Religious Education Forum  

Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!
Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates / Scriptural Debates / Biblical Debates
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-11-2012, 03:42 AM
LegionOnomaMoi Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Former member
Shield of The Renaissance Man: Awarded to a real polymath, a person with many talents or interests who contributes greatly to a wide range of discussions and debates - Issue reason: For your knowledge and contributions in regards to a wide range of topics. Shield of Knowledge: Awarded for outstanding demonstration of high knowledge in a particular field - Issue reason: For your excellent knowledge on more than one topic. Shield of Research: Awarded for meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive reading around a subject - Issue reason: For your outstanding attention to details and extensive reading on a subject 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,043
Frubals: 495
LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'
Default Peshitta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

A topic arose in another thread which quickly became more off-topic than on, and I had intended to just leave things as they were. And I am to some extent doing this, despite starting this thread. I say this because the reason for this thread comes not from the discussion in another, but from a realization I had during and after the back-and-forth about the Peshitta.

The topic here is the idea that the New Testament Peshitta is. But first I need to introduce the claim I'm arguing against, using the following quote frequently found on various websites:
Quote:
"With reference to...the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun
Basically, "Peshitta primacy" holds that the NT wasn't originally written in Greek. Instead, it was translated into Greek from Aramiac documents which were preserved in a bible called the Peshitta.

I knew this idea was around, but until my recent exchange I did not know how pervasive the idea is on the web, and in what ways. The deciding factor behind my decision to start this thread was not Peshitta primacy per se, but rather what I learned about the touted Khabouris Codex, which alone seems to have created new versions of Aramaic primacy (see e.g., the Heartland site).

I would like to think that I am usually an open-minded, fair individual and that I make a point of constantly questioning and re-evaluating my own views. However, apart from the fairly universal causes behind judgmental, irrational criticisms of other individuals or ideas (e.g,. bad mood, exhaustion, illness, mood-altering substances like coffee or alcohol, etc.), there are certain things which tend to irritate me. Apart from the sound of someone chewing with mouth open, they only thing I can think of is the one relevant here: when someone displays a dogmatic, irrational, and baseless attachment to a particular understanding of some technical aspect of some research, field, or similar component of academia which is not only due to the stubborn refusal to research the issue, but makes claims about technical arguments which the individual cannot even in principle evaluate.

The easiest examples are those which involve certain science research, as much of this depends heavily upon a rather sophisticated mathematical background most do not possess. "But only slightly less well known is this": people talking about text, literature, or written work which is composed in a language they can't read yet which they feel confident making claims about. And I do not mean making claims about translations, or based on translations, but rather making claims about some property/meaning in the relevant document(s) which is based on assertions about the proper way to interpret or understand the language(s) they can't read.

Peshitta primacy is such an example.

But what is the Peshitta? The way it is described on the countless sights, blogs, posts, etc. (not to mention entire books and various papers), one would get the impression that it is a cohesive, single bible (or at least NT), which has existed along side the Greek texts, yet is written in Aramaic, the language Jesus almost certainly spoke.

In reality, the only part of this which is true is that Jesus did almost certainly speak Aramaic. There is no the Peshitta, at least in the sense of some cohesive collection dating back to around Jesusu' day.

Textual critics rely mainly on the thousands of Greek witnesses to the NT (a "witness" in this sense is anything from a papyri scrap to a quote by an early Christian author to a complete or almost complete bible). Or, more accurately, they rely on certain generally considered superior witnesses, which the others can be checked against (and vice versa). In addition, however, textual critics rely on NT texts written in Latin, Gothic, and other languages as well.

Without getting into the issues of using a translation to support one variation vs. another, we can simply see how these manuscripts are generally classified (or organized). For example, the "Latin" manuscripts are divided into two main sub-groups: copies of the Vulgate and "Old Latin" manuscripts. Both are written in Latin, of course, but the former (at least largely) the work of Jerome and those who copied his translation. Nonetheless, this category of texts is still further divided because of inevitable copying errors which were repeated faithfully in one set of copies, and some variation consistent to another. And as we have about 9,000 vulgate manuscripts, we must focus on some of the most complete and early codices which are are distinct enough from one another but are sufficiently close to a diverse subset within the thousands of manuscripts such that we can easily check whether a given manuscript probably relied on one of the "main" codices.

The "Old Latin" manuscripts, on the other hand, are far feweer and are divided mainly by region of origin.

The Peshitta fits into a similar classification schema. And here's the first rather important point: websites all over the place frequently use the word Aramaic, whether describing the language of the Peshitta, or the training (or native language) of some person responsible for a translation (e.g., Dr. George Lamsa, who is described as a "native Aramaic speaker"), or Jesus, as if we're dealing with the same language in all cases. To begin to address that little problem, we have only to look at how the Peshitta fits into the our collection of NT manuscripts.

First, the Peshitta isn't one "text" the way that the Codex Sinaiticus is, or even the way that the Vulgate (with the thousands of representative manuscripts) is. It isn't simply that there are multiple different manuscripts of which show multiple variations. Instead, Peshitta manuscripts aren't initially divided into different scribal traditions, or by dialectical differences, or similar methods. Instead, they are divided in that "Peshitta" can refer to to entirely different sets of manuscripts "groups". Why? Because there is an "Old Testament" Peshitta and a seperate (but later combined) New Testament Peshitta. Not only that, but there isn't exactly a clear distinction between what manuscripts constitute the OT Peshitta and which should be otherwise categorized. This is due largely to the Leiden publication of the OT Peshitta and the lack of any documentation behind which manuscripts were included. In fact, an ongoing area of debate is what actually constitutes the "OT Peshitta" and what are simply manuscripts of the "Syriac bible". We do have "old syriac" gospel witnesses which are distinct from the Peshitta NT texts. It is also true that we have clear evidence for a distinct composition over a rather lengthy period of time and in various places by various scribes of what is called the "OT Peshitta" (among other titles). However, what we don't know is
1) How the "Peshitta", understood as the various manuscripts which appear in the 5th and 6th centuries, are related to what are referred to as the "OT Peshitta" (i.e., the Syriac texts used in the composition of the Peshitta manuscripts). In other words, the "Peshitta" which includes both the later NT syriac manuscripts along with what are clearly translations from a different time (this we know from references to the texts, not the texts themselves) of Hebrew into Syriac, is supposed to be distinguished not just from the "Old Syriac" gospels, but also from other biblical "Syriac" texts in general (e.g., the Philoxenian & Harklean versions). We know that the scribes behind the NT Peshitta relied on earlier Syriac translations of the OT, but we don't know what constitutes the "Peshitta" OT syriac version versus some other.

2) What the OT Peshitta was translated from. Laying aside the problem of what the Old Syriac OT is in relation to the OT Peshitta, there is still the issue of how the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Syriac. The relationship between the Peshitta and the Targumin, for example, seems to indicate that the former relied on the later. However, a good argument can be (and has been) made that the Proverbs Targum relies on the Peshitta, giving us an exception. A much larger issue, however, is that for the past century there have repeatedly been studies published arguing that the OT Peshitta relies (at least in places) on the Greek Septuagint, rather than Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac.

3) We don't to to what extent, given the almost certain reliance of the OT Peshitta on Targumin and possible or likely reliance on the Greek LXX, the OT Peshitta is related to the Masoretic (Hebrew) version.

4) And finally, just to complete the mess, we don't actually know how to relate the various manuscripts which fall under various collections referred to as the "Peshitta". The issue of the "western" vs. "eastern" is, for the most part, considered resolved, but current editions of the Peshitta either arbitrarily rely on e.g., the Leiden edition include a different set of manuscripts.


All of the above, however, barely begins to get at the real issue: The relationship between the language of the Peshitta and the dialects of Aramaic during Jesus' life, and the utterly obvious reliance of the Peshitta gospels on the Greek.
__________________
I would welcome that insanity
That looks upon humanity
And earth and its banality
Finding hope despite reality .

-Thanks to all for making my experience here such a valuable one.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-11-2012, 05:30 AM
LegionOnomaMoi Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Former member
Shield of The Renaissance Man: Awarded to a real polymath, a person with many talents or interests who contributes greatly to a wide range of discussions and debates - Issue reason: For your knowledge and contributions in regards to a wide range of topics. Shield of Knowledge: Awarded for outstanding demonstration of high knowledge in a particular field - Issue reason: For your excellent knowledge on more than one topic. Shield of Research: Awarded for meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive reading around a subject - Issue reason: For your outstanding attention to details and extensive reading on a subject 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,043
Frubals: 495
LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'
Default

(cont. from above)

Most NT scholars don't simply study Greek. Apart from modern languages, they also study Hebrew and usually some other languages such as Coptic or Latin. However, familiar with a language, even competent, and being an expert are very different things. A fair number of NT specialists are far more familiar with Latin than they are Hebrew, let alone Aramaic. Maurice Casey is an exception. His specialty, and his work, largely consists of the relationship between the Aramaic of Jesus' day and the Greek of the gospels. So much so, in fact, that his views are often considered rather "out there" in that where others see a Semitic influences on some line or phrase from a gospel, Casey goes from influence to reconstructing the underlying Aramaic, and then proceeds to construct rather creative arguments about what these hypothetically recovered Aramaic can tell us. He's just about as close to a Aramaic primacist one can get among scholars.

Yet, in his monograph Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series), Casey does go on at some length about the importance of various texts in Semitic languages, including the Peshitta, for understanding the "Aramaicisms" of the Greek gospels. However, he is nonetheless careful to note that "One major problem is the choice of Aramaic source material. This is frequently late in date. Nor is it always particularly Galilean, the justifcation occasionally offered for preferring one form to another" and, an even larger issue is the "the perils of using translation Aramaic" like the Peshitta (p. 45a). He also cites (p. 56) one of the foremost authorities of the Peshitta Jan Joosten on the relationship between the Greek NT and the Peshitta specifically, stating "Joosten's study of Syriac versions of Matthew shows careful analysis of translation technique, going from Greek into Syriac" (italics in original).

Which brings us to another puzzle: Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Peshitta is Syriac. What's going on here? Language, in just about every possible way, resists clear demarcations, definitions, formalizations, and nice, neat solutions. The differences between related languages are no exception. Simplistically, we have dialects which are variations within the same language, like British English vs. American, different languages, and different language families such as the Germanic or Romance languages.

And sometimes such distinctions pose relatively few problems. However, quite frequently two people speaking the same language but different dialects are basically unable to communicate because of the differences in accent, idioms, grammat, etc. Sometimes it is easier for a person who knows one language to understand what is spoken or written in another closely related language then for people who merely speak different dialects.

Things become worse when issues like time are incorporated. I've had plenty of students insist that Shakespeare isn't modern English, but it is (early modern, but modern nonetheless). Go back a few centuries to middle English and the texts become largely unreadable. Go back even further, to texts like The Battle of Maldon or Beowulf and you find what looks more like German than English. For English, then, a few centuries means all the difference in the world.

For languages like Greek or Syriac, the reverse is true (actually, English is pretty abnormal here, mainly thanks to the Norman conquest). However, neither one is static. Speakers of modern Greek can't read Plato or Homer or the Gospels without being taught ancient Greek. The same is true for most Semitic languages (and, in certain cases, this is where two dialects of the same language, e.g., Arabic, are sufficiently different such that certain speakers can't understand one another).

Generally speaking, within a particular time period, different dialects of Aramaic didn't create much of a problem. So, for example, someone who can read Jewish Palestinian Aramaic won't have much difficulty with other Aramaic dialects in the Talmuds and Midrashim. But Aramaic is not simply a bunch of dialects with the relatively minor differences found in the dialects in the early Rabbinic writings. In fact, even here the similarity isn't so clear cut. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Aramaic are closer to one another (they are "Western" dialects) than they are to, say Mandaic or Syriac.

The real problem, however, isn't regional dialects but periods. "Aramaic" (like Greek) is around 3,000 years old. But this is as meaningful as saying that English has been around for since before Beowulf. Jesus lived in the first century. The Aramaic of that period is called as a whole Middle Aramaic. However, unlike the Imperial Aramaic which preceded it (600-200 BCE), where the textual record at least suggests a fair degree of uniformity, Middle Aramaic (which ends around 200 CE) is characterized by local dialects. For scholars like Casey, J. P. Meier, Fitzmeyer, Jeremias, and numerous others have tried to reveal the Aramaic influences on the Gospels, the fact that we don't know what dialect Jesus spoke is not a trivial issue. In this period, texts which mainly belong to one dialect frequently incorporate words, idioms, and phrases from other dialects, and even other languages (mainly other Semitic languages).

At the beginning of the third century, though, things begin to shift again. There are still numerous dialects in this period (including Syrian), but we see a massive increase in textual representation of these dialects. Compared to the hazy, haphazard dialects of Jesus' era, a time in which even someone with his background not only likely knew Hebrew but also perhaps Greek, and in which load words, mixed dialects, and similar "fuzzy" boudaries characterized not just Aramaic but the local languages of the Roman empire, the dialects of "Late Aramaic" (from the beginning of the 3rd century to around 700 CE) are easier to distinguish. It is in this period that we find the Syriac dialects of the Peshitta.

Anybody who has spent time translating distinct languages such Navajo into or from English, or (less radical) German into or from Russian, is aware of the "artificial" quality to translations. In fact, even people who read enough translated works from certain periods and certain lanaguages get this sense without knowing a thing about the original language.

The Aramiac/Peshitta primacy websites and their variants which likewise posit an Aramaic original the Greek gospels were translated to point to Semiticisms in the gospels and the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic and various other things as "evidence".

In The Da Vinci Code, there's a great part in which the British specialist "quotes" from an apocryphal gospel in which Jesus is said to be Mary's companion and even used to kiss her often on the "mouth". Ignoring the fact that the text, which contains, alas (like most recovered texts) a number of gaps, is missing where Jesus used to kiss Mary (another possibility is "hands"), what's great is how the brilliant academic explains that the real significance is "companion". The reason, he says, is because "as any Aramaic expert" would tell you, the word for "companion" literally meant spouse.

The reason this is at all relevant is the way in which the above gaff is amusingly completely inaccurate. The gospel in question wasn't written in Aramaic, but in Coptic, and the word in question isn't actually Coptic but a Greek loan word.

Here, then, is a text which actually not written in Greek, yet contains a Greek word. Why? Hellenism, however inapt a term it is, literally means "Greek-ism" or the influence of Greek culture which spread across what became the Roman empire thanks to that paragon of the Greek nation, the quintessential Greek Emperor Alexander the Great (who was Macedonian, not Greek). It's why a Coptic texts contains a Greek word, why Philo was so familiar with Greek philosophy, why Greek, not Latin, was the first language (or at least a second language) for about half the Roman empire, and why there were enough Jews who couldn't speek Aramaic and didn't know Hebrew that the LXX was composed. It's also why the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic (even if he knew no Greek whatsoever), is utterly irrelevant. Not only is it practically a given that some of his followers knew Greek, and rather likely that his teachings and stories about him were necessarily repeated in Greek (for those who couldn't understand Jesus' Aramaic adequately enough), the idea that we'd expect even Mark, let alone the other gospels (which were composed after the Christian population was probably more converted Gentile than Jewish) to be written originally in Aramaic is baseless.

But even if the gospels were written in Aramaic, and even if Paul actually composed his letters in Aramaic, that still doesn't change the fact that the Aramaic of Jesus wasn't even the Aramaic of some of his contemporaries, and it was quite distinct from the language of the Peshitta, which is not only in Syriac, but is a dialect of Aramaic from a different time period than the one in which Jesus and the gospel authors lived.
__________________
I would welcome that insanity
That looks upon humanity
And earth and its banality
Finding hope despite reality .

-Thanks to all for making my experience here such a valuable one.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-16-2012, 04:58 PM
gnostic's Avatar
gnostic Offline
Religion: Pi
Title:The Lost One
Shield of The Ambassador: Awarded for being a true herald of a belief system - Issue reason:  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where the hell am I?
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,229
Frubals: 639
gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'gnostic says, with a twinkle, 'A frubal is 1 part hug, 1 part smile, and a dash of partially hydrogenated soybean oil'
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Basically, "Peshitta primacy" holds that the NT wasn't originally written in Greek. Instead, it was translated into Greek from Aramiac documents which were preserved in a bible called the Peshitta.
I don't accept that position that the entire NT...if any...being written in Aramaic.

Jesus may have spoken in Aramaic, but I don't think a large part of the gospels and letters being in written in that language.

Koine was actually more widely spoken in that century, just about everywhere east of Greece. And Paul wrote to many of the churches in Greece/Macedonia and in Asia Minor (or modern Anatolian Turkey). I would find it highly doubtful that Paul would have written to these churches in Aramaic.

So I would agree with you (especially in the last part in bold):

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Here, then, is a text which actually not written in Greek, yet contains a Greek word. Why? Hellenism, however inapt a term it is, literally means "Greek-ism" or the influence of Greek culture which spread across what became the Roman empire thanks to that paragon of the Greek nation, the quintessential Greek Emperor Alexander the Great (who was Macedonian, not Greek). It's why a Coptic texts contains a Greek word, why Philo was so familiar with Greek philosophy, why Greek, not Latin, was the first language (or at least a second language) for about half the Roman empire, and why there were enough Jews who couldn't speek Aramaic and didn't know Hebrew that the LXX was composed. It's also why the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic (even if he knew no Greek whatsoever), is utterly irrelevant. Not only is it practically a given that some of his followers knew Greek, and rather likely that his teachings and stories about him were necessarily repeated in Greek (for those who couldn't understand Jesus' Aramaic adequately enough), the idea that we'd expect even Mark, let alone the other gospels (which were composed after the Christian population was probably more converted Gentile than Jewish) to be written originally in Aramaic is baseless.
__________________
Timeless Myths for myth enthusiasts.
Dark Mirrors of Heaven investigates the obscure literature surrounding the Genesis.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-2012, 09:47 PM
Shiranui117's Avatar
Shiranui117 Online!
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Title:Inquirer so far...
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Austria
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,569
Frubals: 238
Shiranui117 likes to be fruballed from behindShiranui117 likes to be fruballed from behindShiranui117 likes to be fruballed from behindShiranui117 likes to be fruballed from behindShiranui117 likes to be fruballed from behind
Default

I wonder how the Assyrian Church of the East translates some parts of the Bible? I wonder if they have a Nestorian bent that they express in the Peshitta?

Also, I'mma second gnostic.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-16-2013, 02:38 AM
godnotgod's Avatar
godnotgod Offline
Religion: Wisdomofthe Ridiculous
Title:not born, not dead
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 5,707
Frubals: 178
godnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubals
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiranui117 View Post
I wonder how the Assyrian Church of the East translates some parts of the Bible? I wonder if they have a Nestorian bent that they express in the Peshitta?

Also, I'mma second gnostic.
Although there are some issues with Victor Alexander's translation of the Peshitta, you might find some of his commentary here of interest:

Aramaic Bible

Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah) spoke Aramaic. Of course, this was two thousand years ago, the language has evolved and today it is like old English; it sounds very different. I call it Ancient Aramaic. The Ancient Church of the East, that emerged out of Jerusalem at the end of the Apostolic Age, referred to it as Leeshana Ateeqah or the "old tongue." It is still used in the liturgy, although it is explained in the modern vernacular by the priests and deacons during church services. There are some priests and bishops that know how to read it. It comes in many dialects of the Middle East and Africa, from the Eastern Churches, and from the Orthodox churches. Nobody speaks this language anymore -- not the ancient form of it. Those who claim to speak Aramaic, are only speaking modern versions of the language, just as nobody speaks Old English or even Middle English anymore. Nobody speaks Koine Greek, Old Norse, or Old German, and so on. These languages have all evolved. And so today one also finds Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by millions of people in the Middle East, but these are modern versions of the language. They don't sound the same as Ancient Aramaic. The roots of many words are the same and the old form can be learned. This I have done, so I can read the Scriptures and translate them faithfully. Actually, the Scriptures have preserved the Ancient Aramaic language, and the language has preserved the Scriptures.

Eashoa (Jesus) spoke in the Galilean dialect of Ancient Aramaic, because that is where he grew up. In fact, all the disciples were Galilean Jews, and so it is obvious that they would record the saying of Eashoa (Jesus) in their language. So the New Testament was recorded in Ancient Aramaic and later translated into Koine Greek, which is a form of Greek more akin to Aramaic, as it was heavily influenced by Aramaic.

The translation that you will find on this website is made from the original Ancient Aramaic Scriptures directly into English. It is translated from the manuscripts of the Ancient Church of the East, which survived the persecutions by the Roman and Greek pagans of the early centuries of Christianity. It survived the persecution of the Roman Church under Constantine and the early Emperors of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries. It survived the persecution of the Crusaders who attacked the Holy Lands in subsequent centuries. Finally, this early Church ended up in Persia and was protected by the Persian kings until the upheavals of the Islamic conquests starting in the 7th Century drove the Ancient Church of the East into the mountain strongholds of Asia Minor (Ottoman Empire and later Turkey). The Church of the East survived and maintained the Scriptures in the original language all through the conquests of the Mongolians (Genghis Khan) 12th Century, and the Tartars (Tamerlane) 15th Century. The Church of the East had spread the faith in Eashoa all the way to China, from the 5th to the 8th Century. The Church of the East survived the Islamic conquests of the Fertile Crescent and the Holy Lands.

While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Ancient Church of the East was also struggling against the forces of darkness. However, the Church continued to spread the teachings of Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah) and the knowledge of the Scriptures throughout the ages.

This Church has miraculously survived to this day. The descendants of Ashur continue to read the Scriptures in their language, the language that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Eashoa (Jesus) spoke, the language of all the Prophets of the Scriptures who prophesied about Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah.) They are in all parts of the world. They no longer have a country, but they maintain their language in various dialects. The ancient Scriptures were maintained in the original language, the mother tongue that was spoken in Mesopotamia and the surrounding regions from the beginning of recorded history. The language started out as pictures (pictographic writing), evolved into symbols (cuneiform) and finally became alphabetical in Nineveh at about 800 BC. The Phoenicians used this language for trade; it spread and became the dominant language of the Holy Lands at the time of Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah.)

The Roman Catholic Church was dominant in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. In the early 17th Century, Christianity went through a Reformation. Martin Luther in Germany and William Tyndale in England broke away from the Catholic Church and translated the Bible into German and English. This opened the floodgates of knowledge to Europeans and subsequently to Americans. The US in turn broke away from Catholicism and established its own brand of Protestantism. The early US Presidents sought independence from Catholic and European Protestant churches. They did not recognize Orthodox Christianity either. As for the Church of the East, which was not involved in the Reformation, the American churches ignored completely, and the authentic Scriptures preserved in the Ancient Aramaic language became totally foreign to American Christians. This is what I have struggled with for the last sixteen years because the majority of my readers are the English speaking peoples of the world.

Aramaic Bible, Disciples New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Jonah, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi.
__________________
"If Absolute Joy does not come from anyplace, where can it go?"
Mooji
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-16-2013, 05:42 PM
godnotgod's Avatar
godnotgod Offline
Religion: Wisdomofthe Ridiculous
Title:not born, not dead
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 5,707
Frubals: 178
godnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubalsgodnotgod is filling up landfills everywhere with frubals
Default

...the Christian theological establishment has decreed that Greek is the "original" language of the NEW TESTAMENT, despite the existence of voluminous proof that the Gospels were written in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke and the language of the Biblical lands at the time. My preliminary consideration of this project presents the obvious fact that of the thousands of poetic verses in the Bible, none rhyme in Greek or any other language and yet all rhyme in Aramaic. Surely to consider this coincidence is preposterous....

...the major reason for the insistence of Western Biblical theologians that Greek was the original language of the Gospel can be traced to the original controversies between the Greek converts to Christianity and the founding Jewish Christians.

The most accurate original texts are of course the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus, the disciples and apostles spoke and wrote in. These are the primary texts. They are preserved only by the ancient Church of the East theologians.

Victor Alexander

Aramaic Bible Translation Project by Victor Alexander
__________________
"If Absolute Joy does not come from anyplace, where can it go?"
Mooji
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-16-2013, 06:07 PM
Awoon's Avatar
Awoon Offline
Religion: ISING
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: usa
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,247
Frubals: 133
Awoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insultAwoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insultAwoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insult
Default

This guy teaches from the Aramaic Peshetta.

Rocco A. Errico - Home
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-16-2013, 09:47 PM
LegionOnomaMoi Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Former member
Shield of The Renaissance Man: Awarded to a real polymath, a person with many talents or interests who contributes greatly to a wide range of discussions and debates - Issue reason: For your knowledge and contributions in regards to a wide range of topics. Shield of Knowledge: Awarded for outstanding demonstration of high knowledge in a particular field - Issue reason: For your excellent knowledge on more than one topic. Shield of Research: Awarded for meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive reading around a subject - Issue reason: For your outstanding attention to details and extensive reading on a subject 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,043
Frubals: 495
LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoon View Post
This guy teaches from the Aramaic Peshetta.

Rocco A. Errico - Home
Of course he does. He's Lamsa's pupil.
__________________
I would welcome that insanity
That looks upon humanity
And earth and its banality
Finding hope despite reality .

-Thanks to all for making my experience here such a valuable one.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-16-2013, 09:51 PM
Awoon's Avatar
Awoon Offline
Religion: ISING
Title:Restricted
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: usa
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,247
Frubals: 133
Awoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insultAwoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insultAwoon wonders whether 'frubal face' is an insult
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
Of course he does. He's Lamsa's pupil.
Yeah and he teaches a lot more then Lamsa did.

BTW who was your teacher?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-16-2013, 09:59 PM
LegionOnomaMoi Offline
Religion: Agnostic
Title:Former member
Shield of The Renaissance Man: Awarded to a real polymath, a person with many talents or interests who contributes greatly to a wide range of discussions and debates - Issue reason: For your knowledge and contributions in regards to a wide range of topics. Shield of Knowledge: Awarded for outstanding demonstration of high knowledge in a particular field - Issue reason: For your excellent knowledge on more than one topic. Shield of Research: Awarded for meticulous attention to detail and comprehensive reading around a subject - Issue reason: For your outstanding attention to details and extensive reading on a subject 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,043
Frubals: 495
LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'LegionOnomaMoi wants to start a magazine called 'Fruballing Today'
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awoon View Post
Yeah and he teaches a lot more then Lamsa did.
Lamsa was foundational for the entire Aramaic primacy movement. It's hard to find a website or book or paper on the issue that takes the side of Aramaic primacy that doesn't directly or indirectly borrow from him.

Quote:
BTW who was your teacher?
I've had lots of teachers. You're going to need to be more specific. My graduate program is neuroscience, so telling you the head of the program/lab would be a waste as I seriously doubt he knows Aramaic or cares about New Testament criticism and I didn't learn anything about these things from him.
__________________
I would welcome that insanity
That looks upon humanity
And earth and its banality
Finding hope despite reality .

-Thanks to all for making my experience here such a valuable one.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Copyright 2014 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.