My Take On "Aramaic Primacy"

[shimunkeefa]

I hope that everyone had a peaceful Shabbat.

I wanted to tell you about my take on the "Aramaic Primacy" of the Brit Chadasha.

I agree with Jan Mageria, that there are three languages that we really need for Bible study.

Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

I learned a lot while I studied Aramaic Primacy of the New Testament.

But I also saw a lot of spiritual pitfalls that one could easily get into, and become shipwrecked in one's Faith.

And I also saw A LOT of money being made by those selling Aramaic Primacy of the New Testament.

I find that to be dangerous. So Ha Shem (what they would call 'Marya') is for sale for $58.00 to $68.00, or MORE??

Is THAT how it really is?

It seems to be that way, from what I saw.

I came away with a really good friend, who I can agree to disagree with, and we'll probably be friends for life.

And the lessons that I learned I hope that I've shared with you. So you won't have go through what I did.

I just wanted to tell you what I think about a subject that was once very close to my heart.

So, now you know.

Todah rabbah for listening.

Shalom,  Shimun 

[alon]

Since you posted earlier I have done some checking, and to be truthful I am a bit disenchanted with the Peshitta. Rav S says there is still much we can learn from it. But frankly, I doubt I'll use it nearly as much.

I never believed in Aramaic primacy. The entire Bible was written by Jews to Jews in Hebrew. B'reshit to Hisgalut. And Jews always have and always will speak Hebrew. It has underwent changes over the centuries, but it is still Hebrew. Aramaic primacy is another myth of the Eastern branch of the church to set themselves apart. And it is as big a lie as the Greek myth of the Roman branch meant to keep people in bondage.

I did give the Aramaic text a lot of credit because it is so close to Hebrew. Frankly most of the time it agrees with other Bible translations. But after looking further into it I am somewhere between angry and disgusted to learn that once again we've been lied to by the founders of Christian religions. Is there enough wrong to make a big difference? I don't really know; but I do know that even a small thing can send you spinning off into some bad theology.

Dan C

[shimunkeefa]

Shalom Dan,

You know the Brit Chadasha written in Hebrew........we have some of the "church fathers" testifying to a Hebrew Matthew (Matthiyahu or Mattai), but we have not really ANY real evidence of a Hebrew Brit Chadasha, besides what I hear is hidden in the vaults of the Vatican. And I really HAVE heard that many times, from various sources.

When the early Yahad was scattered by persecution, and later, by the Jewish Wars, the ancient Believers in Yeshua went across the Yarden (Jordan) River, into territory that is now in Islamic hands, and let's face it, if there ever WAS any real archeological evidence found (i.e. a Hebrew Brit Chadasha), it's highly doubtful that Muslims would want that evidence to be seen by the whole world, that YES this really WAS Jewish Land, in ancient times!

Now, I don't rule out another miracle, sort of akin to finding the Dead Sea Scrolls........in what is now Muslim land, because Ha Shem can do anything, including finding ancient scrolls of ha Brit Chadasha, but it would take a miracle I believe for something this profound to happen.

I think that there is so little archeological evidence for a Hebrew Brit Chadasha, that I find it extremely doubtful that anything will turn up at this late date, for an ancient Brit Chadasha/New Testament written completely in Hebrew.

Tell me please on what you base your ideas on for this?

Todah.

Respectfully,  Shimun

Apr 15, 2017 21:35:44 GMT -8 alon said:

Since you posted earlier I have done some checking, and to be truthful I am a bit disenchanted with the Peshitta. Rav S says there is still much we can learn from it. But frankly, I doubt I'll use it nearly as much.

I never believed in Aramaic primacy. The entire Bible was written by Jews to Jews in Hebrew. B'reshit to Hisgalut. And Jews always have and always will speak Hebrew. It has underwent changes over the centuries, but it is still Hebrew. Aramaic primacy is another myth of the Eastern branch of the church to set themselves apart. And it is as big a lie as the Greek myth of the Roman branch meant to keep people in bondage.

I did give the Aramaic text a lot of credit because it is so close to Hebrew. Frankly most of the time it agrees with other Bible translations. But after looking further into it I am somewhere between angry and disgusted to learn that once again we've been lied to by the founders of Christian religions. Is there enough wrong to make a big difference? I don't really know; but I do know that even a small thing can send you spinning off into some bad theology.

Dan C

[alon]

I knew the Peshitta was used by the Eastern Orthodox, but I wasn’t aware of its history or some of the things the authors were into. 

One of the disappointing things I found researching is the claims I’d heard of their having older source documents I now know is fraudulent. If they’d said they were operaing from recent copies of older documents that were lost I could understand. But many times I've read references to these "older" source documents. Their own preface to the Peshitta sas it was “received from the hands of the blessed apostles themselves” and “has come down from biblical times without any change or revision.” The publisher does say their source docs for the OT date rom the 5th cen and the NT from the sixth or seventh. So if you read that far you’d know. But why in the prominent text make it sound like you have documents from the first cen, then bury the truth? A language that has gone through 500+ yrs of change is certainly a major form of revision! And it could not have been handed down from the "hands of the Blessed Apostles" in the 7th cen CE. It was copied, edited for clarity as language changed, and all without the strict oversight that the Hebrew TNK had when it was copied. Furthermore since it generally agrees with many of our corrupted source documents I suspect there may have been some editing for agreement with early church doctrine before the great schism.

To quote Rav S, who defends the use of the Peshitta as a reference; still he says "We have to use these works carefully and realize they've passed through the hands of the ungodly." But it's like he also notes this is the same as we have to do with the KJV and all our contemporary translations. 

Maybe I am being too hard on them. After all, they are clerics steeped in perfidious practices; no worse than their RCC or “Protestant” brethren. So while I am disappointed to learn some of these things I won’t throw it out. But I’ll certainly be more cautious using it.

Thanks for the heads up.

Dan C

[alon]

Posted by shimunkeefa: You know the Brit Chadasha written in Hebrew........we have some of the "church fathers" testifying to a Hebrew Matthew (Matthiyahu or Mattai), but we have not really ANY real evidence of a Hebrew Brit Chadasha, besides what I hear is hidden in the vaults of the Vatican. And I really HAVE heard that many times, from various sources.

When the early Yahad was scattered by persecution, and later, by the Jewish Wars, the ancient Believers in Yeshua went across the Yarden (Jordan) River, into territory that is now in Islamic hands, and let's face it, if there ever WAS any real archeological evidence found (i.e. a Hebrew Brit Chadasha), it's highly doubtful that Muslims would want that evidence to be seen by the whole world, that YES this really WAS Jewish Land, in ancient times!

Now, I don't rule out another miracle, sort of akin to finding the Dead Sea Scrolls........in what is now Muslim land, because Ha Shem can do anything, including finding ancient scrolls of ha Brit Chadasha, but it would take a miracle I believe for something this profound to happen.

I think that there is so little archeological evidence for a Hebrew Brit Chadasha, that I find it extremely doubtful that anything will turn up at this late date, for an ancient Brit Chadasha/New Testament written completely in Hebrew.

Tell me please on what you base your ideas on for this?

There are several threads here dealing with this. I'll give you a quick sketch, then see if I can find a couple.

I am not a linguist, but I have read the works of several linguistic scho;ars who prove it by sntax, structure, use of phrases and idioms and other means. To be fair, many (probably most) Christian scholars still defend the Hebrew. I'm sure there are some who defend Aramaic as well. But the Hebrew primacy people have the best arguments as far as I can see. Also G-d, who does not change, said "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."  (Romans 3:1-2 KJV) If you are not Jewish, you'll not be given any oracles. And had any of the Shaliachim attached themselves to a pagan religion speaking pagan Greek, they'd have forfeited their Jewishness. And Jews spoke Hebrew. Then as now, you have a synagogue, you have a Hebrew class.

One of the easy proofs I remember tho is the 'vav connector.' It is extremely poor grammar in Greek to start a sentence with 'and.' In Hebrew that is extremely good gramer. I've done this with many doubting Christians, so I know it works.

Get your New Testament, any translation. Open it randomly and see f you can find a page where there is no sentence starting with 'and.' Do this as many times as you like.



Now that probably won't disprove Aramaic. But I do think I remember dealing with that in one of the posts. I'll see what I can dig up.

Dan C

[alon]

Couldn't find the threads, and all my notes and references on the topic were lost when my last computer crashed. But I can recall some things. The accounts of Josephus saying the Jews in 1st cen Israel spoke Hebrew. The fact other religious writings such as the Talmud are written in Hebrew. Well over 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew, with Greek, Latin and Aramaic making up the rest. was read in synagogues throughout the diaspora every Shabbat in Hebrew. And every Jewish boy at his Bar Mitzva had to read from in Hebrew, which was possible because every synagogue had a Hebrew class.

Those encyclicals (letters meant to be passed from synagogue to synagogue) which later became the Kethuvai Shaliachim which made up the bulk of the so called New Testament were written to the church leaders. They were not meant for everyone to read them; they'd have never survived one synagogue! Parchments of the time were fragile. The church leadership, who certainly would have preferred Hebrew, read them, vetted them for scriptural agreement, then passed the information on to their congregations. 

There is also that the claims of both Christians and Aramaic primacists are to me specious at best. One says they spoke Greek and possibly Aramaic, the other says they spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek. But their claims are baseless as far as I can see. Both Greek and Aramaic were spoken by those who had to trade or deal with the pagan cultures around them. But writings and inscriptions from the time tell a much different story than either anti-Hebrew group tells. Their home, cultural and religious life was decidedly Hebrew.

Dan C

[shimunkeefa]

Shalom Dan, 

   Thanks for your replies.

You said:  "I knew the Peshitta was used by the Eastern Orthodox, but I wasn’t aware of its history or some of the things the authors were into."

NO, the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and there are **many** different kinds Orthodoxy), use the (Greek) Byzantine Bible.

The Syriac Churches use the Peshitta and the Peshitto. 'The Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East' (it's got 3 differing branches if I remember correctly. And they all use the the Peshitta N.T.). And The Syrian Orthodox Church use's the Peshitto.

The Church of the East Assyrian Churches are all believers in the Duo-Physite (I may have this spelled wrong) idea of Christ having 2 (TWO) distinct Natures.

One side being a human being, who is completely distinct from the other side, who is Messiah, the Son of G-d.

Both kinds of Syriac Churches believe in the idea of the Trinity.

The Syrian Orthodox Church use's the Peshitto Bible, which if I remember correctly, is different in 5 places, then the Eastern Peshitta N.T. 

They believe that Christ has One single nature, and are known as "Monophysites", or "Jacobites".

Both of these churches were ONE church up, until the 5 th Century. They broke over the physical/spiritual Nature of Messiah. They BOTH used the Eastern Peshitta, up until the 5th Century.

It was then that the Peshitto N.T. came into existence.

The oldest copy of the Eastern Peshitta comes from the 12th Century, but it was copied from a 5th Century MS of the Peshitta, which was in turn copied from a 2nd Century MS of the Peshitta.

If I remember correctly, you can take a look at      www.dukhrana.com        for more on this.

This website was developed by Stephen Silver, a Messianic Jew, who was a friend of mine.

He is now with Adonai Yeshua, in Glory.

He was a Righteous Man. Literally.


The website for the Assyrian Church of the East is:    www.facebook.com/assyrianchurch/?fref=ts         If I remember correctly.

They have a kind of Pope, he is called a "Catholicos". He is head of their church.

They claim descent from Yeshua's mother Maryam, and from His step father, Yosef. (I personally believe that this is actually TRUE).

For about the first 160 years of it's existence, the Church of the East was completely led by Jewish men.

This is from their history book called 'The Marganitha', or 'The Pearl', in English.

Their Headquarters used to be in Baghdad, Iraq, but is now in Chicago, Illinois.

I know far less about The Syrian Orthodox Church, but I do know that they use the Peshitto, which as I said above, is slightly different then the Peshitta N.T.

I hope all of this makes some sense to you. If you have other questions, feel free to ask them. If I know, I will answer any question that you might have.


Shalom, Shimun


P.S. Here is one more interesting website:      www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNMd42tk4Pg

[alon]

Good info. Thanks!

I have done my due diligence and updated my "Wrong" thread ... and it was so far down in the archives too! *sigh*

Dan C

edit: Thanks for the websites. The "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East" is what I think of when talking about the use of the Peshitta. Their symbols look like the Eastern Orthodox church; so I can see how I got them confused. But I'm glad to know some of the difference now. I know how difficult it is to talk to someone who lumps MJ, HR and everyone who believes in Yeshua and keeps (or at least studies) all together. Must be the same to someone with a background in "'Eastern 'Christianity'" (sic) talking to me!