The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Two Quotes From Joseph For You Fareed...

Two Quotes From Joseph For You Fareed...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, April 29 2012, 17:42:58 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

“Coakley notes a dispute that Rassam had with Arthur J. Maclean of the Anglican mission in Qochanis in 1889 over the names ‘Syrians’ and ‘Assyrians’ when Maclean argued against the term ‘Assyrians’…’Why should we invent a name when we have such a very convenient one, used for centuries, at our hand’? It was understandable, he agreed, that someone living so close to the ruins of Nineveh, ‘should have a fit of enthusiasm of Old Assyria’, but ‘is it common sense to cast aside the name used by the people themselves [Suraye] and to invent another for them of very doubtful applicability’? Rassam’s position was that ‘Syrian’ was wrong; the correct form was ‘Assyrian,’ but preferred ‘Chaldean’. Layard always referred to the Nestorians as ‘Chaldeans’ or as ‘Nestorian Chaldeans’ in order to distinguish them from those united with Rome.” pp 17-18

....you can see Joseph is not giving his opinions here...he is giving us quotes and sources for those quotes...I expcet you to play by the same rules...don´t give us your opinions on this, but do as Josph has done...bring us EVIDENCE to refute this...real evidence.

This reminds me, Layard, the hero of Nineveh, never called the people Assyrians but Chaldeans...that's because when he dug Nineveh up the only ancient name used for the Nestorians was Chaldeans...Assyrians hadn't shown up yet...his major, two-volume set on his discoveries has the word Chaldean in its title, not Assyrian. In other words the only name being used then was Chaldean, no one was yet calling anyone Assyrian.

Thw above is mine...now, you can say this is just my opinion...but it is based on facts...previously Joseph (and please, when I say "Joseph" I mean his BOOK which is filled with sources and facts, all verifiable)has shown that the name Chaldean was ressurrected before Assyrian...that is fact....also fact is that Layard dug up Nineveh...also fact is that his two-vloumne set doesn´t call his discoveries Assyrian but Chaldean..that can easily be checked in any good library...or online. All I am doing is bringing a set of known facts together to make a point...you can say this point is MINE..but it is BASED ON SOMETHING FACTUAL...now you try it.

But here is Dr. Joseph again (note: this is not the same as saying, “here is Aprim”...kay?)

“Prior to the lost-A hypothesis, the learned Mar Tuma Odu wrote that the Greeks had changed Atur (meaning Assyria in Aramaic) to Asur, which gradually became 'Sur' and eventually Syria. While this hypothesis sounds plausible, it should be remembered that even in classical Syriac, 'Syrian' and 'Assyrian' are always differentiated by two distinct terms: 'Suryaya' for Syrian and 'Aturaya' for Assyrian. In Greek, the name Assyria is a translation of the Hebrew (and Akkadian) Ashur , which in the Old Testament connotes only geographical Assyria, without its conquered territories; the biblical name for geographical Syria is Aram, while Athur is the Aramaic name for geographical Assyria.” p. 20

...okay...so, what do YOU get from these facts...and, what expert do you have who counters them...each and every one...or any?

The stage is yours.....



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9