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 #26
Help Print Share

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

script %0D%0A%3Ebut it is too much %0D%0A%3Elike arabic and when the %0D%0A%3Eletters are conected in cursive %0D%0A%3EI can not read or %0D%0A%3Ereconize them. %0D%0A%0D%0AIT%27S NOT THAT BAD SHMUEL%2C REALLY. PAUL HAS AN EXCELLENT LETTER CHART HERE AND I CAN RECOMMEND TWO BASIC BOOKS THAT WILL HELP GREATLY%3A CLASSICAL ARAMAIC BY ROCCO ERRIC %28BUT BEWARE%2C WHILE THE EXERCISES ARE GOOD%2C HE IS LAMSA%27S PROTEGE%29%2C AND THE WORK %22ARAMAIC MADE EZ%22 BY DAN MAHAR%2C AVAILABLE FROM THE ABS. I AM SURE AKHI PAUL HAS EVEN BETTER RESOURCES THAT HE CAN DIERECT YOU TO.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AAlso note the %0D%0A%3EOld Testament Peshitta differs from %0D%0A%3Ethe Hebrew in many places %0D%0A%3Eas evidenced from Dr. Lamsa%27s %0D%0A%3Einterpatation of it. Sam Shalom. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%0D%0AALSO VERY TRUE. I SUPPORT THE HEBREW MT AS MY TENAKH TEXT PRIMARILY%2C BUT I REFER TO OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS TO MAKE SURE %28SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH AND GREEK LXX.%0D%0A%0D%0ASHALOM AKHI SHMUEL AND COGRATULATIONS ON A SUPERB JOB%21%21%21%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0ASHLAMA W%27BURKATE%0D%0AANDREW GABRIEL ROTH%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A.

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

In reply to message #
 

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

3. RE: Thank you Sam

Sep-09-2000 at 02:03 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
Thank you ,Sam, for your respectful and valued answer,
you brother as I see always rely upon opinions and conclusions of scientists. It is interesting. Sam, could you please look into "Did you pay attention" poster. I value your words. As I see, we become more and more accustomed to the Paul's site.
Be blessed. Ivan.

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

4. RE: Thank you Sam

Sep-09-2000 at 08:29 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
Dear Ivan:
I do not rely merly upon the opions of others. the evidence is not 100% sure of which is it still exists is the original New Testament scripute. The Peshitta has the Khoboris manuscript discovery of the fourth century A.D. to its credit. The Greek Sinaticus is probably slightly older circa 330 A.D. The two traditions agree in most things , but have minor interpative differencs. Some of these are do to language and grammar differencs, for example the Hebrew translatioins of the Greek agree in many places with the Peshittta more than the Greek in the literal sense. The Old Testament quotes in the Hebrew texts disagree with boththe Greek and the Peshitta text. They agree with the Hebrew Masoretic text exacly.The reason is the translators simply restored the original quote as the Hebrew text has them rather than translate from the Targum paraphrase of the early oral Galileian Targums as the Peshitta did and the Greek manuscripts. The Greek texts are close to the Septuagiant but not exact copies as evidensed by their variation of words.The book of Hebrews is a noted exception, where the Greek text of the Old Testament quotes are exact copies of the Septuagiant and the Peshitta agrees with these quotes. Can this show sinse the Septuagiant is older than the Peshitta that the Peshitta is in fact a translation of the Greek? The differnce in words is tremendous , but then again when Hebrew is created from the Greek it to has the same semetic differnces of words and is closer to the Peshitta than to the Greek. Until the Peshitta is fully translated in a hard cover book form there is no way with outr reading fluent aramaic to read the Peshitta. Yes Dr. Lamsa has it translated, but his translation is comprimised based on the King James Version's use of names, order,and some minor conformity, not to mention his personal influences of anti-supernatural bias and possable Unitarian ideaolgy, due to his sponcerors. 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

5. RE: Thank you Sam

Sep-09-2000 at 08:36 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
Dear Ivan:
Let me give you an example in John 1:4 it says Bar Nassa in Aramaic meaning Son of Humanity,the Hebrew translated from the Greek says Benei Adam, meaning Son of Humanity, the Greek says Light of Humanity or phos ton anthropon.Why then does the Hebrew not read Ha Or Adam instead as the Greek does, rather it reads benei adam like the Peshitta which reads bar nassa and is equivalent to Ben Adam in Hebrew. Bar =Ben, Nassa=Adam(human or humanity). Sam ,Shalom

Print Top
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

6. RE: Seeing object

Sep-09-2000 at 10:00 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
I read in some encyclopedia(probably Brittanica)
that "the scientists differently date the Peshitta manuscripts starting from 2nd up to 4th and this question is open to doubt". Paul, is it true that the Church of the East has 100% identical text with the Khoboris manuscript? If is so, it is evident that the nature of the text seriously have lived through until now without changes. And the nature of this text reaches unknown depth of the oldness. May be even apostolic times.
Sam, you mentioned Codex Sinaiticus. There was time as I was in love with it. If you like I can send you text of it.It was written about 350 AD. and this is the earliest collection of the 27 books canon in Greek.But, at least 12 correctors did changes up to 12th century.Such is the destiny of the text as the other Greek corrupted manuscripts.
Sam, you told about why the difference in John 1.4 about between greek and hebrew/aramaic. I know only the general answer. ""I cannot rely on corrupted Greek texts any more on 100%.""
Currently, there is a splitting discussion in Swedish churches on the Matthew 28,19.
There are 3 different kinds of versions of the Greek manuscripts on this point. One states: "Go into the world and make desciples af all the nations,baptizing them..." another is "Go into the world right now and.." the third states "Go into the world and make desciples of all the nations baptized them...". The differences are great and doctrinal.it is useless fighting on this point, e.g for the Swedish. What to do then.....???
Maybe , at last, it is time to look closer at the text of the Church of the East.
Baruch hashem. Ivan.

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. The Mystery of the Peshitta

Sep-10-2000 at 02:37 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Ivan,

Here is another quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be superior."

I have no doubt about the quote you remember from the encyclopedia, about the date of the Peshitta being "in doubt".

Everything about the Peshitta is in doubt by the "scholarly" world.

I am not lying when I tell you, the quotes I have read from various scholars (the ones who are honest about it):

"The Peshitta is the official bible of the Aramaic-speaking churches. That's about all that can be said about it with any degree of certainty."

"The origins of the Peshitta are a mystery..."

"Some scholars date it to the 2nd century, others to the 5th.....yet others decline to affix a date".

You know what the bigger mystery to me is?

There has never been any tradition, whatsoever, by any Church that uses the Peshitta, that it is a translation of anything.

No history of translation.

You know, most other churches celebrate the translation of the bible into their language with feast days in their liturgical cycle.....the Armenians for example.

You know what the 2nd biggest mystery is to me?

That everyone agrees the Gospel was first preached in Aramaic. On this point, everyone agrees.

But then, some "scholars" (even some eastern ones educated in the Western Universities) claim that, even though the Gospel was preached first in Aramaic........there was no use in recording this in writing.

To hell with the Aramaic, who needs it, right? Let's just translate the words of Eshoa into a foreign tongue like Greek, and then we can forget about these original Aramaic words.

Can you imagine?

Can you imagine the Hebrew words of Moses originally penned down in Swahili?

Can you imagine the Arabic words of Muhammed originally penned down in Japanese?

Christianity is the only religion in the world, whose Founders' words were not recorded in their original language.....supposedly.

The Aramaic-speaking Christians had to wait around till the Aramaic words of Eshoa translated into Greek were available, so that they could translated them back into Aramaic.

Can you believe this logic?

All this, because the Greeks had to understand the message. That is true, and very noble, BUT.......

What about the Aramaic speaking people? You know, the original Church?

What about preserving the words of Jesus as they left His tongue....in the language He blessed with His lips? This is lost to us today?

Does any of this make any sense to anyone here, or am I crazy?

About the Khaboris, I can assure you it is 100% the same as all the other Peshitta manuscripts of the Church of the East.

I know about the Church from which it was recovered, in Hakkari mountains of Northern Assyria (today southeastern Turkey).

Let me state my opinion to you another way:

Even today.....right now (2000 AD), the Church of the East refuses to translate the Peshitta.

Why? Why translate something if it's already in the original state?

The Church has never accepted any changes, translations, or revisions. Would the Masoretes have allowed it?

If the Church of the East, EVEN TODAY, will not authorize or bless a translation.......why would they have allowed revisions to the text in the past?

If this is the case today, how much more so in the previous centuries%3

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

9. RE: The Mystery of the Peshitta

Sep-10-2000 at 07:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #7
 
Dear Akhi Paul:
I do not want to challenge the Peshitta as to you it is the original New Testament as given by the blessed Apostles themselves and always will be. Western scholarship is critical at best and is often proved wrong as we all know. For example the JEPD theory, the thery of three scolls of Isaiah being by different authoriship. The Dead sea scrolls busted a bubble in that myth did it not, as both Isaiah scrolls found were complete as one scroll each by not two or three authors but one only? the West in the aragant attuttide could be wrong again in doubting the Peshitta in favor of Greek translations,could they not? Lack of evidence does not prove anything and the majority are not always right are they? I respect your valued opinion and have no trouble in excepting the Peshitta as the original and Greek as merly a poor translation of it, as long as it does not effect Orthodox Christian doctrine. If it challenges the essential Christian faith about the diety of Eshoo,the varcarious atonment, Virgin bith,adds works to grace as a requirement of Salvation then I have a problem with it. Other wise I am willing to learn more and study the peshitta as well as compare theGreek text as for interpatation in the west as that is how the west translated the Peshitta first into Greek ,then indirectly into Latin fgromthe translation of Greek, and ect. I hope when your work is done it will become available in a hard cover book format for the general public to get use out of it. then maybee eventhoughto translate the Peshitta is impossable , butthe work can be interpated literally for those who do not know Aramaic and want the truth not a second class interpation from the Greek,when the peshitta is the original and is being made avialable in your literal interpation or commentary as the Estern Church would say. they are correct the Bible can never be changed or translated merly interpated literaly for the benefit of those who do not know the original Hebrew and Aramaic text. Thank you for your work. May God bless you. Paul I see tradition of the Asyrian Church is very important to you, being your heritage and that you are proud of it,that is nioce to know. Today so few people care bout their roots or display any pride at all to thier roots. Your roots are very ancient and of great value as well keep up the faith. As you know my people the Jews are a proud people with roots as old as yours. We gave the Bible to the nations, your people first received it and spread to the nations like India, China and ect. lonmg before the West has ever seen or known of the East. 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

8. RE: Seeing object

Sep-10-2000 at 06:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
Dear Ivan:
The Peshitta is not 100% identical in al its copies. It is true that the varaitions are far less and it has more uniformity than the Greek. But than if it is of later origin like fourth century there is time to create a uniform text type is there not. The early Greek texts vary greatly and were writen before a text type uniformity could take place. also the conditions of copying were messy and crude compared to the great skill and persion ofered in the Semetic Texts. I believe there is a possability of a original Semetic Text, but its existence is not certain. Notice the later Byzantine Majority Texts of Greek of later sixst century origin are more uniform given the time to establish such. But is uniformatism really the sign of the original or more of an edited text to cover up earlier differences of text. Also the Khobois Manuscript is not the earliest Aramaic text which the earliest agree more with the Greek, and it is incomplete having the Gospel and parts of the New Testament only missing the Old Testament and several writings supported by the earliest Greek texts. This is just some thing to think about. I do not know since the original auto graph copies do not exist any more. Sam Shalom.

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

10. Akhim ahuvim PAUL vSAM *The point #1*

Sep-10-2000 at 11:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
Akhim ahuvim Paul vSam,
you make great speeches and have enomous love to God.Brother Paul said that Peshitta is 100% identical in all its copies!!!!. Brother Sam says opposite.!!! Let's my brothers not to talk talking but to show evidence, proofs. Let's make clarifications because one of you got astray on this point.I am happy that Sam values Peshitta.
Right now the Peshitta is in the center of my attention and attention of other christians, although I am acquainted to it for about 1,5 month. And bother Paul I am going to squeeze from you a lot about it.The western churches were hiding role of Peshitta from us.
You have big opportunity to show us history and truth not by talking talks, but showing history and evidence proofs and Word of God.OK?
Paul, as much as I know you translate two manuscripts. Which ones and why two and not one and what times they are dated. Is Khaboris manuscript is 100% identical to the text of the Church of the East? How many books it consists of? Where can we get copies of these manuscripts?
Thank you a lot and God bless your contributios.
Baruch hashem. Ivan.

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

11. 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 01:31 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
Shlama Akhi Sam,

I want to answer your questions one by one, since you have raised many good points:

">Dear Ivan:
>The Peshitta is not 100% identical
>in al its copies. It
>is true that the varaitions
>are far less and it
>has more uniformity than the
>Greek."

Here, again, is the quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:


"Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be superior."

Here are some questions, based on the above quote, that you may want to think about:

(1) OK, there is clear evidence that there are 2 "groups" of Peshitta manuscripts floating around, right? Eastern (Church of the East) and Western (Jacobite). Yes or No?

(2) If #1 is "Yes", then the next question is: Would it be fair to say that the manuscripts.....*depending on their source*, would vary or not? Even the Western sources attest to this fact. Yes or No?

(3) If #2 is "Yes", then the next question is:
What would have been the cause of this departure from the original on one of the sides of tradition (Jacobite and Nestorian)? The Encyclopedia Brittanica seems to imply that the manuscripts of the Church of the East (Peshitta) are considered to be superior to the manuscripts of the West (Jacobite), right? Yes or No?

(4) If #3 is "Yes", then the next question is:
What does the "isolation" of the Church of the East mean? And what does it have to do with the manuscript quality? Could it be that the Church of the East was alone in the Persian Empire.....no other Church existed there? Could it be that the Jacobite Church was in the midst of the Greek Byzantine Church and Empire? Yes or No?

(5) If #4 is "Yes", then the next question is:
When you say "the Peshitta is not 100% identical in all its copies", are you sure that you have seen 2 texts of the Church of the East manuscripts, from say, the 6th century and today, and that they are not identical?

And if so, what is the nature of the differences? Missing letters here and there (scribal error), or like the Greek, whole stories made up and later inserted (reference John chapter 8)?

If you can honestly tell me the Khaboris is not 100% identical to todays copies hot off the printing press, then you are telling me something new which I have never heard.

Did you know that the Khaboris was in our possession until 1918, when the Turks slaughtered our people, and we fled our villages and Churches in Hakkari, Turkey (ancient Adiabene)?

Do you realize someone went back into Turkey in the 1950's and retrieved it (the Khaboris) from the very Church it was left in back in 1918?

Where do you think the Church of the East gets its modern copies from........old manuscripts like this one, or something else entirely?

BTW, the same thing happened in 1989, when someone here that I know of went into Hakkari, Turkey, to the Church of Mar Zaia in Jeelu (a tribe in Hakkari), went into the Church (with Kurdish bodyguards) and retrieved a manuscript which is *actually dated* by the scribe, and it says the year 819.

I have the video of the entire journey, and pictures.

This is the same area that the Khaboris was retreived from, but the Khaboris is much older.

">But than if it
>is of later origin like
>fourth century there is time
>to create a uniform text
>type is there not."%0

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

12. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 09:00 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #11
 
AWESOME BIT OF REASONING AKHI PAUL!

I am going to send it to my Nazarene forum. Recently someone there said when I pointed out the differences between Peshitta and Peshitto, that only two variations seemed to have any doctrinal import.

I wrote back that thse differences were not slight to the Assyrians, number one, and that 99% of truth is not true, and therefore a lie. Also the exclusion of 5 books cannot be looked on as a minor oversight. The same is true with he consistently inferior Aramaic used throughout the Peshitto.

I then told them to consult with your website to see the Aramaic for themselves and look at the differences between it and say Murdock's Peshitto translation.

It DOES matter. When it comes to the Messiah and his Gospel...ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

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

13. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 09:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #12
 
Dear Akhi Andrew:
The information of Paul's is interesting to say the least. But it does not account for why the west would have older Aramaic Manuscripts that agree with the Greek as early as the third century,like the Cueterion. Is the earlier manuscripts really an atempt to supress the original Aramaic origin of the New Testament by a Greek Christian Helenistic Empire? After all Christianty was still ileagle in the Roman Empire and as such Christians had no rights whatever. The Aramaic of the Jacobites has very few differences from the Peshitta of the East. I personally only found one in Acts 20:28. But as far as I am concerned I am no expert and can not read the Aramaic text,so I do not know all the answers. To throw away the Greek texts translations as they might very well be is to premature and can be foolish. I attend to use both and sort out the differences for myself. I wish you the best in your endevers. May God bless and keep you in the faith. Remeber even a varaiation of one letter is a varaiation the same. In Isaiah 53 there are 17 letter variations from the Masoretic text and one word of 3 letters spelling light missing from the Masorah, a difference of 1,000 years in date. Yet scholars loosly say that the two texts are identical,this is simply not the truth then is it? Sam Shalom
La-Shana Tovah Tikvateinu for the 29th. of this month the start of the civil Jewish New Year Rosh Ha Shana literally Head of the Year. It is mmentioned in Leviticus 23. Do you speak Hebrew , Aramaic and or Greek at all and how much do you know? I know a little Hebrew, a drop of Aramaic and some Greek myself. I studied both Hebrew and Greek at the university level.

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

14. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 10:40 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #13
 
Greeting Akhi Shmuel and thank you for your thoughtful post.

I will try and answer best I can.

1) I appreciate your statements about word variations in isaiah 53, etc, however, what I meant was a dilution of truth by deliberate and malicious word substitution, and Acts 20:28 is a HUGE, CAVERNOUS DIFFERENCE.

2) I do not throw out Greek translations. They are just that...TRANSLATIONS, not the original God-Breathed texts which are held by the COE. I find certain aspects of the Greek helpful to be sure, but I also know that a full understanding of the Semitic cultural mileu that our messiah cmae from only resides in Aramaic, primacist issues aside.

3) How much Hebrew and Aramaic do I know? Can it ever be enough, dear Schmuel? I have devoted my life to understanding the written Tenakh and have been in contnuous study since the age of 4. I will also tell you that I developed language skills fairly late, so my peak for understanding languages came at 5 years old and not 3. As a result, when I undertook the study of Hebrew at that age, it imprinted itself on me as a primary language just when my Enlgish was also coming along. But whereas English was the language I used to get by in daily life, Hebrew was my sacred language and I think of Scripture in that language first. For me hashamayim is not the Hebrew word for heaven...heaven is the English word for hashamayim.

I am, for the record, in possession of all primary source of Hebrew and Greek bibles, (LXX, MT, etc) except for the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that I am working on. I do not claim to be a conversationalist in either the ancient or modern equivalents of these languages. I do however feel very comfortable in the role of a translator and in issues of syntax, morphology,and understanding underlying idioms and poetic patterns of the same. My Greek is admittedly not as strong, but I have references to help me through, and you will see that I usually do not use Hellenistic evidence in my arguments. Here I can translate somewhat, but it takes WAY LONGER. That is also why when I went into a recent in-depth analysis of Koine and Clasical styles, I sought the help of one of the foremost Greek scholars on the planet, and Akhi Paul knows well of the dialogue between us.

In the last three years, I have turned to Aramaic far more than Hebrew, but still feel like I can, as my first century countrymen did, toggle between the two fairly well. If we are talking written texts then, this is my stregnth. If you want a guy who can talk like a native from 2000 years ago, Paul is your man, and my teacher in this respect. That is why I call him "malpanna" because he does help me in the area of pronunciation quite a bit.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

15. Concerning the Dead Sea scrolls

Sep-11-2000 at 11:13 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Dear brothers,
Dear Sam, you pay attention to the Dead Sea scrolls and Andrew too. My logical opinion on this is what one brother said from what is known from history. The ancient scribes copied Tanach by hand. After the scroll is ready, it was brought to synagogue for check and acception. If at least was one error in the scroll, the scroll was destroyed.
The tradition was exta strict.The traditional(Masoretic text) is the authoritative text of the State of Israel. Who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls and how and what were the sources for the copies, nobody knows. The are considered apochriphical, and therefore we can incur ourselves to unknown influence.Jesus refered to the text officially accepted in Israel as you know well.
Baruch hashem.Ivan.

Print Top
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

16. The Paul's COE Peshitta originality

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

In reply to message #15
 
Shlama akhi Paul,
You know, the first time I really heard about Peshitta is from your site. About originality of the New Testament the western scholars have not any proof as I explored the best views of theirs. They just admit logically that the New Testament was written in Greek. The COE has tradition (just like Jews have tradition about their masoretic text, what I like) that the New Testament was written in Aramaic just what is stated in your site <<<
In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

"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

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East

April 5, 1957>>>
Well, what the history of the COE says about it, the patristic works, historic works or this is just Mar Eshai told this because he just heard someone telling this? If they accepted the Peshitta from the hands of the Apostles, how they can assure that the NT was written in Aramaic. Personally I agree to the 4 gospels and the rest but...It is hard for me to believe that Epistles of Paul were written in Aramaic. How could he write to the center of the Latin speaking Gentiles in Aramaic or Greek (The Epistle to Romans)?Or to the center of Greece in Aramaic? Paul, this is important, so take enough time to answer every logic of this message, please. Thank you. Just remember that your answer is not just for me only!
Next time I would like to discuss about canons.
Paul, your job is highly appreciated.
God bless you, brother.
Brother Sam, please make the revision of the Paul's answers if you disagree with something, if possible for you,please.
Thank you. Do not think that I make you to work for me. I do want to know the truth! and to tell to others!
Baruch hashem. Ivan.


Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

17. RE: The Paul's COE Peshitta originality

Sep-11-2000 at 12:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Akhi Ivan:

As I am sure Akhi Paul will respond in the manner that an issue of this importance demands, please allow me to set the stage from a general standpoint for what is to be a a fairly detailed answer.


The issue in my view is not so much the language of the audience involved, rather it is the language that the writers felt most comfortable writing in. Have you noticed, for example, these two citations:

All the brothers here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
21
I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.
22
If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord <2> !
23
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
24
My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen. <3> 
<19> Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla
<22> In Aramaic the expression Come, O Lord is Marana tha.
<24> Some manuscripts do not have Amen.

I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.
18
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. 
2 thess 3:17

As you can see by the notes on the NIV, Paul is actually inserting an Aramaic phrase into the Greek version of his letter. What's MARANATHA doing there, going to a church in Corinth, where they only spoke Greek? I think it was a way to authenticate the manuscript, which is why it is "the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write."

Next issue is the fact that Paul had problems with Greek. First, he never went anywhere into Gentile territory without a scribe or a translator on hand, (Romans 16:22, Acts 16, several others). If he wasn't traveling with Mark, it was Silas, and if not Silas, Luke, etc. Silas in particular is given credit with helping him write both letters to the church in Thesssaly (1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1), and Peter also used Silas' services for his Epistle, (1 Peter 5:12-13.

Paul's Greek in fact was so tentative that he talks about HOW LARGE HE WRITES IN GREEK (Galatians 6:11) meaning he surely did not have a scribal hand with that language. And, 2 Peter 3:15-16 talks about the fact that Gentiles did NOT understand Paul's meaning in Greek consistently.

On the other hand, Josephus, who wrote much better Greek than Paul or Peter even when they had help, put out a ton more material WITHOUT EVER USING A SCRIBE! Praised by many as hahving superb Greek, Josephus himself makes the following statement:

1. WHEREAS the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but no where the accurate truth of the facts; I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; (2) Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, .

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: The Paul's COE Peshitta originality

Sep-11-2000 at 01:07 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #16
 
Shlama Akhi Ivan,

">Shlama akhi Paul,
>You know, the first time I
>really heard about Peshitta is
>from your site."

I do not doubt it. 99% of Christians have never even heard of the Church of the East.

Isn't that amazing, since during the 11th century, the Church of the East was larger than the Greek and Latin Churches COMBINED, and stretched from Cyprus to Japan?

Not many people know that. The whole history is starting to be re-told. Ask Akhi Dan Farrell, who has recently studied the subject from an excellent book by Professor Samuel Hugh Moffett, Professor of Missions Emeritus, of Princeton Theological Seminary.

Here is a link to purchase the book, if you are interested in the history of the Church of the East.

https://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=4F1WRUTMGN&mscssid=0PJ962JS4E719MFEGF4APTMJFQKV2US9&isbn=1570751625

The world has forgotten about us, since we have been 99.9% slaughtered over the past 1400 years, but especially by the coming of the Mongols and Turks 700 years ago.

Today, we are only a small remnant (less than 1 million people).


">About originality
>of the New Testament the
>western scholars have not any
>proof as I explored the
>best views of theirs. They
>just admit logically that the
>New Testament was written in
>Greek."

Right. There's no purposeful deception going on, no conspiracy to hide the truth, and no hatred on their part of Aramaic or, in general, the Semitic origin of the NT.

You have to think of this point:

In the early Church, what was the earliest controversy? What was the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts, convened for?

In the beginning, the struggle was between "Traditional" Jews and "Hellenistic" Jews, right?

What happened to the texts in the West, when the "Hellenistics" won? When the Church became mostly Gentile?

Did they care for the Semitic texts? No, they translated them (as "best they could", according to Papias referring to Mathai) and the originals were no longer needed.

Did the Jews in Alexandria bother to keep the original Hebrew text? NO. If the Jews in Palestine had never bothered to preserve it, all we would have today would be the Septuagint, right?

Now, in the East, the Church remained Jewish-based for far longer than, say, Rome or Corinth.

And, the best part, even the Gentiles in the East spoke Aramaic, like the Jews. So, they did not need to translate anything......it was already in their language. The same language Eshoa and the Apostles spoke.

See what I'm getting at?

The West needed to translate (as Papias admitted), the East did not. It was already their language. So, they preserved it intact.

">Well, what the history of the
>COE says about it, the
>patristic works, historic works or
>this is just Mar Eshai
>told this because he just
>heard someone telling this?"

The Church of the East has no Patristic writings stating any facts either way.

There are ancient Fathers of the Church (like Ephraem and Aphrahat, both in 4th centuries), who quoted the Peshitta.

The silence about any translation is there as well....we have no record of ever translating this work from any Greek manuscripts.

It is just a tradition.

We were amazed, after emigrating from the Middle East last century, that the West thought the Greek manuscripts were the original language.

We had never heard this, it was quite strange to our ears......like our claim was to yo

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

19. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 07:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #14
 
Dear Akhi Andrew:
I tend to agree a little more with the Peshitta being the original, but mosat interpatations or as the west calls them translations are bsed upon Greek. Of the Aramaic translations I have only Dr. Lamsa's is complete in the Old and New Testament and some have said he did a bad job. That leaves only the version of Herb Jahn's Interlinear Aramaic New Covenaunt which is complete in that aspect. But he does not use one uniform text and differs from the Peshitta occasionally. Victor Alexander's is incomplete and not very literal and confuses the reader, for example in Acts 2 he uses the phrase mass and ect. clearly not in Aramaic but of the Catholic theological persuation which I as a fundimentalist Jewish believer reject. Paul's version is the best literal one available but it is incomplete and needs to be in book form if ti is to be used in the Churches and the general public as well.So I will continue to read the New Testament from the Greek in the King James Version until something better comes along.Even Dr. Lamsa was complementary towards the King James version he even used the same name renderings and book order the original Peshitta differs in order like Paul's work follows. Also if Revelation is not in Aramaic then is it not sacred, and if it is sacred which version should we English speaking people trust? I see your Hebrew and Greek is like mine. My Hebrew is better but not good enough to translate on my own.I have the Peshitta in Aramaic of the New Testament in Hebrew letters like the Talmud no vowels are given,I can read it fair not very good unless vowels can be added,I use it for reference mostly. I wish to be able to read Aramaic in its Estrangela script but it is too much like arabic and when the letters are conected in cursive I can not read or reconize them. Also note the Old Testament Peshitta differs from the Hebrew in many places as evidenced from Dr. Lamsa's interpatation of it. Sam Shalom.

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

20. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 09:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #19
 
>Dear Akhi Andrew:
>I tend to agree a little
>more with the Peshitta being
>the original, but mosat interpatations
>or as the west calls
>them translations are bsed upon
>Greek.

SHALOM AKHI SAM. THIS IS YOUR BEST POST TO DATE...FILLED WITH EXCELLENT POINTS!!!


Of the Aramaic translations
>I have only Dr. Lamsa's
>is complete in the Old
>and New Testament and some
>have said he did a
>bad job.

LAMSA'S TRASNLATION IS FILLED WITH LIBERAL PREJUDICES BUT I HAVE LESS PROBLEMS WITH IT THAN ANY GREEK BASED TRANSLATION BECAUSE AT LEAST HE UNDERSTANDS AND HAS THE RIGHT SOURCES.


That leaves only
>the version of Herb Jahn's
>Interlinear Aramaic New Covenaunt which
>is complete in that aspect.


JAHN IS A GOOD TRASNLATOR, BUT HIS SOURCE, THE PESHITTO, IS INFERIOR TO THE PESHITTA IN MANY SUBTLE WAYS AND NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE ODD DOCTRINAL SWITCH,LIKE ACTS 20:28. I DON'T MIND IT HOWEVER AS ONE SOURCE OF MANY.

>But he does not use
>one uniform text and differs
>from the Peshitta occasionally.

ABSOLUTELY, BUT WE CAN HELP WITH THE ROUGH SPOTS AND WE WILL.

Victor
>Alexander's is incomplete and not
>very literal and confuses the
>reader, for example in Acts
>2 he uses the phrase
>mass and ect. clearly not
>in Aramaic but of the
>Catholic theological persuation which I
>as a fundimentalist Jewish believer
>reject.

AWESOME POINT AND ABSOLUTELY TRUE! I HAVE BECOME MORE DISENCHANTED WITH THE LIBERTIES VICTOR TAKES AND SO HAS AKHI PAUL. ALEXANDER IS BEING TOO "CUTE" AND TRENDY. HE DOES HOWEVER GIVE A GREAT ACCOUNTING OF ARAMAIC IDIOMS IN HIS FOOTNOTES WHICH ARE WORTH THE TROUBLE ELSEWHERE. AGAIN, JUST ANOTHER WEAPON IN YOUR ARAMAIC ARSENAL.

Paul's version is the
>best literal one available but
>it is incomplete and needs
>to be in book form
>if ti is to be
>used in the Churches and
>the general public as well.

I CAN'T WAIT EITHER. HIS IS THE BAST WORK I HAVE EVER SEEN...AND I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT IT WILL GAIN IF NOT ACCEPTANCE FROM THE COE, TOLERATION.


So
>I will continue to read
>the New Testament from the
>Greek in the King James
>Version until something better comes
>along.

THERE ARE FAR BETTER THINGS THAN KJV THAT RELY ALSO ON GREEK TEXTS AND USE DISCOVERIES SINCE 1611 LIKE THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. I LIKE THE NIV AND THE NASB PERSONALLY. THE LATTER, ESPECIALLY THE RYRIE EDITION, FOLLOWS VERY SOUND RULES OF GREEK TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION. TAKE KJV WITH A GRAIN A SALT AND BY ALL MEANS KEEP YOUR STRONG'S CONCORDANCE WITH YOU AT ALL TIMES. AKHI PAUL AND I CAN HELP WITH THE REST. KJV IS TERRIFIC AS LITURGY AND POETRY, BUT NOT FROM A SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE IN MY VIEW.


Even Dr. Lamsa was complementary
>towards the King James version
>he even used the same
>name renderings and book order


LAMSA DID WHAT WAS EXPEDIENT. IF HE CHALLENGED KJV HE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED. IN FACT, HIS ORIGINAL FOOTNOTES, WHICH SHOW MORE THAN A THOUSAND CASES WHERE THE PESHITTA NT GOES AGAINST THE KJV WERE EXCISED FROM HIS ORIGINAL EDITION AND RESTORED BY THE ABS ONLY 2 YEARS AGO. SAME WITH THE BOOK ORDER. HE DID NOT WANT TO ROCK THE BOAT.


>the original Peshitta differs in
>order like Paul's work follows.
>Also if Revelation is not
>in Aramaic then is it
>not sacred, and if it
>is sacred which version should
>we English speaking people trust?


YOUR BEST QUESTION OF THEM ALL. I TRULY APPRECIATE AND SHARE

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

21. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-11-2000 at 10:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #20
 
Dear Akhi Andrew:
Thanks for the complements .I have about thirty translations of the Bible ,several Hebrew texts, Greek texts, and Latin as well. I also have translations in forty languages. I like the Hebrew translation of the New Testament,it is from Greek but preserves the semetic grammar and structure better than the Greek text does. It is also closer to the Peshitta in some places like in John1:4 the greek says light of humanity so does Lamsa but the Aramaic says bar Nassa meaning son of humanity and the hebrew text reads benei adam also son of humanity,strange isn't it? The Aramaic reads clearer than the Greek does and makes more sense in a graet many places. Perhaps that is because contray to modern scholarship the New Testament is the Aramaic of the Peshitta not the Greek of the Majority or Sinaticus text. When interpating from one language to another things change and meanings get lost. If Aramiac is translated to Hebrew or vice a versa the grammar is similar and the text remains very close , but when Aramaic or Hebrew is translatedto Greek the grammar is totally different and the meanings often change more than a little. It is eaiser to translate the Peshitta to Hebrew than to Greek if I am correct. also Aramaic might translate into English better than Greek with its complex gramatical rules and forms, I am not sure. But is it not better to take advantage of the original Aramaic Peshitta in an English translation than the Greek a translation of a translation loosing even more meaning at best since it is now removed by twice as much material as the original. Sam Shalom p.s. i have been responding to Mighty Tzadok and I am fustrarated at how he constantly twists the scriptures to his Quranic veiws and refuses to relize thatr the peshitta does not agree with the Quran. I decided to give up talking to him as the conversation is very one way and he is using this forum to try to underhandingly promote Islam as the true religion, and I could not but differ as far as the east is from the west on that. What is your advice? You know he also had the nerve to ask me if Zionism is Racism, that does not even deserve an answer,does it? What about enslaving Southern Sudanese peoples of non-Islamic faiths in the name of Islam , is that not the real racism? The Turks killed thousands of non-musliums less then 100 years ago, their only real crime was that they were not musliums, is that right? When will this genocide ever stop? Etnic cleasing in Bosnia, Sudan, Indonesia,and ect, this very moment.

Print Top
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

22. Peshitta is evident original!

Sep-12-2000 at 00:20 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #21
 
Akhim ahuvim,
hine ma tov uma nayim, shevet akhim gam yahad!
Truely you are scholars under the simple names.Both you Paul and Andrew gave exciting and impressing evidences. Looking at the face of the whole Christianity, we see that there is no other other evidence as to accept the Peshitta as original. I spent many years looking for the truth digging in the Greek corruptions and asking God to show me the face of the truth which is undistorted. I feel very excited of the realities that were hidden from us and now revealed.
You know I am Ukrainian and moved to USA just 4 years ago. My English is not perfect as you can see. In our community I saw ones an article in the newspaper about Church of the East. It reads that it was most missionary Church that spread to Japan and Kazakhstan in the North. It was said that it was destroyed except not large remnant. It was said very good words about these Christians. But, the article did not mention about Peshitta. The article began: who of you heard about Church of the East? They are Christians like us.
Paul, if in the future you erase the posts, let us know beforehand. I am going to publish our discussions in our local newspapers and magazines to introduce to people the Church of the East. Thank you. God bless you ,my brothers.
Is that not wonderful that God preserved His Word uncorrupted and not distorted? It's a big, big excitement!
Well,if wee look at the canons.
dear brothers in Christ, what are your seeings about the canon of the new testament. I prefer to call it simply Gospel.As we know the Roman Chuch canon underwent big tribulations. Some Councils accepted certain books, the next ones deleted these books from the canon and so on. As it is seen if to accept God's ruling of the Councils means that He deleted Himself several times. I am afraid to judge but it is funny to me, is not it?
The book of Revelation was several times accepted and deleted and again accepted. Looks like God was fighting with Himself. Looking at the deeds of the Roman Church, killing those who disagreed with the Church, burned , tortured and so on, it is clear that devil was ruling this Church. God, forgive me, but I am not attracted to this staff. So, on the Roman Church canon I not want to say yes or no.
There is Armenian canon that added to 27 books the 3rd Epistle to Corinthians.WOW!
The Church of the East accepts 22 books. Why?Paul, when was the canon of the Church of the East accepted?and why 22 books. i know that it is descension of the Apostolic language and churches.
The North African churches have 2 Epistles of Clementine and some other books.
The Ethiopian canon has most of all books, like 27 + 11 or so. WwOW!
I saw site of the Ethiopian Church and they state that God alloted different canons to different churches. WHat are your opinions dear brothers of the Apostolic descendence?
There are many apocryphic books of the New Testament also, but they are not included into the canons.
God bless all you and Shalom from Ivan. Baruch hashem!

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to  Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to  Andrew Gabriel RothAdd  Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

24. RE: Peshitta is evident original!

Sep-12-2000 at 12:34 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #22
 
Baruch HaShem to you, Akhi Ivan.

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I was misled by Greek texts for ten years. God bless the purity of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages. I rejoice with you, dear Ivan, I truly do.

I know Paul is the expert on this, but as a preview allow me to say simply that the COE accepted all the books that it knew for certain were written in Aramaic and brought to them by actual apostles.

Paul knows that I support a 27 book canon andhas told me that there are no major doctrinal problems by believing in them too. As I also told Akhi Shmuel, I have not completely worked out how to deal with the probable Greek origin of excluded 5, except perhaps that an God breathed Aramaic original of them was lost very early and what we have is a memory of it composed in Greek.

I respect however the COE position though because, as you know, our forefathers did the same thing. If the OT book was not originally done in Hebrew, it went bye bye. The LXX had 11 extra books that were thrown out of the Hebrew Canon for this reason.

History is of course replete with conflicts and lies, but it is my hope that we can witness to all-- Catholics and conventional Jews alike-- to show a better path. As many differences as I have with the RCC, I am also glad that they are reconciling with the COE, and John Paul II has certainly helped assuage a lot of wounds felt by Jews all over the world. Are they there yet? No, of course not. But enough is happening to have hope. We will exchange with them and introduce the REAL MESSIAH to them!!!


Your post just about brought me to tears...I am sure Akhi Paul will feel the same way.


Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

23. RE: 100% or Not 100%?

Sep-12-2000 at 12:07 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #21
 
>Dear Akhi Andrew:
>Thanks for the complements .I have
>about thirty translations of the
>Bible ,several Hebrew texts, Greek
>texts, and Latin as well.
>I also have translations in
>forty languages.

HELLO ASKHI SHMUEL. YOU ARE WELCOME. I TRY TO BE FAIR AND CALL IT AS I SEE IT. I AM ALSO GLAD THAT YOUR LIBRARY IS SO EXTENSIVE.

TOV!!!

I like the
>Hebrew translation of the New
>Testament,it is from Greek but
>preserves the semetic grammar and
>structure better than the Greek
>text does. It is also
>closer to the Peshitta in
>some places like in John1:4
>the greek says light of
>humanity so does Lamsa but
>the Aramaic says bar Nassa
>meaning son of humanity and
>the hebrew text reads benei
>adam also son of humanity,strange
>isn't it? The Aramaic reads
>clearer than the Greek does
>and makes more sense in
>a graet many places. Perhaps
>that is because contray to
>modern scholarship the New Testament
>is the Aramaic of the
>Peshitta not the Greek of
>the Majority or Sinaticus text.
>When interpating from one language
>to another things change and
>meanings get lost.

YES I AGREE TO THE EXTENT THAT ARAMAIC AND HEBREW ARE VERY CLOSE AND THAT THE MORE LANGUAGE BARRIERS THAT ARE PUT UP, THE HARDER IT IS TO RECOVER THE TRUTH. EXAMPLE, READING THE LXX AND TRANSLATING THE GREEK INTO ENGLISH IS A HORRIBLE PROSPECT. WHY NOT LOOK AT THE HEBREW ORIGINAL???

If Aramiac
>is translated to Hebrew or
>vice a versa the grammar
>is similar and the text
>remains very close , but
>when Aramaic or Hebrew is
>translatedto Greek the grammar is
>totally different and the meanings
>often change more than a
>little. It is eaiser to
>translate the Peshitta to Hebrew
>than to Greek if I
>am correct. also Aramaic might
>translate into English better than
>Greek with its complex gramatical
>rules and forms, I am
>not sure. But is it
>not better to take advantage
>of the original Aramaic Peshitta
>in an English translation than
>the Greek a translation of
>a translation loosing even more
>meaning at best since it
>is now removed by twice
>as much material as the
>original. Sam Shalom


I AGREE HERE ALSO. EVEN IF I HAD TO CONCEDE THAT GREEK WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NT (NEVER! BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT WE'LL SAY SO) I WOULD STILL NEED THE PESHITTA TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY OUR MESSIAH TAUGHT...EVEN AS MANY GENTILES TRY TO STUDY JEWISH CULTURE TO UNDERSTAND HIM ALSO. GREEK IS THE WORST TRASNSMISSION OF THESE THOUGHTS IMAGINABLE, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN ARAMAIC SOURCES.

p.s. i
>have been responding to Mighty
>Tzadok and I am fustrarated
>at how he constantly twists
>the scriptures to his Quranic
>veiws and refuses to relize
>thatr the peshitta does not
>agree with the Quran. I
>decided to give up talking
>to him as the conversation
>is very one way and
>he is using this forum
>to try to underhandingly promote
>Islam as the true religion,
>and I could not but
>differ as far as the
>east is from the west
>on that. What is your
>advice? You know he also
>had the nerve to ask
>me if Zionism is Racism,
>that does not even deserve
>an answer,does it? What about
>enslaving Southern Sudanese peoples of
>non-Islamic faiths in the name
>of Islam , is that
>not t

Print Top
Ivan Ostapyuk
 
Send email to Ivan OstapyukSend private message to Ivan OstapyukAdd Ivan Ostapyuk to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

25. About New T. canons

Sep-12-2000 at 08:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #23
 
Shalom rav, akhi Andrew,
Concerning the canons,thank you for your wise reply.
I was praying and talked with brothers and got peace about this point. It is written John 21,25) about books. The Christianity has several NT canons. Actually,New Testament is the Gospel. The spirit of the Gospel can be expresed by different numbers of books. I do believe that the smallest canon that is of the Church of the East is the necessary collection of books through which the spirit of the Gospel can be comprehanded. The more books, the more details and revelations , and stories. Every church has own destiny what is alloted to it.
But, not good to have the same books with different texts. For example,in the book of Revelation there are enumerations of the chosen people from the tribes of Israel in the heaven. Different Greek manuscripts give different names of the tribes. People have the text what they did to it. The extensions above Peshitta I can read only from rough senses' points of view.
What do you think or know the Apostles wrote in Estrangelo or Hebrew letters.?
What language were the 5 more books of the NT written?Do you have any evidences.?
I think Paul is very busy translating the Peshitta.
May God bless him not to make any mistake in this holy work.
Andrew look out once more how the life is good in being close to and feel the spirit of the Creator!
God bless you and Shalom from Ivan.

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to Andrew Gabriel RothView profile of Andrew Gabriel RothAdd Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member: Sep-6-2000
Posts: 384
Member Feedback

26. RE: About New T. canons

Sep-13-2000 at 11:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #25
 
>Shalom rav, akhi Andrew,
>Concerning the canons,thank you for your
>wise reply.


MY PLEASURE, AKHI IVAN. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE EXCELLENT AND A JOY TO LOOK INTO.

>I was praying and talked with
>brothers and got peace about
>this point. It is written
>John 21,25) about books. The
>Christianity has several NT canons.
>Actually,New Testament is the Gospel.
>The spirit of the Gospel
>can be expresed by different
>numbers of books. I do
>believe that the smallest canon
>that is of the Church
>of the East is the
>necessary collection of books through
>which the spirit of the
>Gospel can be comprehanded. The
>more books, the more details
>and revelations , and stories.
>Every church has own destiny
>what is alloted to it.
>

I AGREE AS LONG AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 27 BOOKS IN THE NT CANON AND NOT GNOSTIC HERETICAL DOCUMENTS.


>But, not good to have
>the same books with different
>texts. For example,in the book
>of Revelation there are enumerations
>of the chosen people from
>the tribes of Israel in
>the heaven. Different Greek manuscripts
>give different names of the
>tribes. People have the
>text what they did to
>it. The extensions above Peshitta
>I can read only from
>rough senses' points of view.

EXCELLENT POINT HERE AS WELL. THAT IS WHY THE GREEK NT PEOPLE NEED CONSTATN REVISION, BECAUSE THIER VESSEL AND ORIGINAL SOURCE IS FLAWED. IT IS HARD ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ARAMAIC THOUGHT IN ENGLISH DIRECTLY WITHOUT HAVING THE GREEK COME BETWEEN THEM.
>
>What do you think or know
>the Apostles wrote in Estrangelo
>or Hebrew letters.?

ESTRANGELO ARAMAIC LETTERS WERE THE STANDARD FOR THE TIME. I AM SURE THE APOSTLES WROTE IN EITHER THAT FORM OR ELSE IN BIBLICAL HEBREW WHICH WAS TARGUMMED INTO THE ARAMAIC OUR MESSIAH SPOKE. HIS EXACT DIALECT BY THE WAY IS NO LONGER SPOKE, BUT THE NORTHERN ASSYRIAN DIALECT TAT PAUL KNOWS IS, IN MY OOPINION, VERY CLOSE TO IT. THE FACT IS ALSO THAT THE ARAMAIC AND HEBREW ARE SO CLOSE THAT IT IS SOMETIMES HARD TO SEE WHERE THINKING IN ONE ENDS AND THE OTHER BEGINS.

TO SEE WHAT I MEAN, PLEASE REVIEW AKHI PAUL'S WONDERFUL ANALYSIS OF ZAKARYA'S CANTICLE IN LUQA AND HOW IT TOGGLES BETWEEN THEM. IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, LET ME KNOW AND I WILL BE GLAD TO FORWARD IT TO YOU.

>What language were the 5 more
>books of the NT written?Do
>you have any evidences.?
>I think Paul is very busy
>translating the Peshitta.
>May God bless him not to
>make any mistake in this
>holy work.


THIS IS VERY, VERY TOUGH, AKHI IVAN. SORTING OUT WHICH LEVELS OF SEMTICISISMS HAVE TO DO WITH HEBREW/ARAMAIC INFLUENECES ABSORBED IN KOINE ALEXANDRIAN GREEK FROM THE TRANSLATION OF THE LXX ON AND ARE REFLECTED IN GREEK COMPOSITION, AND THOSE WHICH ARE SO DEEP AS TO SCREAM FOR ARAMAIC ORIGINALS IS MUCH HARDER IN THESE 5 BOOKS.

I TEND TO LEAN TO A GREEK ORIGIN OF AT LEAST THREE OF THEM. THE OTHER 2, REV AND 2 PETER, HAVE GIVEN ME FITS. REV HAS A TON OF SEMTIC IMAGERY AND ALLUSIONS AND IS WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN OTHER NT WRITERS WERE SHYING AWAY FROM THESE IN WAKE OF JERUSALEMS DESTRUCTION. THERE ARE TWO SCHOLARS IN PARTICULAR WHO HAVE PUT FORTH PROOFS THAT REV AT LEAST IS SOMEHOW FROM HEBREW OR ARAMAIC BUT THAT THAT THE PROOF TEXT GOT LOST.

PAUL IS SURE HOWEVER, THAT IT IS PURELY GREEK.

2 PETER BOTHERS ME BECAUSE, THE GREEK IN IT RESEMBLES GREATLY OTHER SPEECHES GIVEN BY PETER IN ACTS. HOW THAT RELATES TO THE ARAMAIC OF ACTS AND 1 PETER IS BEYOND MY LEARNING AT THIS POINT.

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

27. RE: About New T. canons

Sep-13-2000 at 02:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #26
 
Dear Akhi Andrew, Paul, and Ivan:
Here is something to read:
Risita a hewa melta hu a melta a hewa lewat a alaha a hewa hu a melta hana a hewa risita lewat a alaha a kul a hewa bel'ad a ap a hewa medem hewa d'atra haye hewa haye a nuhra bar'nassa hu nuhra hesuka nehar hesuka la derak.

Bareishit hayah ha davar v hadavar hayah im ba Elohim, veilohim hayah ha davar. Hu hayah ba'reishit im ha Elohim. Hakhd nihyah al yadaiv, umibaladaiv lo nihyah kawl asher nihyah. Bo hai-yu khayim ve ha khaim hai-yu ha-or liv-nei ha adam. V-ha-or mei-eer ba khoshekh v-ha khoshekh lo hisigu.

En archi en ho Logos, kai Logos en pros ton Theon,kai Theos en ho Logos. Outos en en archi pros ton Theon. Panta di autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude en ho gegonen. En autps zoe en,kai hei zoe en to phos ton anthropon. Kai to phos en te skotia phainei,kai hei skotia auto ou katelaben.

In the beginning the Word having been and the Word having been unto God and God having been the Word He having been,in the beginning, unto God all through His hand became and without Him not even one being whatever became. In Him life became the life having the light of the Son of Humanity: and the light enlightened the darkness and the darkness overtook it not.

From Yanoun 1:1-5,from the original Peshitta in Armeanian,Ivrit, Yanuit, English respectivley. Please note that the Aramaic text follows the English transliteration of Herb Yahn's Text. I do not know if he is correct or not, also his text follows the root words only and does not show the proper grammatical conection. I hope to be getting in two weeks by mail a Hebrew letter Peshitta with vowels in both Aramaic the original text and a Hebrew translation unlike the one above fromthe Yanuit text but from the Peshitta directly, then I can put in the corect gramatical text as well and read the Aramaic fluently with much less difficulty. By the way it adds the Peshitto text of the disputed books in Aramic and Hebrew like 2Peter, 2,3 John, Jude and Revelation from an Eastern 1890 Mosoul, Iraqi text. This it is the Estrangela Peshitta except the Peshitto of the five disputed writings not in the Peshitta , but added in the sixst century in the West either from the original aramaic source or the Yanuit translated to Aramaic I do not know, butr it will be interesting as an alternative to translations and the Yanuit corrupt text. Sam Shalom.

Print Top
Andrew Gabriel Roth
 
Send email to  Andrew Gabriel RothSend private message to  Andrew Gabriel RothAdd  Andrew Gabriel Roth to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

28. RE: About New T. canons

Sep-13-2000 at 04:12 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #27
 
Great stuff, Akhi Shmuel!


I will let Paul deal with the rest, but there were some very interesting features to your material that I wanted to comment on.

As I said before, Jahn is pretty good as a translator, but his source is the Peshitto and not the Peshitta. I don't see any major problems though with this version in English.

I am however fascinated with the second series' use of DABAR as WORD. This is a very literal rendering, almost like a retro from Greek back into Hebrew. Psalm 33:6 MT uses DABAR as "word" of creation, however all Aramaic NTs use MILTA, which has the equivalent of MEMRA in Hebrew. What is fascinating to me about this is that the mystics in the Zohar apply DABAR in Psalm 33:6 and targum it into MEMRA/MILTA in their writings about it. So the Aramaic could reflect a kind of proto-Zohar targumim.

The first series contracts Barshith (Bereshit) in a manner reminiscent of how certain first syllables tended to be downplayed in Aramaic. For example, Eliezar in hebrew transliterates as Alazar in Aramaic, but the 'a' is dropped to 'lazar, and of course the Greeks cannot help but add the 'os, LAZAROS, in translation.

Just random ramblings here, nothing more. I will look at the text in greater detail later. Meanwhile, thank you.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Print Top
Ivan
 
Send email to IvanSend private message to IvanAdd Ivan to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

29. The Peshitta online text

Sep-14-2000 at 04:06 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #28
 
Shalom dear akhim,
If anybody knows where it is possible to get the Peshitta(Church of the East) electronic text in any font or script, please let me know. My email is
st67@yahoo.com" target="_top">ost67@yahoo.com
Thank you and God bless you. Ivan.

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

30. RE: The Peshitta online text

Sep-15-2000 at 06:34 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #29
 
Dear Akhi Ivan:
I do not think a digital electronic book form is available of the original Peshitta in any script. The digital electronic New Testament Peshitta unvocalized in Hebrew letters I have is fromthe onlinebible down loads and must be unziped and run with a download of at least a basic program and set up. I have the online bible cd-rom and download the text to read on the cd-rom, I also paid a $5 unlock code fee and received Dr. Lamsa's completed Old and new Testament in English translated from the Asyrian Original Peeshitta text on my cd-rom. The Peshitta text of the New Testament is Yacobi and not Asyrian it maybe close but it is not the original Peshitta. that is why I ordered a book form of the original asyrian Peshitta vocalized in Hebrew letters and a Hebrew translation of the Aramaya text facinf the oposite page.I ordered through christian book.com stock #WW04360 I believe. To get the Peshitto in unvocalized Hebrew letter form you must go to www.onlinebible/downloads then download a basic program withthe setup, then download the Peshitta text N.T. 1905 edition, and unzip it to your hard drive, I think. Hope I 've been of some help here. Sam Shlama Rabba BaShema Eshoa Meshikha.

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