09-27-2011, 10:14 PM
Hi Chuck,
I have the photo facsimile of Sinaiticus, and the word in question is ten lines from the bottom on the left most column, in about the middle of the line.
The copy is very clear and easy to read. The line reads:CIANTOUQYHN (I have used a Q for a Theta.)
The underlined letters are actually over-lined in the manuscript, and are the common uncial abbreviation for QEOU - "GOD".
To verify this, I checked three Greek NT's I have at Acts 20:28: 1.)Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum (1971 UBS), 2.)The Greek New Testament (UBS ed. by Aland,Black,Martini,Metzger,Wikgren, 3.)The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. by Hodges and Farstad (1982). These three Greek NT editions all agree in presenting the Sinaiticus reading at Acts 20:28 as "the church of God..."
Tischendorf's 2nd edition does have "church of the Lord" in the main text, and "the church of God" in the footnote as a variant reading, but as I do not read Latin well, I cannot make out his introduction which sets out his plan for his base text and the variant readings. A look at Siniaticus itself is all that is needed, however, to settle the matter. It reads,"the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood."
But you still have not answered my question:
You wrote:
You sweep away the majority of Peshitta manuscripts as irrelevant because they are not Eastern. That is a gross error, my friend. You are relying on a minority of Peshitta mss. to ascertain the true reading. Most of the old Peshitta mss. are Western, yet there is 99.5% agreement or better, between the Eastern and Western texts in most books, as far as I have compared them, and I have compared them overall for the NT, using the Khabouris as the Eastern representative.
If you were a member of the Church of The East, it is understandable that church doctrine or bias toward Eastern readings would determine your position, but that cannot be credibly presented as an objective position based on evidence.
You admit at the end of your last post that you can accept both readings as sound doctrine. I am glad to hear it. I Cor. 11:27 & 29 refers to "the blood of Maryah" and "the body of Maryah", and both Eastern and Western texts agree on the readings. This is the equivalent of "the blood and body of YHWH", so I fail to see the reason for contending over "dmah d' Alaha" -"blood of God". "The blood of YHWH" is far more demanding of our faith than "blood of Alaha", since "YHWH" is unequivocally the Name of The One Eternal Deity, whereas "Alaha" is not so, and is a title, not a name. (I do believe, however, that Acts 20:28 refers to the Eternal Deity of Yeshua).
The Nestorian position essentially is a refusal to acknowledge that God can suffer, bleed, or die, while yet holding that Yeshua is Eternal Deity. Much scripture that is uncontested in its readings attests that The Son of God died: "God was reconciled with us in the death of His Son." (Romans 5:10)
"And in these last days he has spoken with us by his Son, whom he ordained The Heir of all things, and by him he made the universe.For he is The Brilliance of his glory, The Image of his Being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."Hebrews 1:3
Is there any doubt that Paul was saying that The Son of God who created the universe and upholds all things by His word purged our sins in his Essential Being (Qnoma), which means that His essential Being is Eternal Deity, which He offered for us as atonement for the sins of the world. Surely the Spirit was not speaking of Messiah's humanity in these verses. It was not His humanity that created the universe or maintains all creation by His mighty word.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (literally-"the One Who made it").
That is speaking of the Testator of the New Covenant.
?Behold, the days are coming, says THE LORD JEHOVAH, and I will perfect a New Covenant for the family of the house of Israel and for the family of the house of Judah.? -Hebrews 8:8
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: -Jer. 31:31
Thus, the NT teaching is:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament (the New Covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of YHWH (literally-"the One Who made it").
13. And he has saved us from the power of darkness and brought us into The Kingdom of his Beloved Son; 14. He in whom we have salvation and the
forgiveness of sins; 15. He who is the image of The Unseen God and is The Firstborn of all creation. 16. By him was everything created which is in Heaven
and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Rulers; everything has been created by
his hand and in him. 17. And he is The One who is before all, and all things exist by him. 18. And he is The Head of the body which is the church, for he is The
Head and The Firstborn from among the dead , that he would be Preeminent in everything, 19. For in him All Fullness is pleased to dwell, 20. And to reconcile all things by him to Itself, and by him It made peace by the blood of his crucifixion, whether of things that are in Earth or that are in Heaven.
"Christ died for our sins". You and I agree that Christ is God, therefore we agree that Christ, Who is God, died for our sins. That is an eminently scriptural statement. Christ's death was not "half assed", so to speak. His death was complete. Isaiah 53 says "He made his soul an offering for sin"; "He poured out his soul unto death"; "He shall see the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied." He offered his body and blood for an offering also. He also offered up His Spirit unto death- which is the most essential aspect of His Being and Person:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? Psalms 22:1
But from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And toward the ninth hour Yeshua cried with a loud voice and he said, ?Oh God, oh God! Why have you forsaken me?? Mat. 27:45,46
For he who had not known sin made himself to become sin in your place, that we would become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5:21
Physical death is separation of the spirit from the body.
Spiritual death is separation of the spirit from God. Yeshua had to experience this also, as it is the wages of sin, which He paid. I do not believe His Father abandoned Him, but that our Lord's Spirit underwent a transformation which Paul says was being "made sin in our place". That was His death and separation from His Father, not knowing His own soul and righteousness as The Son of God, but considering Himself " - a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.- Psalms 22:6
Our Lord no longer knew His own soul and nature as The Divine Son of God, or His Father as His Father, but as "my God". He had never spoken in prayer and addressed His Father as "my God", and certainly never thought His Father had abandoned Him, or that He would ever be able to do so.
"My Father and I, we are One."
Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
Blessings and Peace,
Dave
I have the photo facsimile of Sinaiticus, and the word in question is ten lines from the bottom on the left most column, in about the middle of the line.
The copy is very clear and easy to read. The line reads:CIANTOUQYHN (I have used a Q for a Theta.)
The underlined letters are actually over-lined in the manuscript, and are the common uncial abbreviation for QEOU - "GOD".
To verify this, I checked three Greek NT's I have at Acts 20:28: 1.)Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum (1971 UBS), 2.)The Greek New Testament (UBS ed. by Aland,Black,Martini,Metzger,Wikgren, 3.)The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. by Hodges and Farstad (1982). These three Greek NT editions all agree in presenting the Sinaiticus reading at Acts 20:28 as "the church of God..."
Tischendorf's 2nd edition does have "church of the Lord" in the main text, and "the church of God" in the footnote as a variant reading, but as I do not read Latin well, I cannot make out his introduction which sets out his plan for his base text and the variant readings. A look at Siniaticus itself is all that is needed, however, to settle the matter. It reads,"the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood."
But you still have not answered my question:
Quote:Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?And
Quote:?where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?
You wrote:
Quote:Why should we make the Eastern Peshitta conform to the Greek or Latin texts, which are all later in in origin than it is...and judge the Aramaic Text, against their various translations of the same verse?
Which Eastern Aramaic Text, shows "Church of God" or "Chuch of the Lord"? Are there any?
You sweep away the majority of Peshitta manuscripts as irrelevant because they are not Eastern. That is a gross error, my friend. You are relying on a minority of Peshitta mss. to ascertain the true reading. Most of the old Peshitta mss. are Western, yet there is 99.5% agreement or better, between the Eastern and Western texts in most books, as far as I have compared them, and I have compared them overall for the NT, using the Khabouris as the Eastern representative.
If you were a member of the Church of The East, it is understandable that church doctrine or bias toward Eastern readings would determine your position, but that cannot be credibly presented as an objective position based on evidence.
You admit at the end of your last post that you can accept both readings as sound doctrine. I am glad to hear it. I Cor. 11:27 & 29 refers to "the blood of Maryah" and "the body of Maryah", and both Eastern and Western texts agree on the readings. This is the equivalent of "the blood and body of YHWH", so I fail to see the reason for contending over "dmah d' Alaha" -"blood of God". "The blood of YHWH" is far more demanding of our faith than "blood of Alaha", since "YHWH" is unequivocally the Name of The One Eternal Deity, whereas "Alaha" is not so, and is a title, not a name. (I do believe, however, that Acts 20:28 refers to the Eternal Deity of Yeshua).
The Nestorian position essentially is a refusal to acknowledge that God can suffer, bleed, or die, while yet holding that Yeshua is Eternal Deity. Much scripture that is uncontested in its readings attests that The Son of God died: "God was reconciled with us in the death of His Son." (Romans 5:10)
"And in these last days he has spoken with us by his Son, whom he ordained The Heir of all things, and by him he made the universe.For he is The Brilliance of his glory, The Image of his Being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."Hebrews 1:3
Is there any doubt that Paul was saying that The Son of God who created the universe and upholds all things by His word purged our sins in his Essential Being (Qnoma), which means that His essential Being is Eternal Deity, which He offered for us as atonement for the sins of the world. Surely the Spirit was not speaking of Messiah's humanity in these verses. It was not His humanity that created the universe or maintains all creation by His mighty word.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (literally-"the One Who made it").
That is speaking of the Testator of the New Covenant.
?Behold, the days are coming, says THE LORD JEHOVAH, and I will perfect a New Covenant for the family of the house of Israel and for the family of the house of Judah.? -Hebrews 8:8
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: -Jer. 31:31
Thus, the NT teaching is:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament (the New Covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of YHWH (literally-"the One Who made it").
13. And he has saved us from the power of darkness and brought us into The Kingdom of his Beloved Son; 14. He in whom we have salvation and the
forgiveness of sins; 15. He who is the image of The Unseen God and is The Firstborn of all creation. 16. By him was everything created which is in Heaven
and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Rulers; everything has been created by
his hand and in him. 17. And he is The One who is before all, and all things exist by him. 18. And he is The Head of the body which is the church, for he is The
Head and The Firstborn from among the dead , that he would be Preeminent in everything, 19. For in him All Fullness is pleased to dwell, 20. And to reconcile all things by him to Itself, and by him It made peace by the blood of his crucifixion, whether of things that are in Earth or that are in Heaven.
"Christ died for our sins". You and I agree that Christ is God, therefore we agree that Christ, Who is God, died for our sins. That is an eminently scriptural statement. Christ's death was not "half assed", so to speak. His death was complete. Isaiah 53 says "He made his soul an offering for sin"; "He poured out his soul unto death"; "He shall see the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied." He offered his body and blood for an offering also. He also offered up His Spirit unto death- which is the most essential aspect of His Being and Person:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? Psalms 22:1
But from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And toward the ninth hour Yeshua cried with a loud voice and he said, ?Oh God, oh God! Why have you forsaken me?? Mat. 27:45,46
For he who had not known sin made himself to become sin in your place, that we would become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5:21
Physical death is separation of the spirit from the body.
Spiritual death is separation of the spirit from God. Yeshua had to experience this also, as it is the wages of sin, which He paid. I do not believe His Father abandoned Him, but that our Lord's Spirit underwent a transformation which Paul says was being "made sin in our place". That was His death and separation from His Father, not knowing His own soul and righteousness as The Son of God, but considering Himself " - a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.- Psalms 22:6
Our Lord no longer knew His own soul and nature as The Divine Son of God, or His Father as His Father, but as "my God". He had never spoken in prayer and addressed His Father as "my God", and certainly never thought His Father had abandoned Him, or that He would ever be able to do so.
"My Father and I, we are One."
Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
Blessings and Peace,
Dave