Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who here has the courage to reject the Pericope Adulterae?
#31
gbausc Wrote:It is easily discerned by one in whom Rukha d'Qoodsha dwells, whether the Pericope Adultera is scripture...

Translation: Those who believe the Pericope Adultera is apostolic in origin, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.

You've convinced yourself that the tradition of your Latin ancestors (who surely existed) has nothing to do with how this story came down to you. Ironically, you outright reject almost everything else the Latin church teaches. I assume that comes from the direction of the Holy Spirit as well? I mean, the ability to pick and choose. Or, discernment as you would call it. Whatever wording makes you feel better. Just curious.

I find it surprising that, as an Aramaic Primacist, you could hold to this position with any degree of self conscience, given that there is no support for it in the textual history. In this topic, and so many others, yours is a revisionist viewpoint through and through. I don't know of a kinder way to say that, and I mean it in the most innocent way possible. I don't mean to offend, but I can't mince words here.

Perhaps I can't yet forget how you savagely attacked your brother Andrew in public on Amazon.com. That may still be on my mind. I need to forgive you for that,

+Shamasha
Reply
#32
Alan G77 Wrote:Sorry Aaron, I read his statement as a reference to Apostolic churches.

That's how I read it too, Alan. And surely how it was intended to come across.

Funny thing is, stick 10 Dave Bauschers in a room and you'll have a minimum of 11 opinions....all claiming approbation via the Discernment of the Holy Spirit, of course.

In their own mind they would all be right, and we would be left with the unfortunate reality of having a schizophrenic Church. Which is what you see when you open up the yellow pages under "Christianity."

+Shamasha
Reply
#33
Dear Brothers,

I don't want to judge just state a simple observation.

The Lord did not mingle with people's opinions and assumptions as shown in Acts 15 and Galatians 1,2.

There always have been divisions, the 10 tribes of the North, the 2 of the South, while both tribes were considered to be Gods people!

The single -one thought, one body, one interpretation- would be rather an indication of dictatorship instead of free will as our Lord stands far away of our battles in scriptural-interpretations <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Now I am not a 'Bauscher-ist' <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I do reject many of his statements but this one on John 8 is really a thing I have not seen anybody give a usefull comment.
G.D. Bauscher WROTE John 8 using DSS (script) and the obvious mistake for skipping that part of John is evident. G.D. Bauscher, while he is an Aramaic Primacist, is the only one who was open enough to think outside of the (church) box!

Peace to all.
Reply
#34
Shlama all,

Thank you, Distazo, for acknowledging, at least, a useful point.
The Spirit of God is sent to guide us into the truth and teach us discernment between truth and error, light and darkness, good and evil.
If we cannot know whether He is the Author of what we read in what is called scripture, or whether it is simply the word of man, what hope do we have that we have received The Holy Spirit, and eternal Life?

Perhaps the Pericope is a test for us, as are certain other passages and verses, and even whole books.

God wouldn't do that to us, would He?

Seems to me He tested Abraham in a like manner:
"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

How many of his friends would have advised him (not to mention his wife, Sarah) that this was a wise course of action? I seriously doubt he consulted with anyone else in this matter.

Ro 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. -speaking of Abraham as our spiritual father by faith.

Our tests are generally not quite as severe as that.

I really don't care to get into a debate about John 7:53-8:11.
I am interested in discussing the power of The Holy Spirit and our relationship to Him, and how He changes us, helps us and leads us.
Does He still speak? Does He move us to think and act in unearthly ways?

Can He give us more than, "I think so", or "I believe this is true?

Can He and does He cause us to know?

Our life depends on knowing:
"But these things are eternal life: '[b]They shall know you, for you alone are The God of Truth, and Yeshua The Messiah whom you
have sent[/b].' " John 17:3
Jer 24:7 And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.
Jer 9:3 And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

7. But these things that were advantages to me, I have accounted losses for the sake of The Messiah.
8. I also consider all these things a loss for the majesty of the knowledge of Yeshua The Messiah, my Lord, him for whose sake I have lost everything, and I consider it all as a dung heap, that I may gain The Messiah,
9. And be found in him, while I do not have my own righteousness, which is from The Written Law, but that which is from the faith of
The Messiah, which is the righteousness that is from God,
10. That by it I may know Yeshua and the power of his resurrection, and that I may share in his sufferings and be conformed with his death,
11. That perhaps I may be able to come to the resurrection from the place of the dead.
12. I have not yet received it, neither am I yet perfect, but I run so that I may obtain that thing for which Yeshua The Messiah apprehended me. -Philip. 3

Don't you all want to know?
I do. Knowing what is scripture is just the beginning. Then we must know Him, Whose Name is The Truth, and that means obeying and following after Him. I am afraid to reject one syllable He ever uttered and preserved for us; in fact, I love His words, and esteem them above all other words and above money and possessions.

Ps 119:127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.
Ps 119:159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness.(KJV)

Pr 13:13. He that has contempt against the word will be destroyed by it, and he that is in awe of the commandment will be saved; there will be no favor to the deceitful man, and a wise man whose works are upright will lift up the head by his way.
16. Everything that a wise one does is in knowledge, and a fool speaks emptiness.-(my translation of the Peshitta)

"The Elder to The Elect lady and her children, those whom I love in the truth, but it is not I only, but also all those who know the truth, 2. Because of the truth which dwells in us and is with us for eternity."

"And you will know the truth, and that truth will set you free."

Be blessed,

Dave
Reply
#35
Quote:Dear Brothers,

I don't want to judge just state a simple observation.

The Lord did not mingle with people's opinions and assumptions as shown in Acts 15 and Galatians 1,2.

And this is exactly our point, the keys were handed to St Peter, based on his confession of Christ, this was the rock that the Church was to tbe built on. Authority was handed to the Apostles by breathing on them and thus they received the Holy Spirit. They, being the Church, were given the power to bind and lose.

What we have now with many non Apostolic Churches is the exact conclusion in which you have arrived, opinions and assumptions have been used to divide the Church and lead people astray from the truth.

Quote:There always have been divisions, the 10 tribes of the North, the 2 of the South, while both tribes were considered to be Gods people!

The single -one thought, one body, one interpretation- would be rather an indication of dictatorship instead of free will as our Lord stands far away of our battles in scriptural-interpretations <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Wrong bro, they were divisioned in terms of tribal family groups, but they had ONE tribe of priests and were appointed ONE head over all the tribes, the first being Moses then Joshua. They did not each have there own interpretation of what God spoke to Moses and we can see what the outcome was to those who questioned Moses' authority.

Quote:Now I am not a 'Bauscher-ist' <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I do reject many of his statements but this one on John 8 is really a thing I have not seen anybody give a usefull comment.
G.D. Bauscher WROTE John 8 using DSS (script) and the obvious mistake for skipping that part of John is evident. G.D. Bauscher, while he is an Aramaic Primacist, is the only one who was open enough to think outside of the (church) box!

This thinking outside the Church box is exactly what I disagree with and believe it is satanic and straight from the pits of hell. Post Modernist rubbish that fosters the notion of multiple truths, which are all equal and fully dependant upon the subjectivity of an individual is equal to satans greatest command "do what thou wilt".

Jesus Christ rules over the Church that He established with His precious body and blood, He loves His church and "the gates of hell will not previal against His church".
Reply
#36
Wow! Alan, at least you know what to think and how to judge.

I don't know what your church affiliation is, but you seem threatened by the idea of freedom and by The Spirit of Holiness being our ultimate authority and power. You have misconstrued my position to be making myself the arbiter of truth, and that is not what I said.

I did not think I would get very far on the forum with this line of reasoning, but if it provokes serious thought and heart searching for one person, it will have been worth it.

Peace to all who love our Lord in sincerity and Truth,

Dave
Reply
#37
Dear Distazo,

distazo Wrote:G.D. Bauscher WROTE John 8 using DSS (script) and the obvious mistake for skipping that part of John is evident. G.D. Bauscher, while he is an Aramaic Primacist, is the only one who was open enough to think outside of the (church) box!

Which basically means that the NT Rev. Bauscher created, exists nowhere in the textual history. It is a creation in his own image. It is not authentic. It is how he feels the NT should be reconstructed, no doubt with guidance directly from the Holy Spirit. Which is fine, I guess, if you're ok with that.

Rev. Bauscher picks and chooses his beliefs as he picks and chooses what he considers scriptural, even to the point of reconstructing his own perfect Aramaic New Testament that exists nowhere in history. It is an attempt to squeeze an Aramaic peg through a Greek hole.

I prefer to stick with the evidence, defensible evidence...textual, archaeological and patristic.

+Shamasha
Reply
#38
gbausc Wrote:You have misconstrued my position to be making myself the arbiter of truth, and that is not what I said.

But your actions speak louder than words, Rev. Bauscher. You certainly acted the part of arbiter of truth when you chose to include the Pericope Adulterae in what you advertise as a New Testament translation based on the Peshitta. You also included books not found in the manuscripts, and that looks to me like you're playing Arbiter of Truth there as well.

What you're doing is no different than what Thomas of Harkel, Lamsa, and others who came before you did. You've accomplished no less than the recreation of the Aramaic New Testament in your own image, one suitable for your own theological base. A great and admirable work, no doubt. But one more yet in a collection of ever-growing versions that are made more in the image of their creators than anything else. Surely, you feel that you have sanction for the work by way of the approval of the Holy Spirit. But so did all those other men as well.

We all feel indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We all disagree on the Pericope Adulterae. We can't all be right. But we can be faithful and honest to the tradition behind what we are translating, and dressing up the Pericope Adulterae in DSS script in your version is akin, idiomatically speaking, to putting lipstick on a pig.

You might as well had left it in Greek, it would be more authentic.

+Shamasha
Reply
#39
Quote:Wow! Alan, at least you know what to think and how to judge.

Not judging bro, just letting you know that Bible explicity states that in the end days people will turn from sound doctrine and heaps up teachers for themselves to scratch their itching ears.

Quote:I don't know what your church affiliation is, but you seem threatened by the idea of freedom and by The Spirit of Holiness being our ultimate authority and power. You have misconstrued my position to be making myself the arbiter of truth, and that is not what I said
.

I am from the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. I am free and the Holy Spirit resides within me, how do I know this? Because He corrects, rebukes, encourages and sustains me. He also led me back to our Holy Church, and ensures that I do not interpret Bible passages according to my own thoughts but rather rely on the interpretation of the Holy Church.

Quote:I did not think I would get very far on the forum with this line of reasoning, but if it provokes serious thought and heart searching for one person, it will have been worth it.

What is you line of reasoning bro? Mine is this, Jesus Christ established His church and I am a part of this Church, which constitutes His body and so therefore I am a member of His body. To leave the Church is to seek ones own version of truth that satisfies the questions that arise in ones own mind. We see in the Bible time and time again the laying of the hands that is given to those who will preside over the other members of the Church.

Never do we see in the Bible, anyone arise and form their own version of the Church with its own interpretations of service, worship and sacraments. This occurs when those men opposed Moses and questioned his authority and the earth devoured them, the book of Jude also vehemently opposes such people.

Let me ask you, was Jesus a failure? In accordance with your logic this would make Him so (Khaslee). Because according to protestant logic Christianity was wayward for 1600 years until Luther fixed things, therefore making Christ and His blessed apostles, failures. I would love to hear your reaction to this statement.

Quote:Peace to all who love our Lord in sincerity and Truth,

May God bless you.
Reply
#40
gbausc Wrote:Wow! Alan, at least you know what to think and how to judge.

I don't know what your church affiliation is, but you seem threatened by the idea of freedom and by The Spirit of Holiness being our ultimate authority and power. You have misconstrued my position to be making myself the arbiter of truth, and that is not what I said.

I did not think I would get very far on the forum with this line of reasoning, but if it provokes serious thought and heart searching for one person, it will have been worth it.

Peace to all who love our Lord in sincerity and Truth,

Dave
Dear Dave, i am inclined to agree with your position of spirit guidance (i actually hold a very similar position), however, i must wonder what you do about people that genuinely believe to be guided by the spirit, but end up at different conclusions than you do. For example, i myself believe to be guided by the spirit, and although i belong to an organization, i cannot say i agree with any position it holds 100%. i am rather guided by the Holy Spirit.

As spirit guidance has a high value with us, naturally, there are many occasions on which we could have disagreements. Here it is imparative to realize that "we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1Cor 13:9) and that we still have to "Prove all things" (1Thess 5:21). It is very important to discern between personal convictions, and solid Bible-backed doctrine. i do not believe that God gives different truths to different people, but i do believe that we are never sensitive enough to fully capture all truth, and that the Holy Spirit gives us the truth that is relevant to our situation.

In that manner, i would like to ask you how you assure that you won't get lost on your very own doctrinal island (you seem to be somewhat of a loner, and from what i read i guess you have no spiritual authority) and how you connect (which, after all is Jesus' message) to others that genuinely desire to follow God's word and will. Howcan we resolve our differences in your universe? i am almost certain i hold very different views on matters like the Godhead, or salvation, or eternity, or many others. If you ask me, i will always be willing to open my position to you, but i have a feeling your conviction of being guided by the Spirit may give you a little too much self confidence, and you have a limited ability to listen to others, as has happened with billions of people before. If i am wrong, i sincerely apologize.

About the Pericope Adulterae, i have no opinion, as i have not received guidance of the Holy Spirit (and feel no need to force it, which always ends in having a false opinion), but tend to think it is a true report, but probably not part of the original scriptures, similar to apocrypha (based on the facts available to me).

Please do tell me your thoughts regarding these things.
Reply
#41
Hello,
I think Dave Bauscher got confused on certain things. Pericope de Adultera isn't in Peshitta. But it is in Peshitto. So Dave Bauscher thought it may have been skipped in Peshitta. But he didn't notice that Early Peshitto manuscripts didn't have Pericope de Adultera. Pericope de Adultera was added "separately" to Peshitto in 9th century. Syriac manuscript 14,470 at British Library is a great example.
Reply
#42
Paul Younan Wrote:Dear Distazo,

Which basically means that the NT Rev. Bauscher created, exists nowhere in the textual history. It is a creation in his own image. It is not authentic. It is how he feels the NT should be reconstructed, no doubt with guidance directly from the Holy Spirit. Which is fine, I guess, if you're ok with that.

Rev. Bauscher picks and chooses his beliefs as he picks and chooses what he considers scriptural, even to the point of reconstructing his own perfect Aramaic New Testament that exists nowhere in history. It is an attempt to squeeze an Aramaic peg through a Greek hole.

I prefer to stick with the evidence, defensible evidence...textual, archaeological and patristic.

+Shamasha

I respect that.

It's just a critical translation. In fact, when you base it on Peshitta, the few differences in the Eastern and Western also leave us with the choice, which one is 'authentic'?
(e.g. Hebrews 2;9)
I have no problems with 100% 'stick to the document' translations or with 'critical' ones, where some obvious scribe errors have been corrected.

Besides, I have a Syrian friend who has a modern Syrian Bible, translated from the Peshitta at Tor Abdin, which _also_ has John 8 but the font has been marked so it is made obvious to be an addition.
Reply
#43
Shlama all,

Alan writes: "Let me ask you, was Jesus a failure? In accordance with your logic this would make Him so (Khaslee). Because according to protestant logic Christianity was wayward for 1600 years until Luther fixed things, therefore making Christ and His blessed apostles, failures.I would love to hear your reaction to this statement."

Andre writes: "Please do tell me your thoughts regarding these things."

So here goes, as Alan said, "straight from the pits of hell" <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> <!-- sConfusedneaky: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sneaky1.gif" alt="Confusedneaky:" title="Sneaky" /><!-- sConfusedneaky: -->

I can't believe that I am accused of making the NT after my own image, when I have taken the Online Bible's 1905 critical edition of The Peshitta NT:
1905 Syriac Peshitta New Testament

Published by British and Foreign Bible Society

Public Domain.

Please make copies for your friends.

as prepared for the Online Bible program.

This is identical to The Syriac Bible NT by United Bible Society 1979, which I have in print. The volume contains the entire Peshitta Bible.
The same text is found online practically wherever an online Peshitta NT can be found.
John Marucci's online Beth Sapra Peshitta edition is identical to mine, as far as I can see. It has the pericope de adultera in its place within brackets, without any notes of explanation. This can be found on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m --> (Yes, Peshitta.org - Paul Younan's web site).
The Western 5 books are also included without any note or apology. John thanks Paul Younan & The Peshitta.org forum in the intro. of each NT book for the use of the Peshitta.org web site on which to post this edition of The Peshitta:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m -->

I made no changes to the Peshitta text I received in 2004, which I translated at the end of 2006 and published in Jan. 2007. A year or two later, a few editing errors in the Online Peshitta edition were pointed out which I corrected, but they mere very minor.


In 2006, Janet Magiera published her translation from the same edition I used.
George Kiraz uses this edition (British Foreign Bible Society edition); I see also that the British edition is the same as the UBS edition, and that the pericope de adultera is contained therein without any brackets or notes.

I have also -
Khathava d'Deyatheeqee Khedatha d'Maran Yeshu Meshikha
(The Book of The New Testament of our Lord Jesus The Messiah)
done in New York City (America) in the Christian year 1982.
This is an Eastern Peshitta edition, presumably used by Assyrian Churches, since it is sold on an Assyrian web site. This Assyrian edition has all 27 books of the Western canon, not just the 22 found in most Peshitta mss. There are notes introducing each of the the Western five books to the effect that: "This book is not in the manuscripts called Peshitta, but is written in later ancient mss." The pericope de adultera is also found in this edition, introduced by a similar note, which adds, that it is found "in the Greek and in one later ancient Syriac manuscript that is designated Jerusalem's."The Psalms are included after Revelation.

Let me say a few words about the critical edition of the Peshitta I have translated. It is based on several critical editions: Gwilliam's & Pusey's 1905 collation of 42 Peshitta manuscripts of the Gospels; for Pauline epistles, Gwilliam & Pinkerton's critical edition of 1920 was used, based on 12 Peshitta mss.; Gwilliam also published an edition for Acts & the General Epistles "along the same lines as that of the Gospels edition", though I do not know how many mss. he consulted. For the so called "Western five" Epistles- 2. Peter, 2 John, 3rd John, Jude & Revelation, John Gwynn's critical editions of those books of 1897 (Apocalypse) & 1909 (the other general epistles) were used. They were based on 21 Aramaic manuscripts, including the Crawford Aramaic ms., which contains all 27 books of the NT, and is generally classified as an Eastern Peshitta ms. in its text, except, of course, for the Western five mss. Gwynn also collated 12 Aramaic manuscripts containing the pericope de adultera, one of which is a Peshitta manuscript, dated 1611, and contains the pericope in its place at the end of John 7. This means that a total of more than 87 manuscripts were collated and form the text for the critical edition I have translated, whose readings generally were chosen by a majority consensus. Gwilliam observed however, that even the Eastern and Western Peshitta mss. agreed so closely, that there was scarcely any doubt what the original reading was in any place.

This NT text is hardly one that I made in my own image, but represents the majority consensus of 56 or more Peshitta manuscripts for 22 books, and of 30 other Aramaic mss. and perhaps a couple Peshitta mss. for the Western 5 and the pericope.
It is much safer to rely on dozens of Peshitta mss. than on just one, when ascertaining the exact reading in any one place where there may be a question. Thankfully, all Peshitta mss. are very carefully copied and uniform in their readings in almost place where they are compared.

I hope this will suffice for now. I know I have not addressed all the questions, but I have a movie to watch with my wife.

Be blessed,

Qasheesha Dave
Reply
#44
Rev. Bauscher,

You correctly noticed that in those critical editions, the note is explicitly made that:

Quote:"This book is not in the manuscripts called Peshitta, but is written in later ancient mss."

That is a far different matter from including it as you did, dressing it up in DSS script as if to suggest that the reading was somehow associated with an ancient Aramaic manuscript. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is only found in (much) later (western) Aramaic manuscripts commonly called the Peshitto, after the dialect of the Syrian Church which made the additions. Instead of DSS script, you should have used Serto.

No one ever said you were the first to include this reading. But those previous parties which did at least made mention of the fact that it's a later reading, added in later manuscripts, and not part of the Peshitta. You dressed it up all nice and pretty in DSS script, which is misleading to say the least.

To their credit, at least they responsibly made note that it was a later reading based on the Greek. In contrast, you irresponsibly suggested that it was earlier by dressing it up in an earlier script. That is precisely what I meant by making a version in your own image.

+Shamasha
Reply
#45
gbausc Wrote:Shlama all,

Alan writes: "Let me ask you, was Jesus a failure? In accordance with your logic this would make Him so (Khaslee). Because according to protestant logic Christianity was wayward for 1600 years until Luther fixed things, therefore making Christ and His blessed apostles, failures.I would love to hear your reaction to this statement."

Andre writes: "Please do tell me your thoughts regarding these things."

So here goes, as Alan said, "straight from the pits of hell" <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> <!-- sConfusedneaky: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sneaky1.gif" alt="Confusedneaky:" title="Sneaky" /><!-- sConfusedneaky: -->

I can't believe that I am accused of making the NT after my own image, when I have taken the Online Bible's 1905 critical edition of The Peshitta NT:
1905 Syriac Peshitta New Testament

Published by British and Foreign Bible Society

Public Domain.

Please make copies for your friends.

as prepared for the Online Bible program.

This is identical to The Syriac Bible NT by United Bible Society 1979, which I have in print. The volume contains the entire Peshitta Bible.
The same text is found online practically wherever an online Peshitta NT can be found.
John Marucci's online Beth Sapra Peshitta edition is identical to mine, as far as I can see. It has the pericope de adultera in its place within brackets, without any notes of explanation. This can be found on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m --> (Yes, Peshitta.org - Paul Younan's web site).
The Western 5 books are also included without any note or apology. John thanks Paul Younan & The Peshitta.org forum in the intro. of each NT book for the use of the Peshitta.org web site on which to post this edition of The Peshitta:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/projects.html</a><!-- m -->

I made no changes to the Peshitta text I received in 2004, which I translated at the end of 2006 and published in Jan. 2007. A year or two later, a few editing errors in the Online Peshitta edition were pointed out which I corrected, but they mere very minor.


In 2006, Janet Magiera published her translation from the same edition I used.
George Kiraz uses this edition (British Foreign Bible Society edition); I see also that the British edition is the same as the UBS edition, and that the pericope de adultera is contained therein without any brackets or notes.

I have also -
Khathava d'Deyatheeqee Khedatha d'Maran Yeshu Meshikha
(The Book of The New Testament of our Lord Jesus The Messiah)
done in New York City (America) in the Christian year 1982.
This is an Eastern Peshitta edition, presumably used by Assyrian Churches, since it is sold on an Assyrian web site. This Assyrian edition has all 27 books of the Western canon, not just the 22 found in most Peshitta mss. There are notes introducing each of the the Western five books to the effect that: "This book is not in the manuscripts called Peshitta, but is written in later ancient mss." The pericope de adultera is also found in this edition, introduced by a similar note, which adds, that it is found "in the Greek and in one later ancient Syriac manuscript that is designated Jerusalem's."The Psalms are included after Revelation.

Let me say a few words about the critical edition of the Peshitta I have translated. It is based on several critical editions: Gwilliam's & Pusey's 1905 collation of 42 Peshitta manuscripts of the Gospels; for Pauline epistles, Gwilliam & Pinkerton's critical edition of 1920 was used, based on 12 Peshitta mss.; Gwilliam also published an edition for Acts & the General Epistles "along the same lines as that of the Gospels edition", though I do not know how many mss. he consulted. For the so called "Western five" Epistles- 2. Peter, 2 John, 3rd John, Jude & Revelation, John Gwynn's critical editions of those books of 1897 (Apocalypse) & 1909 (the other general epistles) were used. They were based on 21 Aramaic manuscripts, including the Crawford Aramaic ms., which contains all 27 books of the NT, and is generally classified as an Eastern Peshitta ms. in its text, except, of course, for the Western five mss. Gwynn also collated 12 Aramaic manuscripts containing the pericope de adultera, one of which is a Peshitta manuscript, dated 1611, and contains the pericope in its place at the end of John 7. This means that a total of more than 87 manuscripts were collated and form the text for the critical edition I have translated, whose readings generally were chosen by a majority consensus. Gwilliam observed however, that even the Eastern and Western Peshitta mss. agreed so closely, that there was scarcely any doubt what the original reading was in any place.

This NT text is hardly one that I made in my own image, but represents the majority consensus of 56 or more Peshitta manuscripts for 22 books, and of 30 other Aramaic mss. and perhaps a couple Peshitta mss. for the Western 5 and the pericope.
It is much safer to rely on dozens of Peshitta mss. than on just one, when ascertaining the exact reading in any one place where there may be a question. Thankfully, all Peshitta mss. are very carefully copied and uniform in their readings in almost place where they are compared.

I hope this will suffice for now. I know I have not addressed all the questions, but I have a movie to watch with my wife.

Be blessed,

Qasheesha Dave

Hi Reverand,

I don't believe me and you are on the same page in terms of what we were discussing, I was specifically referring to your post that stated the "Church was not Spirit led" and my charge against you was that you were referring to Apostolic Churches. I posted a rebuttal in response to your post regarding the undeniable fact that Apostolic Churches are the Churches that were established first by Christ and then by His blessed Apostles, thus reaffirming my opinion that many people who believe they are "spirit led" are merely following their own subjective desires.

Why? Because to reject the Apostolic Churches (whom are not perfect, this I concede) is to reject Christ's establishment. The alternative (Protestant Churches) have introduced so many blasphemous interpretations and actions into the Church that it is unfathomable to comprehend why people still attend them. Gay Bishops, Women Priests', removal of the Holy Sacraments, Blaspheming the Qurbana Qadishah, rolling around on the floor and howling like wolves whilst in Church, sitting in Church naked, prosperity doctrines, etc etc. These are only some of the issues that have arisen from the Protestant community, now I ask you, when does a Church cease being a Church?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)