M
metal1633
Guest
Because Paul’s primary audience in both location (all locations) were Jewish Christians.
- Status
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
Do you know what the language of the Nazarenes (“the Jewish Christians”) WAS?
One guess.
And it wasn’t GREEK. Nor was it LATIN.
It was Aramaic.
I find it amazing that it’s so hard for you guys to actually believe that the Syriac speaking church was the FIRST church to write down the 22 original Books of the New Testament.
It’s just too hard for you to believe.
I’m stunned by that.
Shlama, Albion
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?
Because Paul’s primary audience in both location (all locations) were Jewish Christians.
One guess.
And it wasn’t GREEK. Nor was it LATIN.
It was Aramaic.
I find it amazing that it’s so hard for you guys to actually believe that the Syriac speaking church was the FIRST church to write down the 22 original Books of the New Testament.
It’s just too hard for you to believe.
I’m stunned by that.
Shlama, Albion
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?
Because Paul’s primary audience in both location (all locations) were Jewish Christians.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Is it true that in the Peshitta scriptures that Jesus on the cross doesn’t say “My God My God why has thou forsaken me?”
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
No, George M. Lamsa, who was the first modern person to translate the P’shitta NT into English, has Eshoo say;
“My God, my God, for this I was spared”.
That’s an inaccurate translation. Eshoo was quoting part of the 22 Psalm in my opinion…which clearly says; “My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken me?”
Shlama, Albion
“My God, my God, for this I was spared”.
That’s an inaccurate translation. Eshoo was quoting part of the 22 Psalm in my opinion…which clearly says; “My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken me?”
Shlama, Albion
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
Here is a very powerful argument posted by Dave Bauscher, a Syriac translator, over at the Peshitta.org forums;
Shlama Akhay,
Come on guys, this kicking around our Lord’s cry from the cross has gone on far too long. This is not rocket science. The Peshitta text of Psalm 22:1 is identical to the Aramaic of Mark 15:34 :
yntqb$ 0nml yhl0 yhl0
We know what the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1 says and what it means: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
The Aramaic Peshitta of that verse and of Mark and of Matthew are the same, so either the Peshitta OT got it wrong or got it right. Which is it? And how likely is it that the Peshitta OT and The Peshitta NT got it wrong?
That’s right- not very likely !
Our Lord was crying out in anguish and in terror : “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Explain it if you can. I choose to put my hand upon my mouth and wonder at this mystery of God in the Messiah my Savior.
“It pleased The LORD to crush him(self) . You shall make His soul an offering for sin. He poured out His soul into death.”- Isaiah 53:10-12
I call this cry the cry of the dying Godhead. I know that sounds crazy to some, but I do believe God completely offered up His Divine Life and Deity in His sacrifice for sin. Nothing less would have been sufficient to redeem all souls for all time and eternity. The offering had to be Divine and Spiritual as well as physical, no matter how perfect the flesh of Christ was, and it was absolutely perfect and sinless.
That cry was more than the cry of a Man. That cry was more than the cry of The man Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of The Messiah Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of the Son of God, Yeshua The Messiah.
But I will proceed no further.
Ponder this cry, for in it I believe is the secret and mystery of redemption contained. It shook Heaven and earth, when “once in the end of the world He appeared to destroy sin by offering up Himself in His sacrifice.” (Hebrews 9:26).
“There is no greater love than this, that someone lay down his life (napsha) for his friends.” Have a look at the difference between this verse in John 15:13 in the Peshitta and the Greek.
And ask yourself this question: Does God the Father have the greatest love possible?
Khuva b’Marya Meshikha ,
Shlama Akhay,
Come on guys, this kicking around our Lord’s cry from the cross has gone on far too long. This is not rocket science. The Peshitta text of Psalm 22:1 is identical to the Aramaic of Mark 15:34 :
yntqb$ 0nml yhl0 yhl0
We know what the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1 says and what it means: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
The Aramaic Peshitta of that verse and of Mark and of Matthew are the same, so either the Peshitta OT got it wrong or got it right. Which is it? And how likely is it that the Peshitta OT and The Peshitta NT got it wrong?
That’s right- not very likely !
Our Lord was crying out in anguish and in terror : “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Explain it if you can. I choose to put my hand upon my mouth and wonder at this mystery of God in the Messiah my Savior.
“It pleased The LORD to crush him(self) . You shall make His soul an offering for sin. He poured out His soul into death.”- Isaiah 53:10-12
I call this cry the cry of the dying Godhead. I know that sounds crazy to some, but I do believe God completely offered up His Divine Life and Deity in His sacrifice for sin. Nothing less would have been sufficient to redeem all souls for all time and eternity. The offering had to be Divine and Spiritual as well as physical, no matter how perfect the flesh of Christ was, and it was absolutely perfect and sinless.
That cry was more than the cry of a Man. That cry was more than the cry of The man Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of The Messiah Yeshua. That cry was more than the cry of the Son of God, Yeshua The Messiah.
But I will proceed no further.
Ponder this cry, for in it I believe is the secret and mystery of redemption contained. It shook Heaven and earth, when “once in the end of the world He appeared to destroy sin by offering up Himself in His sacrifice.” (Hebrews 9:26).
“There is no greater love than this, that someone lay down his life (napsha) for his friends.” Have a look at the difference between this verse in John 15:13 in the Peshitta and the Greek.
And ask yourself this question: Does God the Father have the greatest love possible?
Khuva b’Marya Meshikha ,
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
From the ArabicDiatessaron, (Hamlyn Hill, from Ciasca’s Latin), section 51 verse 53, transliterating ‘j’ into ‘y’ for those who are unfamiliar with Latin:
And at the nineth hour Yesus cried with a loud voice, saying: “Yail, Yaili, why hast thou forsaken me?” that is, ‘My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me’.
There is a superscript ‘3’ following ‘Yaili’, to a footnote reading: 'Really “Il, Ili”, since Ya is Arabic for ‘O’.
Thus the correct tranlation of the Arabic given, which clearly comes from the Peshitta is:
‘O God, O my God, why hast thou forsaken me.’
Note also, that the explanatory translation is given, which would not be expected in the Arabic, or Syriac.
Thus the Peshitta used by the compiler of the vorlager to the Arabic **MUST **have been a translation of the Latin, or possibly Greek, which would have hade the explanatory note.
And at the nineth hour Yesus cried with a loud voice, saying: “Yail, Yaili, why hast thou forsaken me?” that is, ‘My God, my God, why hast though forsaken me’.
There is a superscript ‘3’ following ‘Yaili’, to a footnote reading: 'Really “Il, Ili”, since Ya is Arabic for ‘O’.
Thus the correct tranlation of the Arabic given, which clearly comes from the Peshitta is:
‘O God, O my God, why hast thou forsaken me.’
Note also, that the explanatory translation is given, which would not be expected in the Arabic, or Syriac.
Thus the Peshitta used by the compiler of the vorlager to the Arabic **MUST **have been a translation of the Latin, or possibly Greek, which would have hade the explanatory note.
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
So Dave, your saying that the LATIN came first?
That LATIN was the original language of the New Testament?
Is THAT what your saying?
I’m just wondering…
I’ve heard the case for Greek Primacy, even Armenian Primacy, but you say that LATIN was the original language of the New Testament?
I wanna get clear on this, is THAT what your saying?
Shlama, Albion
That LATIN was the original language of the New Testament?
Is THAT what your saying?
I’m just wondering…
I’ve heard the case for Greek Primacy, even Armenian Primacy, but you say that LATIN was the original language of the New Testament?
I wanna get clear on this, is THAT what your saying?
Shlama, Albion
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
How did Lamsa come up with such a bogus translation? What religion is he?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
No, of course not.
Matthew was of course first composed in Aramaic, but as to the language it was first written down in is an open question.
Working from the witness of Ephrem Syrus, reading tatian’s Diatessaron, he quotes verbatim passages which indicat that the source was probably still fluid, thus probably still a verbal account.
It is fairly clear that Tatian wrote in Syriac/Aramaic, and Ephrem wrote in Syriac, but only an Armenian translation still exists. The so called Syriac commentary is a pious forgery. It is too orthodox to be other.
Tatian working with Justinian gathered the old texts and traditions, some written on parchment, and some on men’s hearts, and codified them.
There still exists no hard and fast witness of any complete Gospel text prior to Tatian’s Diaressaron, indeed the claime of early witness call upon the Diatessaron to witness the existance of the written Gospels, which it by no means supports.
BTW the Arabic is a translation of a Syriac pious forgery, being post Codex Amiatinus, AD 710.
There is no evidence in the East of the four separate written Gospels prior to Rabula.
Working from the record of Justinian and Tatian, On the commission of Victorius Africanus, the Vetus Latina Gospels were written down in AD 200.
It would be a translation of these that Rabula imposed on Edessa.
Not the original language of the original verbal Gospels, but probably the original language of the combined set of four Gospels, which later grew into the New Testament.
I consider the original text of Matthew was in Aramaic, but the original written text is questionable.
Mark was almost certainly composed and written in ‘Street’ Latin.
Luke could have been Aramaic or Greek, probably both, in dual column, as it was an evangelical propaganda document, not dissimilar to Tatian’s Diatessaron.
John was from the priestly family, so probably only knew Hebrew and Aramaic.
Yes, I know this is counter intuitive, and I realize it goes against all accepted theories, but the evidence is in the text itself.
Not of the orininal texts, but of the first compilation of those texts into the embrio New Testament.
I hope that is clear.
Dave.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I’m sure all would say that Jesus’ original words–no matter what language were without error.
IF the original writers of the New Testament inspired by the Holy Spirit translated Jesus’ original words say from Hebrew to Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek or Hebrew to Latin or Aramaic to Greek or Aramiac to Hebrew or Aramaic to Latin
are only Jesus’ original words in whatever language he spoke without error
OR
are the translations of His words into other languages that the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers of the scriptures also withhout error?
Say Jesus spoke in Hebrew and Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic AND Greek AND Latin:
Would Matthew’s text of Jesus’ words in Hebrew if that is what Jesus spoke be the only one that was INERRANT
OR
Would Matthew’s other translations of Jesus’ Hebrew words into other languages ALSO be INERRANT?
In other words is it possible for any of the original writers of the Holy scriptures to INERRANTLY write the Bible in more than one language?
I’m not saying that any of them did write in more than one lanugage but it is altogether possible.
As far as that goes what if the gospel writers completed more than one draft of their gospel–should the one that they were most pleased with be the one that was considered accurate?
At the present time we don’t have any of the original gospels penned by the original writers themselves.
Since we don’t–when we translate the Bible into English–wouldn’t it be more accurate to first ascertain what language Jesus spoke in–then ascertain what language the original writer probably wrote in–and then lastly combine that with what the Catholic Church has always taught–with preference to the Latin if for no other reason than the fact that as the language of the majority of the Catholic Church–it has been more tested and scrutinized–but while giving it prefence–not go so far as to make it exclusively the determining factor in what is accurate?
In other words when it comes to a translation issue such as “Repentance” versus “Do Penance” shouldn’t we foremost care what Jesus intended to convey when He spoke than worship at the altar of the Jerome’s Latin or at the Altar of the Greek Metanoia translation?
As far as Syriac is concerned–if it is indeed older than the Latin or older than the Greek that doesn’t mean it should be preferred as a more accurate translation but it should certainly be respected.
If in doubt I say go with the Latin but regardless of what lanugage one goes by when translating into English the primary consideration should be “What did Jesus intend to convey as seen through the magisterium of the Catholic Church”?
That question may many times not be able to be answered with precise definition but it should be the goal of every Catholic translator.
That is True Accuracy!
Am I right or wrong?
IF the original writers of the New Testament inspired by the Holy Spirit translated Jesus’ original words say from Hebrew to Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek or Hebrew to Latin or Aramaic to Greek or Aramiac to Hebrew or Aramaic to Latin
are only Jesus’ original words in whatever language he spoke without error
OR
are the translations of His words into other languages that the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers of the scriptures also withhout error?
Say Jesus spoke in Hebrew and Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic AND Greek AND Latin:
Would Matthew’s text of Jesus’ words in Hebrew if that is what Jesus spoke be the only one that was INERRANT
OR
Would Matthew’s other translations of Jesus’ Hebrew words into other languages ALSO be INERRANT?
In other words is it possible for any of the original writers of the Holy scriptures to INERRANTLY write the Bible in more than one language?
I’m not saying that any of them did write in more than one lanugage but it is altogether possible.
As far as that goes what if the gospel writers completed more than one draft of their gospel–should the one that they were most pleased with be the one that was considered accurate?
At the present time we don’t have any of the original gospels penned by the original writers themselves.
Since we don’t–when we translate the Bible into English–wouldn’t it be more accurate to first ascertain what language Jesus spoke in–then ascertain what language the original writer probably wrote in–and then lastly combine that with what the Catholic Church has always taught–with preference to the Latin if for no other reason than the fact that as the language of the majority of the Catholic Church–it has been more tested and scrutinized–but while giving it prefence–not go so far as to make it exclusively the determining factor in what is accurate?
In other words when it comes to a translation issue such as “Repentance” versus “Do Penance” shouldn’t we foremost care what Jesus intended to convey when He spoke than worship at the altar of the Jerome’s Latin or at the Altar of the Greek Metanoia translation?
As far as Syriac is concerned–if it is indeed older than the Latin or older than the Greek that doesn’t mean it should be preferred as a more accurate translation but it should certainly be respected.
If in doubt I say go with the Latin but regardless of what lanugage one goes by when translating into English the primary consideration should be “What did Jesus intend to convey as seen through the magisterium of the Catholic Church”?
That question may many times not be able to be answered with precise definition but it should be the goal of every Catholic translator.
That is True Accuracy!
Am I right or wrong?
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
Part 1
Dear Jerry,
Let me say that in his youth George M. Lamsa grew up in The Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East.
The Assyrian Church of the East.
When he came here to America he realized what a treasure that he had in the P’shtta N.T. and I believe that the allure of wealth perhaps blinded him, and he fell away from Messiah (Christ).
This is MY OPINION though and there are those in the Aramaic Primacy movement that would take great issue with said opinion.
Here’s a post that I did for The Aramaic Bible Repository;
aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/index.cgi
And read it carefully and the sub articles on the enclosed URL’s and you’ll see exactly why I believe as I do!
George M. Lamsa and The New Testament
Shlama Friends,
I copied and pasted this from the website below.
There was no copyright on it anywhere that I saw.
Each entry has a reading from Lamsa’s book; ‘New Testament Light’.
Some of them are rather disturbing, in a spiritual sense.
But don’t believe me, go to the website below, and check them out for yourself.
In Messiah, Albion
bibletopics.com/biblestudy/166.htm
George M. Lamsa,
Demons, Devils, Satans
and Aramaic Idioms
George M. Lamsa published 21 books by the time of his death in 1975 and many can still be found at many Christian bookstores across the nation. Lamsa was born near the Turkish/Iraqi border about 1892 and lived there until about 1915.
How Lamsa viewed himself as a Bible translator and commentator can best be seen from the introduction to his New Testament Light, published by Harper & Row:
The author of this book was born and reared in a unique civilization which had remained static from the time of Noah to the dawn of the twentieth century—in a region where customs and manners remained unchanged and unaltered, and where the people conversed in Aramaic the way the patriarchs and Jesus and his disciples did. Moreover, they used the same idioms and mannerisms of speech that were used in the Holy Bible. They wore the same garments and ate the same food, and used the same implements for plowing and threshing as did King David. The area wherein they lived was like a little island in a great ocean. They were surrounded by millions of non-Christians and people who spoke alien languages. Nothing new was introduced into this region until World War I…
Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the Church of the East who knew no other language but Aramaic, and highly educated Englishmen, graduates of Oxford, Cambridge and other famous English schools. The author, through God’s grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the Bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it…
The purpose of this book, like other works I have written, is to throw more light on the obscure passages of Jesus and to elucidate what seems hard and harsh to Western readers and to clarify and strengthen the meaning of the Scriptures. I am a firm believer in the Word of God and the miracles and wonders which were performed by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus.
Lamsa’s books have become quite popular on account of many reasons:
First, his books are engaging and very readable. Second, his comments on the life and customs of Bible times are engrossing to twentieth century Westerners. Third, people are intrigued and awed by Lamsa’s claim that he was reared in the same part of the world Jesus lived, thus participating in biblical customs and language, and is hence uniquely able to reveal the Bible’s idioms, translate the Bible accurately, and disclose its true meaning.1
Dear Jerry,
Let me say that in his youth George M. Lamsa grew up in The Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East.
The Assyrian Church of the East.
When he came here to America he realized what a treasure that he had in the P’shtta N.T. and I believe that the allure of wealth perhaps blinded him, and he fell away from Messiah (Christ).
This is MY OPINION though and there are those in the Aramaic Primacy movement that would take great issue with said opinion.
Here’s a post that I did for The Aramaic Bible Repository;
aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/index.cgi
And read it carefully and the sub articles on the enclosed URL’s and you’ll see exactly why I believe as I do!
George M. Lamsa and The New Testament
Shlama Friends,
I copied and pasted this from the website below.
There was no copyright on it anywhere that I saw.
Each entry has a reading from Lamsa’s book; ‘New Testament Light’.
Some of them are rather disturbing, in a spiritual sense.
But don’t believe me, go to the website below, and check them out for yourself.
In Messiah, Albion
bibletopics.com/biblestudy/166.htm
George M. Lamsa,
Demons, Devils, Satans
and Aramaic Idioms
George M. Lamsa published 21 books by the time of his death in 1975 and many can still be found at many Christian bookstores across the nation. Lamsa was born near the Turkish/Iraqi border about 1892 and lived there until about 1915.
How Lamsa viewed himself as a Bible translator and commentator can best be seen from the introduction to his New Testament Light, published by Harper & Row:
The author of this book was born and reared in a unique civilization which had remained static from the time of Noah to the dawn of the twentieth century—in a region where customs and manners remained unchanged and unaltered, and where the people conversed in Aramaic the way the patriarchs and Jesus and his disciples did. Moreover, they used the same idioms and mannerisms of speech that were used in the Holy Bible. They wore the same garments and ate the same food, and used the same implements for plowing and threshing as did King David. The area wherein they lived was like a little island in a great ocean. They were surrounded by millions of non-Christians and people who spoke alien languages. Nothing new was introduced into this region until World War I…
Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the Church of the East who knew no other language but Aramaic, and highly educated Englishmen, graduates of Oxford, Cambridge and other famous English schools. The author, through God’s grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the Bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it…
The purpose of this book, like other works I have written, is to throw more light on the obscure passages of Jesus and to elucidate what seems hard and harsh to Western readers and to clarify and strengthen the meaning of the Scriptures. I am a firm believer in the Word of God and the miracles and wonders which were performed by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus.
Lamsa’s books have become quite popular on account of many reasons:
First, his books are engaging and very readable. Second, his comments on the life and customs of Bible times are engrossing to twentieth century Westerners. Third, people are intrigued and awed by Lamsa’s claim that he was reared in the same part of the world Jesus lived, thus participating in biblical customs and language, and is hence uniquely able to reveal the Bible’s idioms, translate the Bible accurately, and disclose its true meaning.1
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
Part 2
But Lamsa’s writings are also stirring up controversy, not only due to his unique claims and exalted view of himself and his mission, but also on account of inconsistencies in his translations, the lack of scholarly references that might corroborate his translations and views, his distrust of anything Greek, and his questionable academic credentials. Some critics have consequently labeled him as a cult figure and thus dismiss many of his more controversial comments and interpretations, describing them as "metaphysical, heretical, and unscholarly teachings—not evangelical…"2
The question therefore remains, was George M. Lamsa a liar and fabricator, who spun together fanciful threads of idioms and Middle Eastern customs and crafted them into imaginative new Biblical insights? Or was he in fact a Christian scholar who was raised in an Aramaic community that remained unchanged since the time of Jesus, and who has brought to modern light idioms that have been misunderstood for hundreds of years? It is surprising that no other Christian scholar with a similar Aramaic background has ever come forward to confirm or refute Lamsa’s idiomatic interpretations. We are therefore left wondering, could Lamsa have been right in much of what he taught? We do not know for sure. All we can do is present some of his writings and let the reader judge. What follows is a list of Lamsa’s notes regarding one of the more controversial topics he wrote about: Demons, Devils, and Satans.
Matthew 4:8 - High Mountain
Matthew 4:11 - Angels Ministered
Matthew 8:29 - Come To Torment Us
Mathew 8:31-32 - Lunatics and the Swine
Matthew 16:23 - Calling Peter “Satan”
Mark 1:23-25 - Unclean Spirit
Mark 1:34 - Casting Out Devils
Mark 3:11 - The Insane Confess Jesus
Mark 5:9 - My Name Is Legion
Mark 9:25 - The Spirit of Dumbness and Deafness
Luke 4:41 - Insane Men Confessing Jesus
Luke 8:2 - Seven Devils
Luke 9:1 - Insane, Lunatics
Luke 10:18 - I Beheld Satan Falling
John 8:44 - The Devil Is A Liar
John 12:31 - Prince of This World
John 14:30 - The Prince of This World
Acts 8:7 - Evil Spirits
2 Corinthians 4:4 - God of this World
2 Corinthians 12:7-8 - Satan’s Angel
Ephesians 2:2 - The Prince of the Air
1 Timothy 4:1 - Spirits
Revelation 2:9-10 - Synagogue of Satan
Revelation 2:13 - Satan’s Seat
Revelation 20:7 - Satan Loosed
Article written and compiled by: Philip P. Kapusta
1 Juedes, John P., George M. Lamsa: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?
believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=609
2 Ibid.
But Lamsa’s writings are also stirring up controversy, not only due to his unique claims and exalted view of himself and his mission, but also on account of inconsistencies in his translations, the lack of scholarly references that might corroborate his translations and views, his distrust of anything Greek, and his questionable academic credentials. Some critics have consequently labeled him as a cult figure and thus dismiss many of his more controversial comments and interpretations, describing them as "metaphysical, heretical, and unscholarly teachings—not evangelical…"2
The question therefore remains, was George M. Lamsa a liar and fabricator, who spun together fanciful threads of idioms and Middle Eastern customs and crafted them into imaginative new Biblical insights? Or was he in fact a Christian scholar who was raised in an Aramaic community that remained unchanged since the time of Jesus, and who has brought to modern light idioms that have been misunderstood for hundreds of years? It is surprising that no other Christian scholar with a similar Aramaic background has ever come forward to confirm or refute Lamsa’s idiomatic interpretations. We are therefore left wondering, could Lamsa have been right in much of what he taught? We do not know for sure. All we can do is present some of his writings and let the reader judge. What follows is a list of Lamsa’s notes regarding one of the more controversial topics he wrote about: Demons, Devils, and Satans.
Matthew 4:8 - High Mountain
Matthew 4:11 - Angels Ministered
Matthew 8:29 - Come To Torment Us
Mathew 8:31-32 - Lunatics and the Swine
Matthew 16:23 - Calling Peter “Satan”
Mark 1:23-25 - Unclean Spirit
Mark 1:34 - Casting Out Devils
Mark 3:11 - The Insane Confess Jesus
Mark 5:9 - My Name Is Legion
Mark 9:25 - The Spirit of Dumbness and Deafness
Luke 4:41 - Insane Men Confessing Jesus
Luke 8:2 - Seven Devils
Luke 9:1 - Insane, Lunatics
Luke 10:18 - I Beheld Satan Falling
John 8:44 - The Devil Is A Liar
John 12:31 - Prince of This World
John 14:30 - The Prince of This World
Acts 8:7 - Evil Spirits
2 Corinthians 4:4 - God of this World
2 Corinthians 12:7-8 - Satan’s Angel
Ephesians 2:2 - The Prince of the Air
1 Timothy 4:1 - Spirits
Revelation 2:9-10 - Synagogue of Satan
Revelation 2:13 - Satan’s Seat
Revelation 20:7 - Satan Loosed
Article written and compiled by: Philip P. Kapusta
1 Juedes, John P., George M. Lamsa: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?
believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=609
2 Ibid.
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
“The Lord’s Prayer” (‘Abwoon D’Bashmaya’) Sung in Syriac:
youtube.com/watch?v=MAEIrp4MFBE&mode=related&search=Assyrian
youtube.com/watch?v=MAEIrp4MFBE&mode=related&search=Assyrian
A
Aramaic_Albion
Guest
One more thought on George Lamsa here.
He had an organization that promoted an interchange of ideas and spirituality between Muslims and Christians.
I no longer remember what it was called.
This was unusual in many respects, because the Muslims had devastated the ancient Assyrian Church of the East for literally hundreds and hundreds of years.
The Church of the East was drowned in a sea of blood.
This continues til this day, in Iraq.
Now, we need to remember what Our Master told us “Love your enemies”, but He did not say to mix our Faith with Islam, and this is, in MY OPINION, what George M.Lamsa advocated in his day.
We’ve all seen what radicalized, and militant Islam can do…especially after 9-11.
I’m not saying that ALL Muslims are like this, but I have read the Qu’ran, and I read enough to know that much of that ‘holy book’ speaks of jihad.
This is just one more area where George M. Lamsa had some very strange ideas, that I personally, find morally and spirutually repulsive.
Shlama, Albion
He had an organization that promoted an interchange of ideas and spirituality between Muslims and Christians.
I no longer remember what it was called.
This was unusual in many respects, because the Muslims had devastated the ancient Assyrian Church of the East for literally hundreds and hundreds of years.
The Church of the East was drowned in a sea of blood.
This continues til this day, in Iraq.
Now, we need to remember what Our Master told us “Love your enemies”, but He did not say to mix our Faith with Islam, and this is, in MY OPINION, what George M.Lamsa advocated in his day.
We’ve all seen what radicalized, and militant Islam can do…especially after 9-11.
I’m not saying that ALL Muslims are like this, but I have read the Qu’ran, and I read enough to know that much of that ‘holy book’ speaks of jihad.
This is just one more area where George M. Lamsa had some very strange ideas, that I personally, find morally and spirutually repulsive.
Shlama, Albion
A
adhitthana
Guest
Firstly Hi to everyone here. This is a fascinating discussion. I hope no one minds my 2 cents worth.
There may be another explanation here. We find this phenomenon in the peshitta of mark 15.
Mark gives us the words of Jesus in Aramaic and then translates them into another dialect of Aramaic. Why? One might ask.
The answer may be that the jews in Judea spoke a dialect commonly called Chaldaic. This was because the jews had been captive in babylon. This is also called Imperial Mesopotamian Aramaic
This was different to the Assyrian dialect, spoken by samaritans and galileans with their Assyrian populants.
Mark gives the actual words of Jesus and then translates them for anyone speking the Judean dialect. We know from the gospels that the words of Jesus were hard to understand for some as the thought he called for Elijah
.I don’t know this is right but it is a possible explnation.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Friend,
It is generally accepted that Mark, Peter’s Scribe, penned his Gospel in Rome, during Peter’s terminal imprisonment.
There is common opinion that this was written for the Church in Rome, so was probably written in ‘Street Latin’, or possibly ‘Street Greek’. Thus the Aramaic of the Peshitta was translated from Greek or Latin of dubious gramatical quality.
The educated call ‘Street Greek’ Koine. This dialect has many gramatical peculiarities that are found in the Latin of Mark. A Latin translation from the Greek would not have these peculiarities.
The most blatent of these, is the introduction of reported discourse with ‘hOTI’, Koine, or ‘quia’, Latin, appearing as English ‘that’, the the discourse is put down verbatim, so that the English often translates the discourse as direct rather than reported, and thus omits ‘that’.
This is not common in Classical Latin, but seems to be a signature of Street Latin.
It is generally accepted that Mark, Peter’s Scribe, penned his Gospel in Rome, during Peter’s terminal imprisonment.
There is common opinion that this was written for the Church in Rome, so was probably written in ‘Street Latin’, or possibly ‘Street Greek’. Thus the Aramaic of the Peshitta was translated from Greek or Latin of dubious gramatical quality.
The educated call ‘Street Greek’ Koine. This dialect has many gramatical peculiarities that are found in the Latin of Mark. A Latin translation from the Greek would not have these peculiarities.
The most blatent of these, is the introduction of reported discourse with ‘hOTI’, Koine, or ‘quia’, Latin, appearing as English ‘that’, the the discourse is put down verbatim, so that the English often translates the discourse as direct rather than reported, and thus omits ‘that’.
This is not common in Classical Latin, but seems to be a signature of Street Latin.
A
adhitthana
Guest
Thank you for your reply David, could you give me an example so as I might compare the texts?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Friend, here are a few quotes, giving the Latin and English, with how the English should look if ‘quia’ is correctly translated.
In the examples given below, The Latin gives the person and tense of the verbs as translated in the text, but the discourse is clearly given as verbatim.
I have offered how the person and tense of the verbs should be altered to comply with English rules for indirect discourse.
Mk. 1:37
et cum
invenissent eum
dixerunt ei
quia
omnes quaerunt te
And when
they had found him,
they said to him:
()
All seek for thee.
(that) all sought for him.
Mk. 2:12
et statim
ille surrexit
et sublato grabatto
abiit
coram omnibus
ita ut
admirarentur omnes
et honorificarent Deum
dicentes
quia numquam sic vidimus
And immediately
he arose
and, taking up his bed,
went his way
in the sight of all:
so that
all wondered
and glorified God,
saying:
() We never saw the like.
(that) they had never seen the like.
Mk. 5:28
dicebat enim
**quia **
si vel vestimentum eius tetigero
salva ero
For she said:
()
If I shall touch but his garment,
I shall be well.
(that) if she should touch but his garment,
she would be well.
Mk. 5:35
adhuc eo loquente
veniunt
ab
archisynagogo
dicentes
quia filia tua mortua est
quid ultra
vexas magistrum
While he was yet speaking,
some come
from the ruler of the synagogue’s house,
saying:
() Thy daughter is dead:
why dost thou trouble
the master any further?
(that) his daughter was dead:
(asking) why did he trouble . . .
Mk. 6:4
et dicebat eis Iesus
quia non est propheta sine honore
nisi in patria sua
et in cognatione sua
et in domo sua
And Jesus said to them:
() A prophet is not without honour,
but in his own country,
and among his own kindred,
and in his own house.
(that) a prophet was not without honour, . . .
Mk. 6:14
et audivit Herodes rex
manifestum enim factum est nomen eius
et dicebat
quia Iohannes Baptista
resurrexit a mortuis
et propterea
inoperantur virtutes in illo
And king Herod heard,
(for his name was made manifest,)
and he said:
() John the Baptist
is risen again from dead,
and therefore
mighty works shew forth themselves in him.
(that) John the Baptist
was risen again from the dead,
and (that) therefore
mighty works did shew forth themselves in him.
Mk. 6:15
alii autem dicebant
quia Helias est
alii vero dicebant
propheta est
quasi unus ex prophetis
And others said:
() It is Elias.
But others said:
It is a prophet,
as one of the prophets.
(that) it was Elias,
Mk. 6:23
et iuravit illi
quia quicquid petieris
dabo tibi
licet
dimidium regni mei
And he swore to her:
() Whatsoever thou shalt ask
I will give thee,
though it be
the half of my kingdom.
(That) whatsoever she should ask
he would give it to her,
though it might be
the half of his kingdom.
Mk. 9:25
et clamans
et multum discerpens eum
exiit ab eo
et factus est sicut mortuus
ita ut
multi dicerent
quia mortuus est
And crying out
and greatly tearing him,
he went our of him.
And he became as dead,
so that
many said:
(That) He is (was) dead. .
Mk. 10:32, 33
erant autem in via
ascendentes in Hierosolyma
et praecedebat illos Iesus
et stupebant
et sequentes timebant
et adsumens iterum
duodecim
coepit illis dicere
quae
essent ei ventura
33/quia
ecce ascendimus
in Hierosolyma
et Filius hominis
tradetur
principibus sacerdotum
et scribis
et senioribus
et damnabunt eum
morti
et tradent eum
gentibus
32/And they were in the way
going up to Jerusalem:
and Jesus went before them.
And they were astonished
and following were afraid.
And taking again
the twelve,
he began to tell them
the things
that should befall him.
33/Saying: . . .(‘that’ has been deliberately mistranslatedas ‘saying’.)
Behold we go up
to Jerusalem,
and the Son of man
shall be betrayed
to the chief priests
and to the scribes
and ancients.
And they shall condemn him
to death
and shall deliver him
to the Gentiles.
What we should find at the beginning of V33 is:-
That they should behold, that they all should go up to Jerusalem, and that the Son of man should be betrayed . . .
This is obviously clumsy, and conversion back into direct discourse is definitely preferred here, but the Latin discourse is definitely indirect, as marked by ‘quia’, which should be translated as ‘that’.
A
adhitthana
Guest
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Dave. I have another one if you have time.
Do we find other examples of “street latin” very often that might contain this peculiarity?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Street Latin seems to occur in all the Gospels, but not to the degree found in Mark. This could date back to the Vetus Latina of Carthage. C AD 200.
- Status