Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hi Guys few questions
#1
I sent an email to Paul but he hasn't gotten back to me, probably very busy.

I am Assyrian and am a part of the St's Peter and Pauls parish in Sydney.

Please note that I also affirm Peshitta Aramaic Primacy, as this only makes sense in light of the fact that Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic.

1. I have been reading through some Apologetic books regarding the variants found in the Greek manuscripts, although at first glance they seem quite large, after applying the microscope you see that most (90%) of these variations are simple spelling errors and other simple grammatical issues that do not alter any theological meaning. This is true with the other 10% of the variations, although much more than mere spelling and grammatical issue, the variants do not alter any major theological doctrine that is considered Orthodoxy. (I got this info from Bruce Metzger who claims that the NT in Greek is 99% pure). What do you think of this?

2. Do you agree with textual critics like Bart Ehram who believe that the Greek manuscripts were intentionally corrupted to suit their theological presuppositions and that most of what Jesus says in the Greek NT are interpolations?

3. Shouldn't we be doing more to actually defend the Bible in general and it's message rather than only defending the Peshitta? I know our version is much more well preserved than the Greek NT, but regardless the NT is the NT and is utilised to transform lost souls and lead them to Christ.

4. In saying all this, i really want to purchase my own Peshitta in English, which do you recommend as being the best one?


Your in Christ
Alan
Reply
#2
Hello Alan, i am kind of new myself, but here is my take:
Alan G77 Wrote:1. [...]claims that the NT in Greek is 99% pure). What do you think of this?
it is all a matter of degrees. What is the unit of measurement here?
If the Greek is a translation of the Peshitta, then that translation may later have been edited, hence the differences. There would hardly be any essential changes here, but we could expect a lot of minor ones from a revision, as we can see them. One should also point out that for the comparisons, there are often times manuscripts used that are known to be corruppt simply by the manuscripts history. To get a basic idea of the differences in the greek, just compare TR to NA27. It's really not that much difference.


Alan G77 Wrote:2. Do you agree with textual critics like Bart Ehram who believe that the Greek manuscripts were intentionally corrupted to suit their theological presuppositions and that most of what Jesus says in the Greek NT are interpolations?
That is utter rubbish. First of all, that is not text criticism at all, but bible criticism (note, the Peshitta essentially has the same sayings of Christ as the Greek, so if the Greek is interpolated, so is the Peshitta), and second, there are no places at all in the greek new testament that could possibly lead you to that conclusion, save maybe five verses, like 1John 5:7. Even those can easily explained as scribal errors like jumping lines.
If those were edited to suit theological groups, why did they edit only very few verses, whereas it would have to have been hundreds that did not fit their POV (note that the verses that seem "edited" to some seculars do not fit into any specific category, but are rather random verses)?

Alan G77 Wrote:3. Shouldn't we be doing more to actually defend the Bible in general and it's message rather than only defending the Peshitta? I know our version is much more well preserved than the Greek NT, but regardless the NT is the NT and is utilised to transform lost souls and lead them to Christ.
Both are almost equally important. But, defending (or opposing) the Peshitta may be one of the basic necessities when one wants to defend the Bible's infallability. Many people would be more attracted by a 100% preserved Bible.
(i myself only recently learned of the Peshitta, but the issue of textual criticism has been important to me since a long time. Now that i found out about the Peshitta, text criticism seems much more satisfying (though i am not 100%on Peshitta primacy, i just believe it to be very likely for now).
One can only defend the Bible if one knows about it. Knowing what language it was written in is kind of basic, so it is necessary. But, you are right, many people can say they believe in the Peshitta, or in the TR, or in the KJV ( <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ), and still they have no clue as to why, objectively speaking, true christianity is superior to any other faith / religion.

Alan G77 Wrote:4. In saying all this, i really want to purchase my own Peshitta in English, which do you recommend as being the best one?
i guess Lamsa's(?), as it is most true to the actual Peshitta text (?).
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#3
Bruce Metzger is a proponent of the Critical Minority Text of the New Testament assembled by scholars from Greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian type. This text is based primarily on two 4th Century manuscripts whose existence was discovered in the 19th Century: Codex Vaticanus (an ancient holding of the Roman Catholic Church) and the Codex Sinaiticus (found in a Catholic convent near Mount Sinai) which don?t always agree.

The superior Majority Text is the coherent Byzantine form of the Greek text that is based on the majority of the thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Bruce Metzger considers the Byzantine text to be ?corrupt ? since he considers it to be based on the?conflation? of ?divergent readings?. However he also states , ?It is characterized chiefely by lucidity and completeness.? [Bruce . Metzger, A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, 2002].

In actuality, it is the Critical Minority Text of the New Testament that is an embarrading mess with hundreds of significant omissions, incomplete verses, defective verses, weird wordings, and outright errors in comparison to the New Testament Majority Text. For example, the Minority Text and the modern English New Testaments based on it are missing the following verses: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 15:28, Mark 16: 9-20, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, most of John 5:3-4, Acts 8:37, parts of Acts 9:5-6, most of Acts 24:6-8, Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24. In addition, over 1,000 other verses are missing important words or using incorrect and misleading words. The missing last line of the Lord?s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 of the Minority Text is the reason that Roman Catholics end the Lord?s Prayer at the word ?evil?. In the Minority Text the version of the Lord?s Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 is further flawed. The claim by Bruce Metzger that the NT in Greek is 99% certain is quite incorrect with respect to his favored Critical Text which has numerous divergent readings and missing verses.

According to Greek scholars Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989), more than one-third of the verses in the Greek Minority Text are significantly uncertain with at least two or more major words being different from other Greek versions. In many cases whole verses or important parts of verses are missing in the Minority Text. This doesn?t include the many important differences that depend on single words. For example, the addition of a single Greek sigma in Luke 2:14 in the Minority Greek Text significantly and theologically changes the message of the Angels! That great message of the Majority Text, ?peace and good will to men? turns into ? peace to men of good will? in the Minority Text. The Peshitta has "peace and good hope to mankind?.

The Aramaic Peshitta text of the New Testament is in considerable agreement with the Majority Greek Text of the New Testament but not with the quite faulty Minority text that is now being used for most English language translations.

My personal favorite English translation of the Aramaic New Testament is "The New Testament According to the Eastern Text"(1940) by George Lamsa. Used copies are usually available at Amazon.

For personal study of the English and Aramaic versions, I like "The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament",2nd Edition, 1992, three volumes, The Way International. You can only get that by telephone order to The Way International Bookstore in New Knoxville, Ohio 45871. They also have other useful study aids including "Lexicon to the Syriac New Testament", "The Concordance to the Peshitta Version of the Aramaic New Testament", and "English Dictionary Supplement".

Otto
Reply
#4
Otto, i am not trying to disagre with you, but it should be noted that in any textual history from any period of time, the longer text is usually the later text. those omissions may very well me additions, and merely because you say they are omissions (with no factual base, in fact i have never heard anyone give a good argument as to how they deducted those verses were removed, not added). does not make them so. Though the bible clearly differs from all the texts in the world, those that altered the text do not differ a bit from those who altered all the other ancient and modern text. Addition is very most of the times the way of development (people add to clarify), omission is only used by extreme radicals with very clear agendas, which, in case of the bible, would be people believeing in Revelation's curse, and thus they would not dare to omit.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#5
Andrej Wrote:Hello Alan, i am kind of new myself, but here is my take:
Alan G77 Wrote:1. [...]claims that the NT in Greek is 99% pure). What do you think of this?
it is all a matter of degrees. What is the unit of measurement here?
If the Greek is a translation of the Peshitta, then that translation may later have been edited, hence the differences. There would hardly be any essential changes here, but we could expect a lot of minor ones from a revision, as we can see them. One should also point out that for the comparisons, there are often times manuscripts used that are known to be corruppt simply by the manuscripts history. To get a basic idea of the differences in the greek, just compare TR to NA27. It's really not that much difference.


Alan G77 Wrote:2. Do you agree with textual critics like Bart Ehram who believe that the Greek manuscripts were intentionally corrupted to suit their theological presuppositions and that most of what Jesus says in the Greek NT are interpolations?
That is utter rubbish. First of all, that is not text criticism at all, but bible criticism (note, the Peshitta essentially has the same sayings of Christ as the Greek, so if the Greek is interpolated, so is the Peshitta), and second, there are no places at all in the greek new testament that could possibly lead you to that conclusion, save maybe five verses, like 1John 5:7. Even those can easily explained as scribal errors like jumping lines.
If those were edited to suit theological groups, why did they edit only very few verses, whereas it would have to have been hundreds that did not fit their POV (note that the verses that seem "edited" to some seculars do not fit into any specific category, but are rather random verses)?

Alan G77 Wrote:3. Shouldn't we be doing more to actually defend the Bible in general and it's message rather than only defending the Peshitta? I know our version is much more well preserved than the Greek NT, but regardless the NT is the NT and is utilised to transform lost souls and lead them to Christ.
Both are almost equally important. But, defending (or opposing) the Peshitta may be one of the basic necessities when one wants to defend the Bible's infallability. Many people would be more attracted by a 100% preserved Bible.
(i myself only recently learned of the Peshitta, but the issue of textual criticism has been important to me since a long time. Now that i found out about the Peshitta, text criticism seems much more satisfying (though i am not 100%on Peshitta primacy, i just believe it to be very likely for now).
One can only defend the Bible if one knows about it. Knowing what language it was written in is kind of basic, so it is necessary. But, you are right, many people can say they believe in the Peshitta, or in the TR, or in the KJV ( <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> ), and still they have no clue as to why, objectively speaking, true christianity is superior to any other faith / religion.

Alan G77 Wrote:4. In saying all this, i really want to purchase my own Peshitta in English, which do you recommend as being the best one?
i guess Lamsa's(?), as it is most true to the actual Peshitta text (?).

Thanks for the info bro, but in regards to George Lamsa's translation I always hear that it isnt very accurate?
Reply
#6
Rafa Wrote:Alan! How's it going Bro? I'll tell you the following: the Church has already decided that the NASB (New American Standard Bible, the official Bible used in the Roman Catholic reading cycle and liturgy of hours) is the closest to the Peshitta. Stick to that Bible and like Otto kindly said, avoid any bible based off the Alexandrian texts which circulate (these would include: NIV, NRSV,etc.) also the King James has it's own problems (it is based on the Masoretic text for the old testament , the NKJV is based on the LXX which "contains" within it much more ancient Hebrew, likewise the NASB, and the targums, and the Peshito old testament which is the most reliable but untranslated text). The New King James is excellent, and if you can't get an NASB it is good too from what I understand. Bart Ehreman is a crank, don't read him Bro, he has been refuted here hundreds of times already. Watch for two very specific different readings in the Peshitta: Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 (in many translations). These two verses read very differently in the Greek, also the story of the woman being stoned is absent as are the last five books of the New Testament which was never received together with the other 22 books. There are hundreds of things which differ by nuances from the accepted good Greek texts.

Where you can get a bound interlinear Peshitta :

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=47&osCsid=2e930621c5748b50d7c920b47a9d09d7">http://www.aramaicbooks.com/product_inf ... b47a9d09d7</a><!-- m -->

I got mine from aramaic books. Unfortunately Paul's letters are still being translated by Shamasha Paul, so it's only the gospels and the book of acts for now. Or you could print everything out and have somebody bind it for you (aramaic books has 4 Gospels but not the complete Peshitta). I will now show you from Mar Odisho's Book of Marganitha the type of amazing thing you can discover in the Peshitta:


?The word became flesh and dwelt among us.? A devout and pious man laboured for many years in prayer to God, that He would disclose to him the meaning of this declaration: A voice from heaven was at length vouchsafed to him, saying:

?Ascribe to the flesh the word? ?became? and to the ?Word? ascribe ?dwelt ?; and the meaning was thus preserved.


-Mar Odisho, The Book of Marganitha Part 3 :on the Christian Dispensation, Chapter1 On the advent of Christ, and his union

So you see ? It is only in Aramaic where you can "ascribe" one word to another like that, otherwise you would read the text in a way contrary to the Church's teachings ! Now that line of the Apostle John's Gospel makes so much sense!

Hi Rafa,

How are ya bro? Not much going on in the COE forums ay, I encourage everyone here to post on the COE forums.

I have the NKJV, so your saying it is good enough?

What about Andrew Gabriel Roths AENT?

Raf, I do not get what you are trying to tell me regarding John 1, maybe I am thick but isnt it a clear cut verse regarding Jesus (the Word) becoming flesh?
Reply
#7
It is important to note that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus survived to the 19th Century because they were stored away in some dry, hidden places for 1400 years prior to their "discovery" in the 19th Century. The original New Testament was written hundreds of years earlier, copied, used, worn out, or desctroyed over the centuries prior to the 4th Century. The oldest surviving texts are not necessarily the most accurate. The most accurate are those that are faithful to the lost original autographs.

Otto
Reply
#8
What about the fact that the Vulgate by Jerome (AD 405) was based, obviously, on the eastern Byzantine text?

Is this a good argument against the quality of the minority text which would have been (vaticanus) at max been completed at AD 380?
Reply
#9
"What about the fact that the Vulgate by Jerome (AD 405) was based, obviously, on the eastern Byzantine text?"

Really? What is the basis of this statement?

The Vulgate seems to have the same errors as the Codex Vaticanus.


Otto
Reply
#10
Rafa Wrote:Alan, I was confusing the New American Standard version Bible with the New American Bible, they are very different. The NASB is the bible considered by most scholars as the most literal translation of the Byzantine Greek text and Septuagint influenced masoretic text (I thought the NASB translated only the Septuagint, no it is the MT influenced by Septuagint), the New American Bible is the one used by the catholic lectionary (it uses masoretic text, vulgate, Dead sea scrolls, and Septuagint). The New American Standard Version Bible (exact name, or NASB) is the one your looking for endorsed by the Church as most similar to the Peshitta NT and Peshitto old testament. If you can't get it, settle for the New King James since it is a good translation of the reliable non-corrupt Greek texts ( it is endorsed by the Greek Orthodox Church too). You can also get the orthodox study bible of the GOC itself too, I highly recommend it :

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594">http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bi ... 0718003594</a><!-- m -->

but the NASB is the one you'd most benefit from.

Thats the one I have, the Orthodox Study Bible, I really like it and was just curious to know if it was a reliable version.
Reply
#11
ograabe Wrote:"What about the fact that the Vulgate by Jerome (AD 405) was based, obviously, on the eastern Byzantine text?"

Really? What is the basis of this statement?

The Vulgate seems to have the same errors as the Codex Vaticanus.

So, you mean that the vulgate has the additions in Matthew 27:49
and matthew 25:1 (bride)
and 'new covenant' Matthew 26:28

Does the vaticanus have the same reading? I have no means and time to compare this all. If you have more info, I would be happy to accept it.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#12
The New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1995 Edition) is not based on the Majority Greek text or the Peshitta. Like most of the other modern English versions (except the NKJV) the NASB is based on the faulty Minority Critical Greek Text. It does not agree with the Peshitta. The NASB has the numerous errors that go along with the Minority Text. The translators were aware of the more serious problems so they inserted in brackets the major missing words and phrases as found in the Majority Text, including the end of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 which are missing in the Minority Text.

Concerning Lamsa's translation, I have read it carefully many times and compared it to the available Aramaic to English interlinear translations of the Peshitta, and found Lamsa to be sensitive to the true text in a way that is only possible for a native Aramaic speaker. Yes, he did include parts of the Western Text in order to make the content of his translation agree with the content of traditional Protestant Bibles.

Otto
Reply
#13
You are quite wrong in your claim that the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is closest to the Peshitta. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The NASB is just another translation of the faulty Catholic minority text, which is also called the Critical Text by its proponents.

This can be proved by comparing texts, about 40 percent of which are difference and often missing in the NASB.
I could give you hundreds of examples, but I will provide only three here:

Translation Comparison of Matthew 6:27
The Peshitta Aramaic: "And, what one among you, while anxious, is able to add one cubit to his stature?"
Lamsa: "Who is among you who by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?"
Majority Greek: NKJV: "Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?"
Greek Orthodox: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?"
Critical Greek and NASB: "And who of you by being worried can add a {single} hour to his life?" [WRONG]

Consider the confusion about the message of the angles in Luke 2:14
The Peshitta Aramaic: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and good hope to the sons of men (mankind)."
The addition of a single Greek letter, a sigma, added in Luke 2:14 in the Critical Greek Text significantly and theologically changes the message of the Angels.
Instead of ?Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good hope to men!? the Minority Text has instead , ?Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will.? [WRONG]
The NASB alters this slightly to read: "Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased." [WRONG]

Finally and in the Critical Greek and the Vulgate, the last part of the Lords prayer is missing in Matthew 6:13 and it ends the prayer on the word "evil". Apparently NASB authors were embarrassed by this so they added a quote from the Majority Text (and Peshitta) in brackets to show the missing words.

Unfortunately, the faulty Minority Greek Text is now used for the most popular modern English versions except the New King James Version.

Please stop telling people that the NASB is closest to the Peshitta. It is as far away as you can get....

Otto
Reply
#14
ograabe Wrote:Please stop telling people that the NASB is closest to the Peshitta. It is as far away as you can get....
You have probably never read an NLT or NIV then Otto! But no, I understand what you're saying. Manuscript differences aside though, I would say the translation (NASB) is quite accurate. In many palces it reads similar to AENT/Younan/Murdock in terms of it's translation style, which is nice for consistency sake. But of course, the differences between the NA27 and Peshitta are quite apparant, and I agree that the Peshitta lines up more with the Majority Text.

I'm curious though as to whether or not the ACOE did officially claim that the NASB was closest to the Peshitta though. Does anyone have a source?
Reply
#15
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:I'm curious though as to whether or not the ACOE did officially claim that the NASB was closest to the Peshitta though. Does anyone have a source?

No, not at all...it's actually never endorsed any translation. Even Lamsa's version was chased out wherever found in the pews. Nothing against Lamsa, Akhi Otto, please don't take that as an insult to him personally. Mine would get chased out, too, and I'm clergy.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)