Peshitta Forum
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? (/showthread.php?tid=2927)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - distazo - 10-24-2012

This would be quite easy, just leave out some verses and the Western 5 and ignore Peshitto readings.
Then what? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I nice book for in the shelves or somebody would call the translator and say: "Where is the book Revelation?"

In my case, I made a 'critical edition' ie, prefer Peshitta readings and the 'missing' verses are in another font. The index page has the CoE order the books of Paul after the books of the Apostles and the Western 5 are last in the index.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - The Texas RAT - 10-24-2012

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:The problems I see with Aramaic primacy is the fact that most of the New Testament epistles (with the possible exception of Hebrews) were written to multi-lingual or Greek-speaking congregations (especially Paul). Why would Paul, bringing an important message to the churches to which he wrote, use a Eastern and Semitic language (for the whole letter) to write to a church that mainly consisted of Greek speakers?

TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS
Many of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, from the 2nd century to the 8th Century testified to the Semitic origin of the Book of Mattith-YaHu, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Papias (150-170 C.E.)
Mattith-YaHu composed the words in the Hebrew dialect,
and each translated as he was able.#1

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Mattith-YaHu also issued a written Gospel
among the Hebrews in their own dialect.#2

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first [Gospel] is written according to Mattith-YaHu,
the same who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yehoshuah the Messiah;
who having published it for the Yehudish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.#3

Mattith-YaHu also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,
when on the point of going also to the other nations,
committed it to writing in his native tongue,
and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.#4

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India,
where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu,
which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah,
to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is Said, had proclaimed,
and left them the writing of Mattith-YaHu in Hebrew letters.#5

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They [the Nazarenes], have the Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu,
quite complete in Hebrew:
for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written ?
in Hebrew letters.#6

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Mattith-YaHu, who is also Laywee,
and from a tax collector came to be an emissary;
first of all evangelists, composed a Gospel of Messiah in Yehudea,
in the Hebrew language and letters,
for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed,
who translated it into Greek, is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea,
which the martyr Pamphilus, so diligently collected.
I also, was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea, to copy it.
In which is to be remarked that,
wherever the evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture,
he does not ? follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint],
but that of the Hebrew."#7

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries,
had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord Yehoshuah the Messiah
according to the Gospel of Mattith-YaHu, which was written in Hebrew letters,
and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him."#8

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His [Mattith-YaHu's] book, was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands, in Hebrew...#9

#1 quoted by Eusebius Eccl. History 3:39
#2 Ireneus; Against Heresies 3:1
#3 quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. History 6:25
#4 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:24
#5 Eusebius; Eccl. History 5:10
#6 Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4
#7 Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3
#8 Jerome; De Vir. 3:36
#9 Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels



Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Shaul's/Powlos's[Paul's] epistles. These "church fathers" claim, that Powlos's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly,
he [Clement of Alexandria], has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was written by Powlos,
to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue,
but that it was carefully translated by Loukanus, and published among the Greeks.#10

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Powlos had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his Country,
some say that the evangelist Loukanus; others that Clement, translated the epistle.#11

Jerome (382)
"He (Powlos), being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew:
that is, his own tongue, and most fluently,
while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew,
were more eloquently turned into Greek.#12

#10 Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. History 6:14:2
#11 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:38:2-3
#12 Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V



It should be noted that these church fathers, did not always agree that the other books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Mattith-YaHu?, put the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament, in the Hebrew language and letters."#13 Epiphanius does however, tell us, that the Yehudish believers would disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of Yo-Khawnawn and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Yisra-Ail.#14 Epiphanius believed these versions to be mere "translations,"#15 but admitted that the Yehudish believers disagreed with him.#16 The truth in this matter is clear: If Greek had replaced Hebrew as the language of Yehudeem as early as the 1st Century, then why would fourth century Yehudeem have any need for Hebrew translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in 4th Century Yisra-Ail, testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that the Yehudish believers regarded them as authentic. Also not only does the Church of the East testify that they received the Gospels directly from the Apostles in a Semitic, not Greek, language but the Targums[Commentaries] of the Hebrew Scriptures are all written in Aramaic! So if the Hebrew people had been so familiar with Greek why would they need Commentaries of the Scriptures in Aramaic? Would they not known Aramaic? And if Aramaic had also fallen to the way side why are there still people to this day still using it handed down to them from antiquities?

#13 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
#14 Epipnanius, Pan. 30:3, 6
#15 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3, 6, 12
#16 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3



TESTIMONY OF THE TALMUDIC RABBIS
In addition to the statements made by the early Christian church fathers, the ancient Yehudish Raybbees, also, hint of a Hebrew original for the Gospels. Both the Yerushalayim and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta, relate a debate among Rabbinic Yehudeem over the method of destruction of manuscripts of New Testament books.#17 Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as "Gospels".#18 The question which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts, since they contained the actual name of Eloheem. It is of course, well known that the Greek New Testament manuscripts do not contain the Divine Name but use the Greek titles "Kurios" as a substitute. This is because the Divine Name is not traditionally transliterated into other languages, but instead is (unfortunately) rendered to an equivalent of "Lord", just as we have it in most English Bibles, and just as we find it in our late manuscripts of the Septuagint.#19 The manuscripts these Raybbee's were discussing, must have represented the original 1st Century Hebrew/Aramaic#20 Text, from which the Greek were with out question translated from.

#17 t. Shab. 3:5; b. Shab. 116 a; j. Shab. 15c
#18 (b.Shab. 116a) The word "Gospels" is part of the title of the Old Syriac manuscripts,
and is also used in some passages of the PeshittA (such as Markos 1:1) and may be a loan word,
from the Greek word for "Gospel" and in Hebrew and in Aramaic may mean "a powerful scroll?.
The exact same spelling is used both in the Talmud, the Old Syriac, and the PeshittA.
#19 Greek translation of the "Old Testament"
#20 Being the Hebrew letters are now a days actually the Ancient Aramaic script when Mattith-
YaHu and Shaul/Powlos were said to have written in Hebrew it could have very well have been they wrote with the Aramaic Script.

The Aramaic Targums
The Aramaic Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of Tanak books. These paraphrases were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew. The official targum of the Torah is Targum Onkelos, and the official targum of the Prophets is Targum Jonathan. There is no official targum of the Ketuvim, but there were targums of most of the books of the Ketuvim. The only books that lack targum versions
are Ezra and Daniel, portions of which were written in Aramaic in the first place.

All things are to be establish by of 2 or 3 eyewitnesses.
We have more than 3 ancient witnesses that established the FACT that Mattith-YaHu and Shaul/Powlos wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic font. With all the above mentioned ancient witnesses (more than 3) to the fact that Mattith-YaHu and Shaul/Powlos wrote their Books in the Hebrew/Aramaic language all the 20th and 21st Century speculations can not change the FACT that the Gospels where first written in Hebrew/Aramaic. And the FACT that the Targums were written in Aramaic as well as the eastern PeshittA renewed Covenant shows that the Aramaic language had not fallen to the way side and as well that the all so coveted Greek language of today was not so important to the Yehudeem back then!

With all of the testimonies, textural evidence, and the facts that most of the targeted people of the Renewed Covenant were Aramaic speaking people I see no reason for any one to believe one Book was written originally in Greek.

The main reason I have come across as to why some people are still wanting to believe that the Renewed Covenant was first penned completely in Greek is because they do not like how the Aramaic Text reads, and they would prefer the heresies with in the perverted Greek texts over the truths in the Eastern Aramaic!

As attested too all textural evidence, backed by ancient witnesses, show that the Greek texts are, at best, translations of the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA's Parent Text, or, at the least, the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA itself!!!

And even the Western 5 Book of the Renewed Covenant, although they have only survived to this day in the Greek language, are attested to by many scholars to have an underlying Semitic flavor to them, as with the rest of the Renewed Covenant. Especially the Greek Book of Romans is said to be the most Semitic in nature out of the rest, imagine that out of all the Books the one written to people in Rome has the best chance, according to modern Greek scholars to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

When we turn to the New Testament we find that
there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John,
and for the apocalypse
.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew?s Gospel; 1927; p. vii

....the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,
and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original
.?
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church 1941; p. 160

We come to the conclusion therefore, that the Apocalypse
as a whole, is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic
....
- RBY Scott; the Original Language
of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6

For more on the fact that Aramaic had never took second place to the Greek language amoung the Hebrew people as well as many other converts to the faith in Yehoshuah see the following webpage and read through the first 9 PDFs on the subject:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3769399">http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3769399</a><!-- m -->
Also you can read the rest of the PDFs on the textural issues that should make a believer out of even the most hard core Greek suprimist even when considering the following words of wisdom -

Keep in mind -
"All truth passes through three stages.
1)First, it is ridiculed,
2) second it is violently opposed, and
3) third, it is accepted as self-evident." <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->
-- Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations,
the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
-- Dresden James

The TRUTH is stranger than fiction only because we have been indoctrinated with a lie. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->

Also:
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth, <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->


And Remember:
Wisdom Never Lies Inked To The Pages Coddled By A Book
But Rather At Rest Supply About The Inside Of Open Minds
That Render The Confounds Thereof. <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->
-- The Texas R.A.T. (2000 AD) --

Seek And Ye Shall Find
Yea Unto Therefore
Read The Word of YHWH Ore And Ore ...Extolling Ever Again
To Thine Be The Splendor
Hallelu-Yah, Awmain[Strong?s H#543]

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - The Texas RAT - 10-24-2012

Thirdwoe Wrote::

Just added John 16:27 to the list... Eastern Peshitta reads "from the Father"...Western Peshitto reads "from God"

Iv'e adjusted the translation stats as well...and Alexander, Murdoch, and Lamsa, have moved up, while Magiera has fallen below them.

Great job Chuck,
we appreciate your expertise and due diligence in this matter, especially your new variant findings.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:If only someone would translate the Peshitta and only use it's readings. We already have completely Peshitto translations, now the Peshitta needs its turn!

Hey ScorpioSniper2,
there are two on the way as we speak. And both hopefully will be out before the close of the up coming year. One will not have the Western 5 book in it and the other will have them but duly noted that they are not from the Eastern PeshittA but rather from Greek sources. The first one will not only not have the Western 5 Books but will be a literal translation of the Eastern PeshittA without any of the Greek extra stuff. Hopefully the second one will not reiterate any of the extra Greek perversions at all either (such as the "woman caught in adulatory story", or "these three agree in Heaven, The Father, The Son, and The Ruakh HaQuodesh", "etc.." ) as they do not belong period. Even if they foot note that they do not belong in the PeshittA they would be giving credence to them by adding them to their work! Simply a footnote as to why they are not there is far better than adding them and then trying to explain them away.

Anyway at least one of them for sure will be a pure, as literally possible, English translation of the Eastern PeshittA and nothing more (and nothing less), awmain. Hopefully the second one will at least as far as the 22 Eastern Books go will stick to the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Script faithfully as well.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - The Texas RAT - 10-30-2012

ThirdWoe,

I found that Etheridge is missing the ending of Markos 11:9 -see below-

Etheridge
11:9 and these who went before him, and these
who came after him, cried, saying, Save now!

Murdoch
11:9 And those preceding him, and those following
him shouted and said: Hosanna:
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Even though this is not an Eastern vs Western variance Etheridge has made one of his own.
This becomes another MarYaH variance. Not Good!!!
ONE MORE NOTCH against Etheridge.


Also Etheridge rendered MarYah as Aloha in Acts 13:49.
That's twice now that Etheridge has created his own MarYah variances. Owe.


What's up with Etheridge? A third time he has totally removed the Title-Name Mar-Yah
(see verse below)
Etheridge
2Kaphah 2:11 whereas angels, who in power and strength are (so much) greater than they,
bring not against them a judgment of blasphemy [from MarYah]

Again, this while not on the Eastern vs Western variance is an(other) Etheridge 1-off.
Check it against any other Aramaic translation.

OWE VEY AGAIN, for the fourth time, Etheridge rendered Mar-Yah as Aloha -
Etheridge
Revelation 14:10
He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of
Aloha, Which is mingled without sparing In the
cup of his anger. And he shall be tormented in
fire and sulphur, Before his holy angels and
before the throne:


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 10-30-2012

:

Good catch Bro. But I don't think Etheridge and Murdoch translated from the same Aramaic source/sources, so it may be that Etheridge's Aramaic source didn't have that part of the verse in Mark, and had Alaha, rather than MarYa in Acts 13:49. If not, he slipped up twice pretty bad there...and if his Aramaic text really did read that way, then the scribe slipped up pretty bad.

Dylan has both Murdoch and Etheridges versions in hard copy, so maybe see if they used the same Aramaic source/sources. Please Dylan? <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - The Texas RAT - 10-30-2012

Thirdwoe Wrote::

But I don't think Etheridge and Murdoch translated from the same Aramaic source/sources, so it may be that Etheridge's Aramaic source didn't have that part of the verse in Mark, and had Alaha, rather than MarYa in Acts 13:49. If not, he slipped up twice pretty bad there...and if his Aramaic text really did read that way, then the scribe slipped up pretty bad.

Chuck

I only used Murdoch to show what should've been being I was looking through a parallel version between Etheridge and Murdoch.

The evidence was that Etheridge has a variant (that no one else has [see translations below].) and that was not on the list of Eastern vs Western readings -
Margiera:
11:9 And those who were before him and those who were behind him
were crying out and saying: ?Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of Marya.

Lamsa:
11:9 And those who were in front of him and those who
were behind him were crying and saying, Hosanna!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD

Bauscher:
11:9 And those who were before him and those who were behind were cheering
and they were saying, ?Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of
the Lord Jehovah!"



Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 10-30-2012

:

It would be interesting to learn why it's missing there. Either a mistake, or it was not in his Aramaic text. Probably a mistake. I'll do some searching to see what I can find. It's not an Eastern vs Western variant as far as I know.

Even in these days of computers, mistakes happen...just think how hard it would be to get everything right in the 1800s.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - The Texas RAT - 10-30-2012

Thirdwoe Wrote::

It would be interesting to learn why it's missing there. Either a mistake, or it was not in his Aramaic text. Probably a mistake. I'll do some searching to see what I can find. It's not an Eastern vs Western variant as far as I know.

Even in these days of computers, mistakes happen...just think how hard it would be to get everything right in the 1800s.
Check the other 3 verse also.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 11-05-2012

:

As I've been going word for word through the Letter of the Apostle James the last few days, I just found another unique reading in the Eastern Peshitta text, which also goes against the Greek and Latin text reading, and which the Western Peshitto text aligns itself with against the Peshitta. It's in James 3:10...and I've updated the list and stats above in the 1st 2 posts of this thread, showing which English translations have either reading.

Also, James 3:9 has a very interesting reading where MarYa or Master YHWH and The Father or Our Father is differentiated.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Luc Lefebvre - 11-05-2012

Thirdwoe Wrote::
Also, James 3:9 has a very interesting reading where MarYa or Master YHWH and The Father or Our Father is differentiated.
I have found this very interesting as well! The differentiation or distinction could have some interesting theological inmplications or at least provoke some interesting discussion. If Marya simply meant Lord, it would be a simple reference to Yeshua and the Father. But if Marya refers to Master Yah, then it adds a heightened element to this statement with it's differentiation, which reminds me of something you brought up in another thread Chuck (but that's a theological bunny trail). Greek critical text has them linked (our Lord and Father); textus receptus has God (The God and Father) which Franz translated as haElohim avinu (God our Father; it's part of Dukhrana's interlinear now so I always check it for fun).

Paul if you're reading this, how would you treat this verse? Do you agree that the grammatical differentiation in this verse says something theologically?


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 11-05-2012

:

I know by reading all the ancient Greek Church teachers/fathers, that they all viewed all appearances and interactions in the Old Testament, between God and Man, as being between The Messiah/The Word of God and Man. We know that The Word/Miltha/Logos OF God IS God...but He is also said to be WITH God at the same time.

This shows that even though The Father & The Son are ONE, as to Diety, there is a distinction between them nonetheless. I also saw that the early Church taught that The Father was un-named in Scripture, indicating that they believed and were taught, from Apostolic times, that MarYa/YHWH was the pre-incarnate Name of The Messiah/The Word of God/Son of God, given to Moses. No man has seen God i.e. The Father, at ANY time, but The Messiah His Word/Miltha/Logos, whom He has sent has made Him known.

These verses below show this distinction seen in James 3:10 pretty good. The Aramaic Scriptures don't blur the lines when it comes to this matter, as the Greek tends to do, but rather makes it very clear, who The Messiah is.

Colosians 3:24 "And that you know that from Our Master you are receiving retribution in The Inheritance, for, it?s unto MarYa M?Shikha {Master YHWH The Messiah}, that you serve."

1st Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is one God, The Father, from whom are all things and by whom we are, and one MarYa {Master YHWH} Yeshu' M'Shikha, by way of Him are all things and we are also by way of Him."

Philippians 2:11 "...and every tongue will profess that MarYa {Master-YHWH} is Yeshu? M?Shikha, unto The Glory of Alaha, His Father."

Also see Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 1st Corinthians 1:2 with Joel 2:32


Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Luc Lefebvre - 11-05-2012

Thirdwoe Wrote::I also saw that the early Church taught that The Father was un-named in Scripture, indicating that they believed and were taught, from Apostolic times, that MarYa/YHWH was the pre-incarnate Name of The Messiah/The Word of God/Son of God, given to Moses.

Right, but, what do we then make of passages like Genesis 19:24,

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven," (NASB)

Indicating some sort of distinction, but both being called by the Divine Name. Then Lamsa's bible from the Peshitta has an itneresting reading,

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the presence of the LORD out of heaven"

Lessening the distinction and merely showing that the LORD / Marya is all present.

But then we go to the targums and read,

"Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven" (Jonathon)
"He turned (then), and caused to descend upon them bitumen and fire from before the Lord from the heavens" (Jerusalem)

What do you think?

PS - I really apreciate you sharing your thoughts on this matter as this is a subject I love and the textual evidence seems to be very strong for this.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 11-05-2012

:

Remember that when The Father, through His Word/Messiah/Son created Mankind in His own "Our" image and likeness, He created them Male & Female...AND called Their Name "Adam" on the day THEY were created. They Two, being One, shared the same name "Adam"...but later The Man/Male/Ish, called The Woman/Female/Isha, "Eve", the mother of all living.

I see a picture of the Father and His Word, through whom He brought all things into being. And even though they are One God, they are distinct as to their relationship and roles. The Woman was taken out from the midst of The Man, She being of his own substance and being.

Since The Father and The Son are ONE, then both are truly understood to be YHWH/GOD, as to their Deity and un-created eternal nature/substance, yet The Father has been pleased to reveal Himself in and through His Son, from the Beginning, He being The Father's "visible image" and His exact likeness. As Yeshu' said to Phillip "if you have seen me, you have seen The Father" because The Father is pleased that ALL His fullness dwells in Him in physical form and that He is the means by which The Father is made known unto His creation.

But we are getting deep into the theological woods here again, where I love to explore, but in which others might get spooked...so, I'll just show this last Scripture and head back to town.

John 17:11 ?From now on, I do not dwell in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to join you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name, that Name which you have given me, so that they shall be one, just as we are.? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


..


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Luc Lefebvre - 11-06-2012

Amen, yes, that should suffice as we have strayed more so from discussing the text. But to bring it back, I think it's great that James 3:9 is worded this way in the Peshitta as it is not only unique within the textual record, but really speaks to some of this which we have been discussing. And if similar theology is promoted among the church founders, then this also goes back to show the importance of the way the Peshitta renders things.

I also noticed upon a closer look at this passage that there is a difference between Eastern and Western as well. Nothing that changes how you would translate it, but in the Eastern it reads "beh m'varchiyn chanan l'Marya" where as the Western text (taken from UBS) combines the underlined word with the word before it (bless) so it reads "beh m'varchinan l'Marya". Same thing happens in a second occurrence in the verse. Vowel pointing between east and west is of course different as well (different to the point that I would say that Roth's text would sound 100% western, although the meaning is identical to the east).


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - ScorpioSniper2 - 12-03-2012

Texas RAT, what are the two Peshitta translations you're speaking of?