09-22-2011, 07:03 PM
Hi Chuck,
AD 240 is the 3rd century, not the 2nd. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Origen testifies to both Peshitta readings-East and West.
Almost every Greek ms. known weighs in with the Western reading here. Since the Greek came from the Peshitta, it is witness to the Peshitta readings for the time at which the Greek ms. was copied and earlier, assuming that its text would most likely have been at least a century old at the time the copyist copied it.
The Eastern reading in Hebrews 2:9 is practically non existent in any other ancient version or Greek ms., which makes it suspect. That in itself does not mean it is false, but simply that external testimony is decidedly not in favor of it. We need to resort to internal evidence, in such cases, as well as spiritual guidance to decide what the correct reading is. Most will simply consult their theological bias to decide, in my opinion. That is a tendency we should resist, as using our current theological belief to determine scripture will keep us from critical thinking and from personal spiritual learning and growth.
The same is true of Acts 20:28; no Greek manuscript or ancient version has the Eastern Peshitta reading:"which the Messiah purchased with his own blood". But theology seems to win out on both sides of the issue. It has become, for most, a controversy about the nature of Yeshua Messiah,and whether we can divide him in half, with the divine and human natures, manifest in two qnomas- "independent personal identities", one divine and one human, each performing their own specific functions and roles (Eastern), where never the twain shall meet or join in one person indivisibly, or whether the Messiah Yeshua was of one divine nature only-(Western).
Actually, I believe both of these views are false, but I will stick to the point here:
The state and readings of the NT should be approached as objectively as possible, with external evidence of the manuscripts and versions being weighed first, then church fathers, then internal evidence of context, grammar, teaching of other scripture, sense of the reading, coherency, etc.. If these are all exhausted and still there is doubt, it should be decided in prayer and sensitivity to the Spirit, Who speaks with a still small voice to the spirit of a person. Listening in the Spirit is essential to those born of the Spirit. The mind of man can go only so far. Read 1 Cor. 2 concerning this. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God, and He reveals them to the spiritual human, who discerns all things.
"My sheep hear my voice." "He calls them all by name." John 10
Nothing can make up for that. To know Him is to hear Him speak to you by name and speak to you things He has not and cannot speak to anyone else.
Blessings,
Dave
AD 240 is the 3rd century, not the 2nd. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Origen testifies to both Peshitta readings-East and West.
Almost every Greek ms. known weighs in with the Western reading here. Since the Greek came from the Peshitta, it is witness to the Peshitta readings for the time at which the Greek ms. was copied and earlier, assuming that its text would most likely have been at least a century old at the time the copyist copied it.
The Eastern reading in Hebrews 2:9 is practically non existent in any other ancient version or Greek ms., which makes it suspect. That in itself does not mean it is false, but simply that external testimony is decidedly not in favor of it. We need to resort to internal evidence, in such cases, as well as spiritual guidance to decide what the correct reading is. Most will simply consult their theological bias to decide, in my opinion. That is a tendency we should resist, as using our current theological belief to determine scripture will keep us from critical thinking and from personal spiritual learning and growth.
The same is true of Acts 20:28; no Greek manuscript or ancient version has the Eastern Peshitta reading:"which the Messiah purchased with his own blood". But theology seems to win out on both sides of the issue. It has become, for most, a controversy about the nature of Yeshua Messiah,and whether we can divide him in half, with the divine and human natures, manifest in two qnomas- "independent personal identities", one divine and one human, each performing their own specific functions and roles (Eastern), where never the twain shall meet or join in one person indivisibly, or whether the Messiah Yeshua was of one divine nature only-(Western).
Actually, I believe both of these views are false, but I will stick to the point here:
The state and readings of the NT should be approached as objectively as possible, with external evidence of the manuscripts and versions being weighed first, then church fathers, then internal evidence of context, grammar, teaching of other scripture, sense of the reading, coherency, etc.. If these are all exhausted and still there is doubt, it should be decided in prayer and sensitivity to the Spirit, Who speaks with a still small voice to the spirit of a person. Listening in the Spirit is essential to those born of the Spirit. The mind of man can go only so far. Read 1 Cor. 2 concerning this. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God, and He reveals them to the spiritual human, who discerns all things.
"My sheep hear my voice." "He calls them all by name." John 10
Nothing can make up for that. To know Him is to hear Him speak to you by name and speak to you things He has not and cannot speak to anyone else.
Blessings,
Dave