into the post-Rabula Peshitta.

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Wasn’t the Peshitta produced by Rabbula of Edessa? By Paul Younan, of Peshitta.org (Part 1)

According to the 14th edition of the Encylopedia Brittanica:
Encylopedia Brittanica wrote:
Rabbula’s revision is now used by both the great divisions of the Syriac-speaking Church: to distinguish it from the elaborate later revision of the (Jacobite) Old and New Testament it is usually called Peshitta, i.e. the simple version . . .

First thing I would like to point out is that the Encyclopedia Britannica is very dated in regards to Syriac~Aramaic studies.

In 431 A.D., the coucil of Ephesus was held in the Roman empire to address a theological dispute which arose concerning the title given to Mary, “Mother of God.” This council condemned a man by the name of Nestorius, who was a Greek and the Patriarch of Constantinople, for refusing to use that title and referring to Mary as the “Mother of Christ” instead. ( for a detailed treatment, see the minutes from Pro Oriente at pro-oriente.at/ )

The decisions of this council reached the Church in the Persian Empire (a.k.a, the “Church of the East”) shortly thereafter and they categorically rejected the decrees this council made.

This isolated the Church of the Persian empire theologically from it’s sister Aramaic-speaking churches in the Roman empire for the first time in history. The Aramaic church within the boundaries of the Romans was later nicknamed “Monophysite”, and the Church of the East in Persia was later nicknamed “Nestorian”, even though they had nothing to do with Nestorius.

This caused a major break in relations and the churches from that point.
Rabbula, who was bishop in Edessa during 411-435, sided with the Monophysites. In and around Edessa the theological strife raged hotly. He was hated by the “Nestorians” because he persecuted them relentlessly, so much so that he earned the nickname “The Tyrant of Edessa.” (c.f., Han J. W. Drijvers in Journal of Early Christian Studies 4.2 (1996) pp 235-248 , Johns Hopkins University Press.)

Needless to say, even till today these two communities (the “Syriac Orthodox Church, Monophysite” and the “Church of the East, Nestorian”) are hostile to one another.

At the turn of the 20th century, a textual scholar by the name of F. C. Burkitt , a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, revised the early date of the Peshitta and theorized that it was the work of Rabbula. (see Journal of Theological Studies 36(1935), 225-254, 337-346.) This soon became the standard position adopted by most textual scholars. It is, in fact, Burkitt’s very own hypothesis that the Encyclopedia Britannica is citing above.

Since then, the hypothesis of Burkitt has been thoroughly answered and disproved by Arthur Voobus of the Lutheran School of Theology and the University of Chicago.

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Wasn’t the Peshitta NT produced by Rabbula of Edessa, by Paul Younan (Part 2)

In a series of special studies (1947‑54), Voobus argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but that he did not even use it. (c.f., lnvestigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa, Pinneberg, 1947. Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitto in the Middle of the Fifth Century, Pinneberg, 1948. Neue Angeben Ueber, die Textgeschicht-Zustande in Edessa in den Jahren ca. 326-340, Stockholm, 1951. Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm, 1954.)

Concerning Burkitt’s hypothesis, Voobus writes:
Arthur Voobus wrote:
“This kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it” (Early Versions of the New Testament, Estonian Theological Society, 1954, see pp. 90-97)

To this reseach by Voobus, Dr. Bruce Metzger adds:
Bruce Metzger wrote:
The question who it was that produced the Peshitta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus’s researches. . .In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD 431. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon, 1977), p. 36).

Both sides claim the Peshitta as Holy Scripture and their official version, even till today. Such unanimous acceptance is unthinkable if the leader of one side (the Monophysite “Tyrant of Edessa”) had created it. Since this division took place in Rabbula’s time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these two sects, how could his opponents (the “Church of the East”) have adopted his creation?

Regarding the universal adoption of the Peshitta as the official version of both branches of Aramaic Christendom, Edward Hills writes:
Edward Hills wrote:
It is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his (Rabbula’s) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text. (The King James Version Defended, 1956; Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174p.174).

It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Aramaic Church continued to be loyal to it - regardless of the factions into which they came to be bitterly divided after 431 A.D. - precisely during the episcopate of Rabbula.

No serious scholar or student today still subscribes to Burkitt’s hypothesis that the Tyrant of Edessa produced the Peshitta. The Peshitta is extensively quoted patristic writers long before the time of Rabbula - particularly by St. Aphrahat, the Bishop of Nineveh of the Church of the East.

In his “Demonstrations” (~320 A.D.) - more than 100 years before Rabbula of Edessa was born, are found direct word-for-word quotes from the Peshitta against all other versions. It is impossible to suppose that the writings of Mar Aphrahat would quote a version that wouldn’t exist yet for another century!

In summary, to believe Burkitt’s hypothesis that the Peshitta was the work of Rabbula’s hands would be akin to believing that the Roman Catholic Church would accept as their “official version” an N.T. written by Luther!

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

By Paul Younan, of www.Peshitta.org

“Old Scratch” used below refers to the ‘Old Syriac’.

Shlama Akhay,

The “Life of Rabbula,” a biography of the Monophysite Tyrant of Edessa composed shortly after his death by a colleague of his, contains the following quote:
Quote:
By the wisdom of God that was in him he translated the New Testament from Greek into Syriac because of its variations, exactly as it was.’ (Rabul episcopi Edesseni, Baleei, aliorumque opera selecta, Oxford 1865, ed. J. J. Overbeck)

Here we have historical evidence that Rabbula made his own translation, or revision, of some version of the Greek New Testament into Syriac. After the completion of Rabbula’s version, he sought to extinguish any other version of the scriptures from his episcopal territory:
Rabbula wrote:
‘The presbyters and deacons shall see to it that in all the churches a copy of the Evangelion de Mepharreshe shall be available and read’. (Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, i. (1881), p. 105.)

This title, Evangelion de Mepharreshe is a combination of Greek and Aramaic and means “Separate Gospels.” This name was intended to distinguish it from the Diatesseron (or Gospel Harmony) of Tatian, which was very popular at the time in the area of Edessa, his diocese. So Rabbula, in one of his numerous tirades, began to suppress the Diatesseron in favor of his own translation.

Some modern idiots, headed by none other than F.C. Burkitt, in the early part of the 20th century theorized that this version which Rabbula made, the Evangelion de Mepharreshe, is today known to us as the Peshitta.

We have already written about the researches of Arthur Voobus and Bruce Metzger, who have thoroughly disproved this theory. The primary evidence against Burkitt’s theory is the quotations of the Gospels by Rabbula himself - they do not match the Peshitta. In fact, Arthur Voobus proved that Rabbula did not even use the Peshitta.

The second reason why it is impossible to suppose that Rabbula created the Peshitta is the acceptance of it as the official New Testament of the Church of the East. It is unrealistic to imagine that the Church of the East would have accepted as its official version a text produced by its chief opponent and persecuter.

The question remains, then - what version did Rabbula create? What is this Evangelion de Mepharreshe ?

If you study the history of the Old Scratch manuscripts, you will come to the conclusion that they were the product of Rabbula’s translation effort. In fact, the ending to the Gospel of John in the Old Scratch manuscripts reads this way:
Old Scratch wrote:
04rpmd Jwylgnw0 Ml4

“Shlam Evangelion de Mepharreshe”

“Here ends the Evangelion de Mepharreshe”
(c.f., Syriac Text at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon)

Rabbula created Old Scratch, not the Peshitta - which was never known by the name of “Evangelion de Mepharreshe.”

This is the reason why the Old Scratch was not used by the Church of the East, and why it eventually fell out of use in every other Church of the middle east (including Rabbula’s own Syriac Orthodox Church, which eventually reverted back to the Peshitta) - only to find it’s way to a dusty shelf in a Greek Orthodox monastery of Egypt.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

This may be a dumb question for the biblical geniuses here but say someone did the most accurate translation possible of the Peshitta into English–how much would it differ from the Douay Rheims Challoner?

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Shlama Jerry,

According to Dave Bauscher, a P’shitta NT Scholar, the Syriac is about 1% different than the Greek NT.

“But it’s a large ONE PERCENT!”

The Douay Rheims is from the Latin, so I’m not sure about it.

What you miss translating from Syriac into English is all of the word plays and poetry that Messiah (Christ) spoke.

I don’t know if this answers your question or not, but it’s the best that I can do for now.

Shlama in Eshoo (Jesus), Albion

This may be a dumb question for the biblical geniuses here but say someone did the most accurate translation possible of the Peshitta into English–how much would it differ from the Douay Rheims Challoner?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Has anyone ever translated the Peshitta into Aramaic?

How much different is Syriac to Aramaic?

And how often did Jesus speak in Aramic as opposed to Hebrew?

Did Jesus ever speak to Pilate in Latin?

Wouldn’t the most perfect bible be written in the languages that Jesus, the prophets, and the early christians actually used?

How many people in the world can read and understand all of those languages?

And how hard is it–even if you had all of those languages expressed perfectly as the Holy Spirit inspired them to be translated into English?

What Bible in the whole world is the least bad since none are perfect?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Jerry, Let me try.
All you others, get ready to comment!

Has anyone ever translated the Peshitta into Aramaic?

I do not know, but it has been suggested that Syriac and Aramaic are closer than Geordie and Cockney. That is, the words are mostly the same, but the internation is grossly different, and quickly spoken, they are interunintelligable. However, the written Aramaic and Syriac use a similar, but different written system, which has a simple one to one transliteratiion, and with the text transliterated, it should be interintelligable, though it may read as archaic, like KJV, Shakespear, or Douay.

How much different is Syriac to Aramaic?

See above.

And how often did Jesus speak in Aramic as opposed to Hebrew?

It is commonly believed that the dialect referred to as Hebrew in the Gospels is actually Aramaic.

Did Jesus ever speak to Pilate in Latin?

There are many myths concerning the early life of Our Lord, including travel to Glastonbury in England with Joseph of Aramathea.
Much is made of his scholarship at age twelve, (bar mitzvah?).
Many of His parables involve multilingual puns.
Herod spoke mainly Greek, and Pilate Latin, but knew Greek.
It is utterly inconceivable that the banter between Pilate and Our Lord could have been carried on via a translator.
In occupied Palestine then as now, the native had to know at least the basics of the language of the occupying power, or death may result from accidental misunderstanding.
I consider that Our Lord was fluent on both Latin and Greek as well as His native Aramaic, in both Judean and Galilean dialects.

Wouldn’t the most perfect bible be written in the languages that Jesus, the prophets, and the early christians actually used?

That is probably true, but then it would need to be written in several dialects and languages. Aramaic is not the same as Old Hebrew.

How many people in the world can read and understand all of those languages?

Very few: a handful of scholars perhaps.

And how hard is it–even if you had all of those languages expressed perfectly as the Holy Spirit inspired them to be translated into English?

Very difficult indeed. It may be practical to invent a pidgin dialect of English to convey all the nuances of the Semitic tongues involved, but even such an effort, as was the KJV dialect from Latin, still failed to convey the Latin idioms.
Bearing this in mind, and the fact that English is a daughter language of Latin, to try the same with a Semitic tongue is fraugh with difficulty.
Meaning and gyst can easily be conveyed, but the poetry and humour will be utterly lost.

What Bible in the whole world is the least bad since none are perfect?

Probably the Stuttgart Latin Vulgate.
Sorry, ALL the English translations are very poor reflections of translation of a translation.
Do yourself a favour and learn Latin. You miss so much in the English shadow of the Latin.
Much of the Latin was translated when the source languages were still in common use, and the idioms well understood.
Specificly, The Gospels are virtually intact Vetus Latina from AD 200, and the translators were native Aramaic speakers trained in Latin.
Mark was written in the Latin of the streets.

 

[Aramaic_Albion]

Shlama Jerry,

You need to download and read this article;

aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/Is%20the%20Peshitta%20Dialect%20the%20Same%20as%20Messiah.pdf

The Syriac used in the P’shitta would be understandable by Messiah (Christ).

The language used in the Liturgy in Syriac speaking Churches would also be understandable by Our Lord.

Just read the article, it explains some of what you have asked below.

As to Pilate, some scholars feel that he would have spoken in Greek, and others that he would have spoken in Latin.

I think that Eshoo (Jesus) was very likely multi-lingual, speaking Aramaic, Hebrew when reading from the Tanakh (‘The Old Testament’) in the Synagogue, and perhaps He spoke SOME Greek and Latin as well (enough to function within a society that spoke these languages in commerce, and daily living).

But NONE OF US actually know this, it’s simply speculation on our part!

If you read this download it will enlighten your understanding of the Syriac.

Shlama, Albion

Has anyone ever translated the Peshitta into Aramaic?

How much different is Syriac to Aramaic?

And how often did Jesus speak in Aramic as opposed to Hebrew?

Did Jesus ever speak to Pilate in Latin?

Wouldn’t the most perfect bible be written in the languages that Jesus, the prophets, and the early christians actually used?

How many people in the world can read and understand all of those languages?

And how hard is it–even if you had all of those languages expressed perfectly as the Holy Spirit inspired them to be translated into English?

What Bible in the whole world is the least bad since none are perfect?