Pe****ta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I meant 'ignored' in the sense that the Western churches project themselves to the West as being the authentic church.

What "Western" churches? Eastern Orthodox is the second largest Christian church there is. It's the form of Christianity that dominates in Syria, Greece, Russia, etc. The oldest and probably most esteemed branch is Greek Orthodox, where to this day the head of the church continues to try to imitate the Greek of antiquity in official documents. The Eastern churches use a variety of modern bibles that date back to late antiquity- Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. It's all the Eastern church and none of them use the language of Jesus' day.

You left out the parts about his Aramaic language capabilities.

That's because he's either lying or really doesn't know. He claims he began learning "in the language of Jesus" in first grade. Nobody does that. It's like claiming to learn Middle English in first grade. We don't really know what the language of Jesus was (saying it was Aramaic is pretty meaningless, if for no other reason than that this could refer to multiple different dialects even then and far more if one considers the entirety of Aramaic history). He claims that Syriac is the Aramaic of Jesus' day. It's not. It's not even Aramaic (not the Aramaic that was spoken when Jesus was alive, that is). It's Late Aramaic. He ignores all of these distinctions in order to sell his bible when the guy can't even write idiomatic English.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We SAY that an original Aramaic NT is non-existent only because we haven't found one.

That has nothing to do with it. We say that because
1) Everybody agrees Paul wrote in Greek. You don't send Aramaic letters out to Greek-speaking communities.
2) We can see the translations into Syriac and other languages and they all come from Greek.
3) We have spent years reconstructing the underlying Aramaic of the NT. There are clear places where it can't be reconstructed because there is no underlying Aramaic. That's because while there may be some written material and there is certainly oral material that was originally Hebrew/Aramaic in the gospels, the gospels aren't translations. There is a wealth of literature on the Semitisms of the Greek NT.
4) The church fathers tell us about the gospels of their time as early as around the time John was being written. The earliest reference to a Semitic gospel is by Papias regarding the disciple Matthew who Papias tells us wrote an account "in the language of the Hebrews". But what we have quotes of are from Greek or from translations of Greek into other languages by those like Tatian or Jerome.
5) There's simply no way that much of the gospels could be a translation of Aramaic.

 

[godnotgod]

What "Western" churches? Eastern Orthodox is the second largest Christian church there is. It's the form of Christianity that dominates in Syria, Greece, Russia, etc. The oldest and probably most esteemed branch is Greek Orthodox, where to this day the head of the church continues to try to imitate the Greek of antiquity in official documents. The Eastern churches use a variety of modern bibles that date back to late antiquity- Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, etc. It's all the Eastern church and none of them use the language of Jesus' day.

Eastern churches may dominate in the East, but Western churches dominate in the West. I am talking about how Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, etc. churches project their image to Westerners in the Western hemisphere. In general, Western laymen don't pay much attention nor give much credence to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Eastern churches may dominate in the East, but Western churches dominate in the West.

Eastern Europe and Russia are somehow ignored by mainstream scholarship? The Dr. Kenneth Bailey, that preacher I told you about, not only spent years wandering around villages but was head of the Biblical Department of the Near East School of Theology in Beirut and started the Institute for Middle Eastern New Testament Studies there. There are plenty of similar examples. The fact that most of the main centers of learning for NT studies are found in Germany, England, France, & the US is simply due to changes in higher learning in the 18th and 19the centuries. It wasn't so true before that and didn't remain true after that as today many centers of biblical and NT research exist in the East.

In general, Western laymen don't pay much attention nor give much credence to Eastern Orthodoxy.

True but this is totally irrelevant to the issue of the original language of the NT. Laypeople typically can't read ancient Greek or Syriac and don't understand the dynamics of textual transmission, translation, and textual criticism. The reason scholars aren't going around wondering if maybe the Eastern churches really have the words of Jesus has 0 to do with their involvement in any churches. It's called study, and it makes it easy to evaluate outlandish claims about an ancient manuscript tradition that can't exist. Maybe (I doubt it) we'll find a manuscript that includes Q, or an alternate (independent) version of one of the gospels (or a proto-version) that is written in Aramaic. But we aren't going to find an Aramaic bible. To much of what we know of as the NT was written originally in Greek.

 

[godnotgod]

I said I would post more of Alexander's material as I uncover it. Though this is not what the one I was searching for, it is much more recent information from him about his Bible translation project:

Ancient Aramaic Bible Translation Project.

 

[godnotgod]

Eastern Europe and Russia are somehow ignored by mainstream scholarship? The Dr. Kenneth Bailey, that preacher I told you about, not only spent years wandering around villages but was head of the Biblical Department of the Near East School of Theology in Beirut and started the Institute for Middle Eastern New Testament Studies there. There are plenty of similar examples. The fact that most of the main centers of learning for NT studies are found in Germany, England, France, & the US is simply due to changes in higher learning in the 18th and 19the centuries. It wasn't so true before that and didn't remain true after that as today many centers of biblical and NT research exist in the East.

That's not what I said.

True but this is totally irrelevant to the issue of the original language of the NT. Laypeople typically can't read ancient Greek or Syriac and don't understand the dynamics of textual transmission, translation, and textual criticism. The reason scholars aren't going around wondering if maybe the Eastern churches really have the words of Jesus has 0 to do with their involvement in any churches. It's called study, and it makes it easy to evaluate outlandish claims about an ancient manuscript tradition that can't exist. Maybe (I doubt it) we'll find a manuscript that includes Q, or an alternate (independent) version of one of the gospels (or a proto-version) that is written in Aramaic. But we aren't going to find an Aramaic bible. To much of what we know of as the NT was written originally in Greek.

The point is that the laity is what the Biblical message is targeted to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The point is that the laity is what the Biblical message is targeted to.

Biblical message? Ok, regardless of whether this is true it is still utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, no? Why would the knowledge of the laity matter when it comes to the Pe****ta being a translation of the Greek?

 

[godnotgod]

Biblical message? Ok, regardless of whether this is true it is still utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, no? Why would the knowledge of the laity matter when it comes to the Pe****ta being a translation of the Greek?

That should be obvious to you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That should be obvious to you.

At 2 in the morning, nothing's obvious.

 

[godnotgod]

Here is a short video from Alexander on Aramaic vs. Greek verse structure:

(Not sure if I agree with him on his idea of preservation, but yes on Aramaic primacy)

The Bible was written in verse so it would not be changed

 

[godnotgod]

At 2 in the morning, nothing's obvious.

It's been a hard day's night, so call it a day......

 

[godnotgod]

So what? Claiming that something exists is far different from observing something that actually exists.

I mean, you wouldn't buy a vial of Michael Jackson's breath on ebay just because some crackhead says it's real.

Come on, man. You're not that gullible.

Uh, more absorbent than gullible. I'm a sponge and take in EVERYTHING, LOL!

Anyway, I choose not to ignore his claim, and to pursue its veracity or fraudulent nature to the end. Of course, I cannot say one way or the other whether his specific claim of original NT texts residing in a small Eastern church is valid or not, but even if this proves false, I still lean toward Aramaic primacy, and that a real set of documents will be forthcoming to settle the matter once and for all.

I especially would love to see the original Pe****ta from which the Khabouris Codex was copied from, whose colophon states:

"dated one hundred years from the Great Persecution.

That would refer to about year 164 CE, the Great Persecution was the first one in history that occurred during the reign of Nero, after he set Rome ablaze and blamed the fire on Christians and Nazarene."


Hebrew New Testament Kabouris codex

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I also forgot to mention that he, at another site, said that reading ancient Aramaic is no big deal.....for him...in spite of what scholars (and you) have said about the near impossibility of doing so as the ancient script is too far removed from more modern Aramaic.

In general, the West has ignored the Eastern churches as far as Biblical matters are concerned. The West has copped the attitude (as the Greek NT primacists have as well) that it is the authority in such matters. So a claim by an Eastern church that it has in its possession the originals (which they have claimed for years) has been pretty much totally ignored, or has been classified as nonsense.

As I recall, Alexander spent a bit of time writing about the Old Syriac. He knows what it is, and indicated that it is unauthentic, as it comes from the Greek.

Anyway, I will see what I can do to post the information I am referring to, bu it's been awhile, and I don't see it up front on the web right now. Alexander went into some detail about the particular church in question, even posting photos.

Later...

Anything is easy if you're lying about it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anyway, I choose not to ignore his claim, and to pursue its veracity or fraudulent nature to the end.

For your sake, I hope that you don't spend too much time on it. There are so many topics -- and sources -- that are actually worthy of your time.

In this case, your source's claims are absolutely untenable. He claims to have a text that doesn't exist. He claims to be able to translate a language that he doesn't understand, and he is making historical and linguistic arguments that are anachronistic and illogical.

His lies are not difficult to expose. It's not like he is making a complex argument and leaving out a little tidbit that compromises everything. Your source is fabricating the "facts" and making up explanations to support them.

Again, even reading wikipedia and getting the most basic definitions of some words would help you a great deal.

And unfortunately, you are gullible. That isn't a criticism, but an observation. Gullibility isn't entirely negative, because it is possible that you choose something worthwhile instead of a rip off.

You have bought a lemon, the first car that the used car salesman showed to you because he gave you his personal guarantee. Your friend - who you brought with you to make sure you get a good deal - begs you not to believe everything he says. But it's too late - you're in love with the rusty old thing. Paid in cash twice the amount it was worth. Turns out the car didn't have wheels, an engine, or even an interior. It was just a rust piece of junk that you can't sell for scrap. Now you have no money and no car. Does it feel good now, sitting on the side of the road pretending like you're moving?

Just in case anyone missed this:
1) You immediately accepted what your source told you without verifying that it was true.
2) You defend this position even though everyone is telling you on a very basic level that your source is not only wrong, but intentionally deceptive
3) The car that you see is not the actual thing, but the image that the salesman (your source) paints for you. In reality, it's junk.
4) Paid in cash = unrestrained commitment to the lie that the source's argument has merit
5) No money and no car = you don't have the intellectual integrity to "buy" anything else
6) Pretending like you're moving = the argument doesn't work. It has no foundation - no wheels - so it has no chance of going anywhere.

 

[godnotgod]

You have bought a lemon, the first car that the used car salesman showed to you because he gave you his personal guarantee. Your friend - who you brought with you to make sure you get a good deal - begs you not to believe everything he says. But it's too late - you're in love with the rusty old thing. Paid in cash twice the amount it was worth. Turns out the car didn't have wheels, an engine, or even an interior. It was just a rust piece of junk that you can't sell for scrap. Now you have no money and no car. Does it feel good now, sitting on the side of the road pretending like you're moving?

Just in case anyone missed this:
1) You immediately accepted what your source told you without verifying that it was true.
2) You defend this position even though everyone is telling you on a very basic level that your source is not only wrong, but intentionally deceptive
3) The car that you see is not the actual thing, but the image that the salesman (your source) paints for you. In reality, it's junk.
4) Paid in cash = unrestrained commitment to the lie that the source's argument has merit
5) No money and no car = you don't have the intellectual integrity to "buy" anything else
6) Pretending like you're moving = the argument doesn't work. It has no foundation - no wheels - so it has no chance of going anywhere.

All of the above is what is true about Westernized Xtianity based on Greek NT. Been there, bought bogus car. Pretended it worked for years. Discovered it to be full of holes. The various carnie-barker peddlers have over 2000 models, all different, all crap, in variants of black and white. The parts don't interchange, and there are xtra or missing parts.

The Pe****ta brand has only 360 issues, all near perfect match, and all in living color.

I'll go with the sexy import.

You go with the glitzy Las Vegas Cadillac.

We'll see who gets home first.

Oh, lookie.. I'm already there, thanks to Zen. Beep beep.

What is the sound of one Bible banging? Why, Aramaic, of course! LOL!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of the above is what is true about Westernized Xtianity based on Greek NT.

1) The Eastern churches use the Greek NT.
2) The differences between the Pe****ta and the Greek NT aren't wide or significant at all
3) Every source you've cited about the superiority of the "Aramaic" manuscripts talks about things you can't appreciate anyway because you don't read Syriac. The repeated words and "parallelisms" that your sources refer to are in a language you can't read.
4) How do the translations from Syriac somehow bypass "Westernized Xtianity"? How do they differ from translations based primarily on the Greek?
5) Westernized Christianity used the Latin vulgate for centuries and centuries while the East used the Greek NT.

 

[godnotgod]

Anything is easy if you're lying about it.

Best get away from that glass house you're in. It is common knowledge that the Greek NT is filled with errors, additions, deletions, revisions, and outright lies, which is probably the reason it has such a great following. People prefer the loud Las Vegas Elvis version of Jesus rather than the honest Woody Allen underdog.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I especially would love to see the original Pe****ta from which the Khabouris Codex was copied from, whose colophon states:

"dated one hundred years from the Great Persecution.

That would refer to about year 164 CE, the Great Persecution was the first one in history that occurred during the reign of Nero, after he set Rome ablaze and blamed the fire on Christians and Nazarene."


Hebrew New Testament Kabouris codex

Not again. Seriously?

On what do you base this? Are you aware, for example, that this scam started back in the 50s when Yonan first tried to claim he had a Codex which was not a copy but really was the oldest so-called "Aramaic" gospel, representing the original NT. And while they did get Metzger, one of foremost textual critics of the day to examine the Yonan codex, the Aramaic Bible Foundation and Yonan didn't bother to let him know they just needed his name, not his analysis, because they intended to (and did) ignore what he said and misrepresented him.

After that scandal, Yonan and a collegue went out to find the rest of their codex:
"Mr. Yonan and an associate, Mr. D. MacDougald, committed their energies to the pursuit of a complete version. According to their own reports (which may be exaggerated or even fabricated) they discovered the present manuscript in a small Assyrian monastery on the River Khabor, a tributary of the River Euphrates, and hence gave their discovery the name the Khabouris Codex. They claimed to have enlisted the support and aid of the abbot in deciphering some of the text, and purchased the codex from the monastery and brought it to America. Mr. Yonan interpreted the worn and damaged colophon of the manuscript and a subsequent inscription to date it between 195 AD and 410 AD; making it, as he explained in his press-release, potentially older than the Yonan Codex, the Codex Syriac Sinaiticus, the Cureton Codex and the Jerusalem Codex. However, doubt was raised by a number of scholars after Yonan's death in 1970. Correspondence from 1986 shows that the British Library experts had dated it paleolographically to about the twelfth century, and this has now been confirmed by a research team assembled in America in 1995, as well as by carbon dating by the University of Arizona in 1999 (giving the date range 1000-1190 AD). " from a discussion at pe****ta.org

So, not only is the Khabouris a re-hash of the Yonan scam, only with an added bonus of an colophon which doesn't actually give a date, but has something which Yonan interpreted and "which if Yonan's decipherment is accurate indicates that the manuscript?s ultimate exemplar was written in the period 195-410" (from the link above). Only somehow the online community turned this into an misundestanding.

 

[godnotgod]

1) The Eastern churches use the Greek NT.
2) The differences between the Pe****ta and the Greek NT aren't wide or significant at all
3) Every source you've cited about the superiority of the "Aramaic" manuscripts talks about things you can't appreciate anyway because you don't read Syriac. The repeated words and "parallelisms" that your sources refer to are in a language you can't read.
4) How do the translations from Syriac somehow bypass "Westernized Xtianity"? How do they differ from translations based primarily on the Greek?
5) Westernized Christianity used the Latin vulgate for centuries and centuries while the East used the Greek NT.

None of which is the point, which is primacy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

None of which is the point, which is primacy.

Let's imagine that the Pe****ta somehow was based on an original Syriac text or was originally Aramaic (Middle Aramaic of any dialect) instead of translated from Greek (despite the numerous Greek loan-words in the text and the numerous other issues you haven't addressed yet). How is this true:

People prefer the loud Las Vegas Elvis version of Jesus rather than the honest Woody Allen underdog.

What differs between the Pe****ta and the Greek NT such that one is "Elvis" and the other "Woody Allen"?

And it isn't original. It's not written in a language that existed when Jesus did or when the NT was written. I'm still waiting for answers to numerous questions, from why Paul would write Aramaic to communities that didn't speak it to why when Aramaic specialists render the Greek back into Aramaic not only are there many places that this can't be done because there is no underlying Aramaic but when it can we don't get the Pe****ta. These and others all relate to the claim of primacy and you seem to ignore them when they are inconvenient for the theory you subscribe to.