StephenSilver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-16-2002 at 01:21 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Sh'lama Akhi Paul: I am puzzling over the use of the word 0y=srkw0d "d'ukarstia" in Acts 2:42. This is a Greek word, "euxaristia", "the chrism is consecrated", and it is obviously transliterated into Aramaic. Even the "Received Text", (Stephens 1550), uses the word, "artou", "bread, provision". How did this Greek word, find it's way into this unique place, at the beginning of the Book of Acts, during the Festival of "Sh'vuot". Heaven forbid that the original text was "tampered with". By the way, I'm also interested as to how 0=swq=npd"of Pentecost", is used instead of "Sh'vuot", in Acts 2:1. What gives here, Akhi Paul? Fkrwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 06:54 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Ahki kulam, Isn't Pentecost in 2:1 a Greek word which is transliterated into Aramaic. Why didn't the PNT use the word for fifty here or something equivalent. The agrument that Lukas used early Greek words like 'aniontized' for 'Christain' makes him bi-lingual or is there something I'm missing here. P.S. I like your posts stephen. Shlama, jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 07:52 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Akhi John, Can you tell me what language the following is written in? : The Abbot of the monastery. Fr. John Thomas, retired last year and now enjoys teaching Yoga as a method of relaxation.Fr. John, not being a fiesta-type, preferred a private going-away party without much hoopla. Fr. John plans to take up Origami as another hobby to help pass time. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 07:16 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama Akhi Stephen, Greek words had slowly made their way into the Aramaic language - particularly in places like Antioch which is where Luke was from. In fact, that's one of the ways in which we know for sure that the Peshitta NT is not a product of Mesopotamian hands (where Greek was unknown.) This is how we know for sure that the Aramaic of the Peshitta text reflects the Aramaic of the Roman Empire where these events took place. The Peshitta NT contains Aramaic words which ultimately have a Greek origin. Others have a Latin origin, or even Persian (Sanscrit.) Hebrew is no different. All languages do this. "Pentecost" and "Eucharist" became loan-words that were fixed into Aramaic after NT times. They were popular terms in the early church just as "Maran Atha", "Abba" and other Aramaic terms were. There's no tampering here and there's nothing wrong with Luke having used a Green loan-word in Aramaic in the middle of an otherwise purely Aramaic text. As you mentioned - not even the various Greek texts have "Eucharist" in Acts 2:42 - so this is not an issue of the Aramaic text being a translation. In fact - it would make more sense that Luke wrote it this way (a Greek loan-word in Aramaic) and then Zorba would have clarified it - "bread." As for "Pentecost" - this is another (of many) Greek terms that found it's way into the Aramaic-speaking church. Even today - the CoE and other Aramaic-based churches use this term (as they do "Eucharist".) In other words - it's no different than the modern Rabbinical use of "Synagogue" which is also a word borrowed from the Greek. Does Aramaic have a native term for "bread"? Of course it does. But by the time Luke wrote the Church in Antioch may have already started to use this term "Eucharist" to mean a special kind of bread - and, like many other loan-words in Aramaic, it became a fixed part of that local dialect. These types of things are superficial as no language is, or ever has been, "pure" of foreign influence. There are so many Persian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic and other influences in Aramaic and even Hebrew (and vice-versa) that to document them all would make your head spin. I have relatives in Russia and others in Lebanon. When the Russian relatives write to us in Aramaic there are occasional Russian loan-words in the letter that are transliterated into Aramaic. It's quite amusing. When the relatives from Lebanon write - guess what? There are Arabic loan-words in the Aramaic letter. Like I have stated in the past - if the Peshitta NT had nothing but 100% pure Aramaic words of 100% pure Aramaic origin - I would NOT be an Aramaic-primacist and would be the first one to admit a Greek basis for the NT. The fact that Greek loan-words exist in the Aramaic of the Peshitta tells me that the Peshitta reflects the Aramaic of a Greek-dominated empire and people. Just like the letters we receive from relatives around the globe tells us where they live - just by the presence of these foreign "loan-words" in their speech. Luke wrote in Aramaic - even if not every word he wrote had a purely Aramaic origin. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 07:56 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhay Stephen and Paul: Here is the salient point to me: Even Tenakh has loan words. In the Torah, we find many EGYPTIAN words for example, and this is great because it shows that it was written by someone with a detailed understanding of Egyptian language and custom but expressing it transliterated and through Hebrew. That person even had an Egyptian name...MOSES. (MES="born of", as in Thut-Moses, Ah-Moses, named after gods of wisdom and light respectively. "moses" also means "drawn out" in Egyptian with a slightly different inflection...a word play basically.) Another example, for REED ("suph") is EGYPTIAN in origin, i.e. "Yam Suph" sea of reeds. We should expect that someone like Moses who was schooled in the Egyptian royal house for 40 years, and whose people lived in a region dominated by Egypt as a nation state, that these aspects would emerge in dialect. In fact, if they did not, we could be sure Torah was a fraud. Now we go to B'rit Chadasha, and there Rome dominates in Greek and Latin. There is no Hebrew word for "denarri" and no one will call it a "shekel" for obvious reasons. Jews in Israel had to echange denarii for shekels, and there was no other way to say it. Another example, Meshikha says, "Today you will be with me in___" WHERE?-- "PARADISE." A Persian word for "heaven". Rabbi Hillel uses PARDES as an acronymm for Torah study (Pshat-Remez-Drash-Sod), and neither he nor Meshikha is speaking Persian! Do we impune Hillel for not using SHMAYA/SHMAYIM instead? Of course not. This is the context that we need to look at loan words in Peshitta. Aramaic has two qualifications that make this happen. First, it is ANCIENT, which means it has plenty of time to absorb these influences. And second, it is INTERNATIONAL enough in scope to be in the places where these words originate and have people from those places move to where Aramaic predominates, learn it and pass those words on. Hope this helps! Andrew
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
StephenSilver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-17-2002 at 07:10 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Sh'lama Kulkon: I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that both words PENTECOST and EUCHARIST are used in Acts 2 as well as in Acts 20. This denotes a "signature" of the "compiler", and that is by LUKE himself. Why? What is it that ties together both Acts 2 and Acts 20? Is it not that there are Jews in Acts 2, and Gentiles through Paul's ministry, in Acts 20. The only other time that PENTECOST is used, is in I Corinthians 16:8, and this is referring to the same events as in Acts 20. I Corinthians 16 naturally follows Chapter 13, about LOVE. This is the "signature of Luke", that not only speaks volumes about the UNITY that Paul desired to achieve, without violating TORAH, but the intrinsic work of the Ruakh HaKodesh, for the Ruakh testified to Paul (Acts 20:23), concerning "bonds and imprisonments", and these "bonds and imprisonments" happened, because Paul was "extremely instrumental", or should I say, "he's putting his finger upon the crux of the matter", that "the Body (Eucharist) should be ONE". Whereas the desire of Elohim is to bring in the Gentiles to faith in Yahshua along with the Jews that believe, so the opposition of HaSatan is directed against this very endeavour, to attempt to hinder it's success. In Acts 20, the place was Ephesus, where this "revelation was shown to Paul. In Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, he speaks directly to this matter of "cohesive unity in Yahshua HaMashiakh", and Ephesians 2 is of particular interest to me, because it zeros in on what separates Jews from Gentiles, and Paul nails the solution, with the help of the Ruakh HaKodesh. Yahshua made both one, in His BODY, creating ONE NEW MAN, as it says in Ephesians 2:15. Fkrwbw 0ml4 Stephen Silver.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-18-2002 at 06:08 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Ahki Paul jumping roosters and crawling lacertilia! Have we discovered something here? Oui, bonjour! Fr. John Thomas was as American as Fr. Luke was Syrian. I agree. So nice to hear that you have calm down and come out of the dark room where Light still shines. A side note -John Thomas bye the way was a leading Hebraists in his times and his work on Phanerosis on the titles of deity is still monumental. However, he used a poor Hebrew text coming out of Holland at the turn of the 19th century which was based on Ben Chaimin not ben Asher. And I agree with Andrew that had Luke not used local flavour we would suspect a fraud. Now Stephen brings up a good point about signature however I dont think these words show signature. Lukes signature in Acts I believe is in the 5 we clauses of Lukes personal entrance with the missionary group in Acts. The Byzantine tine shows these four: 16:10 we, 20:5 us20, 21:1 we, and 27:1 we. The Western text D presuming having a Luke-Antiochene flavour adds an earlier example at Acts 11:28 we. I have marked my bible to insert the western Syrian text and when akhi Paul gets there I will be interested in comparing notes because the western text reads: and there was much rejoicing and when we had gathered together one of them (then follows what we read in KJ). I discovered this gem putting together my book on the orign of the Greek Canon a few years back. Might have to make some minor changes after akhi Pauls expertise. If the eastern Peshitta text agrees here with ms D then the westerner scholars are in trouble, because they agree that D is amongst the earliest texts. Shlama jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|