The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> the importance of Syria/Assyria question

the importance of Syria/Assyria question

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, April 29 2012, 17:03:58 (UTC)
from *** - ***

Mexico -

Windows NT -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Proving that these two really mean the same and that when we called ourselves Suraye for a thousand years we were really saying the same as Aturaye, is critical to the whole “we-are-assyrians” business.

Because otherwise it proves that we never knew we were Assyrian but only Aramean/Syrian...which soon enough just became Christian and then the shit really hit the fan.

The simplest way to understand it is by referring to the 2nd century translation of the Aramaic bible into Greek by the Hellenized Jews who first introduce the name Syria to mean the land of Aram. No one knows why they did this. Had they not done it, had Aram stayed Aram, we wouldn't be having this silly discussion all these years later for then it would be clear that the land of Aram was not also the land of Assyria.

Be that as it may, the bible clearly denotes two separate geographical locales and peoples. The bible speaks of Syria and Assyria...they aren't “the same thing” at all. This is not my “opinion”...this can be easily verified. And when, in 1970, British biblical scholars made a new translation of the English Bible, they went back to Aram, instead of Syria. That too is fact, not Dr Joseph's opinion. The question has to be asked, :why didn't they go back to Assyria, instead of Aram”? If Syria is a form of Assyria, then why didn't all these biblical scholars, sponsored by Oxford and Cambridge, know that Syria is really Assyria too? Again, not anyone's opinion, not even that of those scholars for they had the historical record right before their eyes...we KNOW when Syria was substituted for Aram, and by whom it was done...we have copies of the bible in Aramaic where ARAM is clearly used for geographical Syria and not Assyria...and we also know it was changed to Syria and not Assyria...and that's in the 2nd century...a long long time ago and no one has ever challenged it except Aprim.

We also know when Assyrian was substituted for Syrian, again not opinion but fact...Dr Joseph notes an argument about using an “invented” name for the Suryaye;

“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

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.

But here is Dr. Joseph (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

Now...these are not Dr Joseph's OPINIONS...they are not his VIEWS...they are not his INTERPRETATIONS...every statement he has made can be VERIFIED by going to its source, which is not aina, or ankawa or Wikipedia...you would think at least this much could be agreed to.

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

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

***