Peshitta Forum
AENT Errors - 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: AENT Errors (/showthread.php?tid=2954)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


AENT Errors - ScorpioSniper2 - 11-25-2012

I know Luc was talking about starting a new thread detailing the AENT mistranslations and such. The AENT is a fine and scholarly volume, but like all translations of the Scriptures, it has it's own flaws. While a new update for Roth's AENT is coming out in December, I think it would be a good idea to continue working on finding errors that need to be fixed. Here are some to start off with.

He usually translates the Aramaic phrase for "New Covenant" as "Renewed Covenant", but shouldn't it be translated as "New Covenant"?

Matthew 10:38- 'And anyone that does not take up his staff and come and follow me is not worthy of me."

Again, just about every translation universally translates the word translated as "staff" as "cross" or "stake", including both Paul Younan and George Lamsa (both native speakers of Aramaic).

Matthew 13:27- 'And the servants approached the house of Master YHWH and said to him, "Behold, you did sow good seed in your field. From where are the tares in it?'"

Both the context and the Peshitta text show that the "master" was not YHWH.

Colossians 2:16- "Let no (pagan) therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats."

While Roth makes it clear that "pagan" is not in the Peshitta text, he should leave his interpretation out of the translation and leave it in the commentary, especially when the context contradicts Brother Roth's interpretation.

Ephesians 2:15- "And in his flesh (the) enmity and regulations of commands (contained) in his commandments are abolished (so) that in himself (an occurrence of the divine nature or qnoma), he might make the two into one, establishing peace."

Pretty much every other translation of the Peshitta says "...make the two into one new man..." (or something similar). I also think "(an occurrence of the divine nature or qnoma)" should be moved to the footnotes section.


Re: AENT Errors - Thirdwoe - 11-25-2012

:

As I understand it...According to Roth's Messianc doctrines, "The New Covenant", is really not "New" in the sence of something totally other than "The Former Covenant", but a "Re-Newing" of "The Former Covenant" and making it "Better". If this understanding is true, this line of reasoning helps with the other teachings his group holds to, that says one must keep The Torah to be sanctified, something I have heard told personally. Well, at least as much of The Torah as would apply to them today, with The Temple no longer standing and The Levitical Priesthood being ceased and such things as relate to it...so they really just keep as much as they believe should be kept, as other Christians or "Christo-Pagans" as they are sometimes refered to by some, also keep the parts of The Torah (the moral law) that they believe applies to them today and not the rest which they believe don't in both cases it's a matter of picking and choosing, which ones are applicable. Mr. Roth has a long list in the AENT of those laws he believes all believers in Messiah should be keeping...and it's much, much, much, longer than the list that The Apostles wrote down at the council of Jerusalem in about 50 A.D., that they sent to all the Gentiles who were coming to faith in Messiah, by the power of The Holy Spirit.

.


Re: AENT Errors - ScorpioSniper2 - 11-25-2012

You're correct. Apparently (just like in Hebrew), the Aramaic word for "new" can also mean "renewed". Based on Scriptural context (including in Hebrews), it makes more since as "the New Covenant". But then again, I'm one of those Christo-pagans! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->


Re: AENT Errors - Luc Lefebvre - 11-25-2012

Let's try and keep the discussion focused on the text. When I get my fifth edition I'll return with a lot more stuff. In the meantime,

1) Renewed Covenant - Yes, this is an acceptable translation. There are actually several streams of theology to support the concept, and the often incorrect assumption is that this is merely a renewal of the Mosaic covenant which is not true. It includes elements of all the covenants to bring the master plan of the Father together. This discussion exceeds the scope of the forum though, but personally, I subscribe to promise theology which one can read about from scholar and theologian Walter C. Kaiser.

2) Staff VS Cross - This is a minority reading for sure. Both Jenning's and Payne do not even list stake as a definition of z'qifeh, although Magiera does. While I can see where Roth gets the idea based on culture here, I would need to find a lexical entry that goes deeper into the etymology of the word (anyone know of a good Aramaic one? Something similar to the "Theological Workbook of the Old Testament" where the word itself rather than the meaning is discussed). Or, does anyone know if the staff Moses lifts up in Numbers is the same Aramaic word in the Peshitta Tanach?

3) Matthew 13:27: The Aramaic reads "d'Mareh baita" so this was a mistranslation. I don't think it was one I sent in though, so I'll have to see if it was caught and updated for the fifth edition. If not, it will be going on my new list.

4) Colossians 2:16 - This I think was highly influenced by an episode of Michael Rood's show that makes a case for this referring to pagans. I agree that it should be kept to the footnotes however, and will be offering an alternative opinion when I give feedback on the subsequent edition.

5) Ephesians 2:15 - The phrase is "lchad barnasha chadata" - one man new (or made new / renewed). I'm not sure why this was cut down by Roth because it says the same thing. I also agree that the qnoma comment should be brought to the footnotes as it clutters the text somewhat. This has always been a difficult passage to translate literally whether from the Greek or from the Aramaic and many translations have put in and taken out words to try and make it flow smoother. I'll probably spend some time with it as well when I give Roth new feedback.

I have a whole other list but I'm waiting for the 5th so I can check all those occurrences first (I sent it in as feedback last December I think).


Re: AENT Errors - ScorpioSniper2 - 11-26-2012

Thanks for your feedback, Luc! Does anyone else think that the cross/stake issue is rather minor? I honestly could see the traditional t-shaped cross being called a stake.


Re: AENT Errors - Thirdwoe - 11-26-2012

:

It was always taught in the early Church that the Cross was shaped like a T, not an I

.


Re: AENT Errors - ScorpioSniper2 - 11-26-2012

I agree with that assessment, but I think we should appeal less to what is said to have been taught to the early church and what the more sure word of prophecy says. Does anyone have anything else to add?


Re: AENT Errors - Burning one - 11-26-2012

Shlama,


just a thought: Messiah carried the horizontal beam of the cross to the "stake"-like portion, didn't He? i'm assuming here, since i find it difficult that such a completed structure could be legitimately carried due to the weight. if so, then the uncompleted part that awaited Him would be the "stake," and only when He was actually crucified would it be a true "cross" or T / t shape. it's all really just dividing over hairs, i suppose, but i don't think translationally anything is misconveyed to the reader by sticking (no pun intended) to the term "cross."

i know that some "Messianic" followers believe incorrectly that the shape of the cross is from pagan origins, so that would be the likely initial aversion the older term, and desiring to use the substitute, and not really the idea that it can be translated to an extent as "stake" / a substitute only the Greek term could even allow - the Peshitta's Z'QAFA only really means "elevated object," and by understanding, the cross itself. so, in that case, using a "stake" in translation is putting the Greek-minded idea upon the Aramaic - something we don't want to happen. the Eastern churches, thankfully, were never terribly influenced by the Greek side of things anyhow, so to arrive at a "cross" term to describe the same object, yet it be free of the possible translation of "stake," should be a powerful witness for us that "cross" is legitimate for translation. the shape itself is of no pagan consequence - even Old Negev Hebrew (pre-Exodus / pre-Paleo) shows the letter Tav to look like exactly like the revered shape of the cross we know today. if Alaha saw fit to let people use it, then nobody should have an issue with it.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: AENT Errors - Luc Lefebvre - 11-26-2012

Burning one Wrote:i know that some "Messianic" followers believe incorrectly that the shape of the cross is from pagan origins,
Perhaps not pagan origins (that would be hard to conclusively prove) but at the very least pagan use. Although, since Messiah was killed by pagans, it really makes no difference either way. That's one way I like to show people the ridiculousness of such an argument. The other simplification of this issue is how a stake could very well be both a cross or an upright pole. The difference between the two however is of zero importance in comparison to the event that took place upon it. That is often forgotten when people begin to debate that issue.

Jeremy, do you know of a good lexicon that goes more in-depth to the eytomology of Aramaic words? (as opposed to simple definitions)

And, does anyone know if z'qifeh is the word used in the Peshitta version of Numbers 21:8?


Re: AENT Errors - Burning one - 11-26-2012

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:i know that some "Messianic" followers believe incorrectly that the shape of the cross is from pagan origins,
Perhaps not pagan origins (that would be hard to conclusively prove) but at the very least pagan use. Although, since Messiah was killed by pagans, it really makes no difference either way. That's one way I like to show people the ridiculousness of such an argument. The other simplification of this issue is how a stake could very well be both a cross or an upright pole. The difference between the two however is of zero importance in comparison to the event that took place upon it. That is often forgotten when people begin to debate that issue.

Jeremy, do you know of a good lexicon that goes more in-depth to the eytomology of Aramaic words? (as opposed to simple definitions)

And, does anyone know if z'qifeh is the word used in the Peshitta version of Numbers 21:8?


Shlama akhi,

yes, it is an irrelevent point in the end, but one they will consider worthy of changing a word over, unfortunately. the event that occurred upon the cross far outweighs how the device might have appeared - that's a great point to keep in mind.

as for lexicons, i use Jennings' from time to time, but it really doesn't go that far with explanations. there's probably better ways that someone else could share with you, but i simply cross-reference roots on my own, and compare terms to Hebrew cognates, where i can, to get a fuller picture if i'm in doubt as to the etymology.

also, the Peshitta AN'K does not use Z'QIFEH in Numbers 21:8. i would translate it this way:


And MarYa spoke to Mushe, "Make for yourself a poisonous snake of bronze, and place it for a sign. And all who are bitten of the snake shall look upon it, and live."



Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: AENT Errors - The Texas RAT - 11-26-2012

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Colossians 2:16- "Let no (pagan) therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats."

While Roth makes it clear that "pagan" is not in the Peshitta text, he should leave his interpretation out of the translation and leave it in the commentary, especially when the context contradicts Brother Roth's interpretation.
That's funny because in my eyes, as well as many other Nazarenes, even thought the text doesn't specifically say it in this sentence the context clearly alludes to it.

Not to mention that Powlos [Paul] throughout his writings, time and time again, spoke of keeping Feast after Feast. He also kept the Seventh Day Shabbawth [Sabbath] consistently throughout his life, as was the practice of The Anointed One, and all the other Apostles. The Book of Acts tells that the Disciples kept the Shabbawth a minimum of 85 times (this is after The Anointed One had died and ascended to the right hand of His Father). No where in the Renewed Covenant did the Disciples worship on the first day of the week unless you count the Feast of Pentecost. That's right a Scriptural Feast!

How anyone could believe Powlos taught the Feast of Unleavened Bread is no-longer to be observed (1Co 5:8 ?Therefore let us keep the Feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.?) when in the first chapter of 1st Corinthians the context is clearly speaking against their old pagan ways while at the same time promoting truth as YHWH has proclaimed it in Scripture (i.e.-Torah.

Also Polycarp, who was a student of Yo-Khawnawn [John], keep the PassOver Feast throughout his life (and refused to replace it with Easter), who died in 156AD (well into the second century). He taught that the Apostle Yo-Khawnawn not only kept this Feast but taught others to observe it also.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:You're correct. Apparently (just like in Hebrew), the Aramaic word for "new" can also mean "renewed". Based on Scriptural context (including in Hebrews), it makes more since as "the New Covenant". But then again, I'm one of those Christo-pagans! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
I would say that it's funny, but it really ain't <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad --> . Again I and any other Nazarene seem to see differently here as well. The only reason I see that one would want to translate New over ReNewed is because they do not want to keep the afore mentioned Feast themselves, while in denial of the fact that the Apostles kept the Shabbawths and Feasts long after The Anointed One's death and resurrection. They some how come to the conclusion that The Anointed One came to call that which YHWH called acceptably is now unacceptable, and that which was clean is now unclean, and that which was unclean (like pig) is now clean. They teach that the Instruction YHWH gave us to live a righteous life are sinful to follow now. Oy. The worst of their teaching is that they follow the Spirit and not the Law. Yet just what spirit would lead one to go against the Instruction/Law in which YHWH gave us to lead us unto a righteous life before Him? It would have to be an adversarial spirit unto YHWH's TORAH. And yes YHWH as well as His only begotten Son Yehoshuah spoke plenty about such a spirit.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Does anyone else think that the cross/stake issue is rather minor? I honestly could see the traditional t-shaped cross being called a stake.

The shape of the torture stake, while up for debate, is defiantly a minor issue for sure, and should never become a big dill one way or the other, while making the shape of it an object of worship should be, at least not if one thinks the Scriptures that the Bareans search night and day to see if Powlos was preaching truth OR NOT should still be searched for truths to hold Powlos's teaching against.

{Exodus 20:3-17}
3 Thou shalt have no other elohim before Me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHWH thy Elohim a jealous Ail, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate [e.g.-refuse to follow] Me;
6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the Name of YHWH thy Elohim in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless that takes His Name in vain.
8 Remember the Shabbawth Day, to keep it Consecrated.
9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
10 But the Seventh Day the Shabbawth of YHWH thy Elohim: thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
11 For [in] six days YHWH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the Seventh Day: wherefore YHWH blessed the Shabbawth Day, and Consecrated It.
12 Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which YHWH thy Elohim gives thee.
13 Thou shalt not murder.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that thy neighbor [has].

{Deuteronomy 5:7-21}
7 Thou shalt have none other elohim before Me.
8 Thou shalt not make thee [any] graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I YHWH thy Elohim a jealous Ail, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate [e.g.-refuse to follow] Me,
10 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My Commandments.
11 Thou shalt not take the Name of YHWH thy Elohim in vain: for YHWH will not hold guiltless that takes His Name in vain.
12 Keep the Shabbawth Day to sanctify it, as YHWH thy Elohim hath commanded thee.
13 Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
14 But the Seventh Day the Shabbawth of YHWH thy Elohim: thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine donkey, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and YHWH thy Elohim brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore YHWH thy Elohim commanded thee to keep the Shabbawth Day.
16 Honor thy father and thy mother, as YHWH thy Elohim hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which YHWH thy Elohim gives thee.
17 Thou shalt not murder.
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor?s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor?s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his donkey, or any [thing] that thy neighbor [has].

{Lev 26:1}
You shall make no idols nor graven images, neither raise you up a standing image, neither shall you set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the YHWH your Elohim.

Should it not stand to reason that if the Commandments speaking of how we are to relate toward other humans are still to be observed unto this very day then so to the ones that tell of how we are to relate with YHWH (such as obeying the Shabbawth Day, not bring YHWH Name to nothingness and/or a disdain toward It, and not to make any graven image, such as crosses etc..., for worship) are more important to be observed unto these days as well. Ain't it funny how some think that we no longer need to relate with the Father that The Anointed One came to restore us unto?



Thirdwoe Wrote:: Mr. Roth has a long list in the AENT of those laws he believes all believers in Messiah should be keeping...and it's much, much, much, longer than the list that The Apostles wrote down at the council of Jerusalem in about 50 A.D., that they sent to all the Gentiles who were coming to faith in Messiah, by the power of The Holy Spirit.

{Act 15:21}
For Moshay [Moses] of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Shabbawth Day.


The same Shabbawth Days that the gentiles Believers were going to the synagogues to worship. While there they were hearing the Torah portions being read to them. Yes they were still reading the Torah for instructions after The Anointed Ones death and resurrection.

{2Timo-Theos [Timothy] 3:16-17}
The entire Kitvei HaKodesh is Hashembreathed and useful for hora'ah (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for training in tzedek, That the ish haElohim may be proficient, having been equipped for every one of the ma'asim mitzvot.


{2 Timo-Theos [Timothy] 2:15}
Diligently make every effort thine ownself to study, in order to assist the Elohim, a teacher that needs not to be ashamed, righteously preaching the WORD; The TRUTH!


That includes the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writing along with the ReNewed Covenant.

But don't just take my word on this, what did Yehoshuah say -

{Mattith-YaHu [Matthew] 5:17-19}
Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah, or the Prophets [Writings]: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one Yohd or one diacritical point shall in no wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Destroying and Fulfilling the Torah are Hebrew idioms to the effect claiming someone is destroying the Torah when they interpret it incorrectly and also that someone is fulfilling the Torah when they interpret it correctly, so Yehoshuah was saying that he did not come to misinterpret the Torah but rather to show the true meaning thereof. That is why when he taught that you have heard that but I say this, He was teaching the Torah to its fullest, not doing away with the commandments.

Again Yehoshuah did not come to do away with the Shabbawths and Feast Days that YHWH Consecrated and render the whole of the Torah null and void so that we could eat pig!

TWO APPROACHES IN UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE
FIRST: One goes to the Writings with an open, unbiased attitude,
free of denominational slants or teachings, or previous impressions.
This is called Exegesis (direct analysis or interpretation of Scripture).
Allowing the Word to directly speak to form a solid foundation through
personal study. Listening to other men teach us what Scripture says
is fine also, as long as we test everything we hear, being careful how
we listen, as the assembly at Berea did (see: Acts 17:10,11).

SECOND: (the wrong approach) -- One goes to the Writings to prove
something they already believe, finding sentences which hint at the
idea. This is called Eisegesis (analyzing from one's own
preconceived ideas). In these cases the text is not directly
describing or teaching the concept they are trying to prove, but rather
the words are extracted and hunted-down, to "prove" what they
believe. This is how men "twist" or "spin" the Words of Scripture,
especially the letters of Shaul [Saul] (a.k.a. - Powlos [Paul]):
". . . as also our beloved brother Powlos wrote to you, according
to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in
them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to
understand, which those who are untaught and unstable TWIST
(spin) to their own destruction, as they do also the other
Scriptures. You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch;
lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away
with the delusion of the Torahless." - {2 Kepha [Peter] 3:15-17}


Re: AENT Errors - Luc Lefebvre - 11-26-2012

Burning one Wrote:also, the Peshitta AN'K does not use Z'QIFEH in Numbers 21:8. i would translate it this way:

And MarYa spoke to Mushe, "Make for yourself a poisonous snake of bronze, and place it for a sign. And all who are bitten of the snake shall look upon it, and live."
Yeah, that lines up with the Hebrew as well (Nes - sign (as in signs and miracles), standard, banner, etc.) and I have a somewhat difficult time equating that with z'qifeh in either Matthew 10:38 or any of the instances dealing with the crucifixion. Although Messiah humbled Himself so he could be elevated and that was certainly a sign which serves as the standard of our faith (the ressurection; if it had not happened our faith is in vain, right?). But, I'm connecting concepts here and taking it a bit too far I think. In anycase, if there is a connection between Numbers 21:8 and Matthew 10:38 it would be concept based only since I don't think the words between the two passages are related.


Re: AENT Errors - Burning one - 11-26-2012

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:also, the Peshitta AN'K does not use Z'QIFEH in Numbers 21:8. i would translate it this way:

And MarYa spoke to Mushe, "Make for yourself a poisonous snake of bronze, and place it for a sign. And all who are bitten of the snake shall look upon it, and live."
Yeah, that lines up with the Hebrew as well (Nes - sign (as in signs and miracles), standard, banner, etc.) and I have a somewhat difficult time equating that with z'qifeh in either Matthew 10:38 or any of the instances dealing with the crucifixion. Although Messiah humbled Himself so he could be elevated and that was certainly a sign which serves as the standard of our faith (the ressurection; if it had not happened our faith is in vain, right?). But, I'm connecting concepts here and taking it a bit too far I think. In anycase, if there is a connection between Numbers 21:8 and Matthew 10:38 it would be concept based only since I don't think the words between the two passages are related.

Shlama,

the connection between the two is merely conceptual. just as what the people despised was used to serve as a symbol for healing in the wilderness, so too was Messiah despised and executed on the cross, but brought healing. in other words, what would seem wrong was used for righteousness. the Father doesn't always work the way we would think, and yet that is one of His mysterious methods. whatever way in which He works, we should align ourselves with at that point, despite how we perceive something to be prior to it. it isn't about the reckoning of good or evil, but about following the way to LIFE. only He has it, and only through the primacy of the despised Messiah can we experience it.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: AENT Errors - Luc Lefebvre - 11-26-2012

Burning one Wrote:it isn't about the reckoning of good or evil, but about following the way to LIFE.
i.e. chayim b'Moshiach, nachon? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Todah achi.

So what are your thoughts on Roth's translation of Matthew 10:38 then?


Re: AENT Errors - ScorpioSniper2 - 11-26-2012

I think honestly that it should be translated as "cross" or "stake". The reason I say this isn't because it has been traditionally translated as such, but because, Dukhrana actually shows the Syriac words for staff and cross to be different. Two native Aramaic speakers, George M. Lamsa and Paul Younan, along with at least four other (non-native) translators (Murdock, Etheridge, Bauscher, Magiera), have translated this word as "cross". Andrew Gabriel Roth is the only one that I know of who has translated this verse like he has.