Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
#91
Paul Younan Wrote:Mickoy,


You've piqued my curiosity. In the ancient texts, there were no "chapters" or "lines" for that matter.

Can you give any more information directly from the supposed source of the claim?

+Shamasha

Hi Paul,
according to Dr. Rocco Errico,
the first 2 chapters were on a separated scroll and added later! As you know the word "Kthawa" means scroll, book, record, roll!
Quote from: The message of Matthew, an annotated parallel Aramaic-English Gospel of Matthew

"The first and second chapters of Matthew serve as a foreword to his gospel.It is believed by the majority of New Testament experts that chapter 1 and 2, which are refer to as the Infancy Narrrative, first appeared on a separate scroll which was not originally a part of Matthews book. These scholars also tell us that verses 18-25 were completely independent in origin from the genealogical table(verses 1-17)."

That fits together with what the "church fathers" said about the "hebrew Matthew" (see above!)
I agree with you, what i mean with "chapters" is as we have it today!

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#92
Thirdwoe Wrote::

I have a copy of Matthew's Gospel right here...and it's in Aramaic too. God saw fit to have His Holy Word's preserved through every generation and not lost or mishandled.

So, according to the stories, Apostle Thomas evangelized in India, and later Apostle Bartholomew brought them a copy of Matthew's Gospel...how can we be certain, which way it actually happened...either way, they still have a copy of it today, and it was never lost, and it matches what the rest of The Church of the East has always had from The Apostles. Unless you believe that the Gospel of Matthew that we have today is a forgery, or perhaps that Apostle Matthew wrote two of them.

What say you?

.

Hi Chuck,
this is what the Syrian Orthodox Church is saying:

The Syrian Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Bible, which comprises of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the divine word of God. Its Fathers labored in translating the Holy Scriptures into Syriac since the very dawn of Christianity. These Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest and most ancient in any language. Further, the Syriac New Testament is quite unique for it presents the teachings of our Lord in an Aramaic dialect (Syriac) which is akin and would have been mutually comprehensible with the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic in which Christ taught. Since the translation of the Bible into Syriac started as early as the first century, the Syriac version preserves the very ancient renditions of the original texts. In fact, the Syriac Church Fathers produced a number of translations of the Bible and revisions of these translations from the original languages of the Bible. The words of Christ were first transmitted in his native language, the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, either orally or in a written form. It is from this Aramaic tradition that the Greek Gospels were derived. The Syriac New Testament as we know it today is an early translation of the Greek text back into Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Modern Urfa in Southeast Turkey). The Syriac Old Testament is a translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic (a different Aramaic dialect from Syriac which is known by the name 'Biblical Aramaic).

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#93
:

But is that what you say, Mic? And will you say that the Syrian Orthodox position on this matter could be mistaken?

.
Reply
#94
Shlama Mickoy

Please pay no attention to "Dr." Errico. He has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about, is generally considered a nutcase and charlatan, and is a pagan.

I would also say pay no attention to the Syriac Orthodox Church on at least this topic, since they are, in truth, more Greek than "Syriac." They are "Syriac" in name only.

+Shamasha
Reply
#95
Hi Paul,
your comment is discriminating! Please explain me why you call him a"charlatan"?
We should have to pay respect to others as christians, even if they have not our "theological view"!
He studied with his mentor George Lamsa for a lot of years, maybe you call Lamsa a charlatan as well?

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#96
Thirdwoe Wrote::

But is that what you say, Mic? And will you say that the Syrian Orthodox position on this matter could be mistaken?

.

Hi Chuck,
my position is this:
I love the Peshitta, it gives us a unique chance to understand the teachings of Yeshua better, because she is written in our lords language! I think that there is no doubt that the Peshitta is not fallen from heaven like it is now, it is a "canon" of different books/scrolls, put together over time, written from different people, not all at the same time!
If the SOC is wrong, so give a proof why please!
Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#97
:

Mic, there is no proof of what they are saying. This is why their position could certainly be wrong. We do not possess the autographs of any of the books of The New Testament...so, we have no proof if the Apostles and their helpers 1st wrote in Aramaic, Greek, or even Latin, as it is claimed by some that Mark's Gospel was 1st written in Latin.

This website is here to discuss the matter to see if there is indications textually that the NT Books were 1st written down in Aramaic, then soon after translated into Greek and Latin. We know by testimony of the Church fathers, that NT Books in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin were all known to exist in the mid-2nd century. And there is testimony of an Aramaic NT dated as early as 78 A.D. I believe all three versions were circulating by the mid-1st century, among those Christians who spoke in those languages.

But, there is a lot of internal indications in the NT that points to the Greek being a translation of the Aramaic text, not the other way around.

I ask you...which of the Greek families of NT texts (5) do you say is the Original form? And how do you know which form is the most true to the original, if Greek were the original?

Shlama,
Chuck

.
Reply
#98
Hi Chuck,
do not get me wrong, there is indeed some indicators that the NT is written first in Aramaic, and then translated to Greek!
You wrote: "We know by testimony of the Church fathers, that NT Books in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin were all known to exist in the mid-2nd century. And there is testimony of an Aramaic NT dated as early as 78 A.D."

Which church fathers said that the NT books are written in Aramaic and existing in the second century? Which testimony exist that the Peshitta is dated that early (78AD)?

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#99
:

Mic, 1st here is where you can read the mention of an Aramaic NT with a date of 78 A.D. in it's colophon.

Google: Asseman's "Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana"

When you find an online edition, then go to Volume 2, then look for page 486 and read it. William Norton, in the introduction of his late 1800s-early 1900s translation of the Aramaic NT also makes mention of this Manuscript as mentioned by Asseman. You can read his statements online as well, by googling his translation.

I'll round up who of the Church fathers and Church writers speak of Aramaic NT Books in the 2nd century, when I get some more time.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Wow Chuck,
this is new for me! But it is a four gospel edition , not a complete Peshitta right?
But anyway it shows, that at this early year was already a four gospel "canon" (or a three gospel one, because John was written maybe later!) written in Aramaic, in use!
Thanks for this interesting information!
So can it be that there was first the "hebrew gospel" of Matthew, then a four gospel edition and then the Peshitta as the final "canon" of the NT exclude the western five?
Kind regards
Michael
Reply
:

However it all happend...I don't think anything has been lost that God wanted us to read. And I think that the Gospel of John may have been written by that time. It's very possible that all 4 Gospels were completed before 70 A.D. Starting in the early 40s, till the end of the 60s.
Reply
Mic,

"Melito, who lived about the year 170, explicitly declared that a Syriac version of the Bible existed at that time, for in his Commentary on the Septuagint, in a comment on Genesis 22:13 he says, ?The Syriac and the Hebrew have in this passage the word ?hanging,? in order to convey a more conspicuous analogy of the Cross.? Manes, also, in his disputes with the Christians of the East, quoted the New Testament; yet he is known to have been ignorant of Greek, and could have read the New Testament only in Syriac; the version is therefore earlier than the age of Manes. Lastly, it appears from the testimony of Jerome that the Syriac Bible was read publicly in the churches in his time, for he says that Ephrem the Syrian is held in such veneration that his writings are read in several churches immediately after the lessons from the Bible..."

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:Differences between the Eastern Peshitta Text, (as witnessed in the Khabouris Codex) & the Western Peshitto Text (as given in the BFBS/UBS 1905/1920 critical edition), showing most of the English translations compared with each other, to see which versions, Eastern/Western, they go with. Murdoch sometimes puts the Eastern reading of the verse in [brackets], and I?ve put his name in brackets to indicate when he does so. I've also compared the Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) and The Curetonian (Old Syriac) texts were applicable, as well as the readings of MS. ADD 14453, 14470, 14473, and 14475 all 5th-6th century Aramaic New Testament Manuscripts, in Estrangelo script, as printed in The Way International's "The Aramaic New Testament: Estrangelo Script".

.

THanks Thirdwoe,

I've been checking it. Only Hebrews 2:9 seems to be intentionally corrupted somewhere. I tend to believe the Peshitta is Original reading since the old greek is preserved by a churchfather who quoted this verse.

I must say that all claims who say that scripture is wilfully corrupted has very little evidence. The same is for the Vaticanus. You can read all those 'left-out' verses but they are seldomly about doctrinal corruptions.
The same is for codex Bazae. When I saw the phrases that are existing only in that codex, I really wonder what church power forced those writers to make difference. I just guess, they were skillful copywriters or just not.
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mic,

"Melito, who lived about the year 170, explicitly declared that a Syriac version of the Bible existed at that time, for in his Commentary on the Septuagint, in a comment on Genesis 22:13 he says, ?The Syriac and the Hebrew have in this passage the word ?hanging,? in order to convey a more conspicuous analogy of the Cross.? Manes, also, in his disputes with the Christians of the East, quoted the New Testament; yet he is known to have been ignorant of Greek, and could have read the New Testament only in Syriac; the version is therefore earlier than the age of Manes. Lastly, it appears from the testimony of Jerome that the Syriac Bible was read publicly in the churches in his time, for he says that Ephrem the Syrian is held in such veneration that his writings are read in several churches immediately after the lessons from the Bible..."

Shlama,
Chuck

Hi Chuck,
Melito was talking about the AT right? Ephrem as far as i know, never quoted from the Peshitta, Jerome lived in 4th/5th century, sure at that time the Peshitta was already in use! But who was "Manes", i found nothing about him!

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Mic,

What version of The Scriptures do you think all those Eastern Aramaic speaking Christians of Mesopotamia had in their Churches from the 1st-3rd century?

And don't forget about Tatian's Diatessaron from about the year 160 A.D. when you look at its text, you can see that it lines up with The Aramaic of the Peshitta text, not with any of the Greek versions.

Which Geek version/family do you say is the most original text, and if it's true that the Aramaic comes from the Greek text, which one of them do you say that the Aramaic Peshitta text was translated from? It's a fair question.

Shalam,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)