Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #14
Help Print Share

 
Send email to Send private message to Add  to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

Sam.%0D%0A%0D%0A%22%3EThe Greek %0D%0A%3EOrthodox Church told me only %0D%0A%3Epeasents spoke Aramaic%0D%0A%3Eand all %0D%0A%3Eeducated people spoke in Greek%22%0D%0A%0D%0AHMMM. %0D%0A%0D%0AI guess Eshoo and Paul and Matti and Shimun Keepa%2C and everyone else who gave the %22Greek Orthodox Church%22 what their Christianity....I guess they were un-educated%2C huh%3F%0D%0A%0D%0AIf that%27s not Anti-Semitism%2C I don%27t know what is.%0D%0A%0D%0ABut%2C tell you what. If you talk to them again%2C remind them who gave them the Alphabet%2C Astronomy%2C Medicine%2C Mathematics%2C etc.%0D%0A%0D%0AMy ancestors were building the Great civilizations of Babylon and Assyria while theirs were illiterate barbarians%2C Sam.%0D%0A%0D%0ARemind them who gave them their %22education%22....%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%22%3Eand the Priest laughed atthe %0D%0A%3Enotion that the Peshitta is %0D%0A%3Ethe original New Testament.%22%0D%0A%0D%0AI%27m not surpised. My priests laugh when soeone tells them the Greek is the original NT too.%0D%0A%0D%0ABy the way%2C Sam......which Greek is the original%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%22%3EBy %0D%0A%3Ethe way in Isaiah 7%3A14 %0D%0A%3Ethe Peshitta reads Bethulah%2C meaning %0D%0A%3Evirgin%2C the rabbinical Targum reads %0D%0A%3Elike the Hebrew Almah%2Cmeaning maiden %0D%0A%3Eor youn g woman%2C while %0D%0A%3Ethe LXX reads parthenos%2C meaning %0D%0A%3Evirgin why is this if %0D%0A%3Ethe Peshitta is a translation %0D%0A%3Eof the Masoretic Text or %0D%0A%3Ethe Original Hebrew%2C most scholars %0D%0A%3Esuggestthe Peshitta is more based %0D%0A%3Eon a translation of the %0D%0A%3EAramaic Targums%2C yet they all %0D%0A%3Eread Almah%2C not Bethulah like %0D%0A%3Ethe Peshitta does%2Cyet the Septuagiant %0D%0A%3Eagrees with the Peshitta in %0D%0A%3Ethis case over the Hebrew %0D%0A%3Eand the Targums.%22%0D%0A%0D%0AWhat%27s your point%3F Are you trying to claim again that the NT quotes the Septuagint%3F%3F%3F%3F %3A-%29%0D%0A%0D%0AYou think that the Targums which said %22Bethultha%22 used in Galilee would have been preserved by the non-Messianic Jews%3F%0D%0A%0D%0AAgain%2C this is an argument from silence%2C but just something to think about.%0D%0A%0D%0AYou are forgetting the major point of Targums%3A%0D%0Avery few have survived because they were not considered very important.%0D%0A%0D%0AShlama w%27Burkate%2C%0D%0APaul%0D%0A%0D%0Ap.s. - check out my post titles %22Translation Greek%22%2C and let me know what you think %3A7%0D%0A.

Dec-- at 00: AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #
 

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
Sammy Tykocinski
 
Send email to Sammy TykocinskiSend private message to Sammy TykocinskiAdd Sammy Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

1. RE: Origin of OId Testament Quotes in the Peshitta NT.

Aug-22-2000 at 01:01 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
The Septuagiant quotes in the New Testament from the Old agree actually with the New Testament Peshitta, Paul, otherwise I would agree what you have said could be accurate. As according to tradition the Rabbais say that the original Targums were writen before the Temples' destruction, but were lost, preserved orally till Onkelous circa 135 A.D. came on the scene and wrote down the words. The problem remains that all the present Targums agree with the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagaint although they do paraphrase and add to the Hebrew text. But it is possible that a lost oral targum existed which would agree with the New Testament peshitta. But the fact remains that the Greeek New Testament agreees with the Peshitta on al these quotes as does the Septuagiant. but the Old Testament Peshitta does not agree with the Septuagiant, but the Masoretic Text. This could prove that the New Testament was writen in Greek and that the Peshitta was a loose translation of it probably inthe early fourth century A.D. Paul we may never know , but study the Septuagiant and see that they agree withthe PESHITTA NEW TESTAMENT, AS DO SOME OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, other Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the masoretic text, some with neither. This proves that bvefore the Masoretics ther were different traditions of the Hebrew Old Testament Text available. Examples are the Samartian Pentateuch,the Septuagiant in fragrments have been found writen in Greek, dated 100-300B.C., and two different Manuscripts of Isaiah, one agrees with the Masoiretic Text , and one agrees with the Septuagiant. The Jeremiah Manuscript is shorter than the Masoretic text,and simmilar to the Septuagiant. Paul what can you say now. Do not get me wrong you can still believe that the original Bible was the Peshitta, but I have my doubts,either way doctrine is not effected and our common faith in Eeshoo remains the same. all manuscripts are useful in studies and help us better understand the word of God. This includes later texts as well, the Armenian, Coptic,Geze of Eithopia,the Latin Vulgate as well.
According to the Catholic Church the Latin Vulgate translates the book of Tobit from the original lost Aramaic text rather than the Septuagiant Greek translation of 100B.C.

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

2. RE: Origin of OId Testament Quotes in the Peshitta NT.

Aug-22-2000 at 09:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

Here are the main points:

(1) The Peshitta OT is a direct translation of the Hebrew, made for the use of the Jews in Babylon *only*

(2) The Peshitta NT does *not* quote the Peshitta OT

(3) The Peshitta OT was *not* used in the Holy Land, only in Babylon

(4) The Septuigint was *not* used in the Holy Land, only in Alexandria/etc.

(5) The OT quotes in the NT are Targums. In fact, they are the Aramaic Targums used in the Galilean (not Judean) Synagogues. There were 2 different Targumic traditions - Judean and Galilean, based on the different dialects.

(6) These Aramaic Galilean Targums have been lsot since the 2nd century AD.

(7) The NT quotes of the OT ***do not*** agree with the Septuigint.

(8) The NT quotes of the OT ***do not*** agree with the MSS

(9) The NT quotes of the OT ***do not*** agree with the Peshitta OT, since it is a direct translation from the MSS.


If you think that the Peshitta NT quotes the Septuigint, I will give you examples that prove otherwise. Do you want me to do that?

The Peshitta NT quotes neither:

(1) The Peshitta OT
(2) The MSS
(3) The LXX

It quotes the Aramaic Targums of Galilee, which are lost today (except for a few quotations in the Talmud).


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

3. Example #1 - Proof that Paul did not use the Septuagint

Aug-22-2000 at 10:34 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Here is an example that proves Rav Shaul did *not* quote from the Greek OT:

-------------------------------------------------

Exodus 9:16 "And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."

"And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that I might display in thee my strength, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."(LXX)

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Rom. 9:17)

The Greek NT begins with "Oti eis auto touto exegeipa se opos" (For this purpose have I raised out thee, so that). The LXX begins with "Kai eneken toutou dietepethes, ina" (And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that). These are two differing readings in both Greek and English. Moreover, the NT uses the Greek word "dunamin" (power), while the LXX uses the Greek word "isxun" (strength).


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

4. Luke did not use the Septuagint.....

Aug-22-2000 at 10:37 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Here is proof that Luqa did not use the Septuagint:
-----------------------------------------------

Deuteronomy 18:15, 19 "15: The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; . . .19: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

"15: The Lord thy God shall raise up to thee a prophet of thy brethren, like me; him shall ye hear: . . .19: And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him."(LXX)

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."(Acts 3:22-23)

Acts 3:22-23 quotes Deuteronomy 18:15 and 19. This is a lengthy portion of Scripture, but demonstrates that Luke was not citing the LXX word for word in Acts chapter 3. While the literal translations may be close, we are here examining the usage of the LXX in the Greek NT. The Greek of both is given below. If Luke were using the LXX we would expect the passage in Acts 3:22-23 to match the passage in Deuteronomy 18:15,19. One does not have to read Greek to see that the two passages are not a perfect match.

LXX (Deut. 18"15: Propheten ek ton adelphon sou, os eme, anastnsei soi Kupios o Theos sou: autou akousesthe: . . .19:Kai o anthropos os ean me akouse osa an lalese o prophetes ekeivos epi to onomati mon, ego ekdiknso ek autou."

Greek NT (Acts 3"22: Oti propheten umin anastesei kupios o Theos umon ek ton adelphon umon, os eme: autou akousesthe kata panta osa an lalese pros umas. 23: estai de pasa psuxe etes an me akouse tou prophetou ekeinou exolothpeuthesetai ek tou laou."

For those who wish a literal translation of each Greek word, the following is provided:

LXX (Deut. 18"15: Propheten(Prophet) ek(out) ton adelphon sou(the brethren of you), os eme(like me), anastnsei soi(shall raise up) Kupios o Theos(the Lord God) sou(of you): autou(him) akousesthe(shall ye hear): . . .19:Kai(And) o anthropos(the man) os ean me akouse(if he shall not hear) osa an(whatsoever) lalese(he may say) o prophetes(the prophet) ekeivos(that person) epi to onomati mon(in the name of me), ego(I) ekdiknso(vengeance) ek autou(out of him)."

Greek NT (Acts 3"22: Oti propheten(A prophet) umin(to you) anastesei(will raise up) kupios o Theos(the Lord God) umon(your) ek(out of) ton adelphon(the brethren) umon(of you), os eme(like me): autou(him) akousesthe(shall ye hear) kata(in) panta(all things) osa an(whatsoever) lalese(he may say) pros(to) umas(you). 23: estai de(and it shall be) pasa(every) psuxe(soul) etes(which) an me akouse(may not hear) tou prophetou ekeinou (of that prophet) exolothpeuthesetai(shall be destoryed) ek(out) tou laou(of the people)."


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul Younan

Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

19. RE: Luke did not use the Septuagint.....

Aug-24-2000 at 01:58 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
That on some occasion Luke didn't use the Septuagint does not prove much. Maybe on that day he did not have a Bible with him and was quoting from memory. Or maybe, as a good scholar, he had available to him several versions.

In any case, use or non-use of the Septuagint proves little either way about what the original language of the NT was. Even if Luke did not write in Greek, still his Greek translator might have use the Septuagint. And similarly even if Luke did write in Greek, he did not have to use the Septuagint. When I quote the Bible, I not infrequently translate the Bible directly myself rather than using any established translation.

Alex

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

21. RE: Luke did not use the Septuagint.....

Aug-24-2000 at 03:46 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
Hi Alex,

You said:

">That on some occasion Luke didn't
>use the Septuagint does not
>prove much."

Alex, the point was made by me in response to Sam's claim that the NT quotes the Septuagint.

If I show examples where it clearly does not, then we must try to find where the quotes are coming from, right?

">Maybe on
>that day he did not
>have a Bible with him
>and was quoting from memory. "

You mean, "paraphrasing" or "targum-ing"? I absolutely agree.

"> Or maybe, as a
>good scholar, he had available
>to him several versions. "

Perhaps, though it is an argument from silence.

This reading I have posted agrees with no *extant* version.


">In any case, use or non-use
>of the Septuagint proves little
>either way about what the
>original language of the NT
>was."

Agreed, That's a different topic altogether, and *not* the subject of these posts. Again, these posts were in response to Sam's claim of the Septuagint quotes in the NT (and, more specifically, the Peshitta NT).

">Even if Luke
>did not write in Greek,
>still his Greek translator might
>have used the Septuagint."

Agreed. But, that is clearly not the case with this passage, and others.

">And similarly even if Luke
>did write in Greek, he
>did not have to use
>the Septuagint. When I
>quote the Bible, I not
>infrequently translate the Bible directly
>myself rather than using any
>established translation."

You mean "targum-ing", I agree with you 110% and you have verified the possibility of my hypothesis.


Your brother,

Paul

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

5. Example #2 of Paul's writings....

Aug-22-2000 at 10:39 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Here is another quote from Romans:
-----------------------------------------------Psalm 69:22-23 "Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake"

"Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recompence, and for a stumbling-block. Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually."(LXX) "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway."(Rom. 11:9-10)

The NT passage is close to the reading found in the LXX. Yet there are differences. The LXX adds the Greek phrase "enopion auton" (before them) in the first part of the phrase. Also, at the end of verse nine, the NT has the phrase "kai eis antapodoma autois" (and a recompence unto them). However, the LXX places the same phrase in the middle of the verse and not at the end.


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul Younan

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

6. Matti and Marqus did not use the Septuagint....

Aug-22-2000 at 10:44 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Here is proof that Matti and Marqus did not use the Septuagint....

--------------------------------------------------Isaiah 6:9-10 "And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

"Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and undersatnd with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."(LXX)

"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."(Matt. 13:14-15)

There is a difference in the Matti quote between the Greek NT and the Greek OT, and that is that the LXX has the word "auton" (their) after "ears" while the NT has it after "eyes." However, the same passage cited by Mark is quite different.

"That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."(Mark 4:12)

The citation is very free (a "Targum" or "Paraphrase"). Once we interject the usage of freely citing OT passages (as we find many times in the NT), we can no longer be dogmatic that the translation which was used as the base translation was in fact the LXX. It becomes an assumption.

My assumption makes more sense.....the writers of the Aramaic NT were using the (now lost) Aramaic Targums of Galilee.....

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul


Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

7. Matti did not use Septuagint....

Aug-22-2000 at 11:43 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."(KJV).

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel."(LXX).

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."(Matt. 1:23)

The difference is that the LXX uses the word "lepsetai" (shall be) while Matthew uses the Greek word "ekzie" (shall be).


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul Younan

"think Targums"

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

8. More Matti and Marqus.........

Aug-22-2000 at 11:47 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"

Matt. 15:7-9 "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

There are here likewise some differences between the LXX and the Greek NT. The LXX adds "en" (in) before "with their mouth." The NT uses the pharse "me tima" (honours me). The LXX reads, "auton timosi me" (they honour me). The NT has "didaskalias" (doctrines) after "didaskontes" (teaching). The LXX reads "kai didaskalias" (and doctrines) and places it after "anthrpon" (of men).

Mark 7:6-7 "He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

The literal translation of the LXX reads, "And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men"(Isa. 29:13 LXX). The citation is rather loose if coming from the LXX as we have it.

"Think Targums....."


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

9. More Matti.......

Aug-22-2000 at 11:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

Isaiah 42:1-4 "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Matt. 12:18-21 " Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

The LXX reads, "Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up (his voice), nor shall his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgment to truth. He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

With the exception of a word here or there, the only part which matches is the last phrase "And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." One must conclude that Matthew is either taking liberties with the LXX, or taking liberties with his translation of the Hebrew into Greek.

Matti himself is "Targum-ing" (paraphrasing) brother! :7

"Think Targums......"

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

10. GENESIS 46:27, 70 Souls Or 75 ????

Aug-22-2000 at 11:56 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

It should be realized by now, although Western scholars are stubbron, that not every passage cited as an Old Testament quotation is in fact a quotation.

Many times they are allusions or simply a general reference, but not an excerpt from an OT passage.

For example, your Acts 7:14 example, in which Stephen says,

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."

The number which Stephen gives is 75. However, the passage in Genesis 46:27 totals 70. There we read, "And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."

The Greek LXX agrees with Stephen in Genesis 46:27 and lists the number as 75 souls. This passage is often used as an example of a NT saint citing the LXX. The truth is that Stephen is not quoting anything, he is *referring to something.*

These two texts reflect two ways of numbering Jacob's family. Jacob's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Gen. 46:8-26). Adding Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy.

If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob's sons (Judah's and Simeon's wives were dead; Joseph could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons into Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen), we have seventy-five persons, as in Acts."

Therefore the difference in number can be clarified by an examination of the Biblical texts and not referencing the citation to that of the LXX. Further, scrutiny of the passage in Acts clearly shows that Stephen was referring to events in Genesis 46 and not quoting the passage.


"Think Targums....." :7


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

11. Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-22-2000 at 07:54 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Sam,

For more proof Paul used the Aramaic Targums, check out Ephesians 4:8.

In this verse Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 to support his statement on the grace of Christ in Ephesians 4:7.

The quoted words from the Psalms, however, Paul's version of Psalm 68:18 does not come from the Hebrew text, nor from the Septuagint, but from the Aramaic Targums.....a fact even Western Scholars admit (c.f. - Furnish 1971b: 841; Mays 1217; Archer 404)!


Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

Print Top
Samuel Tykocinski
 
Send email to Samuel TykocinskiSend private message to Samuel TykocinskiAdd Samuel Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

12. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-23-2000 at 00:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 
You bring out a good point, however many passages in the Septuagiant do agree with the Peshitta. Now based on your reasonings the Peshitta being the original New Testament text, was translated into Greek at an early age, presumably circa. 125 A.D., since the Rynald's quote of John was found in Greek from that date. Due to the loss of the orignal New Testament copies all the texts were lost except late copies of them. the oldest Peshitta New Testament found is sixst century, earlier Aramaic texts are not in fullagreement with the Peshitta. Of course absence of eviedense is not a proof in its self. The Early Church did not leave the Catholic Church to 431A.D. so any persecution from the west other than the Pagan Romans, and Zorasterian Persians had to have come around that time or later I presume I am right. You could be right, but the majority of scholars still do not beleive that the Peshitta is in fact the orignal Scripture. What about the O.T. Peshitta and its canon including seven apocraphal books, can it be trusted over the Hebrew. Greek was alive as proven bythe Dead Sea Scrolls in Judea, galilee and every where in the Roman Empire. This Greek is even allowed in the Talmud,so a Greek origin is still posable. If we abadoned the Greek texts completely and followed only the Hebrew and the Aramaic Peshitta we could be in danger of believing a lie could we not? After all we do have older evidenses of Greek than Aramaic in the N.T. Why say that Greek was forbiden when that could not be futher fromthe truth? Do you think the roman Soldiers spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew a language they the conmmquerors hated,a people subjugated and despised by Rome, I think not? Probablly they spoke Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Empire. mANY DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT Greek was used in Israel from the time of Alexander the Great to the rise of Islam, when Arabic replaced the Greek language and Aramaic as well through out the Middle East and North Africa. I respect your scholorship , your Greek is pretty Good. How are you in Hebrew? What you say is true, but that does not rule out a Greek origin of the New Testament. What about the Books of Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude, 2&3 John added in the Seventh to Eighth centuries by the Syrian Church into the Peshitta from the Greek, or were they poart of the original Aramaic Texts translated to Greek , but not fully accepted by the Syrian Church untill later? Victor believes all Scripture to be inthe Peshitta only, never in the Hebrew or the Greek, what is your opinion on that? Sam Shalom.

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

13. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-23-2000 at 12:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Shlama Sam,

Let me quote your statements one by one so that I can answer them thoroughly:

">You bring out a good point,
>however many passages in the
>Septuagiant do agree with the
>Peshitta."

I fail to see the significance of this? 99% of the MSS/LXX/PSH readings agree with each other. Otherwise, we would be in serious trouble.


">Now based on your
>reasonings the Peshitta being the
>original New Testament text, was
>translated into Greek at an
>early age, presumably circa. 125
>A.D., since the Rynald's quote
>of John was found in
>Greek from that date. Due
>to the loss of the
>orignal New Testament copies all
>the texts were lost except
>late copies of them."

So far I agree with you 100%.

">the oldest Peshitta New Testament found
>is sixst century, earlier Aramaic
>texts are not in fullagreement
>with the Peshitta."

Here is where we disagree. You make 2 statements that are completely inaccurate.

Clarification #1: The earliest Peshitta New Testament manuscripts are from the 4th century AD, *not* the sixth (cf. Khaboris, Mortimer-Mcawley, etc.)

Clarification #2: The "earlier" Aramaic texts do not agree with the Peshitta, nor are they expected to. Firstly, they are not "earlier", they are revisions based from the Greek made by the Monophysites. Their dating by the western scholars was based heavily upon their preconcieved notions that the Greek was the original....hence, since these were closer to the Greek, they were assigned an earlier date (not by any scientific criteria, but merely because they mimic the Greek more closely than does the Peshitta.

Clarification #3: These supposedly "earlier" texts are *not* in *any* way related to the Peshitta. They are so different, in fact, it would blow your mind.

Clarification #4: The age of manuscripts means *absolutely* nothing. I can't stress this enough. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948, the earliest copy of Isaiah we had was the Peshitta OT in A.D. 464. Does that mean that, until 1948, Isaiah was originally written in Aramaic, not Hebrew?

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948, your "western scholars" claimed that Tobit was written in Greek. Imagine....a Jew in Nineveh, Assyria....yet the book was written in Greek, since that was the earliest manuscript. Then, Aramaic Tobit was found in Qumran. Suddenly, the original language changed to Aramaic.

Do you see the fallacy of this type of argument?

">Of course
>absence of eviedense is not
>a proof in its self."

We agree 110%

">The Early Church did not
>leave the Catholic Church to
>431A.D. so any persecution from
>the west other than the
>Pagan Romans, and Zorasterian Persians
>had to have come around
>that time or later I
>presume I am right."

Nobody "left" anyone else. The two sides were never governed as one body, being in different empires (Roman and Persian).

The Church of the East (Persian empire) always had it's own jurisdiction, and Apostolic Authority from Mar Shimun Keepa in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13), no matter what the Western (Catholic) scholars try to tell you.

If anyone "split" from anyone else, it was the other way around.

The Greeks did *not* baptize us.

">You could be right, but the
>majority of scholars still do
>not beleive that the Peshitta
>is in fact the orignal
>Scripture."

The vast majority of western sch

Print Top
Samuel Tykocinski
 
Send email to Samuel TykocinskiSend private message to Samuel TykocinskiAdd Samuel Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

14. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-23-2000 at 07:27 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
I know very well that all the synagougue prayers in their liturgy are in Hebrew or Aramaic, none are in any other language and neverhave been. Eshoo had to have known some Greek though because he talked with Pilate who spoke only Latin or Koine Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew , Aramaic only a small amount may be 5% or less are in Greek, but they prove Greek was allowed in Judea and used. the Greek in Hebrew letters or Judeo -Greek was used by Jews in the daispora till the Middle ages like Yiddish direved from German and ladino dirived fro mSpanish was used latter on in various Jewish communities. Today the Greek is dead. Yiddish, Ladino, and some Judeo -Arabic surrive in use among the Jewish people as well as Judeo-Farsi a mixture of Pesrsian in Hebrew letters with other languages among the Iraianian Jews. Just like your people in Iraq speak a type of Aramaic- Arabic mixture of theri own useage not known by their fellow Arabs. what language would paul have used in Archaia, Macedonia, Rome and Malta if not Greek, they did not speak Aramaic did they? How could Josephus and the Emperor Titus be close friends if Josephus spoke only Aramaic and did not speak with his friend Titus in Greek? Did Titus the Roman Emperor who hated most of the Jews speak Aramaic I doubt it? Did Philo of Alexander speak Greek or Aramaic? Are all the western scholars crazy they put great emphesis at studying the New Testaament in Greek, and almost none in studying the New Testament in Aramaic? The Greek Orthodox Church told me only peasents spoke Aramaic and all educated people spoke in Greek, and the Priest laughed atthe notion that the Peshitta is the original New Testament. By the way in Isaiah 7:14 the Peshitta reads Bethulah, meaning virgin, the rabbinical Targum reads like the Hebrew Almah,meaning maiden or youn g woman, while the LXX reads parthenos, meaning virgin why is this if the Peshitta is a translation of the Masoretic Text or the Original Hebrew, most scholars suggestthe Peshitta is more based on a translation of the Aramaic Targums, yet they all read Almah, not Bethulah like the Peshitta does,yet the Septuagiant agrees with the Peshitta in this case over the Hebrew and the Targums. Sam Shalom.

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

15. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-23-2000 at 09:58 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Dear Sam,

Thank you again for all your insight. We may agree to disagree on certain things, that's ok and natural, but I feel honored to have had this discussion with you.

The rest of this reply will focus in on your statements again, since you brought up many good points.

">I know very well that all
>the synagougue prayers in their
>liturgy are in Hebrew or
>Aramaic, none are in any
>other language and neverhave been."

So why do you feel that the NT was originally inspired in any other foreign language?

">Eshoo had to have known
>some Greek though because he
>talked with Pilate who spoke
>only Latin or Koine Greek,
>not Hebrew or Aramaic."

IF TRUE, those are 2 sentences He spoke with Pilate, that's it.

I am talking about Eshoo preaching the Gospel in Aramaic FIRST.

You claim that this Gospel was only recorded in Greek, and you use the 5 words Eshoo said to Pilate to proclaim the inspiration of a Jewish Scriptural work in that language.

How would you know this for a fact, that Eshoo addressed Pilate in Greek?

I'm sure Eshoo could speak English back then, being God and all. I'm sure He knew every language.

But, why do you suppose the Roman and Greek officials (who numbered in the hundreds) did not bother to learn the langauge of the natives, yet millions of natives had to learn the oppressor's language?

">The
>majority of the Dead Sea
>Scrolls are in Hebrew ,
>Aramaic only a small amount
>may be 5% or less
> are in Greek, but
>they prove Greek was allowed
>in Judea and used."

Sam, THOSE HANDFUL OF GREEK MANUSCRIPTS THAT WERE AMONG HUNDREDS OF ARAMAIC MANUSCRIPTS.....THEY WERE TRANSLATIONS, WERE THEY NOT?

Have the Jews *ever* *ever* written scripture, or been inspired, in ANY language but Hebrew/Aramaic? Ever?

">the Greek in Hebrew letters or
>Judeo -Greek was used by
>Jews in the daispora till
>the Middle ages like Yiddish
>direved from German and ladino
>dirived fro mSpanish was used
>latter on in various Jewish
>communities."

You are *absolutely* correct. BUT SCRIPTURE WAS NEVER *ORIGINALLY* WRITTEN IN YIDDISH, LADINO OR GERMAN. NEVER EVER.

Yes, you may have had Yiddish translations. TRANSLATIONS. That's it. Bottom line is this: No inspired *original* scripture of the Jews was *ever* written in anything but Hebrew/Aramaic.


">Today the Greek is
>dead. Yiddish, Ladino, and some
>Judeo -Arabic surrive in use
>among the Jewish people as
>well as Judeo-Farsi a mixture
>of Pesrsian in Hebrew letters
>with other languages among the
>Iraianian Jews. Just like your
>people in Iraq speak a
>type of Aramaic- Arabic mixture
>of theri own useage not
>known by their fellow Arabs. "

We don't speak an Arabic/Aramaic mixture. We speak only Aramaic.

There are people who understand and speak Arabic (because they live there), but they speak Aramaic with each other/at home/at Church/ etc.

There is no language that is Aramaic/Arabic mixture. None.

I, for one, do not understand Arabic. Nor do I speak it. Nor did my parents allow us to speak anything at home (not even English) but Aramaic. We were only allowed to speak English at school. I did not know 1 word of English when I started school, even though I was born in America.

">what language would paul have
>used in Archaia, Macedonia, Rome
>and Malta if not Greek,
>they did not speak Arama

Print Top
Samuel Tykocinski
 
Send email to Samuel TykocinskiSend private message to Samuel TykocinskiAdd Samuel Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-24-2000 at 00:32 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
Paul I respect your opinions and it is both logical and possable you could be right, but I am not sure. I intend to utilize boththe Greek and Aramic New Testament texts. I am going to a unversity and was required to study Koine Greek I hated the Greek grammar it is complex and horrible. i studied Biblical hebrew and enjoyed it much more the grammar is easier by far and I being Jewish perfer Hebrew over Greek any way, I heard Aramaic is very simmilar grammatically to Hebrew making it easier than the Greek. The Rabbais would never call any writing sacred out side of Hebrew or Aramaic, which must be writen in the square Ashuri alphabet called Kitav Ashuri. The Estrangela script of the Peshitta would never be except as original or sacred by the Rabbais. The Samaritians do not even accept this script but their own only the five books of Mosheh called Kitav Ivri. But the letters are not sacred nor language and Gods uses what ever language the people understand at that time. The Hebrew language is very simmilar to the Ugaritic of the Cannonites which were a pagan peoples and very common language. Aramaic also a northern Semetic language is dirvied from I guesss Akkadian of the Chalodians of Southern Iraq, devolped in Northern Syria and is even older than the Hebrew language, in fact Abraham did not speak Hebrew but Aramaic called Armenean in the Bible. The Israelites learned Hebrew from the Canonites later and soppoke it in Egypt durring the Exodus, sinc e Mosheh wrote the Torah 400 years after Abraham he wrote in Hebrew rather than the older Aramaic of his ancient ancestors.alexander conquerd Israel and paved the way to Greek learning , so by the time of Eshoo, Greek was widely known and posibly used. Although the Rabbais in Judea forbid Greek as pagan in language and culture Galilee had more gentile inhabitants than Jewish and many were Roman citzens so Greek could have been used, although Aramaic was the more widely spoken language bythe common people thanthe Greek of the Romans. This you could be 100% right. I just do not know. Sam Shalom.

Print Top
Samuel Tykocinski
 
Send email to Samuel TykocinskiSend private message to Samuel TykocinskiAdd Samuel Tykocinski to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

17. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-24-2000 at 00:51 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #15
 
Paul are you sure about the Greek grammar in the New Testament following a non Greek form of Grammar, iff this is true than modern Greek should follow the Grammar patern differntly from the Koine Greek translation of the Bible the LXX, the New testament, and Josephus, Philo, and ect?
I will ask my professor who taught me som Koine Greek in the Unviersity I am attending. By the way He also taught me Hebrew as well. His name is Dr. Gary Cohen, a Jewish believer who teaches at Trinity International University South Florida Campus. He believes that the original New Testament is writen originally in Greek. He has several doctrates as well. If he tells me that Modern Greek grammar is the same as Koine Greek, than I know you are wrong,but I have to ask to find out. If it turns out that you are right than Classical or Attik greek would have different Grammar as well, like Homer,Sophocles,Plato, Aristotole and ect. I let you know what I find out byu next week, since I am taking a class in Biblical Criticsam with him this semester. My text book is Introductionto the Bible by Geisler and Nix. Sam Shalom.

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

18. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-24-2000 at 09:32 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #17
 
Shlama Sam,

Yes, NT Greek is different from Plato (Classical Greek) and Modern Greek today.

It is Translation Greek. You see the *exact* same thing in the Septuagint.....which we all know is Translation Greek.

If your professor would like, he can check out the message in this forum titled "Translation Greek".

When he sees these 2 pictures.....ask him why in Luqa the verb is first, while in Revelation it follows the Classic Greek model (pure Greek).

I'm very interested to see what he says, as long as it's not an excuse.

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

>Paul are you sure about the
>Greek grammar in the New
>Testament following a non Greek
>form of Grammar, iff this
>is true than modern Greek
>should follow the Grammar patern
>differntly from the Koine Greek
>translation of the Bible the
>LXX, the New testament, and
>Josephus, Philo, and ect?
>I will ask my professor who
>taught me som Koine Greek
>in the Unviersity I am
>attending. By the way He
>also taught me Hebrew as
>well. His name is Dr.
>Gary Cohen, a Jewish believer
>who teaches at Trinity International
>University South Florida Campus. He
>believes that the original New
>Testament is writen originally in
>Greek. He has several doctrates
>as well. If he tells
>me that Modern Greek grammar
>is the same as Koine
>Greek, than I know you
>are wrong,but I have to
>ask to find out. If
>it turns out that you
>are right than Classical or
>Attik greek would have different
>Grammar as well, like Homer,Sophocles,Plato,
>Aristotole and ect. I let
>you know what I find
>out byu next week, since
>I am taking a class
>in Biblical Criticsam with him
>this semester. My text book
>is Introductionto the Bible by
>Geisler and Nix. Sam Shalom.
>


Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

20. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-24-2000 at 02:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #18
 
It's worth noting that even if it were proved that the NT was written in a Semitic language, that would not prove it was written in Aramaic (as opposed to Hebrew). And even if it were proved that it was written in Aramaic, this would not prove that the Peshitta (as opposed to, say, the Old Syriac, the Curetonianus or even the Philoxeniana).

Alex

Print Top

Paulmoderator

 
Send email to PaulSend private message to PaulView profile of PaulAdd Paul to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 78
Member Feedback

22. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-24-2000 at 03:52 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Shlama Alex,

Thanks again for your posts.....you both are really keeping me on my toes (at work, no less)

You said:

">It's worth noting that even if
>it were proved that the
>NT was written in a
>Semitic language, that would not
>prove it was written in
>Aramaic (as opposed to Hebrew)."

Except, Aramaic would be the more natural choice, since you know that the Gospel was preached first in this language.

Another indication would be the absence of *any* tradition that it was in Hebrew. Aramaic has the support of 2000 years of Church of the East tradition.

Another indication would be the Aramaicisms found in the NT which have *no* Hebrew equivalent.

Another indication would be that all the Churches of the East (Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, and St. Thomas Church in India) all of the venerate the Peshitta as the *original*.


"> And even if it
>were proved that it was
>written in Aramaic, this would
>not prove that the Peshitta
>(as opposed to, say, the
>Old Syriac, the Curetonianus or
>even the Philoxeniana)."

The Philoxenian we have definite proof of that it was made by Philoxenus of Mabbug in the 6th century, hence it's name.

The origin of the Peshitta is still a *mystery* to Western Scholars. :7


Shlama w'Burkate,

Paul


>
>Alex


Print Top
Alexander Pruss
 
Send email to Alexander PrussSend private message to Alexander PrussAdd Alexander Pruss to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

27. RE: Ephesians....more proof from St. Paul

Aug-25-2000 at 12:41 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #22
 
Paul,

>You said:
>
>">It's worth noting that even if
>>it were proved that the
>>NT was written in a
>>Semitic language, that would not
>>prove it was written in
>>Aramaic (as opposed to Hebrew)."
>
>Except, Aramaic would be the more
>natural choice, since you know
>that the Gospel was preached
>first in this language.

I agree.

>Another indication would be the absence
>of *any* tradition that it
>was in Hebrew.

A literal reading of Papias' statement that Matthew wrote in Hebrew is a tradition, isn't it? Of course, we know that "Hebrew" could mean "Aramaic"--there are examples of that in the Gospels--so this text doesn't prove much.

Bob Gundry (who teaches at Westmont College), though, has argued that actually it's a misunderstanding to think the text of Papias actually says that the text was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. He says that the Greek allows one to read the text as saying that it was written in Hebrew (i.e., Semitic) _style_.

>Another indication would be the Aramaicisms
>found in the NT which
>have *no* Hebrew equivalent.

Well, if they are in the sayings of Jesus, then that proves nothing since we know those sayings were originally in Aramaic. But maybe they were translated into Hebrew? It seems unlikely, I agree, though.

>Another indication would be that all
>the Churches of the East
>(Church of the East, Chaldean
>Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, and St.
>Thomas Church in India) all
>of the venerate the Peshitta
>as the *original*.

And I suppose all the Greek-speaking Churches venerate the Koine Greek as the original.

But your point is well-taken here. One would think that the original text would not have been lost. So, since nobody venerates any Hebrew NT as the original and nobody venerates the Old Syriac, these _certainly_ aren't the original.

Alex

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service