Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Aramaic Primacy in the East
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Is the Peshitta still held as the original New Testament in the East as commonly stated on this board?
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Is the Peshitta still held as the original New Testament in the East as commonly stated on this board?

Still? Who hold or held it as 'original'? Can you name some? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I see it like this; Jesus has taken care there is *sufficient* redundancy in the text. Even if there are mistakes in copying or translating.

Take our DNA for instance, do we have the *original DNA* like Adam and Eve had? NO way. But we still are humans and perfect beings physically, enough to live say for 70 or 80 years.
(Our DNA is damaged. For instance, we seemed to have been able to produce our own vitamine C but now we must eat it to stay healthy)

The East text is not perfect either and there is no way to verify it, except by assumption or faith. If it were that important, Yeshu would have revealed it to important prophets today. But he does not. Why? Because Yeshu, the Logos/Milta never died (except 3 days). Words on paper die or can be scratched, but Jesus always can repeat the same words as is necessary.
Distazo,

There are problems with your reasoning there.

You say that it can't be verified that the Eastern Peshitta text is perfect or not. You said:
Quote:The East text is not perfect either and there is no way to verify it, except by assumption or faith.

But, do you see that you just made an assumption in your statement there? You said that the text is not perfect...and that there is no way to verify it except by assumption or faith, so you just assume it's not.

Can you show me any place that the text and message is not perfect?

Show me a place where it has a mistake?

I want to check it out. So, until then, I will accept it as being perfect, and that God helped to keep it free from corruptions...it's better to have faith that He did just that, but, I believe that faith comes from God, so, unless you have that faith, it's just a human assumption, and subject to error.

If you believe that the Eastern Peshitta is just a translation of the Greek...can you show me any proof, and have you found any translational errors, if it was? You have gone over the entire text, word for word, right? What have you found then?

You speak of DNA being damaged and liken that to the condition of the Eastern Aramaic New Testament... But, don't you know that the DNA of Jesus, who is The Word made flesh, is perfect, and always was so? He had no damage in His cells, no stain of sin there.

The manuscript copies, as individual witnesses, may indeed have some error in it, because they were not written in Heaven by God.

BUT, as far as I can see in the Eastern Peshitta text, the content and Message is perfect in His Holy Word, which has been given to us, by God's providence, and which I believe, based on all the evidence, that the Eastern Peshitta text is the Original form the New Testament...the Greek versions being translations from it.

Translations are not bad, if they are done correctly?so if you think that the Eastern Peshitta text is a translation of the Greek text, then do you find anything that is not translated correctly?

Do you see anything that is in error there?

Where is it imperfect?

Anywhere?

Let?s take a look and see?as I am getting tired of just hearing doubts and assumptions all the time.

There are plenty examples of this being true and the logic is sound too. That the Eastern Peshitta text is original...We can?t say this about any other ancient language version...and they never have held a claim to be the original form anyway, but only translations from some of the Greek versions.

Again...if you can provide me with just one example of where it can be proven that the Eastern Peshitta text is not original, then please show it here...and we can examine it.

I'm not playing games here, let?s get serious and look at it, and stop listening to what other men have said about it...I ask, do we have the Word of God in Aramaic here, or not?

And if not, show me any place that you believe that it isn't the Word of God, but only a mistake of man. I believe that God can preserve His Holy Words, in the same words that He gave them in, when He inspired His Prophets and Apostles to write them down...and if you believe that He didn't do so, in some place in the Eastern Peshitta text...then show it please. I'm waiting.

If having doubt and assuming the text is not all original is ok to do, when you say it can't be verified...then having faith and believing the text is all original is also ok to do, since we have nothing that shows that it isn't all original. Again...show it, if you have found anything.

The same challenge goes out to Steve Caruso, or any other person who have doubts and assumes that the Eastern Peshitta text is not all original.

Distazo, you asked Dylan:
Quote:Who hold or held it as 'original'? Can you name some?

Dylan...I do. And until it's proven otherwise, by these brothers, or from some evidence I might find, then I'm standing on it like a rock.

Quote:If it were that important, Yeshu would have revealed it to important prophets today. But he does not.

How do you know He hasn't? And do you know of any "important prophets" today? If so, what are their names, I want to speak with them.


Shlama,
Chuck
I believe that the Aramaic Peshitta is either the original or the closest we have to the autographs. I used to be a Greek primacist, as many of you know, but eventually I came to see the Aramaic Peshitta, as at the very least, the purest form of the words of the Almighty MarYa Yeshua Meshikha and his apostles and prophets. I do believe that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ led me to the Peshitta to study and to revere. In the original post, I was not asking for someone to give their own opinion, just to answer this simple question about the beliefs of modern Eastern Christians.
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo,

There are problems with your reasoning there.

But, do you see that you just made an assumption in your statement there? You said that the text is not perfect...and that there is no way to verify it except by assumption or faith, so you just assume it's not.

Can you show me any place that the text and message is not perfect?

I probably have told you already. On this forum, there was a reference to a certain 'Mar' who told he had seen a Peshitta in Edessa from 78 which had no left out words. We can conclude that the versions he knew must have had some copy-errors which he knew.

An example of a left out text is here: John 6:11 certainly misses the full text which the Greek does have. Not Yeshu distributed the bread, but his disciples did.

Another left out text is John 8. This text is authentic, but not in the Peshitta. Reasons why this was left out, are quite obvious. To some, it must have been terrible that the adultrous woman was not executed. Now huge discussions will follow on these two remarks. I'm sorry I replied anyway. These type of discussions are really not my interest any more.
They lead to nothing, and to asumpted 'holy truths' which I have seen too often in cults.

Gods word IS disturbed slightly by errors, just as you also have seen for the OT, (and do not tell me that the Peshitta tanakh is the only -non-disturbed text! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )
But as I already explained, I have full confidence, we have the full *message* just as our DNA (though disturbed as well) is full enough to live and to experience God.

A truth can be confirmed by holy spirit. Dot.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Is the Peshitta still held as the original New Testament in the East as commonly stated on this board?

Hi Dylan.

The vast majority of the Christians in the Middle East are adherents of traditions other than the Church of the East.

Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestant, etc.

The Church of the East makes up less than 1% maybe of the population. What was at one time the largest church has become the smallest due to slaughter and persecution, by both others and by Christians of other branches.

The answer to your original question is no, the vast majority of "eastern" Christians do not hold the Peshitta as the original. Even if their church has it as the official version (many do, like the Chaldeans or the Syriac Orthodox), they don't know why.

Even in the CoE, there are Greek primacists. At the levels of bishops and priests and deacons.

However, there are still other bishops, priests, deacons and lay people who are Aramaic primacists.

The above has certainly been true throughout its history.

None of this is dogma, or a central creed. The church has never officially taken up the matter in a synodal decree. It doesn't consider the topic to be a matter of salvation.

Like Akhan Chuck said. It's not about opinions of any western or eastern Christian. It's about the evidence in the text.

I often debate with people in my own church about this topic. There is no universal consensus.

+Shamasha
Thanks for the reply! It seemed to used to be the "scholarly consensus" in the East when the Church of the East was at the peak of its power. The writings of William Norton and those he sited appear to point towards that conclusion.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Thanks for the reply! It seemed to used to be the "scholarly consensus" in the East when the Church of the East was at the peak of its power. The writings of William Norton and those he sited appear to point towards that conclusion.

Then "evangelists", radio, television and the internet came. Along with the western viewpoint on everything from the language of scripture, to the Incarnation.

Instead of "evangelizing" those without Christ (read: Muslims), they chose the easier target: other Christians of other denominations. At least they wouldn't chop your head off for blaspheming their religion. The "evangelists" became "proselytizers" instead. Like I said, easier target.

As for Aramaic primacy, I've not heard a single sermon on it (nor, should I)

+Shamasha
Oh no, Aramaic primacy is merely a scholarly endeavor. The language of Scripture is important, but not a salvation issue. God has used Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and even English to bring His holy Word to the nations.
Distazo, discussions are good, arguments are not. Let's have a discussion.

I'll send to your message box all the evidence in the Greek manuscripts, and lack thereof, of the Pericope Alduterae. Maybe you already know? It is not just the Eastern Peshitta that does not have it in the text...but most of the oldest Greek Manuscripts and the oldest Latin copies as well.


Bishop Papias in about 125 A.D., seems to indicate that it was an early account, which was originally found in "the gospel of the Hebrews", which is now lost. We much later see it in some late Greek Manuscripts and some late Latin copies in various places in John's Gospel, and sometimes in other Gospels too, where it is placed, rather than in John. It may have come into some early Greek or Latin texts, which have not survived from the gospel of the Hebrews, and the later copies perpetuated it. In any case, I don't believe it is true that the Church of the East omitted it in future copies, because they wanted to execute adulteresses, rather than forgive them.

I'll speak about John 6:11 later.

Blessings,
Chuck
We decided to take out the Pericope Adulterae, but we left John 4:16?18 intact ?

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:We decided to take out the Pericope Adulterae, but we left John 4:16?18 intact ?

+Shamasha

Paul,
Who's 'we'? Do you think I accuse the Eastern Church of leaving out? Probably the pericope was left out in the first century already.

@Chuck, I am not that ignorant to know that also Greek copies have it left out. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

It just illustrates, the text is not perfect. And you can offer all the evidence, the by some citated Mar who indicated a perfect text being at the altar in Edessa, is enough. You cannot convince me that it happens to be, that the khabouris family is the only text without textual errors.

But I already see, that doubting it is even with a slight error, is a great sin right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The eastern family text, is one of the best texts, and I already wrote to you, that the Western Text is candidate as well to be the -best text-. The notion that the Western Text is adapted to the Greek (the list with 'adaptions', is so tiny and insignificant), is just an assumption.

The Eastern text also lacks the 5 books, which is understandable, it was not give by an apostle, but it was given to the West and it stayed there for ages.

But if you and others believe that the khabouris is the sole text and probably even original, have it your way! <!-- s:xmas: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/xmas.gif" alt=":xmas:" title="Xmas" /><!-- s:xmas: -->
Distazo, I am not your enemy...but your Brother in our Lord and Savior...we just have a disagreement here, which we can talk about without any condemnations...it is not a sin to question things...but once you know the truth and still try to keep a lie going...it is a sin.

I don't say you are doing that...but, I want you to look at it closer and judge for yourself.

You said:
Quote:I am not that ignorant to know that also Greek copies have it left out.

It is not just left out of many Greek Manuscripts, the oldest ones as well as many later ones, but, it shows up in two different places in John's Gospel, and 3 different places in Luke's Gospel. Now, something is smelling funny here, right? Something fishy.

Bishop Papias seems to indicate that it was written in another book. There were many such books around the end of the 1st century and early 2nd century...like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of James, the Gospel of Nicodemus...and so on, which have sayings and stories that are said to be from Jesus. Maybe some are true, maybe some are not...we don't know for sure...I have read them...and am not that impressed and they don't have the same power that the 4 Gospels have.

The Apostle John says that the world would not be able to hold all the books, if all were written down of what Jesus said and did during his time of ministry...which looks like it was about 3 1/2 years long. Did you know that when you count everything up in the four Gospels, in all the events and days that are recorded of this 3 1/2 years of ministry...that only about 34 days are covered? It's true. So, what was said and done in the rest of the 1,243 days of His ministry?

Maybe the story is true...I don't know. But, I do know this, that it is not in the Eastern Aramaic text, nor, in the earliest Greek texts and the early translations of it.

You said:
Quote:It just illustrates, the text is not perfect. And you can offer all the evidence, the by some citated Mar who indicated a perfect text being at the altar in Edessa, is enough. You cannot convince me that it happens to be, that the khabouris family is the only text without textual errors.

Ok...lets talk about that. Maybe it illustrates rather, that the story is not original to the 4 Gospels, but came in from another source, as Bishop Papias speaks of...why can't that be a viable option? I think it can be. And it may even be true, but not part of John or Luke's accounts, where it is sometimes placed.

And let's take another look at what is sad in that colophon of the 78 A.D. manuscript. Does it say that it was "perfect" or that it didn't have any omissions in the text? I think you might believe that the story was present in it. Right? What proof do we have to believe it was? Let's look again at what is really said about what was seen written in the colophon. I'll go back and read it again.

I am not trying to convince you that the Khabouris and its "family" is perfect, the Codex itself is not...as the Khabouris has at least one or two spelling errors in it, and some scribal fixes can be seen, and a few pages have been replaced by a later scribe in another script...but, it is very clean in its text over all...

You try to hand write the whole NT and see how your copy comes out. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I have been checking the "Ashael Grant Manuscript" that is from the year 1199 A.D. and it is near identical to the circa 950 A.D. Khabouris Codex...but, I can tell that it is not an exact copy of it, as it has a few features that are not the same, in spelling and grammar and such...but, the content so far as I have seen, is the very same. I'm making a list as I go slowly through it.

And yes...the Western version of the Peshitta, UBS critical text, is almost the same in every place as what is found in the Khabouris...but, for a few places, 22 that I have found so far...some important, some not so much...but, these which are important can be show to be influenced by the Greek text.

The Western text is not the original form of the Aramaic NT text.

Listen to what George Kiraz says about the version that is used in the UBS for these other books...

Quote:

In A.D. 508, a new revision was completed by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug.; hence, the name Philoxenian version. The motivation behind this revision was theological in nature. Philoxenos contended that the rendition of the Biblical text in some of the Peshitto readings gave room for what he called a Nestorian interpretation. "When those of old undertook to translate these passages," he remarks,

"they made mistakes in many things, whether intentionally or through ignorance. These mistakes concerned not only what is taught about the Economy in the flesh, but various other things concerning different matters. It was for this reason that we have now taken the trouble to have the Holy Scriptures translated anew from Greek into Syriac."

As we can see, the motivation behind this translation was a theological one. This was caused by the Christological controversies of the fifth century. Philoxenos felt that there was a need for a more accurate and literal translation of the Greek New Testament.


And now read what the preface of the UBS text (see link below) says about where it placed these other books in the UBS edition...not even in the main text, but in an appendix...because even they knew that they were never part of The Peshitta, but came in from the Greek, in later revisions by non-Church of the East groups, who not only added these 5 books to the Peshitta, but also changed a few things around to make it agree with the Greek text. And you want to defend it, and say that is could be the original form, or say that these changes are not a big deal...Yes they are a big deal, and no, the Western version is not the original Peshitta...even if Mr. Baucsher tells us so. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://archive.org/stream/newtestamentinsy00lond#page/n8/mode/2up">https://archive.org/stream/newtestament ... 8/mode/2up</a><!-- m -->


The Western Five books, were not in the Eastern Peshitta...simply because they were most likely not even written yet, in 78 A.D. or a bit earlier when the Church of the East were given this Aramaic NT, and even in the Greek Churches, all these books were contested for 300 years as to their really being from the Apostles or not...maybe they were, but, there were lots of doubts among the Greek Christians all along, until the councils made it a rule to believe that they were genuine. I don't say that they are not...but just that they were not original the the Aramaic NT...but came into the Western revision via the Greek NT.

Shlama
Chuck

.
Thirdwoe Wrote:You try to hand write the whole NT and see how your copy comes out. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I have been checking the "Ashael Grant Manuscript" that is from the year 1199 A.D. and it is near identical to the circa 950 A.D. Khabouris Codex...but, I can tell that it is not an exact copy of it, as it has a few features that are not the same, in spelling and grammar and such...but, the content so far as I have seen, is the very same. I'm making a list as I go slowly through it.

.

Sorry for staying short brother, you already write "near to identical" so it is not 100% identical. Right? This is my point.
The Eastern text might be the best, the Western text might be too, but it is naive to assume it is the original and unmodified language (such as grammar or even the used script) without any mistakes or copyist errors.

The same can be said about the Hebrew text, or any Greek text. During the ages it detoriates and degrades and some branches do more than others due to copyists having the right attitude and skills.

The same can be said about our DNA and I don't like repeating the same arguments but you got my point? Please dont take it as an offense, I simply disagree on this assumption: "We have the original text for 100%" And to me the pericope adultera even was not that place, but it received a honourful place at John 8.
Distazo,

I agree that no Manuscript would likley be 100% perfect in every respect..., but compared to the other language manuscripts, the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts are miles better as to the condition and faithfulness of the transmission of the text, which you seem to know too.

These are not xerox copies, but handwritten copies, so we can expect some slips of the human hand and mind....and we have more than one to check against...so, we can be certain what was a mistake in them. But, I believe that what is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text of the NT is 100% true to form, as to the content and the message, as it was 1st given to the Church of the East by the Apostles. And until that is proven not to be true, I'll keep faith in it.

I don't believe it has lost anything, or has added anything to it's text like the other versions are seen to have done. If the Aramaic script itself isn't the same, I believe that it is the same content nonetheless. Andrew Roth and David Baucsher now put their version of the text into the Hebrew script...but, it's the same content as it was when they 1st put it in the Estrangela script in their 1st editions, why would it be any different back them, if they changed the scripts?

I would like to know just when this Estrangela script we see in the Eastern Manuscripts were 1st employed, and if it could be what is called "Edessene letters" or not.

The reason I can't say that the Western Peshitto version is a candidate for the best form of the text, is because it is known not to be the original form of the 1st Peshitta NT. It was changed later and some things added into it. I believe that the "old Syriac" texts were also messed with by the groups who produced them, and the two examples that have partially survived time, don't always agree with themselves in their content.

I look at all the known evidence and pray about it, and I accept the answer I get. Call it reason and faith if you like. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The Pericope Adulterea is a nice story...and it may be true, but, it looks like it came into the NT from another source besides John and Luke, where it is found in a few different places in each book in non-Aramaic versions.

Blessings,
Chuck

.
Pages: 1 2 3 4