Dave's books on Peshitta primacy

[gbausc]

Greetings to all,

Since January 2006, I have finished and published several books on The Peshitta NT, including The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament, The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, Divine Contact-The Discovery of The Original New Testament, Jegar Sahadutha-Heap of Witness (Evidence for the Aramaic original New Testament), and an Aramaic-English & English Aramaic Dictionary.

The interlinear and the plain English translations each have hundreds of detailed examples showing how the author of the Greek texts mistranslated Aramaic words to produce the certain Greek readings. Many are illustrated in Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic script, Estrangela, & Greek letters, showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the Peshitta and Crawford texts (The Crawford ms. includes the entire NT but is not Harklean, nor even like the Harklean) are the base text from which the Greek text types were all derived.

The examples cover every book of the 27 book Western canon!

Divine Contact documents how I discovered Bible codes in The Peshitta by performing an experiment, searching for ELS's of 95 divine names and titles in Hebrew and Aramaic, most as they occur in Hebrew and Aramaic scripture. I explain the procedure and method in the book, and will not go into the details here.

The Peshitta codes mathematically establish via literally millions of data points that the Peshitta New Testament in the present critical text form was written by God Himself!
I also document in the book other analysis which compares The Peshitta with the Greek NT, to determine which of the two is a translation of the other. There are principles described in a German study, among others, showing that this can be determined. I used the Greek LXX and Hebrew OT as a model experiment by which to compare the NT results, since we know The LXX is a translation of The Hebrew Bible.

The NT results for twenty exhaustive cognate word pair searches in Aramaic & Greek unanimously and unequivocally coincide with the results of The LXX-Hebrew comparisons, showing the Greek texts to be translated from the Semitic original (Aramaic-Hebrew).

The data is not a few examples here and there; it involves a total of at least 15,000 data points (total numbers of words occurring in all texts searched). For the word pairs meeting the criteria necessary to qualify as a significant cognate word pair to be analyzed (the details are in the book), every one of those pairs supports the Peshitta primacy model!

The text analyzed in all the experiments is the critical 1905,1920,1979, etc. Syriac Peshitta edition published by the British & Foreign and American Bible Societies.

These two analyses are just the beginning. I did many more tests, all of which are documented. Most of the computer analyses are non-code related, but determinations of primacy-translation relationship by examining the words of the respective texts and the various ratios that exist for each word pair.

If the codes are too much to accept for some, the other data are much less esoteric and manageable, and yet they support the secondary conclusion of the codes experiment: The Peshitta Aramaic NT is the original text from which the Greek NT books were each translated.

The Interlinear and Plain English translations add even more and a different kind of evidence to "The Heap of Witnesses" discussed in Divine Contact.

Anyone truly interested in the subject of which New Testament is the original will want to read and study the aforementioned books.

The greatest and most powerful evidence for me is The Peshitta text itself. I truly became acquainted with it as I translated it word by word from beginning to end as an interlinear, and then again when doing the English prose translation from the interlinear.

The Peshitta is simply
Too perfect and beautiful,
Too precise and detailed,
Too Divine and Heavenly,
Too Magnificent and Majestic,
Too sharp and piercing,
Too sweet and moving,
Too powerful & alive,
Too full and surprising,
Too miraculous and real,
Too pure and ingenuous,
Too deep, too high,
Too timeless and True,
Too probing and beyond human comprehension,
Too uplifting and inspiring,
Too intelligent and wise,
Too glorious and indescribable
-to be anything but the very original words
uttered by The mouth of The Living God Himself
or written by His very hand..


All my books are available at my web site:
aramaicnt.com

Nebrak kolkown Alaha
(May God bless you all)

Rev. Dave Bauscher

[ograabe]

December 11, 2007

Dear Dave,

As much as I appreciate your excellent translation skills and have been happy that I purchased your translations, I am concerned that the 27 books and the variants in the Western Text do not exactly agree with the 22 books of the Eastern text for which there is a chain of exactness seeming to identify it as the first century original New Testament. Both cannot be "perfect". Surely we know that the woman caught in adultery was a late addition (presumabley by some scribe, not God) in both the Greek and the Western Aramaic documents.

I learned from this web site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->) that the 22 books of the Peshitta are reliable and the Western text is not.

Wasn't it just an unplanned occurrence that you happened to get the Western text with the Bible Code program that you purchased?

I believe that this issue is still in need of resolution.

Thanks,

Otto

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhi Otto,

You may apply the "perfection" of the Peshitta to the version you prefer, while I apply it to the one I prefer, and we shall not be far apart,except for the Western 5 books and the passage in John 7:53-8:11.

Or do you have doubts about your position? All the types of evidence supporting the Eastern text as the original behind the Greek are also found in the Western five books, and I have listed them in my interlinear and in Divine Contact.You may choose to ignore the evidence if it makes you feel better; I choose not to ignore it.
Do you believe 2 peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation are also late additions by some scribe, or do you believe they are scripture authored by God?

If you believe they are scripture, do you believe the originals were lost and that the apostles Peter, John and Jude wrote them? If so, did they write some books in Aramaic and others in Greek?

I am firm in my position, Otto. I have seen enough to be convinced.

There is a lot of misinformation about the Aramaic editions of the Western five. Many assume that all the editions use the Harklean translation from Greek for those books. That is simply false, as anyone who has compared the Harklean to Gwynn's edition of those books would see. I would never defend the Harklean version as original.

I hope this explains my position a bit more clearly.


Dave

[ograabe]

December 14, 2007

Dear Dave,

What is your position with respect to this statement: "Surely we know that the woman caught in adultery was a late addition (presumably by some scribe, not God) in both the Greek and the Western Aramaic documents."?

Otto

[gbausc]

Shlama Otto,

First things first. You answer my earlier questions to you and I'll answer that one.

Dave

[ograabe]

December 17, 2007

Hi Dave,

With regard to your 2 questions,

"Do you believe 2 peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation are also late additions by some scribe, or do you believe they are scripture authored by God?"

"If you believe they are scripture, do you believe the originals were lost and that the apostles Peter, John and Jude wrote them? If so, did they write some books in Aramaic and others in Greek?"

I do not have any position on these issues. I am open to information about them.

BUT AREN"T YOU THE ONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE THE ONE TRUE AND PERFECT ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD?

So, I presume you are willing to defend or at least answer questions about that position.

So, was the woman caught in adultery written by the hand of God?

Sincerely,

Otto

[gbausc]

Shlama Otto,

You know my position Otto, so why do you ask? Don't you really mean to ask why I believe as I do, or what evidence do I have ?

I am not the only "ONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE THE ONE TRUE AND PERFECT ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD" , as you seem to intimate.
Paul Younan, Andrew Roth, and others believe they have "THE ONE TRUE AND PERFECT ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD." At least you admit you are undecided as to which canon and Peshitta is the original inspired New Testament. I congratulate you for that honesty and openness, and for your pursuit of the truth.

In the mean time, I think we can agree that the 22 books of the Eastern text are original and inspired in all their content and practically error free, except (in my view) the significant variants in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, each of which involves a one or two word difference in Aramaic! Actually, Hebrews 2:16 is also significantly different in the two Peshittas also. I have written extensive notes on the Hebrews verses at issue in my interlinear, which you have. You may want to have a look at them and comment on them.

I also have notes on the "Western five" books in the interlinear showing that the Greek versions of those books were translated from the Gwynn-Crawford edition Aramaic text of those books.
Have a look at 2 Peter's notes. There are four illustrated examples in 2 Peter alone, showing how the Greek came from the Aramaic. I have added one to Jude in a recent edition and there are 11 such illustrations in Revelation, with many other non-illustrated examples. I have also shown similar examples in John 8:5 & 6 (pericope adultera).

If John 7:53-8:11 were added by a scribe other than John, he certainly added it in Aramaic, most probably wrote in either the square Ashuri Aramaic or (even more likely) in Dead Sea Scroll (also called Herodian) Aramaic. That means it was written most probably in in the first century, as those scripts in Aramaic would not have been used much later than that.

Since most Greek mss. have the pericope in John's Gospel, they represent an Aramaic original with the pericope in John's Gospel where we find it today (called chapter 7:53-8:11) in the narrative of the Gospel. If John wrote 7:52 & 8:12, how likely is it that a scribe snuck twelve verses in before John continued writing at 8:12 ? And how likely is it John would not have noticed that someone had just added 12 verse to his Gospel in different handwriting?

There are other reasons for accepting those books and those verses as original. I will reserve them for another time.

The Eastern text is authoritative in what it contains. It is not authoritative in what it does not contain, especially when other 5th century Aramaic mss. contain material not found in the Eastern text, mirrored by hundreds of Greek mss., ancient versions and church fathers going back to AD 222. One witness containing a reading is worth more in that particular than many which do not contain that reading. That is only logical.

Occam's Razor applies here quite nicely. Either a scribe invented and added the story and managed to foist it on the Western churches as inspired and as John's work, or someone inadvertently left it out when copying a manuscript. Which is the simplest explanation?

Blessings to you,

Dave

[ograabe]

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Merry Christmas!

[gbausc]

Merry Christmas to you, my friend!

Dave

[*Albion*]

Dave said;

"Occam's Razor applies here quite nicely. Either a scribe invented and added the story and managed to foist it on the Western churches as inspired and as John's work, or someone inadvertently left it out when copying a manuscript. Which is the simplest explanation?"


OR.................The other 5 Books were produced *much later* than the Eastern P'shitta N.T. text that The Assyrian Church of the East had been given by the hands of the Apostles themselves.

You left this possiblity *OUT*.

Shlama, Albion

[gbausc]

Shlama Albion (Is that really your name?),

Were were discussing the "Pericope de Adultera" in John's Gospel, not the Western 5 in those last posts.

Dave

[*Albion*]

Whoops........I was assuming (always a dangerous thing!) that this conversation was about the whole of the 'Canon' of the P'shitta N.T.

Sorry. Going back and re-reading the thread, I can see now that this is not true.

Yes, 'Albion' is my real given name.

It's an ancient name for Britian, as you might possibly know. Maybe as old as 3000-4000 years, in fact.

On ancient maps, Britian was once called "Albion".

It ('Albion') was my Dad's name too. Add that, to my last name 'Guppy' (like the fish), and it's a hand full of a name.

'Guppy' as a surname, came from Western/Central England (Dorsetshire and Somerset) where my Dad immigrated from, and his parents and grandparents were from.

Western England is to this day, a very "Celtic" place, add this to the Scottish blood in my veins (from the 'Scobey's, a sept of the Highland Clan, 'McKay'), and you have A LOT of Celtic blood there.

The Celt's lived pretty much in "tribes", and Clans, as Paul (Younan) mentioned about the Assyrian people's.

Anyway, there's your question answered.

Shlama, Albion Guppy

P.S. I insist on using my real name here as I've been literally stalked all over the internet by a hacker (the one who took down Peshitta.org), and he expects me to run and hide from him.

I'm NOT running, and I'm NOT hiding!

Shlama Albion (Is that really your name?),

Were were discussing the "Pericope de Adultera" in John's Gospel, not the Western 5 in those last posts.

Dave

[abudar2000]

shlom lkhoon ahay,

I don't mean to interrupt this discussion, but John 7:53-8:11 in the Western Syriac Peshitto Text isn't considered part of the original Text, and is usually marked as such in the Text.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun

[gbausc]

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

John Gwynn has found 8 Aramaic mss., 3 of which are Peshitto, with the passage. 2 have the passage at the beginning of the John 8 section, where most Greek mss. have it. Others have it attached to the end of John.
The 1905, 1920, ...1979, 1987, etc. critical editions of The Peshitta NT have this passage. This one does not use The Harklean Version at all and is the first and only popular edition of The Peshitta based on over 70 mss. for its NT text.

Burkta,

Dave

[yaaqub]

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

John Gwynn has found 8 Aramaic mss., 3 of which are Peshitto, with the passage. 2 have the passage at the beginning of the John 8 section, where most Greek mss. have it. Others have it attached to the end of John.
The 1905, 1920, ...1979, 1987, etc. critical editions of The Peshitta NT have this passage. This one does not use The Harklean Version at all and is the first and only popular edition of The Peshitta based on over 70 mss. for its NT text.

Burkta,

Dave

Shlama Dave,

These 1905, 1920, 1979, 1987 .... are all of these the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta?

Ya'aqub