12-07-2013, 08:59 AM
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:
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:
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. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
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...
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. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
<!-- 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
.
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. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> 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. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --><!-- 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
.