Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Compare Translations
distazo Wrote:Hi Texas,

Be my guest <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I cannot call those differences except for the 2 verses a major change in favor of any Greek manuscript! (Because the Majority Greek still differs a lot with the PeshittO)
The most other minor differences are either copyist errors or typically Aramaic issues where us/they and such personal nouns, are difficult to read because they look alike.

By spreading the message that the PeshittO is corrupted to be like the Greek, what do new curious people who sniff at this Aramaic subject think of this all? They would think that nearly all but some litle left-overs of the East are 'faithfull'? I don't think so.

The PeshittO is also very reliable except for the 5 added books.
And betting on one horse <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> is also risky. What if, for example, the PeshittA turns out to have Hebrews 2:9 as a corrupted variant (aka, deliberate changes in view of the creed of Ephesus in 431)?
The Eastern & Western Aramaic Texts are almost identical in their readings; indeed, they are virtually identical upon every page (except for the extra Western 5 Books and the ?pericope adultera? story) [keep in mind that the Western Aramaic scripts are nothing more than some conforming the Eastern PeshittA Text unto the perverse Greek readings of Constantine's perverted Catholic Church, whereby making the Western PeshittO but only a version of the Eastern PeshittA with Greek renderings ].

In a few of the places where these Aramaic Texts differ, there is essentially a doctrinal controversy at stake between the Eastern and Western ?Assemblies of the East?, which is over the the Personage of The Anointed One: ?Nestorianism? in the East versus ?Monophysitism? in the West. Nestorius teaches that The Anointed One had two natures (human and Divine) and two "qnomas" (one human and One Divine) in one Personage [a "qnoma" is essentially translated "self" or "person" in the English translations of the Scriptures]. Monophysitism teaches that The Anointed One not only has but One Nature and One Qnoma, Both Divine, but that He is Alaha Himself. The Western {Monophysitism} Assembly modified several verses in an attempt to try and provide support for their ?Monophysitism Doctrine?.

There are also many words reflecting a difference in dialect; for one The Name of Alaha is written as ?Mar-YaH? in the Eastern Texts, and ?Mor-YaH? in the Western texts. This is believed to be the reason the Eastern Texts are commonly called the ?PeshittA?, and the Western texts are called the ?PeshittO?.

On Hebrew 2:9 -
From Page 137 to 183 (William Norton's Book), we see Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. In Page 139 (Hebrews 2:9) on Origen's comment about this verse: (a) Ver. 9. Instead of the words rendered, " by the gracious favour of Alaha," other Syriac manuscripts have two variations. The Greek does not seem to be correct, because the exaltation of The Anointed One did not determine the object of His death. A reading older than the time of the Nestorians, was mentioned by Origen, who died about A.D. 254. It is, "For He, apart from Alahahead." Some Nestorians adopted this reading. The Jacobites seem to have altered the position of " Alaha," to suit their creed. They have in their copies,?" He, Alaha, in His gracious favor, tasted death." The PeshittO edited for the B. and F. Bible Society, partly by Dr. Buchanan, and partly by Dr. Lee, and which is founded on some ancient manuscripts, has the reading given above, which differs from that of the Jacobites only in the position of the word " Alaha."

As you known Origen live from late 2nd century to mid 3rd century (185 AD - 254 AD). Origen died 132 years before Nestorius (386 AD - 451 AD) was born. So the idea that Hebrews 2:9 is a Nestorian modification to Western manuscripts is wrong.

More about Hebrews 2:9 -
(From William Norton's Book about Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, Page xxxix.) "Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia, a celebrated Greek writer, who died about A.D. 429, said that some persons had removed the reading, " without Alaha," and had substituted, " by the merciful favor of Alaha. He said also that the context shows that the apostle was not speaking of Alaha's mercy, but of the relation between the Deity and manhood of The Anointed One. (See Tischendorf's 8th edn., under Heb. ii. 9.) Tischendorf says, "From these testimonies, it is certain that the reading, without Alaha, did not originate with the Nestorians ; for Origen found it in his copies," There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that the Nestorian text of the PeshittA in Heb. ii. 9, is the result of any change made by them ; but there is reason, on the contrary, to regard it as part of the original text of the PeshittA ; and a proof that the Greek copies which had the same reading in the time of Origen were correct."

The very slight alteration in the Yacobite copies of the Western PeshittO for this reading is of immense significance. With just this tiny alteration to their text, the Monophysite creed (that Alaha Himself "died", khasli) is justified. This occurred precisely for that purpose. I can't imagine a more innocent or reasonable explanation, like a simple scribal error. This is clearly an alteration.

It is not much different from what the JWs did with John 1:1....with "a god". With a simple English one-letter-word, they have completely altered the meaning. Christian branches have been altering Scripture to suit their theological agenda from the beginning, this is nothing new. It's partly the reason why we have hundreds of Greek variants, and thousands of English

On Hebrew 2:16 -
Eastern Texts have -
?He did not take [the form] of Messengers, but He took [the form] of the children of Abrawhawm?.
The Western texts have -
?For death was not authorized over the Messengers, but over the children of Abrawhawm it was authorized?.

Some early Western PeshittO Manuscripts agree with The Eastern PeshittA on Hebrews 2:16. While the later Western PeshittO manuscripts don't. This shows that changes were made to Western PeshittO manuscripts to suit the theory of Monophysitism.

And Acts 20:28 -
Eastern Texts have - ?feed the Assembly of the The Anointed One?.
Western texts have - ?feed the Assembly of Alaha?.

Again being the Eastern PeshittA tradition has evidence that it goes well back to the 2nd century A.D., and if the Western PeshittO is but only a translation of the Greek, how then is it that the Western PeshittO is almost word for word a copy of the Eastern PeshittA other than its few added verses and the Monophysitic modifications?

Last but not least Yo-Khawnawn 7:53-8:11 -
The pericope adultera - is not present in the Eastern PeshittA Texts, nor was it in the earliest Western PeshittO texts either. I believe it was not just added to the Western PeshittO to line up closer to the Greek texts but also to advance the cause of Monophysitism as they have the lady calling The Anointed One MorYah to further aid in support of their Monophysitism. Being it is known that they got this from the Greek texts alone they can not find justice for having inserted MorYah into this story, as the greek texts alone present no bases for this.

Preservation of an original Text is very easy to do. The CoE doesn't really deserve any credit here. It's really mindless work, all they did is copying letter-for-letter. The most difficult part would be staying interested and being careful enough to not allow for scribal mistakes (like spelling errors and iterations ) to creep in. But it really is a trivial matter. The copies are going to turn out pretty much identical with the originals. Unlike the Western PeshittO, the Eastern PeshittA stayed the way it is. These are evidences that elevate the importance of the Eastern PeshittA. The Assembly of the East preserved PeshittA beautifully.

Translations are a different beast altogether. Even today, translators will go back and change the way they worded something in their earlier translation, or see a mistake that they made. They could go back a thousand times and still find a good reason to revise it. We can see this in action with the multiple revisions that are made to versions that we know to be translations, such as the NIV or king Iames.

Now imagine the state that the Greek texts are in. At some point, prior to their becoming an official version (which stabilized things somewhat), the textual history is in complete disarray. You can hardly find two manuscripts that read the same way. Why? Well, they're translations. They naturally went through an evolution with certain readings being corrected, others being
introduced later, etc. Not to mention the various translators misunderstanding an Aramaic Word with dual meanings and picking the wrong definition to translate.

The very state of the textual history will testify to whether a document was originally penned in that language. The Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Texts are stable, whereas the Greek is wildly divergent. One acts the part of an original, the other a translation. It's rather easy to tell and recognize. (The Western Aramaic text are well know to have been nothing other than a result of revising the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA unto some of the later Greek text for the soul purpose of Monophysitism alone, so it can not be seen as the original by any stretch of the imagination.)

But, if the Western PeshittO textual tradition was stable while the Eastern PeshittA copies varied, well then I would be a Greek Primacist. It would be obvious which is the original and which the translation.

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> The forensics speak volumes...textual CSI. The Eastern PeshittA RULES!!! <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

YHWH bless thee and keep thee;
YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee;
YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom.

Your Brother in Y'hoshuah The Anointed One.

Messages In This Thread
Compare Translations - by arrrise - 07-09-2012, 01:10 PM
Re: Compare Translations - by Thirdwoe - 07-11-2012, 02:21 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 08-30-2012, 07:24 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by Luc Lefebvre - 08-30-2012, 05:11 PM
Re: Compare Translations - by distazo - 08-30-2012, 07:58 PM
Lamsa, Bauscher, and Roth - by ScorpioSniper2 - 08-31-2012, 03:05 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 08-31-2012, 03:52 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by distazo - 09-01-2012, 06:17 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 09-01-2012, 07:24 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 09-02-2012, 08:14 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by ScorpioSniper2 - 09-03-2012, 04:15 PM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 09-04-2012, 03:54 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by Thirdwoe - 09-04-2012, 04:40 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by Thirdwoe - 09-04-2012, 04:59 AM
Re: Compare Translations - by The Texas RAT - 02-11-2013, 01:28 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)