Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some questions
#46
Shlama,


i've personally got a major prob with the teaching that the "Trinity" died on the cross! whoa! where is that coming from? do you truly teach that, Dave?


personally, i would hold to the Eastern Peshitta reading simply because, contextually, it fits so much better than the idea of "Alaha" shedding His blood. does Spirit have flesh and bone and blood - or does humanity have flesh and bone and blood? contextually, Mesheekha makes the most sense as being original. as for the Corinthians ref. to body and blood of MarYa, no big deal there because Acts tells us that Yeshua was made BOTH MarYa and Mesheekha, so the title fits seamlessly. it is contextually in Acts 20:28 that Eastern Peshitta's reading fits better than the Peshitto's reading that Dave promotes.

as it stands, i'd like to share some textual evidence for the Eastern reading outside of the Syriac. i can't recall if all these have been mentioned before in this thread, but the apparatus i have access to gives these other considerations that read variously:

KURIOU IESOU (Lord Yeshua)
CHRISTOU (Christ)
IESOU CHRISTOU (Yeshua Christ)

where you can find them:
Ambrosiaster (Pseudo-Ambrose) - in Latin
Theodoret 1/2
Theophylact a
It(m)

i find it of note that Theodoret, who was OPPOSED to the "Nestorian" view, gave the reading of CHRISTOU.

interesting, huh?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#47
Hi Jeremy,

If you want to read my views on this theological subject, you can read it in my book, "The World Ended on a Friday", which covers this on pages 31-36.
Other topics are :
The Mystery of the Gospel ................................................................................................................ 4
The World Ended on a Friday ............................................................................................................ 12
The Mystery of The Trinity & the Love of God ......................................................................................... 14
Abraham worships The Trinity ........................................................................................................... 19
William Tyndale's 1530 translation of Genesis chapter 18 ............................................................................ 25
The Mystery & Glory of The Christ & The Kingdom .................................................................................... 31
The Mystery of The End of All Things.................................................................................................... 37
The End Begins ............................................................................................................................. 39
The Mystery of God?s Last Will and Testament ......................................................................................... 53
The Mystery of the Return of Christ ..................................................................................................... 63

It is available in 77 pages from my web site aramaicnt.com or from Lulu.com as a download for $5.99.

The sources you list are all secondary; none is a Greek NT ms. or ancient Bible Version.
Most Peshitta mss. & almost every Greek ms. support the "God" reading.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was an Eastern Theologian from Antioch, and a Nestorian and Universalist, and one of my Greek NT's attests to his reading of "the church of God" at Acts 20:28. He died AD 428. There are four church fathers of the 4th century (before AD 400) that read, "the church of God" at Acts 20:28 and there are five ancient versions -Coptic (Bohairic mss), Latin Vulgate, Peshitto & two major Itala mss. and the Georgian version that read:" "the church of God" at Acts 20:28.

Theodoret died around 466.

Shlama,

Dave
Reply
#48
Shlama Dave,


just for clarity, i was referring to Theodoret of Cyrus and his reading, NOT Theodoret of Mopsuestia. two different fellas, and there's some apparent contention that the latter was even a universalist at all, what with his views of apokatastatis.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#49
deleted double post
Reply
#50
:

Dave...you say that if you can't find the "Church of Christ" reading in the Greek Texts...then it is not the Original reading of Acts 20:28, as found in The Eastern Peshitta Text...but you say this? --> "Acts 8:37 is not found in any Peshitta ms".

If its not in the Peshitta...then why does the 1905 Text have it? And why did you put it in your translation of the Western Peshitto Version...if it is not found in the Aramaic Scriptures?

Is that from the Greek text only then? And if so...then its not a genuine Aramaic verse, But, if a reading is found only in The Eastern Peshitta, and not in the Greek text, then its not genuine?

That is a double standard Dave.

Also...I don't know what your source is....but I see that the Coptic text has "Church of the Lord" at Acts 20:28. Also I showed you the direct quote that Bishop Ireneaus makes of Acts 20:28...it is from about 170-180 A.D. And also from the Apostolic Constitutions circa 390 A.D. Both show the "Church of the Lord" reading...

We have NO idea how many of the over 6,000 (Six Thousand) Greek Manuscripts read either way, or if any of them has "Church of Christ, which He purchased with His own blood" as The Peshitta has it. The Majority Text ONLY deals with about 50 Manuscripts!!! And they call it a "Majority Text"...Yes...the Majority of 50 Manuscripts that they say they looked over, BUT 50 compared to over 6,000 is not the same thing.

in about 390 A.D. among the Greeks we read:

??run together to the Church of the Lord, ?which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature.? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.

Note: It has "Church of the Lord" and "the blood of Christ" there.

And again in the same section?

?Let the bishop pray for the people, and say: ?Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance, which Thou hast obtained with the precious blood of Thy Christ,?? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.

Note: This shows that Alaha, The Father obtained His people, with the blood of His Christ/Messiah. Which is what the Eastern Peshitta Text shows. And which agrees perfectly with what is found in your translation of Revelation 5:9.

Blessings,
Chuck


..
Reply
#51
Chuck,

You jump to conclusions which I never stated. I do not accept the Acts 20:28 reading of the 1905 edition because of the Greek mss., but the Greek mss. certainly seem to verify that the original Peshitta reading was "church of God". You still have not answered my questions and still simply skirt the issue of the evidence here. "Church of the Lord" is no more supportive of the Eastern reading than "the church of God" is. It actually supports the majority Greek reading (church of the Lord and God) more than the Eastern Peshitta reading, which I have already stated.

Why do you want to jump now to Acts 8:37? Is it because you are relying on a small minority of Peshitta mss. in Acts 20:28 for the reading you accept and cannot justify that, or is your position based on theological bias, which you have disavowed, but can't quite shake?

I am not going to argue about Acts 8:37 here. I can say that I have honestly translated it because it is included in the 1905 Peshitta edition. It is also included in every online edition of the Peshitta NT I have seen, being found in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1599-1600. Who knows where he got it? You and I do not know. I would love to obtain a copy of his Peshitta; perhaps it has a note somewhere, citing the source; until such time, I will regard him as an honest copyist and transcriber of the Peshitta he possessed at the time, even though extant Peshitta mss. do not have the verse today.

I included it because it is there in the most popular Peshitta edition published, and this 1905 edition is based overall on over 80 Aramaic mss., which means that overall it will better represent the original Peshitta than any one Peshitta ms. could do. I am not an eclectic textual critic, and I have not made it my role to edit the Aramaic text. I present it as I find it and translate the same. Others have played the role of editor; I do not presume to do so with the Critical edition, at least not in presenting the text in Aramaic and in translating it.

I happen to know that the Majority Greek text is based on several hundred mss., according to Zane Hodges, in his Greek NT according to the Majority Text. For example, he states that more than 900 Greek mss. contain the Pericope de Adultera in John 7:53-8:11. I can't believe that only 50 have been examined for the book of Acts. The Majority Greek editions published recently are based on far more than 50 mss.. To say that 6000 mss. contain the NT is misleading. Most of those are mere fragments, very few contain the whole NT.

I gave you my Greek sources, so I will not list them again, but there are 3 Greek NT editions, plus my photo copies of Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, both of which have, "church of God", which I have read with my own eyes and transcribed for you in uncial Greek. You have yet to acknowledge this.
Quote:Is that from the Greek text only then? And if so...then its not a genuine Aramaic verse, But, if a reading is found only in The Eastern Peshitta, and not in the Greek text, then its not genuine?

If it were in the Greek only ( & who can really know the case 400 years ago when Hutter compiled his Peshitta edition), one must still ask, "Where did the Greek come from?" As far as the existence of a verse in the NT is concerned, a witness for it is worth much more than one without it. Why would that be? It is because the error of omission is so much more likely and common than the error of addition. Where did the Itala version (2nd century) get the verse 8:37. Where did the Armenian version get it? Where did the Latin Vulgate get it? Where did the Georgian version get it? Where did Irenaeus find the verse? How about Tertullian,Cyprian,Cyprian,Ambrosiaster,Pacian,Ambrose,Augustine,Theophylact? Where did uncial E get it? Where did the Syriac Harklean version get it?

Inclusion or exclusion of a passage is much easier to decide that the exact wording of a verse, so let's not confuse the matter of 8:37 and 20:28. They are oranges and apples. There is little question that the authorities quoting 8:37 found it in the NT. There is more doubt concerning the exact wording of a NT verse when several witnesses differ in apparent quotes from that verse. So I think the 8:37 issue is easier to decide than the 20:28 variants. Most witnesses agree in 20:28 with "God" being in the verse. As far as inclusion or omission of a verse, a majority of manuscripts not including it is not enough to exclude it, for the reason I stated above concerning the relative ease and commonness of the error of omission as compared to addition.

I think you actually agree with me on this point, Chuck. You accept the Western Five books as the word of God. The Eastern Peshitta omits them from its canon because Eastern mss. do not have them. The Western Syrian churches include them. If you were consistent, you should reject them as not canonical and therefore not inspired, because you believe the Eastern Peshitta is the sole authority by which to decide the text of the NT.

However, if the Eastern canon Peshitta lacks five inspired books of the NT, then it is surely severely defective by reason of that omission, and cannot be counted as a witness against the inclusion of those books in the NT. And if all Eastern Peshitta mss. are defective to such an extent as to omit five books, surely they may be defective to a much lesser degree in other places, and require the testimony of the Western Mss. and to a certain extent, the witness of the Greek mss. and ancient versions, and perhaps even the church Fathers.

Quote:That is a double standard Dave.
No double standard- apples and oranges- two different problems. One is omission of a verse and the other is a changed word in a verse.

If all Eastern mss. agree and are yet far outnumbered by other Peshitta mss. and also most Greek mss., and no Greek ms. or ancient version has the Eastern reading, then I go with the Western Peshitta majority.

Blessings,
Dave
Reply
#52
Quote:I am not going to argue about Acts 8:37 here. I can say that I have honestly translated it because it is included in the 1905 Peshitta edition. It is also included in every online edition of the Peshitta NT I have seen, being found in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1599-1600. Who knows where he got it? You and I do not know. I would love to obtain a copy of his Peshitta; perhaps it has a note somewhere, citing the source; until such time, I will regard him as an honest copyist and transcriber of the Peshitta he possessed at the time, even though extant Peshitta mss. do not have the verse today.

1st: None of this is "arguing"...this is called honest discussion. Be positive.

2nd: You say there "Who knows where he got it? You and I do not know. I would love to obtain a copy of his Peshitta; perhaps it has a note somewhere, citing the source; until such time, I will regard him as an honest copyist and transcriber of the Peshitta he possessed at the time, even though extant Peshitta mss. do not have the verse today."

Dave...you are willing to trust this man as being faithful to what you say he could have seen in a text, but that is not now extant, but are you also willing to trust the man who scribed the Khabouris reading for Acts 20:28 as being faithful in the Text he copied, or the Manuscript's father Text, scribed by the person before him...which may even be a copy of the Autograph itself?

The Khabouris is most likley only a 3rd Generation Text of the Original Aramaic Autograph.

If not, you must believe that the Eastern Peshitta Text, is a corruption then...Right?

You said:

Quote:You accept the Western Five books as the word of God. The Eastern Peshitta omits them from its canon because Eastern mss. do not have them. The Western Syrian churches include them. If you were consistent, you should reject them as not canonical and therefore not inspired, because you believe the Eastern Peshitta is the sole authority by which to decide the text of the NT.

However, if the Eastern canon Peshitta lacks five inspired books of the NT, then it is surely severely defective by reason of that omission, and cannot be counted as a witness against the inclusion of those books in the NT. And if all Eastern Peshitta mss. are defective to such an extent as to omit five books, surely they may be defective to a much lesser degree in other places, and require the testimony of the Western Mss. and to a certain extent, the witness of the Greek mss. and ancient versions, and perhaps even the church Fathers.

Dave, how much of what The Church of the East believes about certain things do you truly know? So far you have mis-represented the teaching's of Bishop Nestorius on what he taught about the two natures of Christ, and what The Chuch of the East believes about that subject today, and about how they (The COE) view the "Western Five" books.

I won't inform you here too much...its not the place. But you need some right information, before you judge things. I recomend you learn it by yourself, by reading Bishop Nestorius' own writtings on the subject. You can start by reading his detailed replies to Cryil of Alexandria's 12 Anathemas against him, where Bishop Nestorius responds line by line to each of the 12 curses, and explains his teaching on the matter and proves his Orthodoxy...and then, for further understanding of his belief, you can read his book "THE BAZAAR OF HERACLEIDES" which goes into minute detail of his teaching on the subject. Please do this, BEFORE you speak against what you think he taught. You would want others to do the same with what you are teaching, regarding the whole Trinity dying and the Atonement taking place before Christ died on the Cross. And this I will begin to do, before I make a final judgment on what you teach, though so far it looks to be in grave error.

As to what the Church of the East believes about the other books of the NT...They do not say that the "Western Five" books are not inspired by God...but that they (The Church of the East) did not recieve those 5 Books from the hands of the Apostles as they did the 22 Books of the Eastern Peshitta Canon.

They do not say that they are not to be read, studied, or to be discarded...but hold them in great esteem. They are not "Apocrypha" type books Dave. They consider them Scriptures as well...just not ones that they got Originaly from the Apostles, this is why the differance in the two families of Peshitta (Eastern) and Peshitto (Western), the extra readings/verses found in the Western Peshitto, come from the Greek versions.

Dave...the Eastern Peshitta is SO OLD...that it was given to The Church of the East, in the 22 Books they still maintain, without change, since they recieved it from the hands of the Apostles of Christ, who gave them those Books. This, I believe was about the year 78 A.D....and the others were either not written yet, or they were simply not part of the Books that they received from the Apostles.

If Revelation was written before 70 A.D....which seems likely to me, as it does you. Then it was still in Asia Minor at the time, being that it was adressed to the 7 Churches which were in that part of the world. We see that these other 5 books, were also not as accepted by the Church as a whole, for a number of centuries in the west...as the others were....and the Church of the East...didn't even know about them for many more centuries looks like.

The Eastern Peshitta...is OLDER as a Text, than the Western Peshitto is Dave. Ask Paul about the Western Peshitto transmission...he knows much more than I do about it. I believe that these Greek readings and verses not found in the Eastern Peshitta...are not Original to the Aramaic Text, as given by the hands of the Apostles in the 1st century. That is why they are not there...it was not in the Manuscript given them in the 1st Century.

It looks to me that the Western readings are from other sources, Greek, Latin etc, etc...and represent an edited edition of the Aramaic Scriptures by the Western Syriac groups, who were more inclined to the Greek and Latin doctrines.

I know that is not what you could ever consider, because you have come to believe that GOD Himself has given you a revelation as to which text is the real Original, based on what happened when you found the bible codes in the code finder program, by using the 1905 text.

But I find that strange, because you admit that when you 1st ran it...you got those long codes...but later found some mistakes in the 1905 text you used that had them...and when you fixed those mistakes...and ran it again...the long codes were no longer there...but you still say that GOD, made it so, that the mistakes created the long codes, so you could find them...and be convinced that the 1905 text was GOD's ONLY Perfect Scriptures on Earth!

Is this the reason why you can't even concive of another reading, such as in Acts 20:28 in the Eastern Peshitta, and that Acts 8:7, even though it is not found in any known Aramaic Manuscript...it must be Original, because its part of GOD's Text, the 1905 Edition.

This is what I have gathered from your own statements Dave. Maybe I have read them wrong though...so correct me if I am not understanding your beliefs right. I can only go on what you write...and this is what I have seen you write, as best I remember it.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#53
And Dave as to the question you keep saying I don't answer...I don't know if the reading in the Eastern Peshitta for Acts 20:28 is not found in ANY Greek Manuscript that contains the verse...because I have not, nor has anyone looked at them all to see.

And I don't know where exactly the "Chuch of God, which He purchased with His own blood" comes from, if not from the Original Peshitta Text, (which I believe is faithfully retained in the Eastern Text, not the Western Text)... I believe one way, you believe another...people do that about things, its called disagreement. But I don't look at the Western Peshitta as being full of errors, as some may. I think that those who edited that text, believed strongly that they were being faithful to what they considered the true text.


And finally....I doubt VERY seriously if anyone has physically checked 900 Greek Manuscripts for John 8:1-11... Maybe? Seems unlikely to me though. And I'll check on the info I have about only 50 or so Manuscripts that were looked at to construct the "Majority text". But that is what I recall.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#54
Quote:almost every Greek ms. support the "God" reading.

How many have you checked to make sure? you said: "Almost very Greek ms..." Prove that statement to me Dave.

Quote:Theodore of Mopsuestia was an Eastern Theologian from Antioch, and a Nestorian and Universalist, and one of my Greek NT's attests to his reading of "the church of God" at Acts 20:28. He died AD 428. There are four church fathers of the 4th century (before AD 400) that read, "the church of God" at Acts 20:28 and there are five ancient versions -Coptic (Bohairic mss), Latin Vulgate, Peshitto & two major Itala mss. and the Georgian version that read:" "the church of God" at Acts 20:28.

Where do you get your info Dave? Goodness. 1: Theodore was NOT a "Nestorian" because he was not a follower of Bishop Nestorius, but rather Bishop Nestorius learned from him...so if anything, Bishop Nestorius would be a "Theodorian" and Theodore would be a "Diodorusian"...lol

These men were all Orthodox in their doctrines, as to what was always taught, from the time of the Apostles as taught to the Church of the East and shown in The Eastern Peshitta Text...the reason that the Church of the East agreed with Bishop Nestorius after the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., when Bishop Cryil of Alexandria falsley accused and manipulated the situation in order to condemn Bishop Nestorius, is because it was what they always held to as sound doctrine since the time of the 1st Gentile Church in Antioch. To go against his teaching about Christ, would be to go against what they were taught by the Apostles, which had been passed down from them to that time.

And which of the four Father's show that it is "Church of God" at Acts 20:28?....Also I see that the Coptic, which you say has the "Church of God" reading...has rather.."Church of the Lord" instead. Which source of the Coptic text are you looking at?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#55
Hi Chuck,

I wrote:
Quote:almost every Greek ms. support the "God" reading.



You wrote:
Quote:How many have you checked to make sure? you said: "Almost very Greek ms..." Prove that statement to me Dave.

This last statement is quite disingenuous, Chuck. You and I both rely on the Greek NT critical editions and their apparatuses to ascertain the majority readings and the relative numbers of Greek mss. for each reading.

All Greek editions show that "Lord and God" or "Lord God" is in the vast majority of Greek mss. Both of those readings have "God" in them, so the majority of Greek mss. have "God" in them, in support of the Western Peshitta reading.

Have you personally seen all the Peshitta mss. that contain the Eastern reading and all those that contain the Western reading at Acts 20:28? Of course not. So have you proved that the Eastern mss. all have the "Messiah" reading, by your own standard? No, of course not.

And you accuse me of using a double standard? What a joke!

Dave
Reply
#56
Dave wrote:

Quote:This last statement is quite disingenuous, Chuck. You and I both rely on the Greek NT critical editions and their apparatuses to ascertain the majority readings and the relative numbers of Greek mss. for each reading. All Greek editions show that "Lord and God" or "Lord God" is in the vast majority of Greek mss. Both of those readings have "God" in them, so the majority of Greek mss. have "God" in them, in support of the Western Peshitta reading. Have you personally seen all the Peshitta mss. that contain the Eastern reading and all those that contain the Western reading at Acts 20:28? Of course not. So have you proved that the Eastern mss. all have the "Messiah" reading, by your own standard? No, of course not.

Can we get that work done Dave...I would welcome it. I am not being disingeuous Dave...I really want to know if it can be proven...as far as I can tell, it hasent, and can't be, UNTIL EVERY Greek Manuscript has been checked for each of the readings.

I am basically calling you on your statement, because I know better, and don't want others to think that the case is closed.

Again you say "vast majority" as if most or more than 3/4 of the Greek Texts have been examined for the reading in Acts 20:28. That is simply not true Dave and I think you know it. But if you know something I don't know about it, then prove it, and I will say the same thing as you are.

Until I see it for myself, I wont just go on what you think might be the case.

Dave, Even though the Greek & Latin and other ancient language translations of various Greek source texts might show "the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" or the variants "the Church of the Lord & God" or "The Church of the Lord God" or simply "The Church of the Lord" ...whatever the scribes chose to copy in their copies of the texts they were copying....
We know that The Witness of Scripture ITSELF is clearly on the side of the Eastern Peshitta reading of Acts 20:28. "The Church of Christ, which He obtained by His own blood." As seen in these Aramaic Verses: Epesians 1:7-14, Hebrews 9:14, 1st Peter 1:18-19, 1st John 1:7 & Revelation 5:9 ALL of which show that it was THE MESSIAH, The LAMB of GOD, who shed His blood and made payment to GOD, for the sin debt we owed to God, His and our Father.

Yes, The Father paid dearly, by sending His Only Begotton Son into the world to save mankind, but it was not His personal blood that was shed, as The Father is not a human being, but His Son's personal human being blood which was shed, as The Messiah, The Lamb OF God, died for mankind, as a perfect Human Being, Spirit, Soul, and Body, who subjected Himself unto the death of the Cross, to redeem us to God, His and our Father...

Read all those verses there and see, from your own translation of the Western Peshitto Text...that it was The Christ/Messiah/Lamb of God, who shed His blood, and which is in perfect harmony with the Eatern Peshitta texts reading of Acts 20:28, which shows that it was the blood of Christ/Messiah, who shed His own blood.

Also, while were at it....the way in which you choose to translate both 1 Cor 8:6 and 1 Tim 2:5 shows your bias of interpretation based on your Theology and Christology, where the translation/interpretation is made to support it, rather than just be a straight translation of the Text with no interpretation...as seen in your Interlinear of the 1905 Text...where most of the time you give it straight, as is given in the Aramaic Text.

Here is how these two verse should have been translated, if we are going off just what is literally in the 1905 Aramaic Text.

1 Corinthians 8:6 Literal Translation: "But to us, ours is one Alaha, The Father, for all is from Him and we are in Him, and one Marya, Yeshua, the Messiah, for all is by Him and also we are in His hand."

But you have this interpretive translation: "To us, ours is one God The Father, for all things are from him and we are in him, and The One LORD JEHOVAH Yeshua The Messiah, for all things are by him, and we are also in his hand."

1 Timothy 2:5 Literal Translation: "For one is Alaha, and one is the mediator of Alaha and the sons of men, the Son of Man, Yeshua The Messiah,"

But you have this interpretive translation: "For God is One, and The Mediator of God and the sons of men is One: The Son of Man, Yeshua The Messiah."

Why do you do that Dave?


..
Reply
#57
:

And Dave, It is a double standard (of sorts) that you have with Acts 20:28 and Acts 8:37.

Why?...because you include the verse of Acts 8:37 in your translation, when there is no Aramaic manuscript evidence (we know of) that has it, yet you have alowed it in your translation, because, as you said, it is found in the 1905 text you used to translate from, while the reading of the Eastern Peshitta of Acts 20:28, is said by you to not be an original Aramaic reading, because it has no Greek or other ancient language textual witness (that we know of), with the "Church of Christ" reading.

So you say that the Acts 8:37 is an authentic Aramaic verse, when its not in any Aramaic text, yet you say that the Acts 20:28 verse in the Eastern Peshitta texts is not authentic when it IS in Aramaic Texts, and ones that are even older than the Western texts are...

True as you say, its not exactly the same thing...but it is trying to have it both ways seems to me....and it also seems to me, that if you did find that the reading of "Church of Christ" in some ancient source other than The Eastern Aramaic Texts, you would still keep what you have in your translation anyway...because, like you said....yours is not a critical translation of the Texts, but only a verbatim translation of the 1905 Text.

And thats fine with me Dave... Then why not call or refer your translation to something like "The English Translation of the 1905 Critical Western Aramaic Text? But you call it "The Original Aramaic New Testament" as if no other Aramaic textual variant is or could be.

As we know, the Eastern & Western Texts are very close to each other, but for a few instances, such as in the case of Acts, 20:28 and the other places that the Eastern Texts differ from the Western Texts, where you imply must be un-inspired words/passages, because of your belief of discovering that the 1905 Critical Text of the Western Peshitto manuscripts is an exact clone of The Original Autograph.

Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but that is what I am hearing from what you have written and said about your translation, thus far.


Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#58
And Chuck, excuse me if I don't go to every major library in Europe and the USA to examine every Greek ms. for its reading of Acts 20:28 so I can prove that the majority reading contains the Greek word, "Theou" -"of God", and I will excuse you for not reading every Eastern Peshitta manuscript (do you even have an idea how many Peshitta mss. are Eastern, versus Western?) at Acts 20:28. But if I need to see every Greek ms. to prove my case that the majority of Greek mss. support the Western reading, then you must do the same with the Peshitta mss. to support your claim that the Eastern mss. read as you say they do- not that I doubt it; neither do I understand you contesting the majority Greek reading; it is so listed in the apparatus of three Greek NT's that show the variant readings in Acts 20:28, in Nestle's-Aland's 26th edition, the UBS Greek NT used in most seminaries, and in Hodges-Farstad's Greek NT according to the Majority Text. Hodges-Farstad is based on Von Soden, who "completely collated all available copies (more than 900 Greek mss.) of the Pericope de Adultera" (See Hodges NT, page xxiii), and hundreds of Greek mss. for the rest of the NT.
Von Soden found different sub groups of Byzantine Greek mss. and designated them into categories- K(x), K(i), K©, K(I); "K" stands for "Koine", "c" for Complutensian; "I" for "Itala" Western Latin type text; "x" is a large group of 300+ mss. in the Gospels and "i" is only 4 Greek uncials. He produced a fuller Greek NT collation than any previous to him, though certainly not every Greek ms. available. By far most Greek mss. are 11th century and newer, and 95% of those are Byzantine text type, very like the Textus Receptus.

What is your method of ascertaining the correct reading of a verse? You seem to mock my position of accepting the 1905 Peshitta edition as the original, yet your position seems to be even more simplistic ; the 1905 text is based on approx. 80 Aramaic mss., overall. Your Eastern text is based on what? One Khabouris manuscript? How do you know whether the Eastern text represents most Peshitta mss., or that it is the original, as opposed to the Western text? What system of textual criticism principles leads you to the conclusion that only the Eastern text is needed to find the original? How many Eastern mss. are there, or doesn't that matter?

I choose not to discuss theology here with you on this forum. If you want to correspond privately, I will try to find time to respond to your questions. Let's keep it to the textual matters here.

Blessings,

Dave
Reply
#59
It would be nice to know and to be able to check all the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts to see what they all say in Acts 20:28 and other places of question, how can we get that done?

But untill that day comes... to me the reading in the Kahbouris Manuscript in this verse agrees more with the rest of the NT in its declaration about who shed whos blood to redeem mankind. It was The Messiah of Alaha. The Greek texts have at least 4 Variant readings for that one verse alone...which should tell us something.

I beleive that The Eastern Peshitta, as represented by the Khabouris Manuscript is much older, and much more faithful to the Original text, than the Western Peshitto version is, and this is proven by its lack of the Western Five books, and the independant readings it shows...These other books were not given to the Church of the East by the Apostles, as were the other 22 books, but came to them much later in a Greek form. You seem to not accept this.

We know very clearly that it was The Son of God, who, as The Lamb OF Alaha, shed his Human Blood for our redemption. Alaha is not a man, that He should lie. He sent His Only Begotton Son into the world to save mankind.

I see no point in continuing the discussion, as it will just keep going round and round, and we have covered the issue pretty well...and since you are convinced that the Eastern Peshitta is a corruption and not the Original form of The Aramaic Scriptures, and believe that the Western Peshitto, as represented in the 1905 text, is the perfect and Original Aramaic Scriptures. Which I do not, in every instance, but contains some Greek sources, which are not original to the Aramaic Text. Nor do I believe your translation of that text is without your own Theological/Christological bias...which I believe a translator must be very careful not to do.

We should have a translation of a Manuscript, such as the Kahbouris, and the edited 1905 text version of the Western Peshitto readings, in a straight translation, so it can be known exactly what the text REALLY says in every place.

A Translation should not be the place for teaching personal doctrines, nor the place for interpreting the text at all...just translating the words into the other language, as best can be done, so as to be readable and understandable.

I say: Let the Text speak for itself!

I personally do not just read a translation and believe it is right, but study the sources and compare and see if the translations are a perfect representation of the source text. I have to be that way, because we have so many people these days, who put their dogma into the translations...its a pain.

And Dave....overall I like your translation of the version that you chose to translate, but I think you could have been more faithful and straight in some of the readings you chose, such as the ones in 1 Corinthians and 1st Timothy that I pointed out. Thank God you have published the Interlinear version, so we can check your translations closer. I have the latest version of that in the mail as we speak.

I am looking forward to the other translations of the Eastern Peshitta that are coming along, and for the others that are avaialable now, such as Andrew's and Janet's, to be even more faithful to their source texts in the future.

May Alaha bless you and guide you into ALL Truth, by His Holy Spirit according to His will.

-Chuck
Reply
#60
...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)