Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
_The Peshitta Holy Bible_ translated by David Bauscher

mistranslation at Mt 1:16

Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations, yet Greek manuscripts of Matthew's genealogy list 14, 14, 13 generations.<ref></ref&gt; Bible critic Bart Ehrman has noted the problem:
{{Quote|text=Joseph is not Jesus' father. But that creates an obvious problem. If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' bloodline precisely through Joseph? This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can't be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy. .... Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16). ....
<br>There are other problems. In ... Matthew's genealogy .... from the Babylonian disaster to the birth of Jesus, fourteen generations (1:17). Fourteen, fourteen, and fourteen-it is almost as if God had planned it this way. .... The problem is that the fourteen-fourteen-fourteen schema doesn't actually work. If you read through the names carefully, you'll see that in the third set of fourteen there are in fact only thirteen generations.<ref>Bart D. Ehrman, ''Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)'' (2009), 36, 37</ref>}}

In Aramaic mss. of Matthew's genealogy, with Mt 1:16's "gbra" correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew's genealogy lists 14, 14, and 14 generations; Native Aramaic speaker Paul Younan detected this mistranslation.<ref>Raphael Lataster, ''Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy'' (2008), 323ff.</ref&gt;

In short, Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph). Jesus is a descendant of King David on his biological mother Mary's side (per Mt's genealogy), and on his step-dad Joseph's side (per Lk's genealogy).

mistranslation at Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3

Greek mss. have Jesus and his disciples visiting the house of a leper.
Mt 26:6 <ref></ref>
Mk 14:3 <ref></ref>
The Aramaic allows for potter.<ref>[]</ref>
<ref>Raphael Lataster, ''Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy'' (2008), 79-80</ref&gt;
Lepers were unclean and weren't allowed to have guests over. It's actually Simon the potter. To continue to call someone a leper even after he'd been healed of leprosy would have constituted slander.

mistranslation at Jn 14:2

Writing in 1936, Charles Cutler Torrey explains that this mistranslation arose from an erroneous vocalization:
{{Quote|text=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.<ref>Charles Cutler Torrey, ''Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence'' (1936), 108, 113-114</ref>}}

Messages In This Thread
RE: _The Peshitta Holy Bible_ translated by David Bauscher - by DavidFord - 01-16-2022, 01:25 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)