For Luke 13:32, do you think it concludes with Jesus saying “I will be”:
finished/ through?
perfected?
martyred?
Perfected:
Luke 13:32
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) Jeshu saith to them, Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected.
(Murdock) Jesus said to them: Go ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures, to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I shall be consummated.
(KJV) And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Diatessaron, Section XXIV
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~28] Jesus said unto them, Go ye and say to this fox, Behold, I am casting out demons, and I heal to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I am perfected.
Finished/ through:
(Lamsa) Jesus said to them, Go and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons, and I heal today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will be through.
Luk 13:32 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/...ons-search
Jesus said to them, "Go, tell this fox,
'Behold, I will cast out demons and do healings today and tomorrow and on the third day I will be finished.'
Martyred:
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
šmly vb. to complete
quad View a KWIC
1 to complete Syr. P Gn18:21 …. P 1K(1)1:14 …. Eph1:23 …. (a) to fulfill, accomplish Syr. P Acts13:33 …. God has fulfilled it for us. JesusJohn 44 …. accomplish the work for which you have come. (b) to perform (miracle) Syr. SAL1 229:2 .
2 to follow completely Syr. P Nm14:24 …. P Dt1:36 ….
3 (optionally w. yd) to ordain Syr. MB 14:179f …. how is it possible for one who needs ordination to ordain someone who is not ordained?. P Ex28:41 …. anoint them and ordain them.
4 to spend (a complete night) Syr.
5 to celebrate (festival) Syr. SB 122:20 .
quad T View a KWIC
1 (order, promise, type) to be fulfilled CPA, Syr. CPA Luke1:1(119a) …. P 1K(1)2:27 ….
2 to be perfected, completed Syr. Philox1 584:13 .
3 to be baptized Syr. am3 336:7 .
4 to be martyred Syr. am3 343:5 .
5 to be ordained Syr. ThMarg1 118:1 .
6 to devote oneself to service Syr. P Nm25:3 ….
=======================================.
When it was originally written, what do you think Col 2:14 said was blotted out:
“the handwriting of ordinances”?
“the handwriting in the decrees”?
“the handwriting of our debts”?
Colossians 2:14 interlinear
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/colossians/2-14.htm
having blotted out the against us cheirographon/χειρόγραφον/handwriting in the dogmasin/δόγμασιν/decrees
which was adverse to us and auto/αὐτὸ/it He has taken out of the way having nailed it to the cross
Did Col 2:14 have “against us… adverse to us”? or simply “against us”?
Do you think Col 2:15 did, or didn’t, originally have “and by the yielding up of his body”?
Colossians 2:13
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And you who were dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he hath made alive with him, and forgiven us all our sins;
(Murdock) And you, who were dead in your sins, and by the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he hath vivified with him; and he hath forgiven us all our sins:
(Lamsa) And you, who once were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he has granted to live with him, and he has forgiven you all your sins;
(KJV) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Colossians 2:14
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and hath blotted out in his mandates the writing of our debts
that was against us,
and hath taken it from the midst, and affixed it to his cross;
(Murdock) and, by his mandates, he blotted out the handwriting of our debts,
which [handwriting] existed against us,
and took [it] from the midst, and affixed [it] to his cross.
(Lamsa) And by his commandments he cancelled the written bond of our sins,
which stood against us;
and he took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
(KJV) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:15
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and by the yielding up of his body
he hath prostrated principalities and powers,
and hath shamed them openly by himself.
(Murdock) And, by yielding up his body,
he showed contempt for principalities and authorities;
and put them to shame, openly, in his own person.
(Lamsa) And by putting off his mortal body,
he exposed the powers of evil,
and through his person put them openly to shame.
(KJV) And having spoiled principalities and powers,
he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:16
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) LET no man therefore judge you in meat and in drink,
or in the distinctions of festivals, and of new moons, and of shabeths, [Or, weeks.]
(Murdock) Let no one therefore disquiet you about food and drink,
or about the distinctions of festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths;
(Lamsa) Let no man therefore create a disturbance among you about eating and drinking,
or about the division of the feast days, the beginning of the months and the day of the sabbath:
(KJV) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
=================================================.
What do you think of the analysis in the 2nd half of this?:
From http://peshitta.org/
Peshitta Forum › New Testament › Aramaic Primacy 101
The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.
Paul Younan
11-10-2003, 08:51 PM
Shlama Akhay,
Read almost any encyclopedia or commentary on the New Testament, and you are bound to come across a reference to Rabbula (died 433 A.D.), the Monophysite "Tyrant of Edessa", supposedly "suppressing" the Diatesseron - which they claim was the "earliest" gospel in Aramaic.
If we are to believe that, then how does one explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East?
Quote: Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu'l Fa??ra??j ??Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali' al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.
A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca's Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider's _Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache_, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.
Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the "Borgian" and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)
So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years _after_ Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic.
Notice, also, that this is the only translation of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was made from the Syriac (Aramaic). No other manuscript makes this claim (not the Latin nor the Armenian.)
Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be a trademark of Tatian's harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states "Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word.'")
But I thought Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron? At least the dated material in encyclopedias and commentaries state this. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula, _verbatim_:
Rabbula Wrote: "Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel," i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel.
The truth of the matter is: while it's possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron.
The subscription to a 600-year later Arabic translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves that Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron - at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his maniacal rantings.
This Arabic translation so _exactly_ matches the Peshitta AGAINST the so-called "Old Syriac", that F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. (c.f., Burkitt, _Evangelion de-Mepharreshe_ (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200)
In Burkitt's worldview, the Peshitta couldn't have existed before Rabbula's time - so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn't possibly read like it against the so-called "Old Syriac." All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his "Rabbula created the Peshitta" theory, which has already been disproved by many scholars.)
It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an _Aramaic_ harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct _Aramaic_ Gospels.
Of the 3 surviving translations of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other.
Since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn - I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.
_Occam's Razor_ is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.
The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. It then fell out of popular use. This was not a problem - since they had the distinct Gospels in Aramaic from day one. Tatian's harmony was popular at one time in the life of the church - just as any number of contemporary gospel harmonies are popular today. But that doesn't mean that it predates the Peshitta Gospels.
In fact, if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation (and not Burkitt's personal opinion) - the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian.
And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D. Exactly what Burkitt refused to believe.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Youna
finished/ through?
perfected?
martyred?
Perfected:
Luke 13:32
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) Jeshu saith to them, Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am perfected.
(Murdock) Jesus said to them: Go ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures, to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I shall be consummated.
(KJV) And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Diatessaron, Section XXIV
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~28] Jesus said unto them, Go ye and say to this fox, Behold, I am casting out demons, and I heal to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I am perfected.
Finished/ through:
(Lamsa) Jesus said to them, Go and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons, and I heal today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will be through.
Luk 13:32 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en-us/...ons-search
Jesus said to them, "Go, tell this fox,
'Behold, I will cast out demons and do healings today and tomorrow and on the third day I will be finished.'
Martyred:
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
šmly vb. to complete
quad View a KWIC
1 to complete Syr. P Gn18:21 …. P 1K(1)1:14 …. Eph1:23 …. (a) to fulfill, accomplish Syr. P Acts13:33 …. God has fulfilled it for us. JesusJohn 44 …. accomplish the work for which you have come. (b) to perform (miracle) Syr. SAL1 229:2 .
2 to follow completely Syr. P Nm14:24 …. P Dt1:36 ….
3 (optionally w. yd) to ordain Syr. MB 14:179f …. how is it possible for one who needs ordination to ordain someone who is not ordained?. P Ex28:41 …. anoint them and ordain them.
4 to spend (a complete night) Syr.
5 to celebrate (festival) Syr. SB 122:20 .
quad T View a KWIC
1 (order, promise, type) to be fulfilled CPA, Syr. CPA Luke1:1(119a) …. P 1K(1)2:27 ….
2 to be perfected, completed Syr. Philox1 584:13 .
3 to be baptized Syr. am3 336:7 .
4 to be martyred Syr. am3 343:5 .
5 to be ordained Syr. ThMarg1 118:1 .
6 to devote oneself to service Syr. P Nm25:3 ….
=======================================.
When it was originally written, what do you think Col 2:14 said was blotted out:
“the handwriting of ordinances”?
“the handwriting in the decrees”?
“the handwriting of our debts”?
Colossians 2:14 interlinear
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/colossians/2-14.htm
having blotted out the against us cheirographon/χειρόγραφον/handwriting in the dogmasin/δόγμασιν/decrees
which was adverse to us and auto/αὐτὸ/it He has taken out of the way having nailed it to the cross
Did Col 2:14 have “against us… adverse to us”? or simply “against us”?
Do you think Col 2:15 did, or didn’t, originally have “and by the yielding up of his body”?
Colossians 2:13
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And you who were dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he hath made alive with him, and forgiven us all our sins;
(Murdock) And you, who were dead in your sins, and by the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he hath vivified with him; and he hath forgiven us all our sins:
(Lamsa) And you, who once were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
he has granted to live with him, and he has forgiven you all your sins;
(KJV) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Colossians 2:14
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and hath blotted out in his mandates the writing of our debts
that was against us,
and hath taken it from the midst, and affixed it to his cross;
(Murdock) and, by his mandates, he blotted out the handwriting of our debts,
which [handwriting] existed against us,
and took [it] from the midst, and affixed [it] to his cross.
(Lamsa) And by his commandments he cancelled the written bond of our sins,
which stood against us;
and he took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
(KJV) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:15
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and by the yielding up of his body
he hath prostrated principalities and powers,
and hath shamed them openly by himself.
(Murdock) And, by yielding up his body,
he showed contempt for principalities and authorities;
and put them to shame, openly, in his own person.
(Lamsa) And by putting off his mortal body,
he exposed the powers of evil,
and through his person put them openly to shame.
(KJV) And having spoiled principalities and powers,
he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:16
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) LET no man therefore judge you in meat and in drink,
or in the distinctions of festivals, and of new moons, and of shabeths, [Or, weeks.]
(Murdock) Let no one therefore disquiet you about food and drink,
or about the distinctions of festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths;
(Lamsa) Let no man therefore create a disturbance among you about eating and drinking,
or about the division of the feast days, the beginning of the months and the day of the sabbath:
(KJV) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
=================================================.
What do you think of the analysis in the 2nd half of this?:
From http://peshitta.org/
Peshitta Forum › New Testament › Aramaic Primacy 101
The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.
Paul Younan
11-10-2003, 08:51 PM
Shlama Akhay,
Read almost any encyclopedia or commentary on the New Testament, and you are bound to come across a reference to Rabbula (died 433 A.D.), the Monophysite "Tyrant of Edessa", supposedly "suppressing" the Diatesseron - which they claim was the "earliest" gospel in Aramaic.
If we are to believe that, then how does one explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East?
Quote: Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu'l Fa??ra??j ??Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali' al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.
A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca's Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider's _Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache_, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.
Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the "Borgian" and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)
So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years _after_ Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic.
Notice, also, that this is the only translation of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was made from the Syriac (Aramaic). No other manuscript makes this claim (not the Latin nor the Armenian.)
Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be a trademark of Tatian's harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states "Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word.'")
But I thought Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron? At least the dated material in encyclopedias and commentaries state this. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula, _verbatim_:
Rabbula Wrote: "Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel," i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel.
The truth of the matter is: while it's possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron.
The subscription to a 600-year later Arabic translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves that Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron - at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his maniacal rantings.
This Arabic translation so _exactly_ matches the Peshitta AGAINST the so-called "Old Syriac", that F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. (c.f., Burkitt, _Evangelion de-Mepharreshe_ (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200)
In Burkitt's worldview, the Peshitta couldn't have existed before Rabbula's time - so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn't possibly read like it against the so-called "Old Syriac." All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his "Rabbula created the Peshitta" theory, which has already been disproved by many scholars.)
It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an _Aramaic_ harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct _Aramaic_ Gospels.
Of the 3 surviving translations of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other.
Since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn - I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.
_Occam's Razor_ is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.
The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. It then fell out of popular use. This was not a problem - since they had the distinct Gospels in Aramaic from day one. Tatian's harmony was popular at one time in the life of the church - just as any number of contemporary gospel harmonies are popular today. But that doesn't mean that it predates the Peshitta Gospels.
In fact, if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation (and not Burkitt's personal opinion) - the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian.
And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D. Exactly what Burkitt refused to believe.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Youna