Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some questions
Quote:1-Thanks, but would you please tell me if this is accurate:
John 1:1
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

2-Any information about the Lamsa Bible translation?

The verse you quote above is from Glenn David Bauscher's translation of the 1905 critical Aramaic text. As to its accuracy in every verse...he tries his best, but has his own theology in the mix...this is true also with the AENT by Andrew Gabriel Roth...and both these publications have many notes in them, which give their reasons for their translations. Though I see that Mr. Bauscher has a no notes version of his translation work.

Lamsa's translation is a hybrid of both the Eastern and Western Peshitta and Peshitto text...and he tries to make it conform to the King James Version in his renderings...and sometimes comes up with some stuff that is not in any text...I do not use it for study.

Do youself a favor and study an Interlinear, word for word, Aramaic to English "translation" such as Paul Younan's Interlinear of the Gospel's and Acts, here to the left "Interlinear NT" or at the Biblos site, which has Mr. Younan's and Mr. Bauscher's Interlinear's.

Also, Mrs. Janet Mageria has a translation and Interlinear available, which is from the Western "Peshitto" text. should read and study the Aramaic Text yourself...with the help of this tool at this site below, if you can't read Aramaic.

I believe that the Eastern Peshitta as it exists today in the oldest Eastern Manuscripts, date from the year 78 A.D., and was 1st given to the Church of Edessa, and copied and sent out to the Aramaic speaking Church of the East.

The Eastern Aramaic Text, has been proven to be an independant witness, not coming from any of the Greek textual families, in that its readings, though agreeing mostly with the Byzantine/Western/Majority text in its Text...and also with the Old Latin versions over the later Latin Vulgate...and even at times it is in agreement with the Greek Alexandrian/minority textual family, it has what can be seen a unique Text...not dependant upon any of these, but, I believe, preserving the true text in every verse.

Thank you very much for this detailed explanation.
You are so kind and helpful.
Here is Mrs. Magiera's translation and Interlinear work at the site below.
----> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

As to Mr. Bauscher's translation of John 1:1

John 1:1
"In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God."

It is a possible translation...

Here is Mr. Etheridge's translation done in the 1800s...which is similar to what Mr. Bauscher judged correct.

John 1:1
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself."

You can analyze this verse and any verse with this online tool, and see for yourself if it is close or way off
----> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Thank you very much
Shlama all,

I feel compelled to respond to Chuck's near assertion that the Western Peshitta (Peshitto) is a translation of Greek
in its entirety. This is simply false. I am not even sure that the Western five books from the Harklean version are still used in Syrian or Maronite churches, but I know that the 1905 Peshitta edition does not use the Harklean version for the Western 5 books. This edition seems to have been popularly received into many Peshitta Bibles and New Testaments on the internet and in print. John Gwynn's crtitical edition is used for these books, and he contends that the manuscripts he used, including the Crawford ms. of Revelation, represent a text very Peshitta like in style and idiom, probably indistinguishable from the Peshitta to any Aramaic scholar familiar with the Peshitta's syntax. Gwynn shows and lists the many differences between the Harklean version and his "S" text which he believes was the Philoxenian version of AD 508

Gwynn was a Greek primacist, so naturally he believed the excellent Aramaic of his edition's Aramaic manuscripts for the books of 2nd,3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude & Revelation, virtually identical to the Peshitta, was itself a translation of Greek, as he believed the entire Peshitta was translated from Greek, both Eastern & Western. This is his theory, which he cannot prove, as no one has ever found an identified Philoxenian version.

I demonstrate in the West. 5 books of my translation notes that even in those books, the Greek texts are various translations of the Aramaic text in Gwynn's edition, and sometimes mistranslations. The Greek of those books is not original.It is translated from the Aramaic of a manuscript like the Crawford ms., which is a Peshitta ms. containing all 27 books of the NT, and is a manuscript with Eastern readings in the 22 books of the Eastern Peshitta canon. The Crawford readings of the West. five are very close to what Gwynn's edition has in those books, and very unlike the Harklean translation of Greek into Aramaic.

Those who hold that the NT 27 book canon is the divinely inspired canon of the New Covenant writings must ask the question: "Would God preserve 22 out of 27 books in the original canon and let the originals of the other 5 be lost?"

I don't think we can have it both ways. Either the book of Revelation is Gods word, or it is not. If it is, then it is preserved, since God's words cannot be lost. If the original is lost, then it is not God's word. This seems logically consistent with scriptural teaching of Old and New Testaments.


Dave Bauscher
Hi Dave,

I have modified my statement above, and tried to be more clear as to what I have come to understand. Though I remain open to further understanding based on the evidence as near can be proved.

As to what you say about God not preserving His Word...I believe He has.

It may be the case that the Western 5 books, were Originally penned in Greek and Originally given to the Greek speaking Church. Is there any evidence that the Church of the East...ever had the Western 5 books in their cannon before the 5th century?

I know how you feel about the Text you use for your translation of the NT...being confirmed by what you believe are found in the ELS Text Codes...

To you, it must be an inerrant word for word, letter for letter text...or it is not God's Word right? I don't think that is right. God has preserved His MESSAGE...but I see NO text being without some type of problem in its scribal transmission in Aramaic or Greek.

Do you believe that the text you have translated from is inerrant in every word and letter? Or that it is now so in your English translation? You havent modifed the Aramaic Text you print in your Interliner NT have you? Is it exactly as is found in the 1905? Or is it an Aramaic composite Text you have there?

Hi Chuck,

The Aramaic text of my interlinear is exactly the 1905 Peshitta edition, with no intentional changes whatsoever by me. I have made a few corrections of errors in the
interlinear in a few places, usually omissions of a line, phrase or word. I think I have caught them all in the NT portion.
I never claimed my translation to be infallible; no translation can be infallible, so i don't know where that idea came from. I do believe the Peshitta and the Western five books are preserved word for word as they were originally written in Aramaic.

You say that "God has preserved His MESSAGE"; on what do you base that statement?
A message can be easily changed by dropping or changing one word, or even one letter. Do you think it is too difficult for God to preserve the words and letters of scripture? But how can he preserve the message without preserving the words and all the letters of those words? Simply because men made mistakes does not make it impossible to discern the original, especially when we have many manuscripts to compare.
Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Deut. 11:18 ? Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
21 That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.

The above passage alone is a guarantee that God will preserve his words perfectly for every generation to come; otherwise the day would come when they could not be taught to the next generation, because no one would know what they are.

De 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

De 29:9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

If some words are lost, then we would have an excuse for not obeying them. People would say, "We are not sure what You said, O God, because the scribes lost some of the words."

Jos 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law.

Every one of the 176 verses of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible, is about the word of God. I give a few verses here:
Ps 119:57 CHETH. Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words.
Ps 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Ps 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Ps 119:139 My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words.

This Psalm is composed of 22 acrostic sections of 8 verses each, one section for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, starting with Aleph, with each section of 8 verses beginning with that letter, then Beth, Gimel, Daleth, etc..
And there are nine acrostic Psalms and eleven other acrostic scriptures, emphasizing the very letters of the words of God as inspired and preserved, and validating the original as divine.
The book of Esther, which has not one occurrence of the Name of YHWH, has four acrostics of The Name of YHWH; the first two occur as the first letters of each of four consecutive words- 1:20 (Memucan) & 5:4 (Esther) and the second pair occur as the last letters of four consecutive words- 5:13 (Haman) & 7:7 (the author).
The second & fourth are a pair, spelling the Name backward, and the 1st & 3rd are a pair, spelling it forward (right to left in Hebrew).
1st and 3rd are backward and are spoken by Gentiles; the 2nd and 4th are forward and spoken by Israelites.
Bullinger has this information in his Companion Bible in appendix 60, from the Massorah notes of Esther. Some Hebrew manuscripts actually display the acrostic letters in majuscule (enlarged) letters so that they stand out. There are other ways to pair up these acrostics also. Then there is another acrostic in Esther 7:5 of AHIaH (I AM), also highlighted in some mss., using the final letters and spelled backwards.

Psalms 119:140 ? Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
A pure Scripture inspires the heart with love and awe; a corrupt and uncertain Bible does not, but breeds contempt.
160 ? Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
161 ? SCHIN. Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.
162 ? I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.
163 ? I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
164 ? Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.
165 ? Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

His word is perfect and sure:
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1Pe 1:25 (MUR) but the word of our God abideth for ever: and this is the word that is announced to you.

Matthew 5:17-19
17 ? Do not suppose that I have come to subvert the law or the prophets: I have come not to subvert, but to fulfill.
For verily I say to you, that until heaven and earth shall pass away, one iota or one letter shall not pass from the law, until all shall be fulfilled.
19 Therefore whoever shall break one of these small commands and shall so inculcate on the children of men, shall be called little in the kingdom of heaven: but every one that shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Each letter of the word of God is preserved, according to our Lord. Some may object that he refers only to the Law in this regard, but the context requires that the Prophets be included, as he mentions them also in v. 17, and He uses the term, "the Law" -"namusa" for the Psalms, in John 10:34 & John 15:25. This covers all the Hebrew Scriptures, then-the Law, The Prophets and the Psalms- or Writings.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away; but my words shall not pass away.

Yeshua assures us of the perfect eternal preservation of the letters and words of Scripture in the above references, as does God through the Prophets David and Isaiah.
He did not promise the message will be preserved; He promised that the words and letters will be preserved.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Joh 8:47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore ye do not hear, because ye are not of God.
Joh 12:47 And whoever shall hear my words, and not observe them, I judge him not; for I did not come to judge the world, but to vivify the world.
Joh 12:48 Whoever rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, there is one to judge him; the word which I speak, will judge him, at the last day.

Now, beloved, this second epistle I write to you- these things by which I awaken your pure minds by memory, 2. That you may remember the words that were spoken before by the holy Prophets and the commandments of our Lord and our Savior, which were through the Apostles -2 Peter 3:2

Jude 1:17 But do ye, my beloved, remember the words which were before spoken by the legates of our Lord Jesus the Messiah;
Re 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it; for the time is near.
Re 17:17 For God hath put into their hearts, to do his pleasure, and to execute one purpose, and to give their kingdom to the beast of prey, until these words of God shall be fulfilled.
Re 19:9 And he said to me, Write; Blessed are they who are called to the supper of the marriage feast of the Lamb. And he said to me, These my sayings are the true words of God.
Re 19:16 And he hath upon his vesture and upon his thigh the words written: King of kings, and Lord of lords.
Re 21:5 And He who sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new. And he said: Write; because these are the faithful and true words of God.
Re 22:6 And he said to me: These words are faithful and true. And the Lord God of the spirit of the prophets, hath sent me, his angel, to show unto his servants the things that must soon occur.
Re 22:7 And, lo, I come quickly: Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.
Re 22:9 And he said to me: See, thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that observe the words of this book. Worship God.
Re 22:10 And he said to me: Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is near.
Re 22:18 I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, that if any one shall add to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.
Re 22:19 And if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are described in this book.

The words are important, and therefore God preserves them as originally written. Since the original words are written by The Spirit of God (see 2 Tim. 3:16 in Peshitta), the same words must be preserved in order to preserve the message, and in order to preserve the words, the letters of those words must also be preserved; otherwise there will be changes in the words, phrases, clauses, sentences, verses and doctrine. It would be unavoidable.

Speaking of textual preservation, what problems do you find in the Eastern Peshitta text?

Are you saying that Peter wrote 1st Peter in Aramaic and 2nd Peter in Greek? We know that 2nd Peter was written to the same people as was 1st Peter (see 2 Peter 3:1). Did John write 1st John in Aramaic and 2nd & 3rd John in Greek, and also Revelation in Greek? Did Jude, the brother of Yeshua, write his epistle in Greek? It is fairly easy to demonstrate that these epistles and Revelation in Greek are translations of the 1905 edition's Aramaic text.

The Greek of Revelation is especially poor, and it is full of semiticisms and semitic syntax, as is the Greek of the rest of the NT. Do you read Greek? Have you read these books in Greek?

The Aramaic of the Crawford ms., on the other hand, is excellent Aramaic and is very like the Peshitta NT, idiomatically, grammatically, stylistically and vocabulary wise, according to John Gwynn, in his book, The Apocalypse of St. John, in which he published the Crawford edition of Revelation with a Greek translation of it, comparisons with the Harklean version, variants in Greek texts, and descriptions of the manuscripts used.
A lot of misinformation has been posted about these books, the Crawford ms. (which actually contains all 27 NT books and an Eastern Peshitta text in the Gospels and Epistles), the Harklean, and the mss. and text of the Western four epistles. People really need to study Gwynn's two books and editions of these scripture books.
We also need a consistent and defensible position on the New Testament. The only reasonable, consistent and coherent position is that the NT was written in Aramaic and that it is preserved intact in the Peshitta canon and in the 21 so-called Western Aramaic manuscripts which were collated to produce the Western five section of the 1905 Peshitta edition.

I have not read your modified statement yet, so please forgive me if I have misconstrued your present position.

All scripture that was written by the Spirit, is profitable for instruction, and for confutation, and for correction, and for erudition in righteousness; 2 Tim. 3:16

Inspiration is not a good word to describe the origin of Scripture. Scripture itself here tells us that The Spirit wrote Scripture, so it was not a matter of putting thoughts into a man's mind and that man writing those thoughts down in his own words, but it was God writing the words with a man's hand, as in Daniel 5:5.
Scripture is the writing of God, as were the ten commandments.
"Every word of God is pure." As such, every word God writes is holy and to be revered in holy awe.

De 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
This is how we determine the original words.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Every book of Scripture is a "Theograph"- "God writing"
Blessings in our Savior and God Yeshua,

Quote:You say that "God has preserved His MESSAGE"; on what do you base that statement?
A message can be easily changed by dropping or changing one word, or even one letter. Do you think it is too difficult for God to preserve the words and letters of scripture? But how can he preserve the message without preserving the words and all the letters of those words? Simply because men made mistakes does not make it impossible to discern the original, especially when we have many manuscripts to compare.

To clarify what I mean, so you don't come to a wrong conclusion.

The Message...meaning what GOD wants to be read/preached, has been preserved...and even though no single text is without its transmisson mistakes. we can check all the others that have survived through the ages. I agree with what you say there.

Quote:The Aramaic text of my interlinear is exactly the 1905 Peshitta edition, with no intentional changes whatsoever by me. I have made a few corrections of errors in the
interlinear in a few places, usually omissions of a line, phrase or word. I think I have caught them all in the NT portion.
I never claimed my translation to be infallible; no translation can be infallible, so i don't know where that idea came from. I do believe the Peshitta and the Western five books are preserved word for word as they were originally written in Aramaic.

I asked you the question to see what you believed about the text you used to translate from. I have talked with some who seem to believe that a particular translation or manuscript is the "inerrant" Word of if it contains zero errors of mans hand or interpretation in translation. I had read a statement you had made, where it seemed like you said that the text you used to translate from and which you used in the code finder program had to be without error in order to get the codes. But I thought you said that the text you ran at first, and got the long codes from, had mistakes in it, and when you corrected them, the long codes did not appear again. So, were the long codes a message from God, in a text with mans mistakes in it? And when you corrected the mistakes in the text and ran it again, and got the shorter codes, minus the longer ones, was that text you ran without errors?

And what are these few corrections of errors in the interlinear which you speak of, of "lines", "phrases", and "words"? I'd like to see which. And if there is a Manuscript that is perfect in every word and letter...I would like to have a perfect copy of it please. Do you believe that the text you have translated from is inerrant in every word and letter?

Again...I believe that GOD has preserved His Words...everyone of them, and every letter...which make up His Message to Mankind. But as far as I know, we don't have them all in one single Manuscript Text or translation, in a 100% perfect form. If there is one in the world...please point me to it, as it would be needless to keep comparing all the texts, to see which version is correct.

Quote:Are you saying that Peter wrote 1st Peter in Aramaic and 2nd Peter in Greek? We know that 2nd Peter was written to the same people as was 1st Peter (see 2 Peter 3:1). Did John write 1st John in Aramaic and 2nd & 3rd John in Greek, and also Revelation in Greek? Did Jude, the brother of Yeshua, write his epistle in Greek? It is fairly easy to demonstrate that these epistles and Revelation in Greek are translations of the 1905 edition's Aramaic text.

I am saying that as far as I know, these 5 books never made it to the Aramaic Church of the East in Aramaic form. And that the 22 books, were given to them in Aramaic, which seems to have taken place in the year 78 A.D. for at least the Gospels...and If true, then its possible that the other 5 books were not written at that time..and were not given to the Chruch of the East in Aramaic form, by the hands of the Apostles.

If they were written Originally in Aramaic, they seem to have stayed West....I don't think anyone can be 100% certain if 2nd Peter was written by the Apostle Peter, nor 2nd & 3rd John, by The Apostle John... It is believed that Jude and Revelation were penned by Jude the brother of James, the Lord's Brother, and Apostle John respectivley...but there has always been dispute about it...

I don't have a problem with the Books myself Dave...I read them as I read the rest of the Scriptures, but these 5 books have been disputed as to their true human authors since the early days, by the Church. And as far as I have learned, they were not given to the Aramaic Church of the East in Aramaic form, as were the 22 other books of the New Testament.

And just to be clear as to what you believe....Are you saying that the 1905 Text, you translated from, contains the Original Aramaic Text, penned by The Apostles, of all 27 Books of the New Testament, and preserves the Text as a whole, as close to perfect as any other Manuscript text that is known to have survived to this generation?

Do you believe that the 1905 Text has any Greek readings in it, which are not found in the Eastern Aramaic Text, that were not in the Original 22 Books, as given to the Aramaic Church of the East? And which is represented in such Manuscripts as the Khabouris....I notice that your translation contains the story of the woman caught in adultary for instance, which the Khabouris does not.

Also, I had read some month's back, when you and Andrew Gabriel Roth were contending about translations, He stated that you had left some Eastern Peshitta readings on the cutting floor. Such as found in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, where you retain the "Western readings", which he says are not Original to the Aramaic Text but are from Greek texts.

So...who has translated from the correct Text of the Original Aramaic Scriptures? You name your translation "The Original Aramaic New Testament" and yet it has some readings not found in the oldest Aramaic Eastern Manuscripts, such as the Kahbouris Codex. Is the Kahbouris in error for not having all the words that the 1905 Text has in it? Or is the 1905 Critical Composite Text, in error for not retaining all the Eastern readings of the Khabouris Text... and having readings in it, which do not appear in the Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts? Did the Jacobites move these readings into their version, to make it conform to the accepted Greek Text?

I am not against you any personal way....BUT I want to know, if I am reading the Word of God, or the word of men, in every place, in Text or Translation. And yours, Janet's, and Andrew's are not allways the same as to content and words. You would say that yours represents the most accurate, I am sure...but is it?

So I have some translations of some Text's from you (Dave), one from Andrew, one from Janet, one from George, One from Etheridge, One from Murdoch...etc, etc...

Which one English translation and ancient Aramaic Text is the closest in every word, to the Original Form of the Text, which God Originally sent into the World? Is it your English translation and the 1905 Text? If not, which one is it.

Seems we have the same thing going here as they do in the Greek Text...two main forms...and which one is the Correct Text. Can we know for certain...?
Also Dave, can you tell me what Aramaic Manuscript/s contains Luke 22:17-18 ?

I notice you have these 2 verses in your translation, while Andrew & Janet do not...And Janet says that her translation is based on the same Critical Composite Text (1905) that you use.

And I see that your Interlinear edition has these 2 verses in it, while Paul's Interlinear does not. Andrew has a note in his 1st edition of the AENT, which states that these 2 verses are "non-existant in the Peshitta." Is this true? And if not...where are they found in the Aramaic Manuscripts?

Also in Acts 8:37 & 15:34 & 28:29, which are said by Andrew & Janet not to be in the Aramiac Text...while were looking at these things.

Hi Chuck,

I am sending you via your regular email the corrections I have saved since Dec. 2008 in three brief one page files. They are self explanatory.
I have used the 1905 critical edition of the Peshitta NT as supplied by Online Bible in Hebrew characters. You should really do some research on it to appreciate its value. It is not one manuscript; it is an edition based on approx. 84 Aramaic manuscripts; about 77 of them are Peshitta mss., some Eastern, most Western. I don't think you appreciate how close the Eastern and Western manuscripts are to each other in their texts. On any one page of the NT, you may find one meaningful variant between the Khabouris and the 1905 Peshitta edition. I do not count a compound word in one that is separated in the other, as there is no difference in meaning in such cases. I count twenty differences in Matthew 1-6 (thirteen & a half pages), including three differences in the spelling of Jerusalem between the two Peshittas, three one letter proclitic differences (two w's-"and" & one infinitive marker "l" (not necessary grammatically), and two other one letter spelling differences that do not change the sense. That leaves thirteen somewhat significant variants between the two in thirteen + pages. There are more than 1400 words in those six chapters, and 13/1400 means 0.9% of the words are affected and 38 letters of 9696 letters are involved, or 0.4% of the letters. That puts agreement between the Khabouris and the 1905 (Western) edition at 99.1% to 99.6%.

The Khabouris is a single Eastern manuscript, and a standard Eastern edition (1886 Peshitta NT with Psalms in Nestorian script, printed in NY city) agrees with the 1905 edition in nine of the thirteen places where the Khabouris differs from the 1905 edition, so the 1905 is actually closer in agreement with the Eastern Peshitta than is the Khabouris! That is because the 1905 text of the Gospels is based on 42 manuscripts, which weeds out individual copyist errors encountered in any individual manuscript by comparing readings with many manuscripts in every place.
If we subtract the nine idiosycrancies of the Khabouris, we have only four significant differences between the Eastern & Western texts of Peshitta; that is only 0.3% variation, or 99.7% substantive agreement!
We should not get too excited about any one manuscript, Khabouris, or otherwise, as no one single witness will be completely reliable, as compared to the agreement of many witnesses. This Khabouris rage will pass, and the 1905 critical edition will gain more and more respect among Peshitta scholars.

I have not deviated from the text of the Online Bible 1905 Peshitta edition in my interlinear. Others who profess to follow it have deviated from it in omitting Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, and in the readings of Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, and other places. I have never changed a reading in Aramaic in favor of another text; all of it was as supplied in the module Online Bible provides to users of the program, and its Hebrew font was used, as is, also. It was not my purpose to play the role of textual critic, merely to translate this critical edition of the western Peshitta, which contains the 27 book canon, which canon I accept as divine Scripture, and whose text , based on comparisons of some 84 Aramaic manuscripts, I believe is the most reliable to be found of any complete New Testament extant.
I have several different digital copies of the 1905 Peshitta edition by British and Foreign Bible Societies, and they all have Luke 22:17,18, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34 & 28:29, and the western readings of Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Since the 1905 edition has these verses, I included them. The only Syriac source I know for Acts 15:34 is the church father, Ephraim, who died AD 373. It was included in Tremellius' Peshitta edition of 1569, as was Acts 28:29.He quoted the Peshitta extensively. Acts 8:37 is not found in any Peshitta ms, but is in Hutter's Peshitta edition of 1600, the Greek uncial E and the Itala Version (2nd century).
If I am going to err in this matter of whether to accept a verse or passage as original scripture or not, I have made it my policy to give the benefit of the doubt to the verse, unless it is obviously incoherent and out of context with the passage surrounding it. I know that opens a can of worms for some, but my conscience feels better so doing. I cannot reject a passage or verse by Peshitta textual testimony alone. I consider Greek, Latin and other versions as well, along with church fathers, for they are all witnesses as well. If Tremellius saw fit to put these verses in the Peshitta NT, I give him the benefit of the doubt also, believing he was a devout believer in scripture and Christ, who would not dream of adding a verse or verses without any manuscript authority whatsoever. Perhaps the manuscript he used has been lost since 1569.

I do have a printed edition printed 1979, and it is identical with the others, except that Acts 8:37 is separated from the text and put at the bottom of the page. The Luke and John passages are included in the text within brackets. The electronic digital editions have no brackets anywhere in any of these passages, and include all the verses in the main body of the text. One such edition is the beautiful - The Ancient P'shitto in Levistam Hebrew font with vowel pointing and spirant marks.
The church of the East did a great job of preserving the 22 books of their canon; the Western church apparently kept Aramaic manuscripts of the other five books accepted as inspired by the Western churches, to which Aramaic text the Greek manuscripts testify as their original, as they do in the 22 book canon to the Peshitta.
No NT book was originally written in Greek. The Greek NT is written in translational Greek, very like that of the LXX, and the Greek manuscripts bear witness to less than excellent grammar, syntax, facts of names of persons and places, currencies, and the Divine Name is altogether missing in Greek! The Semitic syntax and word order is easy to see in all the Greek NT books, as are variant readings, based on different understandings and translations of Aramaic words found in the 1905 Peshitta edition.
But the Greek itself bears witness to the language of the people of Israel ("Hebrais"-defined as Aramaic in Greek lexicons occurs seven times in the Gospels and Acts)and its environs of Samaria, Syria and Asia, and even among the Barbarians on the island of Malta, as Aramaic. Paul and his Jewish and Syrian companions were able to communicate with the people in all those places, because the Aramaic language had been established as the language of commerce throughout the ancient world from the Assyrian Empire onward, to the Babylonian Empire, through the Persian Empire and onward to the Roman times.

Enough for now.

Blessings and Peace,

Thanks for the detailed response Dave. I have a much better grasp on your approach to translating.

So if its in the 1905 text, then it is, in your judgment part of the Original Aramaic NT Scriptures, even if a verse or word is not now found in any extant Aramaic Manuscript?

Where did the editor's of the 1905 Text, get the disputed verses and words from then...If not from an Aramaic Manuscript source? The Greek, Latin, or Church Father's qoute? But how do we know that these sources are Word's from GOD?

If this is The Aramaic NT Scriptures in English...then it should be The Aramaic Scriptures that is being translated right?

Can the 1905 Text be the true form of The Aramaic Peshitta Text, with some of its readings not found in any Aramaic Text? You said: "Acts 8:37 is not found in any Peshitta ms" And yet its in the 1905 Edition?

Hi, that translation is correct. Lamsa's John 1:1 too.

However, I find Lamsa's translation too biased, sometimes.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?t=723</a><!-- l -->

Just enter this in your Google search window! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Here is Hebrews 2:9 as witnessed by Origen in about 240 A.D. from a text that he knew of that must have reached back to at least the 2nd Century...and which I believe traces all the way back to the Original Autograph ...

"He is a great High-Priest, having offered Himself as the sacrifice which is offered once for all, and not for men only but for every rational creature. "For without God He tasted death for every one." In some copies of the Epistle to the Hebrews the words are ?by the grace of God.? Now, whether He tasted death for every one without God, He died not for men only but for all other intellectual beings too, or whether He tasted death for every one by the grace of God, He died for all without God, for by the grace of God He tasted death for every one." Origen - Commentary on the Gospel of John: Book I - About 240 A.D.

Notice that Origen gives the most prevelant reading 1st, then the other one, which he said was in "some copies"... The most prevelant reading, is now the one least prevelant, being overtaken by the variant in some copies...and no doubt because of the tendancy of the Greeks and Latins, to go in the direction they did, in regards to their Christological doctrines...which spilt the Church in half in 431 A.D. at the instigation of Cryil of Alexandria.

Dave, notice that neither of these readings that Origen knew of, is the one you went with. If anyone knew about texts back was Origen.

Dave. Immortal GOD, can't die. His Son, The Messiah did though, in His do the will of The Father who sent Him into the world to redeem mankind and reconcile them back to GOD. GOD loved the world so much that He gave and sent His only begotton Son into the save the world through Him.

Hi Chuck,

AD 240 is the 3rd century, not the 2nd. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
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.


Quote: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).

I don't think you understand the position of the Church of the East on this subject. You seem to be going off of some false understanding of the teachings of Bishop Nestorius, who did not teach such a thing...which Cyril and others in the West mis-judged and for false motives.

According to the way you choose to render Hebrews 2:9, which I see from Janet's translation (which uses the same text source as you did) it could go another way...and Acts 20:28, which you both had no choice, as to the text's, more than Janet, in these two places, have GOD bleeding and dying upon the Cross, rather than the Son of GOD in his humanity...but not ALL of GOD...just 1/3 of God...The "God the Son" part. Talk about dividing!!! <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->

Unless you teach that The Father and Holy Spirit also died and bled on the Cross...which I don't think you would try to teach.

If The Father is God of The Messiah, then is The Messiah, God of The Father?

We see the Messiah praying to, worshiping, and obeying the will of His God, The Father...but do we ever see The Father praying to, worshiping, or obeying the will of the Messiah?

The Father departed from The Messiah, and The Messiah comended His Spirit to God, both before The Messiah tasted death, in our place, for our redemption. Did the Father taste death?, Did the Holy Spirit taste death?

The "Oneness" folks say that Yeshua IS The Father...and thus The Father died on the Cross. But that is just deception. Its not taught in Scripture.

I don't think you would agree with that Dave...right? But if these two verses are right, as you render them and as the Western Peshitto text has them...then only part of GOD died and bled on the Cross for our redemption...and not all of GOD.

Is that your belief? And what you believe that the Original Aramaic Scriptures teach?

EDIT UPDATE: After reading Dave's notes on Hebrews 2:9 in his 1st edition of his translation, It seems he believes (still?) that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, died on the Cross. If you have his 1st edition, you can read it for yourself. And that is just the tip of the false teaching iceberg there in his notes. I now know why he must reject the Eastern Peshitta reading in Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. They do not uphold his theology and soteriology...I believe that the Eastern readings are correct and are the Original readings, whereas the Western Peshitto readings are from Greek sources, and were corrupted by the Monophysite heresy adherants and the Jacobite faction.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)