Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ebyathar was kohen hagadol Mark 2 :26
#1
Hallow to all at Peshitta.org

Mark 2:26 says he was kohen hagadol but was he? 1 Sam 21: 1 et sec. Ahimelek the kohen. then 22:20 And one of the sons of Ahimelek son of Ahitub, named Ebyathar, escaped and fled after David. Of course with all Yaweh's priests eliminated there may not have been a functioning Yom Kipor but Our Adon says Ebyathar was the High Priest; which he became later?

Comments please.



Aldred
Reply
#2
It's merely referring to him by the title he would later take. It's like saying, "In the days of President George Washington were the French and Indian Wars." George Washington was not yet president, but the statement is still not historically inaccurate. Read this quote from the writings of the Apostle Paul:

"And think ye so in yourselves, as Jesus the Messiah also thought; who, as he was in the likeness of God, deemed it no trespass to be the coequal of God; yet divested himself, and assumed the likeness of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man; and he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore, also, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is more excellent than all names; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [beings] in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus the Messiah is the Lord, to the glory of God his Father."- Philippians 2:5-11, Murdock's Translation of the Peshitta

Notice that Paul refers to Jesus as the Messiah before His incarnation. "Messiah" means "the Anointed", but before His incarnation, Jesus existed as the Miltha, the very manifestation and Word of Yahweh Himself. Prior to the incarnation, Jesus is only deity, so He cannot be anointed. Does this mean that Paul's statement is incorrect? No, this is the Person who became Christ Jesus when He became flesh. Abiathar can be referred to as the high priest even when referring to a time before he took office.
Reply
#3
Thanks for your reply.

The word "soul".

Mark 8 : 34 to 37 in my copy of the Halleluyah Sriptures verse35 reads:-

"For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it" later continues "For what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of his chai."

In the Greek Received Text the word is the same in each case and is translated "life" in JND.

So I am wondering if the translators of the HS scriptures are looking at a Herew/Aramaic original or a Greek version with this variant.

Aldred
Reply
#4
I think the translators of the HalleluYah Scriptures do believe in a Semitic original behind the New Testament. The Peshitta says naphshah in these verses, which can be translated as "life", "soul", "self", or "breath of life" (using Dukhrana).
Reply
#5
I am so glad to have a reply.
Mark 8
35. For whoever desires to save his soul (the soul, tehn phuxen autou) he shall lose it, But whoever shall lose his soul (the soul, tehn phuxen autou) for My sake and the gospel, that one shall save it.
36. For shat shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and yet damage his soul? (the soul, tehn phuxen autou).
37. Or what shall a man give as an exchange for his soul (thes phuxes autou).

Pardon my Greek taken from Pocket Interlinear New Testament! The fourth is phuxes which is a change of one letter.

The fourth reference to soul in the HS is rendered his chai,reflecting a change from phuxen to phuxes perhaps? The reason I ask is to see if the HS translators are just making their own freehand rendering.

The reason why words like 'soul' in the HS are rendered chai is to make scriptural words more qodesh or holy. But the word chai with a dot under the "h" is said to be of pagan origin, so what if any is the significance I am left wondering?
Reply
#6
PS
Gensis 44:30 "seeing his life is bound up in the lad's life;" this touching scripture is an example is it not of the use of the word "life". naphesho ceh'shura beh'naphesho; Being one of the more familiar Hebrew words Naphesh which is similar to the Aramaic Hebrew.

Perhaps we might have to agree that the HS scriptures leaves us in doubt as to the use of "chai".
Reply
#7
How is the HalleluYah Scriptures translation? I've read about it.
Reply
#8
Further to your reply:-

From an administrative point of view the HS are being produced and delivered free to people that cannot afford to buy a copy of the scriptures. This all sounds commendable.

Personally I was brought up on JND's translation which was in a way no different to the KJV. It was intended to be more up to date, and more accurate. It used Jehovah for the sacred name in the OT, but in the new testament the name was only referred to in notes and the translation being from the Greek the divine name was changed to Lord. My object in ordering the AENT, which I am hoping will arrive in the near future, was to see the method, if any, used in reverting to the use of the divine name in the new testament. For example Paul preaches to the Jews in Dammaseq that ha Mashiach is the Ben of YHWH. This sounds right to me, now, but if the rendering in the HS had been that ha Mashiach was the Ben of Elohim, to agree the Greek, I would have said that this is how I had always understood the truth. I would expect to find that the AENT will have that Paul preached that ha Mashiach is the Ben of YHWH, not the Ben of Elohim.

I await the parcel

Aldred
Reply
#9
Aldred Emmans Wrote:Further to your reply:-

From an administrative point of view the HS are being produced and delivered free to people that cannot afford to buy a copy of the scriptures. This all sounds commendable.

Personally I was brought up on JND's translation which was in a way no different to the KJV. It was intended to be more up to date, and more accurate. It used Jehovah for the sacred name in the OT, but in the new testament the name was only referred to in notes and the translation being from the Greek the divine name was changed to Lord. My object in ordering the AENT, which I am hoping will arrive in the near future, was to see the method, if any, used in reverting to the use of the divine name in the new testament. For example Paul preaches to the Jews in Dammaseq that ha Mashiach is the Ben of YHWH. This sounds right to me, now, but if the rendering in the HS had been that ha Mashiach was the Ben of Elohim, to agree the Greek, I would have said that this is how I had always understood the truth. I would expect to find that the AENT will have that Paul preached that ha Mashiach is the Ben of YHWH, not the Ben of Elohim.

I await the parcel

Aldred

Shlama Akhi Eldred:
Would you be so kind as to list the "book-chapter-verse" of each quote with the scripture, so that all can follow this thread unambiguously?

The short answer is that we are looking at types of "equivalence of expression/gezera shawa".

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#10
The Halleluyah Scriptures is a restored name bible so Acts 9:17 Hananyah is the believer who lays his hands on Shaul saying "Brother Sha'ul the Adon Yahushua, who appeared to you on the way as you came, has sent me, so that you might see again and be filled with the Ruach ha'Qodesh." We have "Some days later" verse 19, then verse 20 - And immediately he proclaimed ha'Mashiah in the congregations that he is the Ben of Yahwah. (I note In this verse the HS uses "congregtions" instead of Synagogues, but is this quoting the Aramaic?) My point was that I am happy with the expression the "Ben of Yahwah" but this would not be supported by the Greek which looks something like "o uios tou theou" which is as I have always learned the truth, that Jesus is the Son of God. I can see that the expression "The Son of Yawah" follows on from the OT. I still await my AENT bible to make these ccomparisons. see Invoice Number 1399061276-225.
Aldred
Reply
#11
The Peshitta says "synagogues" (canushte). "Assembly" or "church" in Aramaic (like in Acts 20:28) is adtah. The Aramaic also says that Jesus is Breh d'Alaha (the Son of God). Aramaic for "Son of YHWH" is Breh d'MarYa. The Aramaic term for "YHWH" is a compound of Mar ("Lord") and the short form of YHWH: "Ya". Aramaic drops the final Heh, or "H"; compare Eliyahu/Eliyah (short form of Eliyahu) and Eliya (Elijah) Both mean "My God is Yah". Jesus is also referred to as MarYa (Lord Yah or Lord YHWH). The AENT translates MarYa as "Master YHWH".

The AENT is fantastic. Frequently compare it to the Peshitta.org Interlinear by Paul Younan (seen on this site) and James Murdock's, which you can study on http://www.dukhrana.com, (which also allows you to compare it, along with the Lamsa and Etheridge translations against the 1905 UBS Critical Peshitta and the famous Khabouris Codex, an important manuscript of the Peshitta) or http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com. Andrew Gabriel Roth based the AENT on Paul Younan's interlinear from Matthew 1-Acts 15 and James Murdock's transliteration for the remainder. Roth edited transliterations, corrected mistranslations, and also updated readings. Compare these two scriptures:

Acts 2:38, Murdock New Testament- "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath established you bishops; that ye feed the church of God, which he hath acquired by his blood."

Acts 2:38, Aramaic English New Testament- "Take great care of yourselves, and of all the flock over which the Ruach haKodesh has established you as overseers for; that you feed the assembly of Mashiyach, which He has acquired by His blood."

Hebrews 2:9, Murdock New Testament- "But we see him, who was depressed somewhat lower than the angels, to be this Jesus, because of the passion of his death; and glory and honor are placed on his head; for God himself, in his grace, tasted death for all men."

Hebrews 2:9, Aramaic English New Testament- "We see that he is Y'shua, who humbled himself to become a little lower than the Messengers through his suffering and death, but now he is crowned with honor and glory because he tasted death for the sake of everyone apart from Elohim."

When the Church of the East divided, they divided primarily into the Church of the East (also called Nestorians) and the Syriac Orthodox Church (called Jacobites). They also developed different dialects and scripts; one is called Eastern Syriac and the other is called Western Syriac. The Church of the East preserved the Peshitta in it's original form, while the Syriac Orthodox Church edited the Peshitta in some places (primarily Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28) for theological reasons. The Church of the East's New Testament is usually called the Peshitta (or Eastern Peshitta) by us, while the Syriac Orthodox Church's New Testament is called the Peshitto (or Western Peshitta).

The Peshitta also has only 22 of the 27 New Testament books (missing II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and the Revelation), while the Peshitto has all 27. The Assyrian Christians were unaware of the existence of these books until the 1800s. The Aramaic versions we have of the five missing books (called "The Western Five") are translations from Greek manuscripts, but there is no reason to question that they originated in the Aramaic language. The four missing epistles are so small that it is hard to build a case either way, but there is a great case for an Aramaic original to our presently existing Greek versions of the Book of the Revelation. The Church of the East does not reject the Western Five and encourages the people to read them, but did not receive them, like the 22 other books, from the hands of the Apostles. The Western Five are not used liturgically by the Church of the East.

The terms "Nestorians" and "Jacobite" describe the theological positions of the particular churches. The Church of the East follows the teachings of Nestorius that Jesus has two natures (divine and human), but they are separate within Him. The Syriac Orthodox Church follows Jacob Baradaeus, who was a monophysite, meaning that He believed that Jesus only has a divine nature and not both a divine and human nature. Nestorius and the Church of the East did/do not teach that Jesus is two Persons (one divine, one human) but do teach a separation between the deity and humanity of the Messiah, referring to these aspects of His being as qnomeh (this concept does not exist in any other language but Aramaic, and can best be described as the core substance or essence of a being).

You can read my review of the AENT here if you're interested: http://theoscholar.blogspot.com/2013/06/...-aent.html

I highly recommend getting Janet Magiera's Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Translation (also comes in a "Messianic Version" that uses Aramaic terminology), along with her 3-volume Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Vertical Interlinear, the Way International's 3-volume Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament, along with David Bauscher's The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English and The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament. I personally like the Lamsa Bible, but it is flawed. Lamsa occasionally translates his theology into the Peshitta (mainly in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, usually pertaining to demonic possession) and follows the Greek in some places where it deviates from the Peshitta. You can get all of these on Amazon except the Way's interlinear, which you have to order by calling 419-753-2903.
Reply
#12
Dear ScorpioSniper2
I have pasted the following on your web site:-
Quoting the AENT note 10 on 1 Thess 4:17 reads The Rapture Theory was invented by Jesuits in the late 1500's etc.
My understanding as a JND bible brought up believer is that the Aramaic "Net chatef" to quote the AENT again is a fact of future history yet to be revealed.

JND and others thought that this doctrine which became known as the rapture, following the Latin rapturo, should be the present hope of believers. The Lord?s return thus accordingly should be a present hope.
Of course the history of who held this doctrine has nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the doctrine.
Does this not all relate to how we are to regard ourselves. Are we now Goyim grafted in or just Goyim!

to continue:-

We would have quoted Revelation 3:10 to show that the believers in this church would not go through the great tribulation and 1 Thess 4:14 to give the end times bearing of the rapture, which we identified as the church rapture. For if we believe that Y'shua died and rose again, even so them who sleep, will Elohim, by Y'shua, bring with him. So we thought that the church was to be in a special place as the bride of Christ. The net catep applied to the church. We thus thought that Rev 7 was a Jewish scene separate from the church.
I see that the whole point in the AENT notes is to unite Jew and Gentile believers. So that from that point of view my "jury will be out" for some time!
If I note a printing error - page 836 (Psalm 38:12). middle of the page should read (Psalm 39:12) you might like to have my services as an editor! Another error page 935 - "Although the rapture theory has gained wide recognition and acceptance in the Christian world, the word "rapture" like the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture". But the word netchatep is in the Aramaic, which means 1 Thess 4:17 "and then we who survive and are alive will be caught up (note 10) together with them in the clouds"uses caught up instead. So it not a theory or invention it is scripture.

Brother Aldred
Reply
#13
Dear ScorpioSniper2
I have pasted the following on your web site:-
Quoting the AENT note 10 on 1 Thess 4:17 reads The Rapture Theory was invented by Jesuits in the late 1500's etc.
My understanding as a JND bible brought up believer is that the Aramaic "Net chatef" to quote the AENT again is a fact of future history yet to be revealed.

JND and others thought that this doctrine which became known as the rapture, following the Latin rapturo, should be the present hope of believers. The Lord?s return thus accordingly should be a present hope.
Of course the history of who held this doctrine has nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the doctrine.
Does this not all relate to how we are to regard ourselves. Are we now Goyim grafted in or just Goyim!

to continue:-

We would have quoted Revelation 3:10 to show that the believers in this church would not go through the great tribulation and 1 Thess 4:14 to give the end times bearing of the rapture, which we identified as the church rapture. For if we believe that Y'shua died and rose again, even so them who sleep, will Elohim, by Y'shua, bring with him. So we thought that the church was to be in a special place as the bride of Christ. The net catep applied to the church. We thus thought that Rev 7 was a Jewish scene separate from the church.
I see that the whole point in the AENT notes is to unite Jew and Gentile believers. So that from that point of view my "jury will be out" for some time!
If I note a printing error - page 836 (Psalm 38:12). middle of the page should read (Psalm 39:12) you might like to have my services as an editor! Another error page 935 - "Although the rapture theory has gained wide recognition and acceptance in the Christian world, the word "rapture" like the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture". But the word netchatep is in the Aramaic, which means 1 Thess 4:17 "and then we who survive and are alive will be caught up (note 10) together with them in the clouds"uses caught up instead. So it not a theory or invention it is scripture.

Brother Aldred
Reply
#14
Dear ScorpioSniper2
I have pasted the following on your web site:-
Quoting the AENT note 10 on 1 Thess 4:17 reads The Rapture Theory was invented by Jesuits in the late 1500's etc.
My understanding as a JND bible brought up believer is that the Aramaic "Net chatef" to quote the AENT again is a fact of future history yet to be revealed.

JND and others thought that this doctrine which became known as the rapture, following the Latin rapturo, should be the present hope of believers. The Lord?s return thus accordingly should be a present hope.
Of course the history of who held this doctrine has nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of the doctrine.
Does this not all relate to how we are to regard ourselves. Are we now Goyim grafted in or just Goyim!

to continue:-

We would have quoted Revelation 3:10 to show that the believers in this church would not go through the great tribulation and 1 Thess 4:14 to give the end times bearing of the rapture, which we identified as the church rapture. For if we believe that Y'shua died and rose again, even so them who sleep, will Elohim, by Y'shua, bring with him. So we thought that the church was to be in a special place as the bride of Christ. The net catep applied to the church. We thus thought that Rev 7 was a Jewish scene separate from the church.
I see that the whole point in the AENT notes is to unite Jew and Gentile believers. So that from that point of view my "jury will be out" for some time!
If I note a printing error - page 836 (Psalm 38:12). middle of the page should read (Psalm 39:12) you might like to have my services as an editor! Another error page 935 - "Although the rapture theory has gained wide recognition and acceptance in the Christian world, the word "rapture" like the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture". But the word netchatep is in the Aramaic, which means 1 Thess 4:17 "and then we who survive and are alive will be caught up (note 10) together with them in the clouds"uses caught up instead. So it not a theory or invention it is scripture.

Brother Aldred
Reply
#15
Thanks! I'll respond as soon as possible. I don't wanna get too into theology here.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)