The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pensees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daniel Marsh:
Again Lamsa is closer to LXX then to Hebrew Masoretic Text

Go on do the research, it is not hard to do…
It is clear that you haven’t done the research on this topic:

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books
(called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the
LXX. Version.

dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac

This is from the Aramaic New Testament:
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin ** will conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is interpreted, Our God is with us.

The Aramaic Old Testament translates Isaiah 7:14 as:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin ** shall conceive, and bear a son, And call his name Immanuel

Lamsa utilized the Aramaic Peshitto for translating the Old Testament, not the Septuagint.

Peace.****
 
Daniel Marsh:
We know that the LXX is quoted in the Greek NT.
You claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.
We claim that the NT was translated from Greek into Aramaic.
The Armaiac New Testament quotes the Aramaic Tanakh, not the Septuagint. Therefore, one cannot use the Greek’s quoting of the Septuagint as evidence that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek.
Daniel Marsh:
I
If Our claim is true then we only need to show that there are LXX Greek influnces in the Aramaic to English translation that Lamsa represents.
Your claim that the Aramaic is dependent upon the Greek is fundamentally flawed. Again, the Aramaic Peshitta does not quote the Septuagint.
Daniel Marsh:
Objectivity, I have shown that the Aramaic is in fact a translation from the Greek NT.
Objectively, you have shown nothing but your own ignorance of the subject matter.

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books
(called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the
LXX. Version
.”
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac

Peace.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Who did Paul write Romans to?
I already answered this question… 👍
40.png
Pensees:
As for the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians:

"“It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle’s in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul’s phrase “to the Jew first and then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.” – Dr. James Trimm, Aramaic scholar

This would make sense of the Apostle Paul’s oft-used quote, “to the Judean first, and then to the Gentile/Aramean”.

The word in Aramaic for “Arameans” (Armaya) is believed by many to also mean “Gentiles” (while the Greek usually says “Gentiles” or “Greeks”, the Aramaic usually says “Arameans” ). This seems confusing, but many (perhaps most) of the Gentiles involved with early Christianity were Aramean. Arameans were the same basic race of people as Assyrians and Syrians (different to today’s Arabic “Syrians” ). Many labels used to describe the same people. As Christianity started to really bloom in Antioch, Syria, it is not surprising to see the Arameans being spoken of so much in the New Testament, and as possibly being representative of Gentiles in general.

Another interesting point to consider about the Gentiles, is that so often the Bible talks of Judeans and Gentiles (as above, it may not mean Gentiles at all, as “Armaya” are being referred to, but let us digress). What then about the “lost 10 tribes”, the Israelites? Since they are not Judean, are they Gentile? If so, we have yet another prominent Aramaic-speaking Semitic group, as part of “the Gentiles”. With so many Aramaic-speaking Gentiles in the Middle East, is it such a stretch to imagine that Aramaic-speaking authors would write in Aramaic - utilizing Aramaic idioms - to Aramaic-speaking Judeans, Israelites, Chaldeans, Syrians and Assyrians? In fact, why would these authors use so many Aramaic idioms, if they wrote in Greek, to Greek-speaking people who wouldn’t understand them?

Scholars who claim that books such as the Pauline Epistles were written in Aramaic, to primarily Semitic congregations in Greece and Rome, are backed up by the Bible:

Romans 2:17-18

17 Now if you who are called a Jew trust on the law and are proud of God,

18 And because you know his will and know the things which must be observed, which you have learned from the law,

There goes the theory that Romans was addressed to “Romans”.

Romans 11:13
13 It is to you Gentiles that I speak, inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, and perhaps magnify my ministry;

It was also addressed to Gentiles. Note that “Gentiles” does not only include Greeks and Romans as Greek primacists may want to believe. “Gentiles” includes many Aramaic-speaking Semitic groups, such as the Chaldeans, Syrians, Assyrians, Canaanite-Phoenicians and possibly non-Judean Israelites.

1Corinthians 10:1

1 MOREOVER, brethren, I want you to know that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;

2 And all were baptized by Moses, both in the cloud and in the sea;

Now we focus on Greece, and it seems that again, Paul is talking to Judeans. 1Corinthians and 2Corinthians are full of references to Israelite law and history. Clearly, though Paul writes to people in Greece and Rome, these people are Judeans and Aramaic-speaking Gentiles. It is no wonder then that the Pauline Epistles are so overflowing with Aramaicisms. We must never forget the order of preaching. “To the Judean first…” And according to famous Judean historian Flavius Josephus, the Judeans had great difficulty learning Greek, while they did speak Aramaic (Josephus even wrote in Aramaic)."
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm

Peace.
 
This post shows your persistent evasion of the evidences I have provided.
Daniel Marsh:
Who was Luke writting to?
As a native Syrian, Luke was most likely writing for fellow Aramaic speakers. The burden of proof is on the one who claims otherwise. Furthermore, one must not forget the apparent mistranslations within the Greek version of Luke’s Gospel.
Daniel Marsh:
If Greek was “highly discouraged” than how do you explain the existence of the LXX?
“The Septuagint is based on early Hebrew manuscripts and not on the later ones known as the Massoretic, which were made in the 6th to the 9th centuries. In other words, there are many similarities between the Septuagint and the Peshitta text but the former contains inevitable mistranslations which were due to difficulties in transmitting Hebrew or Aramaic thought and mannerisms of speech into a totally alien tongue like Greek. But as has been said, such was not the case between Biblical Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew which are of the same origin. Josephus used Aramaic and Hebrew words indiscriminately. Thus, the term “trans*lating” from Hebrew into Aramaic or vice versa is incorrect. It would be like one stating as having translated the United States Constitution from the Pennsylvania language into the English language or from lower German to higher German. Even before the first captivity, 721 B.C., Jewish kings, scribes, and learned men understood Aramaic. 2 Kings 18:26. The Israelites never wrote their sacred literature in any language but Aramaic and Hebrew, which are sister languages. The Septuagint was made in the 3rd century, B.C., for the Alexandrian Jews. This version was never officially read by the Jews in Palestine who spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. Instead, the Jewish authorities condemned the work and declared a period of mourning because of the defects in the version. Evidently Jesus and his disciples used a text which came from an older Hebrew original. This is apparent because Jesus’ quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Peshitta text but do not agree with the Greek text. For example, in John 12:40, the Peshitta Old Testament and New Testament agree.” – Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa
 
Daniel Marsh:
I think this is pertty much a dead topic at this point.
If this were a dead topic, it is because you have given up. What you’ve provided is an appeal to authority without actual evidence. Furthermore, you’ve provided no reason why one should accept Metzger’s word over Lamsa’s. Your claim that the Peshitta is dependent upon the Septuagint is obviously false, something which has been demonstrated to you several times. What your posts actually show is that like many people, you’ve simply taken Greek primacy for granted.
 
Another embaressing mistranslation of the Greek New Testament is its implication that Jesus predicted the second coming to be within his own generation. However, the Aramaic Peshitta does not contain this error.

"All throughout the New Testament, there is one word in the Greek that confuses people: “γενεα” (genea). Translated, it means “generation” as it is rendered in all modern Bibles. Most people interpret it in the sense of “contemporary generation” or “the people of the time.” When we see what word it is translated from in the Aramaic, something seems a bit off. As I stated in my previous article, “This Generation:”

[The] Greek reads “γενεα” (genea), which means “generation” (not to be confused with “γενος” (genos) which means “offspring”). [It] would seem that our Messiah prophesized incorrectly in the Greek.

The answer comes in the Aramaic. Here we don’t see the word for “generation,” but the word “ܫܪܒܬܸܐ” (sharvtho), which means “family,” or “family branch.” A “ܫܪܒܬܸܐ” (sharvtho), is like a ray in geometry. It starts at a point, then continues onwards. Usually “ܫܪܒܬܸܐ” (sharvotho, plural) come from other “ܫܪܒܬܸܐ” (sharvotho, plural), so we can see these branching rays make up a family tree.

Taking this realization of a mistranslation, let’s see how the Greek text uses “γενεα” (genea) when stacked up against the Aramaic useage of “ܫܪܒܬܸܐ” (sharvtho)…"
aramaicnt.org/HTML/ARTICLES/ShervthaGenea.html

Look up Matthew 24:34 in the interlinear translation of the Peshitta:
aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/1_Matthew/Mattich24.pdf
 
I did the research, and Lamsa is dependent on the LXX.

I provided a well known list of Septuagintism, none of which would be in Lamsa’s Bible if the Aramaic is the first NT.

This is known as piegon hole logic which is a perfectly vaild way to prove a truth claim.

LXX: Septuagint

MS: Masoretic Text

Lamsa: Lamsa

Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14

LXX: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

MS: Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Lamsa: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel” which is interpreted, God with us

Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4

LXX: "and in his name will the Gentiles hope."

MS: and the coastlands wait for his law.

Lamsa: "and in his name will the Peoples find hope."

Matthew 13.14-15/ Isaiah 6.9-10

LXX: “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed”

MS: Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes

Lamsa: "For heart of this people had become harden, and their ears hear heavily, and their eyes are dull, …

It is clear to anyone with common sense Lamsa uses the LXX.

geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm
 
40.png
Pensees:
This post shows your persistent evasion of the evidences I have provided.
You have not provided any evidence, nor proof of your claims.

In fact, if you knew your subject you would have known you were defeated with Torrey.

Concerning the reconstruction of ‘The Aramaic Gospels’.
David Daube 1945 English Book 39 p. 27 cm.
Manchester, Manchester University Press,

Aramaic background pamphlets.
Author(s): Cadbury, Henry Joel,; 1883- ; Luke–translator or author.; Torrey, Charles Cutter,; 1863-1956. ; Translations made from the original Aranaic gospels.; Driver, Godfrey Rolles,; 1892-1975. ; Original language of the fourth gospel : a criticism of Dr. Burney’s thesis.; Montgomery, James A.; 1866-1949. ; (James Alan),; Origin of the gospel according to St. John.; Burney, C. F.; 1868-1925. ; (Charles Fox),

Aramaic and Greek Gospels.
Chester Charlton McCown

The words of Jesus considered in the light of post-Biblical Jewish writings and the Aramaic language /
Gustaf Dalman

The language of the New Testament :
classic essays /
Stanley E Porter
Journal for the study of the New Testament.; Supplement series,; 60; Contents: The Greek of the New Testament as a disputed area of research / Stanley E. Porter – Hellenistic Greek with special consideration of the Greek Bible / Adolf Deissmann – New Testament Greek in the light of modern discovery / James Hope Moulton – The Aramaic of the Gospels / Charles C. Torrey – Aramaic studies and the language of Jesus / Matthew Black – The languages of Palestine in the first century AD / Joseph A. Fitzmyer – The Hebraic character of Septuagint Greek / Henry S. Gehman – The language of Jesus and His disciples / Nigel Turner – On the question of linguistic levels and the place of the New Testament in the contemporary language milieu / Lars Rydbeck – Bilingualiam and the character of Palestinian Greek / Moises Silva.
 
40.png
Pensees:
Another embaressing mistranslation of the Greek New Testament is its implication that Jesus predicted the second coming to be within his own generation.
Ah, no Jesus did not predict that the second coming would be in his generation!!!

What Jesus said was, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34)

Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem.
160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Matthew 24:3,34) "But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therdore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: “See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . .” And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. (Clementine Homilia, 3:15. See Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:241.)
bible.ca/H-Mt-24-destruction-jerusalem-70AD.htm

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Matthew+24++Destruction+of+Jerusalem&spell=1
 
In fact, in verse 36 Jesus changes the subject to the second coming, and says that he himself does not know when that will be.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Ah, no Jesus did not predict that the second coming would be in his generation!!!
Of course, he didn’t. This is why the Aramaic should be preferred over the Greek mistranslation. Out of all the Gospels, Aramaic origin is the most certain in Matthew.
Daniel Marsh:
Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem.
In Matthew 24:30, the sign of the Son of Man is the Second Coming of Christ. However, this obviously did not happen in the first century.

This is from the commentary of the New American Bible:
“17 [30] The sign of the Son of Man: perhaps this means the sign that is the glorious appearance of the Son of Man; cf Matthew 12:39-40 where “the sign of Jonah” is Jonah’s being in the “belly of the whale.” Tribes of the earth will mourn: peculiar to Matthew; cf Zechariah 12:12-14. Coming upon the clouds . . . glory: cf Daniel 7:13 although there the “one like a son of man” comes to God to receive kingship; here the Son of Man comes from heaven for judgment.”
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew24.htm

Any attempt to allegorize this verse misses the obvious meaning of “They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven…”

The NAB also recognizes the implication of Matthew 24:34 in the Greek version:
" [34] The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed by the supposition that this generation means the Jewish people throughout the course of their history, much less the entire human race. Perhaps for Matthew it means the generation to which he and his community belonged."
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew24.htm

The difficulty can be removed, however, when one returns to the original Aramaic, noting that in his own language, Jesus was referring to the Jewish people.

Peace.
 
Daniel Marsh:
In fact, in verse 36 Jesus changes the subject to the second coming, and says that he himself does not know when that will be.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
This isn’t Jesus ‘changing the subject’ given that Matthew 24:30 is clearly a reference to the Second Coming. What Matthew 24:36 does show is that Matthew 24:34 refers to the Jewish people rather than ‘this present generation’. It would be rather strange for Jesus to contradict himself in the same monologue.
 
Daniel Marsh:
I did the research, and Lamsa is dependent on the LXX.
If you continue making this claim, you obviously have not done any research. Again, I must share the same evidence which you’ve seen several times:

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books
(called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the
LXX. Version
.”
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac

This is from the Aramaic New Testament:
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin ** will conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is interpreted, Our God is with us.

The Aramaic Old Testament translates Isaiah 7:14 as:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin ** shall conceive, and bear a son, And call his name Immanuel

The Aramaic Peshitta does not** utilize the Septuagint but the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament which preceded the Septuagint. It is rather strange that you still have not recognized this.

Your claim that Lamsa must be dependent upon the Septuagint merely because of the word ‘virgin’ is spurious at best.
Despite the objections of modern Jews, the Masoretic text agrees with both the Septuagint and the Peshitta:
“The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA
clearly refers to virgins.
In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as “virgin” in Gen. 24:43 and in Song
1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the
cognate of BETULAH.
For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists, Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of
Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as “virgin” (Almah in Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).”
hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html

If your claim is that the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin birth then that is not only incorrect but heretical.

Peace.**
 
Daniel Marsh:
You have not provided any evidence, nor proof of your claims.
Not only has evidence been provided but your claims have been refuted. While I have provided both textual and historical proofs for the Aramaic origin of the New Testament, you’ve insisted on appeals to authority. There is no reason, however, why I should accept the authority of Metzger over Lamsa. George Lamsa was a fellow Orthodox Christian whose native language is the same which Jesus spoke. Metzger, however, is an American Evangelical Protestant who disbelieves in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Therefore, without any evidences in favor of his claims, your appeal to his authority bears no real weight.

Given your lack of understanding of the subject matter, it appears that this thread is the first introduction you’ve had to the topic of Aramaic primacy. For an introduction to Aramaic primacy with good historical and textual proofs:
aramaicpeshitta.com/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1b.pdf

Peace.
 
You are not looking at the evidence, again go to the list of LXX quotes in the Greek NT. Print them out. Read each verse in Lamsa and you will see that Lamsa is in fact dependent on the LXX. That is objective fact.

In Matthew 24, Jesus is answering more than one question, and thus he jumps between questions. It is well known that NO ONE in Jesus day, nor in the early church understood Jesus as saying that the second coming would be in their generation. I showed you a historical text where “this generation” was plainly understood to mean events of 70 AD. The so-called rapture theory of dispensationalism is only a few hundred years old. For you to prove your claim that the earily church understood Jesus to be saying that he would return in their generation requires you to come up with a text showing that they in fact understood “this generation” that way. The fact is the earily church understood it as referring to 70 AD.

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Jesus was answering three seperate questions.

When will the temple be destroyed? “this generation”

When will the second coming occur? “only the father knows”

When will the current age end?

So, yes verse 36 is a change of subject.

There is no mistranslation in Matthew 24 Greek, there is only a misinterpretation by modern dispensationalist.

All, you have been doing is copying and pasting Lamsa’s selling points without looking honestly at the evidence.

The evidence is plain that Lamsa used the LXX. Go to the site where LXX quotes are listed.
 
ギリシャのNT のLXX の引用のリストに証拠を、再度行く見ていない。それらを印刷しなさい。Lamsa の各詩を読めば実際はLamsa がLXX に依存していることを見る。それは客観的な事実である。 Matthew 24 では、イエス・キリストは1 つ以上の質問に答えて、こうして彼は質問の間で跳ぶ。それはイエス・キリスト日の、早い教会の誰も再到来が生成にあると言うようにイエス・キリストの言うことがわからなかったこと有名であり。私は70 広告のでき事を意味するために"この生成" が明らかに理解された歴史的テキストを示した。dispensationalism のいわゆる有頂天理論は古い唯一に数百年である。あなたのためにearily 教会がイエス・キリストの彼が生成で戻ると言うために言うことがわかったことあなたの要求を証明することは実際は彼らが"この生成" をそういう風に理解したテキストの提示を思い付くように要求する。事実はであり70 広告を示すようにearily 教会理解しそれを。 “イエス・キリストがオリーブの台紙で置かれていたと同時に、弟子は彼に個人的に来た。“私達に、” 彼ら言いなさい言った、これが起こる、及び何あなたの来ることと年齢の終わりの印はか。“である時” イエス・キリストは3 つのseperate の質問に答えていた。 寺院はいつ破壊されるか。“この生成” 再到来はいつ起こるか。父しか”" 知っていない 現在の年齢はいつ終わるか。 そう、はい詩36 は主題の変更である。 現代dispensationalist によってMatthew 24 ギリシャ語に誤訳が、そこに行う唯一に誤解ない。 すべてのでありし証拠を正直に見ないでLamsa のセリング・ポイントをコピーし、貼る。 証拠はLamsa がLXX を使用したこと明白である。LXX の引用がリストされている場所に行きなさい。
 
40.png
Pensees:
If you continue making this claim, you obviously have not done any research. …
너는 그리스NT안에LXX따옴표의 명부에 기록을, 다시 간다 보고 있지 않다. 그들을 밖으로 인쇄하십시요. Lamsa안에 각 운문을 읽거든Lamsa이 실제로LXX에 의존하는 것을 너는 볼 것이다. 저것은 객관적인 사실 이다.
 
Daniel Marsh:
You are not looking at the evidence, again go to the list of LXX quotes in the Greek NT. Print them out. Read each verse in Lamsa and you will see that Lamsa is in fact dependent on the LXX. That is objective fact.
What you fail to recognize is that the Aramaic Peshitta does not in any instance quote the LXX but instead an Aramaic translation of the OT which historically preceded the LXX. That is an objective fact. 👍
Daniel Marsh:
The so-called rapture theory of dispensationalism is only a few hundred years old.
This has nothing to do with the rapture theory and you know it. In Matthew 24:30, the ‘sign of the Son of Man’ clearly refers to the Second Coming of Christ. Even modern Catholic scholars recognize this. Therefore, the correct understanding of Matthew 24:34 becomes crucial. If Jesus was referring to his own generation, he is a false prophet. If the Greek of Matthew is a mistranslation of the Aramaic, Jesus promised that the Jews would survive as a people until His return. This has nothing to do with either ‘the rapture’ nor modern dispensationalism. It is only a recent invention to claim that Matthew 24:30 does not refer to the Second Coming. Again, please refer to the commentary of the New American Bible.
Daniel Marsh:
All, you have been doing is copying and pasting Lamsa’s selling points without looking honestly at the evidence…
No, that is incorrect. Lamsa is not the only Aramaic scholar whose evidence I have provided. You are the one who refuses to honestly look at the evidence. Otherwise, you would not repeatedly claim that the Peshitta is dependent upon the Septuagint.
Daniel Marsh:
The evidence is plain that Lamsa used the LXX. Go to the site where LXX quotes are listed.
While the Greek New Testament quotes the LXX, the Aramaic Peshitta does not. The Aramaic Old Testament was composed before the Septuagint.

This isn’t very hard to understand:

“Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic. (It was not the basis either for the Syriac version [known as the Peshitta], which is a pre-Christian translation based directly upon the Hebrew, or for St. Jerome’s Latin translation, which is also based on the Hebrew.)”
students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

“The first major translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament into Syriac was the Peshitto. It was accomplished by many different translators over a considerable period of time in the first two centuries of the Christian Era.”
sor.cua.edu/Bible/Translations.html

Peace.
 
“The earliest manuscript of this Syriac Vulgate is a Pentateuch dated A.D. 464; this is the earliest dated Biblical manuscripts; it is in the British Museum. There are two New Testament manuscripts of the fifth century. In all, the Peshitto manuscripts number 125 of Gospels, 58 of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, and 67 of the Pauline Epistles.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

“A Syriac version of the Old Testament, containing all the canonical books, along with some apocryphal books
(called the Peshitto, i.e., simple translation, and not a paraphrase), was made early in the second century, **and is therefore the first Christian translation of the Old Testament. It was made directly from the original, and not from the LXX. Version.
**”
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=syriac
 
40.png
Pensees:
What you fail to recognize is that the Aramaic Peshitta does not in any instance quote the LXX but instead an Aramaic translation of the OT which historically preceded the LXX. That is an objective fact. 👍
We are speaking about the Lamsa’s NT quoting from LXX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top