Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Remarks in the Khabouris manuscript margin
#50
Steve said:
Quote:The Peshitta is an Aramaic New Testament tradition -- along with the others I have mentioned.

Speaking of tradition, we know the tradition that The Eastern "Peshitta" text has, which I say is The REAL Aramaic New Testament, as its tradition goes back to that 1st copy, which tradition says was given to the leaders of The Church of the East, in the 1st century, by the Apostles and their helpers, and then copied down through the centuries... without change.

I don't see that it was made from any copy of the Greek NT at all. If you think it was, then can you show us which Greek text (in its various families), has the Khabouris' readings? I can't pinpoint one myself.

But, even if it were a copy of a Greek NT, then it must have been before all the Greek copies went off into their various families of textual variants, as The Aramaic New Testament i.e. The Eastern Peshitta Text, as given in The Khabouris, has a mixture of some of all of the various Greek readings in its text.

And....We know what tradition those other versions of the New Testament in Aramaic, have...they have come from those who translated the text from certain Greek NT copies which they had used at the time, and some are versions of The Aramaic New Testament which came before it, with various inserted portions translated and interpolated in, from the Greek NT they had in front of them at the time, and this is one reason they don't line up with the text in a number of places, as found in The Eastern Peshitta text, which is the much older text.

This can be shown easy enough, just by looking at the text itself. They were all produced by those west of the Euphrates, not by The Church of the East, which have maintained the original form of The Aramaic New Testament text all this time from the 1st century on.

As for me, The Aramaic New Testament, is that text which we find copied and maintained meticulously by the monks of The Church of the East. Their copies did not add the W5 books, which they didn't have, and were not given to them by the Apostles, (those long disputed books in Greek, circulating in the Western Churches), as the Syrian Orthodox Church did add to their versions, these which agree more with the Greek text than with the original Peshitta Text, which they used as a base for their new version of it.

And they do not contain a number of questionable passages (The PA for instance...among others) which were later transferred into the printed text as late as the 1900's, by the editors of the UBS' patchwork of a text, which is a really a hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT.

So, which is The REAL Aramaic New Testament??? I know which one.

It is the same as we see right here in The Khabouris, The Goodspeed, The Yonan, The Houghton, and The Mingana manuscripts...etc, etc...

Which one do you say it is? The Curetonian, The Sinaitic Palimpsest, The Harklean, The Philoxenan, The Christian Palestinian, etc, etc?

These don't even agree with themselves,...so which one is the right one? Which one would you choose as being the more Original version of what you would call "The Aramaic New Testament"?

.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Remarks in the Khabouris manuscript margin - by Thirdwoe - 10-02-2014, 07:09 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)