Aramaic Primacy [i]Before[/i] George Lamsa

[Matthew777]

This is William Norton's brilliant book on Aramaic Peshitta Primacy, from the 1800's! Before Lamsa, before Younan, before me and my cheap website, there was... Norton? I never heard of him either but this is an absolute gem. The guy was a legend. All credit to Larry Kelsey (another legend) for finding and painstakingly transcribing this rare and precious work. This work is so rare, I'm not even sure of the name... I think the title is "A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John"
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/books/Norton.htm

Aramaic primacy didn't begin with George Lamsa, and therefore, an attack on George Lamsa does not equal a refutation of Aramaic primacy. I have no problem in accepting that the Apostles most likely wrote in Greek, as to reach the broadest audience possible, but this book looks interesting, and is free to read.

This part is particularly important to me:

THE CHRISTIANS OF ST. THOMAS, in India, whose profession of Christianity dates from the time of the apostles, maintain that Syriac was the original language of Scripture. Dr. Westcott says, "The Syriac Christians of Malabar even now claim for the Peshito the right to be considered as an Eastern original of the New Testament." (On the Canon, pg. 233.) "How shall we know," said one of them, speaking to Dr. Claudius Buchanan about the Greek Testament, "that your standard copy of the Bible is a TRUE TRANSLATION? We cannot depart from our own Bible. It is THE TRUE BOOK OF GOD, without corruption; it is that book which was first used by the Christians of Antioch. What TRANSLATIONS you have got in the West, we know not; but the true Bible of Antioch we have had in the mountains of Malabar for fourteen hundred years, or longer." Another of these professed Christians said, "If the parables and discourses of our Lord were in Syriac, and the people in Jerusalem commonly used it, is it not marvellous that his disciples did not record his parables in the Syrian language, and that they should have recourse to the Greek? Surely there must have been A SYRIAC ORIGINAL. The poor people in Jerusalem could not read Greek. Had THEY no record in their hands of Christ's parables which they had heard, and of his sublime discourses recorded by John after his ascension? You admit that Matthew was written originally in Syriac; you may as well admit John. Or was one Gospel enough for the inhabitants of Jerusalem?" (Dr. Etheridge's Syriac Christians, pp. 166-167.)

THE JACOBITES BEAR LIKE TESTIMONY, as to the origin of the Peshito...
"GREGORY BAR HEBRAEUS," Dr. Westcott says, "relates that the New Testament Peshito was made in the time of Thaddaeus and Abgarus, king of Edessa, when, according to the universal opinion of ancient writers, the Apostle went to proclaim Christianity in Mesopotamia. This statement HE REPEATS SEVERAL TIMES, and once, on the authority of Jacob, a deacon of Edessa, in THE FIFTH CENTURY......It is worthy of notice that Gregory assumes THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN of the New Testament Peshito AS CERTAIN; for while he gives three hypotheses as to the date of the Old Testament Version, he speaks of this as A KNOWN AND AN ACKNOWLEDGED FACT." (On the Canon, pg. 236.) Bishop Walton said that if the Peshito was "made by some one of the Apostles, it would have divine and equal authority with the other sacred books." It is therefore worthy of special notice that, according to Bar Hebraeus, the Peshito was "known" to be of "Apostolic origin," and therefore was known to be of the same authority as the Greek Text. Even Canon Westcott calls attention to the unwavering and unqualified nature of this testimony to a "known fact."
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/books/Norton.htm

Being Indian Orthodox, I would now like to seek what my church really teaches regarding the origin of the New Testament.

Peace.

[Matthew777]

Given that Aramaic and Greek were the most common languages of the earliest Christians, it would not be surprising if versions of the New Testament were made in these languages early on, as in before the mid-second century. Christians of the Syriac tradition have held that the disciple Thaddeus compiled the Peshitta and brought it to Mesopotamia.
The oldest Syriac manuscripts are as old as the Greek, and therefore should also be utilized in discerning the original New Testament.

Peace.

[SmoT]

Jeez M777,

Unplug for a while.

Go outside.....

Take a long walk.....

Hold a girls hand.....

You are WASTING your life on this board.

 

[ozgeorge]

Jeez M777,

Unplug for a while.

Go outside.....

Take a long walk.....

Hold a girls hand.....

You are WASTING your life on this board.

 

Firstly, SmoT, welcome to the board.
Secondly, Matthew777 was given similar advice 19 months ago by another poster:

It's nice outside - turn off the computer - ask a girl out - and LIVE!

So if in 19 months he hasn't taken this advice, I doubt he will take it now.
You are talking to a two trick pony: Evolution and Peshitta Primacy. Anything else isn't even on the radar. So I think you are wasting your time.

[FrChris]

Firstly, SmoT, welcome to the board.
Secondly, Matthew777 was given similar advice 19 months ago by another poster:..

Yes, a very similar poster indeed...

[Panagiotis]

!TomS, kcab emocleW
!lla retfa noitiurf ot emac detcejer uoy 'efaC sonysorhpuE ta tuoba deyarp I sreyarp esoht ekil skool tI

,sgnisselB
sitoiganaP

[ozgeorge]

!SmoT, kcab emocleW
!lla retfa noitiurf ot emac detcejer uoy 'efaC sonysorhpuE ta tuoba deyarp I sreyarp esoht ekil skool tI

,sgnisselB
sitoiganaP

You forgot to reverse "SmoT"......

[Panagiotis]

my Bad...
I shall edit!

Blessings,
Panagiotis

[Jakub]

Good grief... deja vu again for both...

james

[SmoT]

!TomS, kcab emocleW
!lla retfa noitiurf ot emac detcejer uoy 'efaC sonysorhpuE ta tuoba deyarp I sreyarp esoht ekil skool tI

,sgnisselB
sitoiganaP

?!ti deen I nehw rorrim gnad taht si erehW

[Matthew777]

Does everyone see what I'm saying? George Lamsa's extreme Aramaic primacy makes no sense, because it ignores why the Septuagint was made and other historical facts, while at the same time, the Syriac Peshitta should not be ignored because Syriac was, after all, the language of Jesus, the Apostles, and the earliest Semite Christians.

Hold a girls hand.....

Girls think I'm boring and "too intellectual," or at least the ones I know. I'm moving across state for college in less than two months, so I'd rather wait until then before dating again.

Peace.

[SmoT]

Girls think I'm boring and "too intellectual," or at least the ones I know. I'm moving across state for college in less than two months, so I'd rather wait until then before dating again.

Peace.

Yeah. I am sure girls are different over there.

[Anastasios]

Does everyone see what I'm saying? George Lamsa's extreme Aramaic primacy makes no sense, because it ignores why the Septuagint was made and other historical facts, while at the same time, the Syriac Peshitta should not be ignored because Syriac was, after all, the language of Jesus, the Apostles, and the earliest Semite Christians.

Didn't we  basically say that before, and you got all mad, and said we were all biased, and quoted some self-published PDF docs on the internet as support for your theory, which you now reject? Or am I misrepresenting what happened?

[Matthew777]

Didn't we  basically say that before, and you got all mad, and said we were all biased, and quoted some self-published PDF docs on the internet as support for your theory, which you now reject? Or am I misrepresenting what happened?

The are many examples of split words, parts of the New Testament which make more sense in the Aramaic than in the Greek, pointing to a possible Aramaic original or a dependence upon Aramaic sources, but that does not automatically make the Greek an inferior text.

The Syriac Peshitta must be considerably early, given that it was accepted by both the "Monophysite" Orthodox Syrian Christians and the "Nestorian" Assyrians. If the Peshitta were made after these groups broke off from each other, who subsequently disagreed on almost everything to the point of bitter hostility, it's highly unlikely that it would have been accepted by both as inspired and authoritative.

While I prefer the Syriac Peshitta, in being the traditional Biblical text of my church, and from the language of Jesus and His Apostles, I do not subscribe to Lamsa's anti-Hellenistic bias, nor the apparent Nestorian influence of his Christology.

Peace.

[Matthew777]

Yeah. I am sure girls are different over there.

Evergreen is supposedly a college for intellectual types, so I should not be worried, unless they are extreme secular humanists.

Peace.

[SmoT]

Evergreen is supposedly a college for intellectual types, so I should not be worried, unless they are extreme secular humanists.

Peace.

Right. It's your intelligence that turns girls off.  Yeah, I am sure that is the reason

[Matthew777]

Right. It's your intelligence that turns girls off.  Yeah, I am sure that is the reason

I've actually been told before that I am "too intelligent" or "too intellectual" and therefore, not fun.

[Αριστοκλής]

The Syriac Peshitta must be considerably early, given that it was accepted by both the "Monophysite" Orthodox Syrian Christians and the "Nestorian" Assyrians. If the Peshitta were made after these groups broke off from each other, who subsequently disagreed on almost everything to the point of bitter hostility, it's highly unlikely that it would have been accepted by both as inspired and authoritative.

Matthewisn777 "logic" at its finest. 

[Matthew777]

Could you please explain why three groups who have broken off from each other, and have bitter hostility toward each other, would accept the same version of the New Testament as inspired and authoritative, if it was made after they had already broken up? If you cannot understand the concept, that is not my fault.

For example, if the Peshitta were made by the "Monophysite" party, the Nestorians and the Maronites would not have accepted it after the division had already taken place.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

I've actually been told before that I am "too intelligent" or "too intellectual" and therefore, not fun.

Awwww....don't listen to 'em! None of it is true.

[Αριστοκλής]

Could you please explain why three groups who have broken off from each other, and have bitter hostility toward each other, would accept the same version of the New Testament as inspired and authoritative, if it was made after they had already broken up? If you cannot understand the concept, that is not my fault.

For example, if the Peshitta were made by the "Monophysite" party, the Nestorians and the Maronites would not have accepted it after the division had already taken place.

Peace.

Well, gee whiz there...this is way too intelligent for this good ole boy like me to fathom...why wouldn't they use the Greek text? Lemme' think ...maybe they couldn't read/understand Greek which goes a long way to explaining why they aren't in the Church to start with...

[Αριστοκλής]

Awwww....don't listen to 'em! None of it is true.

They were just being polite. 

[EkhristosAnesti]

...maybe they couldn't read/understand Greek which goes a long way to explaining why they aren't in the Church to start with...

That was surely a joke, right?

[Αριστοκλής]

That was surely a joke, right?

Good call, EA!
I meant to say," ...which goes a long way to explaining to start with why they aren't in the Church now...

[EkhristosAnesti]

I meant to say," ...which goes a long way to explaining to start with why they aren't in the Church now...

No, no...my question was not directed at the issue of whether you think OO's ever were a part of "the Church", nor at the absurd manner in which you choose to connect your belief to your premise regarding the OO Church's familiarity with Greek thought/language.

My question was raised in relation to that very premise. Either you're joking or you need to take a proper course in the OO Church's socio-cultural development. I recommend [http://www.handbook.mq.edu.au/unit.php?edition=2005&unitCode=AHPG856] with respect to the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular.

[Αριστοκλής]

Rather than trade further insults with one so arrogant as you, I will simply ignore this.

[ozgeorge]

the absurd manner in which you choose to connect your belief to your premise regarding the OO Church's familiarity with Greek thought/language.

To which OO Church do the Monophysites, Maronites or Nestorians belong? Because that is who Αριστοκλής is talking about in response to M777's question.

Could you please explain why three groups who have broken off from each other, and have bitter hostility toward each other, would accept the same version of the New Testament as inspired and authoritative, if it was made after they had already broken up? If you cannot understand the concept, that is not my fault.

For example, if the Peshitta were made by the "Monophysite" party, the Nestorians and the Maronites would not have accepted it after the division had already taken place.

Peace.

.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Rather than trade further insults with one so arrogant as you, I will simply ignore this.

Uncalled for. Again.

[EkhristosAnesti]

To which OO Church do the Monophysites, Maronites or Nestorians belong? Because that is who Αριστοκλής is talking about in response to M777's question..

I've never heard of any understanding of ecclesiastical history which conceives of a "Monophysite" Church in addition to an OO Church. Any reference to a "Monophysite" Church is evidently an intended reference--no matter how misleading or false such a reference may be--to the OO Church.

[Αριστοκλής]

To which OO Church do the Monophysites, Maronites or Nestorians belong? Because that is who Αριστοκλής is talking about in response to M777's question..

Ευχαριστώ !

[ozgeorge]

Ευχαριστώ !

Παρακαλώ συγχωρήστε το παλικάρη. Σας παρανόησε.
(Tr: "Please excuse the young man. He misunderstood you.")

[EkhristosAnesti]

Nice try guys; I feel sorry for whoever is dumb enough to buy it though.

Btw, I wander what implications can be reasonably derived from the fact that Matthew put the term monophysite in quotation marks when referring to this "Monophysite" Church in question? Maybe there are two OO Churches. Both falsely accused of Monophysitism; one knew Greek, and the other didn't. Aristokles was referring to the latter; it all makes so much sense now!.....................................

[ozgeorge]

Nice try guys; I feel sorry for whoever is dumb enough to buy it though.

Btw, I wander what implications can be reasonably derived from the fact that Matthew put the term monophysite in quotation marks when referring to this "Monophysite" Church in question? Maybe there are two OO Churches. Both falsely accused of Monophysitism; one knew Greek, and the other didn't. Aristokles was referring to the latter; it all makes so much sense now!.....................................

EA,
You need to calm down now and listen:

THIS is what M777 said (emphasis added):

For example, if the Peshitta were made by the "Monophysite" party, the Nestorians and the Maronites would not have accepted it after the division had already taken place.

To which Αριστοκλής responded (Emphasis added):

Well, gee whiz there...this is way too intelligent for this good ole boy like me to fathom...why wouldn't they use the Greek text? Lemme' think ...maybe they couldn't read/understand Greek which goes a long way to explaining why they aren't in the Church to start with...

Now, who is the "they" to whom Αριστοκλής is referring?
Αριστοκλής is not saying that the "Monophysite party" M777 refers to didn't know Greek. How could he mean this since he understands the Peshitta and Coptic texts to be translations of the Greek! He is therefore talking about the Nestorians and the Maronites who based their whole understanding soley on the translation without reference to the original Greek.

Do you see now how you have misunderstood?

[Αριστοκλής]

ozgeorge, if he does see, I doubt he will admit it. Not his style once committed to argue. Too bad.

[EkhristosAnesti]

THIS is what M777 said (emphasis added):

Ah, it's all about where you choose to place the emphasis isn't it? Please allow me to explain why I believe you are misguided though probably well-intentioned and noble in your attempt to rise to Aristokles' defence.

Aristokles quoted the entire response of Matthew (not just the last paragraph):

Could you please explain why three groups who have broken off from each other, and have bitter hostility toward each other, would accept the same version of the New Testament as inspired and authoritative, if it was made after they had already broken up? If you cannot understand the concept, that is not my fault.

For example, if the Peshitta were made by the "Monophysite" party, the Nestorians and the Maronites would not have accepted it after the division had already taken place. [emphasis mine]

The main inquiry is in the first paragraph; the second paragraph serves to raise a hypothesis incidental to the main inquiry which concerns the "three groups who have broken off from each other", and not "the Nestorians and the Maronites" alone. Aristokles is clearly responding to the main inquiry.

He is therefore talking about the Nestorians and the Maronites who based their whole understanding soley on the translation without reference to the original Greek.

Not quite! Aristokles clarifies his understanding of the inquiry to which he is responding to by rephrasing that inquiry in his own words:

Well, gee whiz there...this is way too intelligent for this good ole boy like me to fathom...why wouldn't they use the Greek text?

He is granting Matthew's presumption that the OO, Nestorians and Maronites regard the Peshitta to be "authoritative and inspired", and is in essence attempting to respond to why they would regard this non-Greek version of the NT as such.

Do you see now how you have misunderstood?

Do you see how you have misunderstood?

[ozgeorge]

Do you see how you have misunderstood?

Yeah, thanks, I've seen the light........Goodnight.

ozgeorge, if he does see, I doubt he will admit it. Not his style once committed to argue. Too bad.

You win the bet. I owe you a beer.

[Αριστοκλής]

Thanks. Foster's, please.

I will collect in person someday. 

[EkhristosAnesti]

Funny. I was not even offended by Aristokles' implications; I simply sought to challenge their truth.

[ozgeorge]

I simply sought to challenge their truth.

Well then you failed miserably. No beer for you.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Well then you failed miserably.

That's not a very fair assessment. It's not like i've been given a reasonable chance; i've been too busy dealing with the denial to the fact the claim was ever implicitly made in the first place.

[ozgeorge]

That's not a very fair assessment.

Yes it is. You failed.

It's not like i've been given a reasonable chance; i've been too busy dealing with the denial

Then stop living in denial.

to the fact the claim was ever implicitly made in the first place.

This "fact" exists only in your own mind.
Now, who else do we know who develops "facts" in his own mind which no one else accepts as reality and then clings to them like a rottweiler?

[Panagiotis]

Now, who else do we know who develops "facts" in his own mind which no one else accepts as reality and then clings to them like a rottweiler?

George Bush and Tony Blair?

*had to go there. Its in humour so please dont think I am trying to get political. Just a jab of bad humour.

Blessings,
Panagiotis

[EkhristosAnesti]

Now, who else do we know who develops "facts" in his own mind which no one else accepts as reality

I didn't realise that you and Aristokles represent "everyone else".

Anyway, upon reflection, I do feel compelled to submit to your explanation; not because it is any more reasonable than the one I subsequently offered, but because given Aristokles responses to your attempt to defend him, it's clear he wishes to suggest that you are in fact accurately representing his intentions...which means, as reasonable as I hold my initial reading of his post to be, it would seem that I am implicitly calling him a liar, and I don't think this particular exchange is worth resorting to that.

So I do apologise, Aristokles, and will submit my logic to the trust I place in your honesty. I have no right nor reason to accuse you of lying.

[ozgeorge]

I do feel compelled to submit to your explanation; not because it is any more reasonable than the one I subsequently offered

Of course not. Heaven forfend...

So I do apologise, Aristokles, and will submit my logic to the trust I place in your honesty. I have no right nor reason to accuse you of lying.

Good on you EA!
I only wish the fires in the Blue Mountains were as easily put out!

[Αριστοκλής]

Yes, I let ozgeorge carry my water here. I am too prone to rise to unnecessary argument with you here, EA.
This is M777's topic and as usual he makes leaps of interpolation, not interpretation. I did not think you had a dog in this fight until you decided to take issue on your terms. For that I apologize as I was having some fun watching you, yet again, over-react.
I purposely stayed out of the 'Flashing Coptic Icon' bruhaha and did not offer my opinion at all; just sitting back to see how far you would go to defend anything Coptic. I find the deChristianized "Santa Claus" found in every American shopping mall this time of year, an effront to St. Nicholas, to be an equally distasteful phenomenon. So to, when I saw you 'spinning' this into another unnecessary defense, I let it roll on. To quote new member SmoT, chill out.

{What Bible do the Copts use, anyway? For that matter, the Armenians, too?}

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Aramaic Primacy [i]Before[/i] George Lamsa