Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
_The Peshitta Holy Bible_ translated by David Bauscher
#34
“I said His Hebrew name, not title. What passage do they refer to Him by His name OTHER than Iesous?”

AFAIK, in the Greek manuscripts, all the passages mentioning Jesus Christ and 3 other Israelites use a transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek, namely “Iesous.”

Luke 3:29 (NIV) the son of Joshua [Greek: 2424 Iēsou/ Ἰησοῦ/ of Joshua], the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

2424. Iésous
https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm
Iésous: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr.
Original Word: Ἰησοῦς, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Iésous
Phonetic Spelling: (ee-ay-sooce')
Definition: Jesus or Joshua, the name of the Messiah, also three other Isr
Usage: Jesus; the Greek form of Joshua; Jesus, son of Eliezer; Jesus, surnamed Justus.

“There are NO Aramaic manuscripts that pre-date the Greek ones of the NT”
Which demonstrates what?
If there were “NO Aramaic manuscripts that pre-date the Greek ones of” Josephus’s histories, would you conclude that Josephus’s works were originally composed in Greek?

“The letters were written to Greek speaking people groups”
Evidence?

“we have ZERO PROOF that the NT books were written in Aramaic or Hebrew first.... Greek was the common language of the Roman empire and Latin was second”
As you look at the 4 Gospels and Acts, what language did Jesus and his students speak? (Greek? Latin?)

“Give ANY evidence why any letters would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic to be sent to a group of Greek speaking ‘gentiles’ in Asia or Rome”
Do you agree with me that Paul's native language was Aramaic?
I’m saying the 4 Gospels and Paul’s letters and Revelation were originally composed in Aramaic, and were translated into Greek.

“asking for is EVIDENCE”
Did Rev 15:2 originally read:
“harps of God”?
“harps of aloe”?

Revelation 15:2 (YLT)
https://biblehub .com/revelation/15-2.htm
and I saw as a sea of glass mingled with fire,
and those who do gain the victory over the beast,
and his image,
and his mark,
and the number of his name,
standing by the sea of the glass,
having harps of God,

Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
once at preteristarchive dot com
15:2 (last clause). : “Harps of God”-- a very strange expression, not justified by the context, nor by any parallel. The seer is shown a company standing by the glassy sea, prepared to sing the Song of Moses and the Lamb and “holding harps of God”-- where we should expect some word really descriptive of the instruments. The phrase may perhaps not be pronounced “impossible,” but it certainly is to the last degree improbable. In any Hebrew or Aramaic text written at this time, care was taken to avoid the unnecessary use of names or designations of God; in this case the use of the word was not only unnecessary but also unnatural.

This phrase as it stands seems to designate a class, or collection, of harps. Charles, 2, 343, refers to 1 Chron. 16:42, kᵉlē šīr hɔʾɛlohīm and 2 Chron. 7:6 kᵉlē šīr YHWH; but (1) the introduction of the word šīr makes the case quite different; and (2) it is worth noticing that Targ. Chron. does not permit even this form of words, but in both passages inserts qɔdɔm (“in the presence of”) before the word designating God.

It can hardly be doubted that the present text is wrong. The Greek gives no foothold for emendation, but as soon as the Aramaic it renders is restored, the cause of the trouble is made clear. What the author of the Apocalypse wrote was not kinnɔrīn dī ʾɛlɔhɔʾ, “harps of God,” but kinnɔrīn dī ʾᵃlɔhɔʾ, “harps of aloes wood." This precious wood, famed for its fragrance (Psa. 45:9[8 English]; Prov. 7:17; Song of Songs 4:14), is precisely the material that would be expected in this place. The word was either carelessly miswritten or else too hastily translated. Another characteristic misreading.

Song of Solomon 4:14 (YLT)
https://biblehub .com/songs/4-14.htm
https://biblehub .com/interlinear/songs/4-14.htm
Cypresses with nard -- nard and saffron, Cane and cinnamon, With all trees of frankincense, Myrrh and aloes, with all chief spices.
174/ wa·’ă·hā·lō·wṯ/וַאֲהָל֔וֹת / and aloes

“The Peshitta translated FROM THE GREEK well after the Greek was written”
What evidence in the Peshitta do you see that supports that claim?

“Why would Syriac/Aramaic need to be translated from the Greek, if it was already initially written in Aramaic?”
I don’t understand the question. My position is that the New Testament books were originally composed in Aramaic, and were translated into Greek, then Latin, English, etc.

=============================================================.
“All the ‘mistranslations’ cited are based on presuppositions. If someone changed the Greek into a more sensical word use, that doesn't prove the initial manuscript was Aramaic”
Do you think Jesus' words were originally spoken in: Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Latin?
Do you think Jesus' words were originally written in: Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Latin?

Do you agree with Greek mss. that those in danger of Gehenna fire include: Jesus? Paul?

Matthew 5:22 (Weymouth NT)
https://biblehub .com/matthew/5-22.htm
https://biblehub .com/interlinear/matthew/5-22.htm
But I say to you that every one who becomes angry with his brother shall be answerable to the magistrate;
that whoever says to his brother 'Raca,' [Ῥακά/ Raca: transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning "spit"] shall be answerable to the Sanhedrin;
and that whoever says, 'You fool!' [Greek: 3474 [e] Mōre/ Μωρέ/ Fool] shall be liable to the Gehenna of Fire.

Matthew 23:17 (YLT)
https://biblehub .com/matthew/23-17.htm
https://biblehub .com/interlinear/matthew/23-17.htm
Fools [Greek: 3474 [e] μωροὶ/ mōroi] and blind! for which is greater, the gold, or the sanctuary that is sanctifying the gold?

1 Corinthians 4:9-10 (YLT)
https://biblehub .com/ylt/1_corinthians/4.htm
https://biblehub .com/interlinear/1_corinthians/4-10.htm
for I think that God did set forth us the apostles last-- as appointed to death, because a spectacle we became to the world, and messengers, and men; we [are] fools [Greek: 3474 [e] μωροὶ/ mōroi] because of Christ, and ye wise in Christ; we [are] ailing, and ye strong; ye glorious, and we dishonoured;

“If Matthew used Mark as the base to draw from, then”
Matthew didn’t do that.

“There is NO evidence that Luke or John were written in Aramaic initially”
How do you think John 14:2 originally read?

For John 14:2, the UBS Peshitta has "w-a-l-a," while the Khabouris mss. has "w-a-n l-a."
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25

_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp.
by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 108, 113-114
Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic. ....
c. Jn. 14:2 ac. to Grk.: In my Father's house are many
dwellings; IF NOT (.... [snip pointed Aramaic having "w-l-a"] ....),
I would have told you that I go to prepare a place for you.
....
Exhibit XIX, C (Jn. 14:2). What the Grk. gives in
the second half of the verse, whether the words are taken
as a question or as a declaration, is mere nonsense. In this
case also, corruption of the Grk. text and editorial alteration
have been suspected; but here again, as in the preceding
example and as usual, the reading of the original Aram.
was faultless. It was the translator who made the trouble.
The solution of the difficulty is ridiculously simple, and is
certain. That which Jesus says here he repeats, in almost
the same words, in 16:7: _"I tell you the truth, it is better
for you that I go away."_ The verb here rendered "it is better"
is presumably the same which was employed in the
present passage, for it is regularly used in both meanings.
The _necessity_ is again emphasized at the end of the chapter,
vs. 31; but the time when the eleven most needed to have
this declared to them was at the beginning of this discourse,
after Jesus had so disturbed them by announcing that he
was soon to leave them.

The word _wale_ ["-" over: "a" and "e"], "it is fitting, expedient,
necessary," is very likely to be mistaken for the omnipresent
_wela_ [curved upward "-" shape over "e," and "-" over "a"],
"and not." (I have seen this mistake made many times by students
reading unpointed Syriac texts.) It was for this reason, evidently,
that the word disappears from the beginning of the
verse Targ. Prov. 24:26 in so many mss. and editions; see
Levy's _Worterbuch_. For the reading "if not, otherwise," the
best examples are 2 Sam. 13:26 and 2 Ki. 5:17. Another
example, generally unrecognized, even by the learned Heb.
tradition, is 1 Sam. 20:12.

/////////////////
How do you think John 12:11 originally read?

2006: Raphael L…, Was the New Testament Written in Greek?
12. To go – John 12:11
The KJV says: “Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.”

One word that the Greek translators often misunderstood was the Hebrew word Klh [h-l-k] and the Aramaic word lz0 [a-z-l] which normally mean "to go" or "to depart" but is used idiomatically in Hebrew and Aramaic to mean that some action goes forward and that something progresses "more and more". The following are several examples from the Old Testament. In each of these cases the Hebrew reads Klh [h-l-k] and the Aramaic reads lz0 [a-z-l] in both the Peshitta Old Testament and the Targums:

And the waters returned from the earth continually. . . Gen. 8:3
And the man waxed great and went forward, and grew. . . Gen. 26:13
And the hand of the children of Israel grew stronger and stronger Judges 4:24
the Philistenes went on and increased 1Sam. 14:19
but David waxed stronger and stronger 2Sam. 3: 1

One case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word and translated “to go” literally is:
John 12:11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

They went away? Certainly John’s intended meaning was:
because many of the Judeans, on account of him, were trusting more and more lz0 [a-z-l] in Yeshua.

////////////////////
“Greek Septuagint, was quoted in the NT often”
2 examples?

“John 21: 15-17 Christ uses Love in multiple Greek uses (Agape & Phileo)”
Which means what?

///////////////////////////
John 21:15-17

For this passage, the HCSB opens with:
When they had eaten breakfast, Jesus asked Simon Peter,
"Simon, son of John,[a: Other mss read _Simon, son of Jonah_; Mt 16:17; Jn 1:42]
do you love Me more than these?"

As of A.D. 175, the passage had "Simon, son of Jonah," as seen below.

In this post-resurrection scene, Greek manuscripts have Jesus saying to Peter,
"Tend for me my
arnion [lambs]?.
probaton [adult sheep/ goats]?.
probaton"-- only two different words. See page 106 of
http://ia802503.us.archive.org/18/items/...reek1e.pdf

In contrast, as of A.D. 175, the passage had Jesus saying to Peter,
"Tend for me my lambs?. rams?. ewes"-- three different words:

by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron 54:39-41
And when they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Cephas,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these?
He said unto him, Yea, my Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus said unto him,
Feed for me my lambs.
He said unto him again a second time,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?
He said unto him, Yea, my Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.
He said unto him,
Feed for me my sheep [Lit. _rams_].
He said unto him again the third time,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?
And it grieved Cephas that he said unto him three times, Lovest thou me?
He said unto him, My Lord, thou knowest everything; thou knowest that I love thee.
Jesus said unto him, Feed for me my sheep [Lit. _ewes_].

Similarly, the original Aramaic of the Peshitta has Jesus saying to Peter,
"Tend for me
amri [my lambs/ young sheep]?.
airbi [my rams/ adult male sheep]?.
nequthi [my ewes/ adult female sheep]"--
again, three different words:

John 21:15-17 (Younan)
Now after they had dined, Yeshua said to Shimon Keepa,
"Shimon bar-Yonah [Simon son of Jonah],
do you love me more than these?"
He said to him, "Yes, Mari [my Lord]. You know that I love you." He said to him,
"Tend for me amri [my lambs/ young sheep]."
16. He said again to him the second time,
"Shimon bar-Yonah,
do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Mari. You know that I love you."
Yeshua said to him,
"Tend for me airbi [my rams/ adult male sheep]."
17. He said to him the third time,
"Shimon bar-Yonah,
do you love me?"
And Keepa [Peter] was sad that he said the third time to him that, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Mari, you understand everything. You know that I love you!" Yeshua said to him,
"Tend for me nequthi [my ewes/ adult female sheep].

Incidentally, in the original Aramaic, the word used for "love," rkhm, is identical throughout the conversation for both Peter and Jesus.
In contrast, Greek translations have Jesus saying
"agape?. agape?. phileo,"
and have Peter implausibly responding with
"phileo?. phileo?. phileo."

==================================================.
“Matthew 16:18 Christ refers to Peter in multiple Greek ways for Rock”
And the significance of that is what, exactly?

"Acts 9:29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death.
Paul speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic was noted in a way so as to be uncommon. It's mention wouldn't make sense otherwise"
I don't understand your reasoning. Did God speak to Saul on the road to Damascus in:
Greek? Hebrew? Aramaic? Latin?

In the area where Judas Iscariot murdered himself, did the people speak in:
Greek? Hebrew? Aramaic? Latin?

"Acts 21:37-40 Paul speaks both languages"
Yes, Paul could speak both Aramaic and Greek. I bet his Greek abilities (unusual for a Jew from Judea) is one of the reasons God chose Saul to become Paul and be a missionary of the Messiah to the heathens.

"irrefutable internal evidence that GREEK was spoken by Paul"
Yes, Paul could speak both Aramaic and Greek.

"http://aramaicnt.org/articles/problems-with-peshitta-primacy/ "
What are 2 arguments/observations from there you find especially-compelling?

=================================================.
"As if there haven't been many explanations over the years discussing the discrepancy of the Jeremiah passage"
I'm sure lots of ink has been used concocting explanations. What's the best explanation of which you're aware?

"The non-Greek iterations don't even list a prophet"
The Latin does. Which "iterations" were you thinking of?

Matthew 27 (Douay-Rheims), biblehub: Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying:
And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel.
10 And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me.

Matthew 27:9 (Clementine Vulgate), dukhrana .com
Tunc impletum est quod dictum est per Ieremiam prophetam, dicentem: Et acceperunt triginta argenteos pretium appretiati, quem appretiaverunt a filiis Israel:

"the Matthew genealogy issue... was in the link I cited.
' "There is not a single ancient lexicographer in any dialect of Aramaic that attests to this, nor a single ancient Syriac-speaking theologian who brought this possibility up, nor a single modern lexicographer that attests to this meaning either. However, plenty of ancient sources attest to the fact that gavrā — in the relational context of a genealogy — exclusively means “husband” (just like the word ἄνδρα andra does in Greek)." '

How do you think GBRA ought be translated in these passages?:
• Matthew 7:9
• Matthew 21:28
• Matthew 22:2

///////////////////////////////
"Feature 3 – Mistranslating the Genealogies of Yeshua" by Paul David Younan, 228+ in the PDF; a few minor tweaks, plus bracketing http://ia802503.us.archive.org/18/items/...reek1e.pdf
Contextual Usage of 0rbg [GBRA] in the Aramaic New Testament
Although mainly used to mean ‘man’ in a generic sense, the term can also mean ‘husband’ depending on the context.

Why is it that sometimes the general meaning of ‘man’ is increased in specificity, depending on context, to mean 'husband'? For no more reason than saying - ‘I now pronounce you man and wife" can also be said "I now pronounce you husband and wife." Since a husband is merely a more ‘specific’ type of ‘man’, this equation of terminology is quite acceptable, even in English.

The question then arises - can the term, when used in proper context, also mean 'Father'? I believe it can be demonstrated from the Gospels that all three shades of meaning are attested to depending on context.

Verses in the Gospels where 0rbg [GBRA] is used to mean the generic ‘man’, although by no means an exhaustive list, include:
• Matthew 7:24
• Matthew 7:26
• Matthew 8:9
• Matthew 9:9

Some examples of the contextual variant ‘husband’ include: • Matthew 19:5
• Matthew 19:10
• Mark 10:2
• 1 Corinthians 7:14
• 1 Corinthians 7:16
• 2 Corinthians 11:2
• Ephesians 5:23.

Finally, the contextual variant ‘father’ can be read in:
• Matthew 7:9
• Matthew 21:28
• Matthew 22:2
• and, arguably, Matthew 1:16.

Since the subject matter of this thesis attempts to reconcile the two accounts of Jesus’ lineage, let’s have a closer look at Matthew 1:16, and a related verse - Matthew 1:19, in the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

MATTHEW 1:16 & 1:19
The Aramaic reading in the Peshitta version is:
Myrmd hrbg Pswyl dwl0 Bwq9y

The verse reads: "Jacob fathered Yoseph, the hrbg [GBRH] of Maryam." The word used here, in verse 16, is 0rbg [GBRA] with a 3rd-person feminine pronominal possessive suffix of h [H] (i.e., ‘her Gaw-ra.’) This word has traditionally been translated ‘husband’, however, the main Semitic term for ‘Husband’, is f9b [B-AI-L-A] ("Ba’la", or, hl9b [B-AI-L-H] for ‘Her husband.) Examples of this word can be found in:
• Matthew 1:19
• Mark 10:12
• Luke 2:36
• John 4:16-18
• Romans 7:2-3
• 1 Corinthians 7:4, 7:10, 7:13, 7:16, 7:39
• Ephesians 5:33
• 1 Timothy 3:2
• Titus 1:6.

Why would Matthew use two different terms, in such a short span of writing (3 verses - 1:16 to 1:19), to refer to Maryam’s ‘husband’, Yoseph?

The fact is, he had to distinguish between two different people named Joseph-- Matthew is not referring to Mary’s husband in verse 16 at all, but rather her father!

Depending on context, it has been shown that 0rbg [GBRA] can mean ‘man, husband or father.’ The usage in verse 16 would demand that we translate 0rbg [GBRA] as ‘father’, rather than 'husband', since the context is a genealogy. Verses 18 & 19, however, would demand that we associate _that_ Joseph with her ‘husband’, since the context is that of marriage.

Matthew, then, is recording the genealogy of Mary, whereas Luke is recording that of Joseph. Which would be exactly opposite of the currently accepted academic line-- that Luke recorded Mary’s lineage while Matthew recorded that of Joseph.

That would give us 14 generation in the third series of Matthew. It would also explain why Luke has 20 generations in the 2nd series and 22 generations in the 3rd series - i.e., Joseph's lineage did not break out cleanly in 14-generation groupings, except for the first series. Since Matthew is giving the line of Mary, only her lineage would be required to break out evenly in 14-generation groupings. That would also explain why the names are completely different in both the 2nd and 3rd series between the accounts in Matthew and in Luke. It also demonstrates that both Mary and Joseph were descendents of King David - each through a separate line!

A valid question is-- 'Isn't it a fact that lineages generally exclude females?' The answer to that, generally, is yes. However, the problem is that Mary is the only real human parent that Jesus had. Jesus was the only person in history who had no human father-- whose previous generation included only one person. So in order to count 14 generations - Mary must be included, even though it would introduce a female in the lineage. In order to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of David, Mary must be demonstrated to descend from David's house!

Here is a revised view of the Genealogical Record, according to a more proper understanding of Aramaic Matthew: ....

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"I'll have to look into it further...as some good points are raised in your citations. .... your reservations on the 'gentile' groups outside of Jerusalem far into the Roman Empire near Rome and Asia, being 'Aramaic or Hebrew' speaking people has ZERO evidence going for it"
I don't recall making that claim. I do claim that the NT was originally written down in Aramaic, and then translated.
I'll claim that the Jews who made pilgrimages to Jerusalem probably had their country of origin's main language as their native language-- likely not Aramaic, and certainly not Hebrew.
It wouldn't surprise me if all of Paul's letters were composed in Aramaic, translated into Greek, and sent to Greek-speaking converts from Judaism into fully-orbed Judaism that recognized Jesus as the Meshikha/Messiah, and sent to Greek-speaking converts from paganism/heathenism into Christianity.

"I am saying that the 'evidence' you provide is merely anecdotal"
Evidence and arguments that rely on the text of the Aramaic and the Greek mss. isn't "anecdotal." I'm not quoting opinions and hearsay from say Jerome and Eusebius about matters.

"In the case of Josephus' works...most of his WERE in Greek.... We KNOW Josephus wrote much of his works in Greek because his intended audience was Greek speaking"
Eventually, yes. They started as Aramaic, Josephus with _great_ difficulty learned Greek, translated his works into Greek, and hired native Greek speakers to polish things.

"Against Apion Excerpt: Chap 1 .... Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue"
"this INTERNAL evidence demonstrates"
So you _do_ agree with me that Josephus's works were translated into Greek?

"Luke records MANY of the conversations between Paul and Greek speaking people around the Empire...which means Luke had to be fluent in Greek to understand and record it"
Sounds fine to me.

"Is Theophilus a Greek speaking person or Hebrew? He certainly wasn't familiar with Jerusalem as Luke often iterates locations around Jerusalem for him"
Probably Greek-speaking, almost-certainly not Hebrew-speaking.

"Also: Acts 2.... saying, 'Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 'And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 'Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.'
Notice there were JEWS who spoke MANY other languages depending on where they came from for Pentecost. So Hebrew or Aramaic was NOT the only language of Jews but only of a specific region"
Agreed.

"Knowing this, why would Hebrew or Aramaic be written to groups of people FAR REMOVED from that Region.. when Greek was more commonly understood in those places?"
The NT was originally written down in Aramaic. It was then translated into Greek.

If I-- a native English speaker-- am writing a letter to someone in Russia who knows only Russian, a good approach would be for me to write it in English, have Google translate turn it into Russian, and then have a bilingual Russian & English-speaking friend polish it for me before I send it.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Yes, if you could not write Russian, it would make sense for you to write it in English and have it translated into Russian. Would you then take that English version, which was meant for the Russians, and distribute it as well?"
If I wrote a letter for all my friends, some of who know only English, and some of whom know only Russian, I'd distribute my letter-- which I originally wrote in English-- to my English-speaking friends in the language of English, and to my Russian-speaking friends in the language of Russian.

"Luke (not Paul) wrote Luke and Acts for Theophilus. There is NO need to task him with writing in Hebrew or Aramaic first if he was able to write in Greek and you have not put forth ANY evidence that Luke was not able to write it in Greek"
I bet he could have written it in Greek if he'd wanted to. But based on what I've seen, I say he didn't.

"What evidence can you cite to support Josephus wrote 'Against Apion' and 'Antiquities of the Jews' in Aramaic first and then Greek?"
In Aramaic: I'd have to search.
"and then Greek?"
Quoting you quoting Josephus, my asterisks:

"Against Apion Excerpt: Chap 1
I SUPPOSE that by my books of the Antiquity of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, have made it evident to those who peruse them, that our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally; as also, I have therein declared how we came to inhabit this country wherein we now live. Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but **are translated by me into the Greek tongue."**

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Church of the East has carefully recopied the Aramaic mss. (except for the 'Western Five'-- 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, & Revelation) through the years, ever since receiving the NT books from their authors in the original Aramaic.
The Khabouris mss. is an example of that careful transmission tradition.
http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/

In sharp contrast, the Greek mss. transmission was quite sloppy, leading to a morass of conflicting Greek textual variants.

Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, Often Bolstered by the Diatesseron, Adjudicating Between Conflicting Greek Manuscripts
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/aus.reli...-uGFZ9CjwJ

A) Special Features of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament
B) Mistranslations/ Mistransmissions/ Missed Translations/ Additions to/ Corruptions in Greek Manuscripts, Contrasted with the Original Aramaic
C) Semitic Idioms in Greek NT Mss.
https://groups.google.com/g/aus.religion...GP_f82uUoJ

//////////////////////////////////////////////
Minorities are sometimes correct. E.g., Galileo was correct, while his numerous naysayers were incorrect.
Do you think Raphael Lancaster aka 'Lataster' has done "'scholarly' research" to arrive at his at-one-time 'Peshitta-first' conclusions?

_Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy_
https://pdfslide.net/documents/aramaic-p...-2008.html

How about Charles Cutler Torrey, who said Matthew through the first half of Acts, and Revelation, were written originally in Aramaic?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Greek mss. have 'Christos' where the Aramaic has 'Meshikha.' Understanding that Jesus was the Anointed One, the anointed priest prophet and king God-Man, that was prophesied in the Hebrew OT with its 'Mashiach,' greatly improves awareness of Jesus' mission and fulfillment of OT prophecy.

If someone these days is heavily into Judaism and awaits the arrival of the Mashiach/ Messiah, and she reads a NT with "Messiah" where the Greek mss. have 'Christos' and where the original Aramaic has 'Meshikha,' she is more likely to recognize and grapple with the NT's claim that Jesus is the long-predicted awaited Messiah.

If someone these days is heavily into study of the Bible and is trying to see how the OT is fulfilled in the NT, and he reads a NT with "Messiah"/"Anointed One" where the Greek mss. have 'Christos' and where the original Aramaic has 'Meshikha,' he is more likely to recognize in the OT foreshadowings of Jesus that are revealed as concrete realities in the NT.

One doesn't need to affiliate one's self with things Jewish to be curious or concerned regarding how exactly Jesus is prophesied about in the OT.

"Christos" doesn't mean anything in Greek. "Mashiach" in Hebrew and "Meshikha" in Aramaic mean "Anointed."

"what does an Aramaic translation offer us, which a Greek translation does not"
The Aramaic original has interesting features not present in the Greek mss., e.g. Mt's version of the Lord's Prayer rhymes extensively, Lk's version lacks rhyming in 2 locations, the Greek Mt's and Lk's versions lack rhyming, and the Greek Lk version lacks much text that is present in the Aramaic Lk version.
The Greek mss. have several mistranslations in Mt through the 1st half of Acts, and in Rev. Much ink through the centuries has been used debating problems with the Greek texts that are resolved via looking at and correctly translating the Aramaic.

The Aramaic has "MrYh" = Master YHWH, while the Greek rendered every 'lord' as 'kurios'-- even the instances where 'sir' is the better rendition in English.
Using the "MrYh" present in the Aramaic, it's easier to make the case using the NT that Jesus is YHWH.

Some have been plagued with doubts about Jesus and had their faith severely shaken given the morass of conflicting Greek mss. textual variants. Bible critics have had a field day with that morass.

"why isn't there more support for the Aramaic being original"
I dunno. I imagine that people who have built their careers/livelihoods on study of the Greek mss. are reluctant to acknowledge that all that time spent examining the Greek was spent examining merely a translation.

Scott Maxham "it would be an issue of pride, having studied lots and lots of Greek, to then discover it may be a translation?"
I'm sure for some. Certainly not all. Different people have different motivations. Some people aren't even aware there is the Aramaic.

"Does the Aramaic version present any doctrines you are aware of that are dramatically divergent from the Greek text?"
No. Also, there are some minor differences between the Peshitta and the Peshitto, besides the major difference between them of the Peshitta lacking the 'Western Five' (2 Peter, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Jude, Revelation).
"So I am starting to discern that your Pentecostal leanings are drawn from your favoring of the Peshitta Primacy issue?"
Is that a question?
"I see William Branham and George Lamsa were associates. I was for a time with the Pentecostals. I recall that the Lamsa Bible is the favored translation by a cult group in the Philippines where my wife is from. Is it true that it diminishes the trinity and the deity of Christ?"
Not that I'm aware of. I've not read it, given that I noticed it downplayed the supernatural.
"I'm looking now to that key topic as being the reason David that most scholars reject the Peshitta Primacy theory"
How many scholars have you asked? Different people have different reasons.

Glenn David Bauscher, translator of the OT and NT from the Aramaic (except for the deuterocanonicals):
"BTW, Lamsa did not even translate the whole TaNaK from the Peshitta. He mixed a lot of KJV readings from the Hebrew Massoretic Bible in many passages where the Peshitta text differs from the Hebrew readings."

////////////////////////////////////////////
_Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy_
https://pdfslide.net/documents/aramaic-p...-2008.html PDF: http://ia802503.us.archive.org/18/items/...reek1e.pdf
Appendix A – The Deceptive Nature of Greek Primacy

In this short discussion, I will highlight some of the main ways in which Greek primacists suppress the Peshitta: Misinformation and outright deception.

First, we shall take a look at the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, perhaps the most respected and revered Biblical scholar, textual critic and Greek primacist of our time, and who was involved with the American Bible Society, the United Bible Societies and the National Council of Churches (in the USA). As a regular editor to the UBS’ Nestle-Aland Bible text, this man had a big impact on the readings of modern Bible versions.

In 1992, Dr. Metzger delivered a lecture on “Highlights from the Sermon on the Mount” at the Foundation for Biblical Research, in Charlestown, New Hampshire, USA. This lecture is full of innacuracies:

“Yes, there are Aramaic documents, especially now that the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls have come to light -- that were written about the time of Jesus -- documents in Hebrew and Aramaic that are non￾religious documents. Some of them are religious documents. They help us to understand the ambiance of society at that time. So that's the "yes" part of my answer.

But the "no" part to your question is this: We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So -- except for these four fossils that are left embedded in the text of Mark, the four brief statements or words in Aramaic from Jesus -- no! And people today that sell books and say, "Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels" -- they are frauds. They're out for our money. Don't be taken in by such works.” – Dr. Bruce Metzger This, from the same man who has written much on the textual criticism of the Peshitta, Peshitto and Old Syriac Gospels. His claim that “We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic” is undeniably false, as his own books testify:

“Surprisingly, while the Four Gospels in the Peshitta are generally Byzantine type texts, the Book of Acts in the Peshitta has Western type tendencies. In the Gospels it [the Peshitta] is closer to the Byzantine type of text than in Acts, where it presents many striking agreements with the Western text.” – The Text of the New Testament 2nd ed, Bruce Metzger; 1968 p.70

What does that say of Greek primacy if even the most respected (arguably) Greek primacist of our time needs to resort to such measures?

Dr. Metzger then goes on to criticize Dr. George Lamsa (famous Aramaic and Peshitta primacist), a favorite hobby of those wishing to suppress knowledge of the Peshitta. “George Lamsa, L-A-M-S-A, who in the 1940s persuaded a reputable publisher of the Bible in Philadelphia, the Winston Publishing Company, to issue his absolute fraud, of 'the Bible translated from the original Aramaic.' Absolutely a money getter, and nothing else.

He said that 'the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,' and he 'translates it from the Aramaic,' but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from.” – Dr. Bruce Metzger

Of course, Lamsa makes clear many times in the introduction to his translation, that it is based on the Peshitta.

As mentioned, Lamsa-bashing has become a favorite hobby among Greek primacists due to the facts that Aramaic primacy is proving to be a great threat to their scholarship, and quite frankly, Lamsa is an easy target.

There is a widespread article about Dr. Lamsa, by John P. Juedes, which attempts to prove that Dr. Lamsa was a “cultic torchbearer” and that the Peshitta is unreliable. Just like Dr. Metzger, Greek primacist Mr. Juedes relies on misinformation:

“His anti-Greek bias shows as he repeatedly replaces references to “Greeks” with “Arameans.”” – John P. Juedes

Is this truly “anti-Greek bias” on Lamsa’s part? The fact is, the Peshitta does indeed read “Arameans” in many places where the Greek texts say “Greeks”. So Lamsa was not being biased in this instance, but was being faithful to the Peshitta reading.

This article makes many false claims about Dr. Lamsa, but admittedly, he did indeed have some questionable beliefs. But this is irrelevant to the topic of Aramaic primacy. Does a translator being “bad” automatically render the text being translated “bad” as well? That is outright silliness and unscientific – I can spend all day pointing out contradictions in the KJV and the NIV, but I wouldn’t dare use that as “evidence” that the Greek texts are a copy (they are copies, but the fact that translators are “bad” does not prove this). How can a text be criticized by having had bad translations? By the same logic, since Greek primacists believe the Peshitta is a translation from the Greek, and inferior to the Greek, they should then believe that the Greek is “bad”, because the translation and the translator/s were “bad” too. So why do even the most eminent scholars resort to such deceit? Well, how would you feel if you just realized your 20+ years of university and textual study – your whole career – was all for naught? Would you not also fight for your dignity and deny the truth, even to yourself?

That is the big danger of taking the advice of these scholars. Often, pride and politics get in the way of the search for truth, and take preference over actual evidence. “Scholarly consensus” tells us that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. “Scholarly consensus” also taught us that the Earth was the centre of the universe, the Sun revolved around the Earth, and the atom was the smallest particle of matter.

“Scholarly consensus” is meaningless. Furthermore, most of these eminent scholars would perhaps not even be considered to be “real Christians” by the majority of those who believe. Many of these scholars are highly liberal, don’t fully accept the inspiration of the Bible, believe that the Torah was compiled from many secular writings – from many different times – and believe the Bible to be full of myths. Yet these are the very people that are trusted to supply Christians with “the most accurate Bible texts”. That is akin to the widespread acceptance by Christians of the “Jewish” Massoretic Hebrew Old Testament version (which “messes around” with many Messianic prophecies, attested to by the Septuagint and Peshitta Old Testament – a topic for another day).

/////////////////////////////////////////
https://www.gotquestions.org/Aramaic-Primacy.html
"The term Aramaic Primacy is used, informally, to refer to the claim that the New Testament was originally written not in Koine Greek but in a dialect of Aramaic. This theory is more commonly referred to as 'Peshitta Primacy,' referring to the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the Bible, a collection known as the Peshitta"
The Church of the East recognizes that its Peshitta OT is translated from Hebrew.

"Aramaic/Peshitta Primacy is primarily supported by the work of a single author, in this case, Lamsa"
That's completely erroneous. The author of that remark is either lying, or very ignorant.

"Textual scholars have examined the Peshitta and found clear evidence of influence from later translations"
Details?

"The dialect used in the Peshitta is from a later time period than that of Jesus and His disciples"
Evidence?

"The Peshitta utilizes phrases that obscure wordplay and metaphor; this is expected of a translation but not an original autograph"
Do you think extensive rhyming, seen e.g. in the Matthew version of the Lord's Prayer in the Peshitta, "is expected of a translation but not an original autograph"?

"all available evidence points to the Peshitta’s being a later translation, not an original manuscript"
What are 3 of the strongest lines of such evidence?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: _The Peshitta Holy Bible_ translated by David Bauscher - by DavidFord - 09-15-2020, 11:43 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)