Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Victor Alexander and "Qnomah"
I sent Victor Alexander an email concerning his translation of "Qnomah" in his Aramaic New Testament. This is his reply:

"Hi Dylan,

Thanks for writing. Nobody has taken up the issue of the Trinity with me
before. You're the first. So I appreciate it, because I often wonder if
people are reading my translation notes.

I think many people who support my translation work understand my
translation of the word "qnomah" and "qnomeh." The first is singular and the
second is plural. So far you're the first who's said they're not

My problem isn't as much theological as it is honesty in translation. No other translator, among them Trinitarians like James Murdock, John W. Etheridge, Paul Younan, and Dave Bauscher have understood "qnomah" as "qnomeh". I am not trying to start a debate with anyone! Just saying!

Can you break this down a bit more Dylan? How is Mr. Alexander not being honest here?

His memory must be leaving him, as I have also taken issue with him on this and e-mailed him about it back in October of 2009. The word "Trinity" does not occur a single time in Scripture and, in my opinion, should not be used in any translation ever. Keep it to the footnotes and explain that this is your understand of the term, but I don't believe it is apropriate or honest to insert it into the text. Why? Because that's not what the word means. That is imprinting upon the text your theological assumptions without properly explaining otherwise. And if Vic is saying that it is plural in that verse (Hebrews 1:3) it is not. It is singular.
I was saying that he is possibly being very dishonest in his translation, or he genuinely believes qnomah is actually qnomeh. He isn't the only one that has added his own flavor to his translation (most of the other Peshitta/Peshitto translations have at least a little theological bias), sadly.
Hey Dylan,

I have yet to see anything in Magiera's translation that shows a personal doctrinal bias, but I'll keep my eyes open. If you see something let me know. I just got her paperback version...and thought it was the "Messianic version", but it's her normal one.

So, which verse is being translated dishonestly by Mr. Alexander? Hebrews 1:3?

I just read it, and yea, he puts the word "Trinity" there, for "Person"...which is just weird...but I scratch my head often when reading his renderings, wondering both what his source text actually says, and how he could come up with a particular rendering. So far, I have found his translation the least accurate of all the others.

For instance, here is his rendering of Hebrews 1:6 "Again, then, when the Bread of Life entered the universe, He said..."

"Bread of Life? ??? What source text says this? Is he just putting things in that he thinks sounds good?

And as I've said before, I find that most folks I?ve spoken to, and read their books, don't know what the term "Trinity" even means, with some having pre-conceived ideas, and some having woefully false teaching about what's actually believed and taught by most Christians regarding the subject...let alone what the early Church taught about it in the pre-4th centuries.

LOL It's good to be informed on theological positions! Amen. I'm hoping to get the Messianic version of her translation sometime soon. I'm hardback person. You saw my worn and torn Lamsa Bible LOL! I bought a new copy of Lamsa's translation at a local Lifeway and it was starting to get in rough shape (I know for a fact it had been there for almost a year). I wish a lot of these Peshitta translations were sold in stores...It'd be a lot more convenient than ordering online! I also wanted to let you know I've posted more Peshitta videos. One is a review of the Etheridge New Testament and the other is a study of the Aramaic New Testament's unique declaration of Jesus Christ to be YHWH.

For the record...this is what the best early Church teachers taught, about the year 180 A.D.

Quote:as I have shown by numerous arguments of the very clearest nature) He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, ?by the word of His power;? and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one:

He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God, as Marcion has imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty ?ons, which has been shown a vain supposition; nor is there any such being as Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable ?on, nor, in fact, any one of those things which are madly dreamt of by these, and by all the heretics.

But there is one only God, the Creator?He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom? heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them:

He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes.

He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him, to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed.

Ireaneus: Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 30

And I fully agree with this statement...even that last part, because I understand what he is saying there. The Son, eternally co-existing with the Father..."The Son", being in His pre-incarnate existance ---> The Father's own Word and Wisdom, personified and manifested to reaveal and do The Father's will.

Thirdwoe Wrote:And I fully agree with this statement...
I as well. It seems to very much be in strict alignment with all of the Christoological statements John and Paul make, not deviating from the text in any manner what so ever, which I feel is very important. I proclaim statements of Scripture only when it comes to this issue; anything beyond I feel is not given in the detail we desire and therefore not relevant to our mission here on earth.

Thank you for posting that. What first came to mind for me when I thought about early Christoogical explanations was Eusebius's introduction in his ecclestical history.

It's been sometime since I've read his book Luc, and I'm not sure what he states there in his intro, but when wanting to know what the pre-Nicene Christians believed and taught, I look before his time, to the Church teachers of the late 1st-3rd centuires, before things were later termed and defined a certain way which I believe muddied the waters, rather than made them more clear.

Quote: One is a review of the Etheridge New Testament and the other is a study of the Aramaic New Testament's unique declaration of Jesus Christ to be YHWH.

The Greek version says the same thing, Dylan, yet it's obscured by the word "Kurios", and the small "l" and big "L" that the English translations use, which tends to show Jesus, to be other than YHWH Himself.

He certainly is!!!...And has always been The Father's very Word, The Father revealing Himself in and through His Word and Wisdom, and by Whom and for Whom, He created the Universe and all that's in it.

YHWH/JESUS is The Father's Word, who became incarnate in the Person of M'Shikha (The Anointed One) of God. The Father didn't die on the Cross, His Holy Son died on the Cross, God, The Father "was in The Messiah, reconciling the World unto Himself...He was not His own Son, but truly was His Son's Father.

Some might ask; "but isn't YHWH or Yahweh/Jehovah, The Father's personal Name?"

Not according to the early Church teachers, who taught that The Father was not named, and that ALL the occurrences where The Creator interacts with Mankind in the Old Testament, It's the pre-incarnate Messiah, The Father's own Word and Wisdom who is revealing The Father's will and way unto them. No man has ever seen God/The Father, exept His Word/Son, who has revealed Him and we "see" The Father in and through The Messiah, His exact Image.

This is how The Father has chose to reveal Himself unto mankind, in and through The Messiah, both incarnate, and pre-incarnate. We don't have 2 God's, we Have ONE GOD, who brought forth His own Word and Wisdom, from Himself, of His own Substance, who in the fulness of time became incarnate for our salvation. He is the Mediator between God and Man...always has been.

Let's not turn this into a theological thing. I don't want to get harped by the administrators again! LOL

Anyway, I don't really agree with the idea that "Father" is a name. It is a title. According to Scripture, the Father's name is YHWH.

Quote:I don't really agree with the idea that "Father" is a name. It is a title.

I don't either, and as I said, according to the teachings of the early Church, The Father is not named, if He was, it would be all over the place in their teachings, but instead, they teach that it was The Word of God The Father, who spoke to Moses and all the Prophets revealing The Father's will. I know, cause I've read their books.

Here is what Justin Martyr says in his 2nd Apology in Chapter 6 in about 150 A.D.

"But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder, the person who gives Him the name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions.

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God?s ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation ?God? is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained.

But ?Jesus,? His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons."

Quote:According to Scripture, the Father's name is YHWH.

Can you show me where it says this in Scripture? Maybe I missed it. Besides, you told me that The Son of God IS The Father, so if that's true (Not), YHWH is indeed the Name of Jesus, pre-incarnate. <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->

I say that The Name "YHWH" is The Name that The Word of God, who is The Son of God ,and who always reveals The Father who sent Him unto Mankind, gave to Moses, along with His other name "I AM', which He told Moses to give to the Israelites. Later, we see Jesus/The Word saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM." And when they came to arrest The Son of God in the Garden, they asked Him if He was Yeshu' the Nazarene, and He said "I AM" and they all went backwards and fell down. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

But, yes....lets do get back to the discussion about the use of "Qnomah" by Mr. Alexander, did He say it should be in the plural form, as "Qnomeh"?

That would make Hebrews 1:3 read like this ---> "...Who, in His Own Persons, made the cleansing of sins, and sat down on The Right of The Greatness on High." Though he has this reading, which is just wrong, "And it was with that Essence of His Trinity...that He cleansed our sins, He Who sits from the right of the Supreme throne in the Highest."


P.S. Wow...this new Drottnar is a bunker busting bomb! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Is there anything else wrong with the Alexander translation? A lot of people seem to have their own little thing they want to add lol.

Roth: Torah observance or else you're a pagan!
Lamsa: Demons are merely an ancient way of describing insanity.
Bauscher: Everyone will be saved and will not be punished in Hell.
Alexander: The Trinity is explicitly taught in the scriptures.
Murdock: No bias I've noticed.
Etheridge: No bias I've noticed.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)