Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Version Analysis/Summary
#1
I am very new to the Aramaic Primacy movement, but from the considerable research I have done in the last week, I am becoming increasingly convinced. I must admit though, I have found myself a bit overwhelmed and even discouraged when trying to find a good Aramaic English translation. I am confident this question has been asked on here before, but I cannot seem to find it. Can someone either summarize the various versions, their attributes, both positive and negative, or point me to an existing summary? It seems that Younan's translation is spoken highly of, which is part of what brought me to this forum, but I am hoping to get a printed, bound version, which I believe will be more useful to me in my studies.
Reply
#2
Stick to the TEXT to be most certain of what is actually said...Translations can mislead you. Always check them with what God has written in Hebrew & Aramaic.

This site is your best friend: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m -->

Use it for studying the TEXT. There are Two Texts there to study...The Eastern Peshitta & the Western Peshitto version.
The Khabouris is a single Text that is a representation of The Eastern Peshitta Text, and contains the 22 books which The Apostles gave to the Church of the East from 78 A.D.

The BFBS/UBS Text is an edited text, which is said to cull its readings from about 70/80 Manuscripts, some Eastern & some Western...but the text retains all the Western (Greek) influenced readings, from the Western Aramaic speaking groups, who were doctrinally aligned with the Greeks and Latins, in their Christology, so you will see some variants and variations in its text from that which is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text, as represented by the Khabouris Manuscript, though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.

Basically, if you believe Christ has only one nature (Divine) and not a human nature, then the Western Peshitto will agree with your doctrine more, than the Eastern Peshitta, which more clearly shows, that Christ indeed is both of the nature of God & man, Son of God, Son of man...being 100% Man (Human) from Mary, His Mother, and 100% God (Divine) from Alaha (God), His Father. The Scriptures are clear that He is of both, but the Western Peshitto Texts tends, (in places) to teach the "monophysite" Christology, which is not Orthodox or Scriptual teaching.

There are a number of English Translations to consider: These below are some that I personally have looked at and or have studied and are the most available online or in hard copy for some money in various formats.

John Wesley Etheridge: (Eastern Peshitta/Western Peshitto) in its translation and is from the 1800s, and is a hard read at times, but generally pretty literal in its renderings.

You can check it out here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Etheridge/etheridge.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... eridge.htm</a><!-- m -->

James Murdoch: (Eastern Peshitta/Western Peshitto) in its translation and is also from the 1800s, and has some out of date English, and tends to follow a KJV style, rather than being a straight translation.

You can check it out here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... urdock.htm</a><!-- m -->

George Lamsa: (Eastern Peshitta/Western Peshitto) in its translation from the 1930s?and has some of George?s own ideas in it, and tends to follow the style of the KJV and as far as I am concerned is not a reliable study translation. You can look at his translation here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lamsabible.com/">http://www.lamsabible.com/</a><!-- m -->

Paul Younan: (Eastern Peshitta) this is the Peshitta.org creator, who?s Eastern Peshitta Interlinear can be studied to the left?Again?an interlinear is the best way to go, when studying the text of the Aramaic Peshitta?or the later Peshitto version. I hope and pray that one day Paul can finish what he started so we can have the complete Eastern Peshitta, in a true interlinear form, without the coloring that often get applied to ones translations.

Janet Magiera: (Eastern Peshitta/Western Peshitto) in its translation from about 2005?and is a translation from the BFBS/UBS Text and the Text of the Khabouris Manuscript?.I have just got a copy of the latest edition of her work and am going through it, so far, her notes seem to be less doctrinal, and more textual, which is good.

She retains less of the Western readings, as found in the BFBS/UBS Text, than some of the others who base their text upon it. I like it so far, and she has some very good resources available to study the Text including a great Vertical Interlinear. I plan on investigating what she has done more so in the future. Her site is here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://lightofword.org/">http://lightofword.org/</a><!-- m -->

Glenn David Bauscher: (Western Peshitto) in its translation from about 2005/7 and is a direct translation of the 1905 BFBS/UBS Text, which he believes is the word for word perfect copy of the Original Autograph of the New Testament Text. He believes this, it seems, based partly on his Bible codes research, which after he put the BFBS/UBS Text through the code finder program, he said it yielded some interesting ELS?. It would be interesting if he could put the Mingana Manuscript into the code finder program and see what comes out.

I have a few editions of his translations, and have challenged some of its readings here. I have found that Dave, is prone to color his translations to help support his doctrinal beliefs?and some of his notes in his translation editions are more doctrinal than textual, which I do not agree should be the place to do that. It is an exclusive Western Peshitto Translation.

I prefer his Interlinear with word for word translation, where it follows more closely the Text of the 1905 BFBS/UBS.
If you want to study the Western Peshitto Text, his Interlinear, is the best place, other than <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m --> to do that.

His interlinear and Translation can also be looked at here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pes.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm">http://pes.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm</a><!-- m --> and his website is here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com/">http://aramaicnt.com/</a><!-- m -->

He also gives a few of his thoughts about various Peshitta/Peshitto translations here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com/files/Reasons%20for%20Translation.pdf">http://aramaicnt.com/files/Reasons%20fo ... lation.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Andrew Gabriel Roth: (Eastern Peshitta) I have the 1st edition?which his translation is more of a revision of the Paul Younan translation work from Matthew 1:1 to Acts 15, and James Murdoch?s translation work from Acts 16, to Revelation?where he uses them, along with some translations of his own and compares them with the Eastern Peshitta Text of the Khabouris Manuscript. He places a ton of notes and supplemental material in his translation/revision editions, and I wish he would come out with a straight Text version with only textual notes, rather than all his teaching notes, which are from his particular doctrinal beliefs. Andrew has some rather radical Ideals/Beliefs, as does Glenn David Bauscher, both of which I do not entirely agree with and wish they would keep it for their books, and leave God?s Book to teach what it teaches. His site is here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org/">http://www.aent.org/</a><!-- m -->

There is another Brother, who is working on a literal translation of the Khabouris Manuscript, but I won?t divulge what he has translated yet, until I have talked with him about it. I have been going through it, and like what I see so far, in both his notes and the translation itself.

There are others out there too, which I have not taken the time to look over their work in full, and to test it all, though some of the readings I have seen show some strange readings, which I don?t believe is good at all.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#3
Chuck, this is exactly the type of reply for which I was hoping. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this.
Reply
#4
I also wanted to say "Thanks" to Chuck for that great post. I have Roth's version (3rd. Ed.) and must say that I am rather disappointed with it. I was hoping for more "textual" and "linguistic" commentary and not his ranting and raving against Christianity.
Reply
#5
Thanks Brother's...I could say some more about each translation, and about what some are teaching in their translations...but I wanted to keep it short and allow you to judge for yourselves. I am not personally against any of these translators, as to their personal Character. And do not say that they are trying to decieve anyone knowingly, as they seem to me to be honest in their beliefs, though incorrect, and just trying to propagate them as best they can. But I say, that God's Word is not the place to do this. But some men do it...

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#6
Peace to all of you,

My brother Chuck gives the impression that my translation is filled with my personal doctrinal beliefs, in both the notes and the translation itself. By far most of my notes are textual in nature, and there are hundreds of them, located under the pertinent verses. I doubt that more than 10% of my notes touch on my personal beliefs, as the purpose of the notes is to demonstrate that the Greek text is not the original, but a translation of the Aramaic text, which I think I have well documented in each of the 27 books of the NT. If one wants the translation without notes, I have made that available.
As far as the Western Peshitta versus the Eastern Peshitta is concerned, Chuck exaggerates the differences between them by saying :
Quote:the text retains all the Western (Greek) influenced readings, from the Western Aramaic speaking groups, who were doctrinally aligned with the Greeks and Latins, in their Christology

Come on, Chuck. That is simply an outrageously biased remark which is very misleading. Where the two Peshittas are compared, line for line, there is about a 0.3% significant difference! You are blowing the differences way out of proportion.
I can think of two verses which may represent doctrinal differences in Christology: Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Besides these two verses, each of which essentially differs in the Western versus Eastern versions by one word, where are all the doctrinal differences in Christology? And you yourself said that you could accept either reading in Acts 20:28, since you believe The Messiah is God, who died for us. That leaves one word variation in one verse-Hebrews 2:9.
Talk about nit picking.

I just don't get your tirade against the 1905 Peshitta edition. One or two words out of 100,000? Is that it? I feel a song coming on:
"Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that's all there there is, my friend, then let's keep dancing....,
let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

0.002% possible doctrinal variation. Why doesn't someone just burn all Western Peshitta mss.? That would fix the Monophysite problem, except for all the electronic copies and printed copies of the 1905,1920,1979, etc. editions, and practically all the Greek mss. and practically all the ancient versions that support the Western readings in those two verses, and all the translations of the NT in every language produced in the past two thousand years.

That should be an easy problem to solve, shouldn't it?

Seriously, we should be celebrating the Peshitta/Peshitto as the most coherent and reliable witnesses from two divergent Christian groups that could not tolerate each other for the past 1550 years, and yet are reading essentially independent New Testaments whose common text is essentially identical, word for word.

The Assyrian Christians are reading the essentially same Bible the Monophysites are reading, but for two words. The Monophysites are reading the same Bible the Assyrian Church is reading, but for two words. Do those two words damn one or the other Peshitta? Can those two words damn one church or another?
Even the Eastern church has the Western five books in their Eastern NT (1886 edition & 1986 edition) , with notes to the effect that the Peshitta mss. do not contain those books, but other ancient mss. do have them.

I rejoice in the Eastern Peshitta and in the Eastern Assyrian Church and Christians and give God thanks for them. I also rejoice in the Western Peshitta and in the Western Church and the Syrian Orthodox Christians, the Maronites and Chaldean Catholics, and give God thanks for them.

Rejoice!

Dave
Reply
#7
gbausc Wrote:Even the Eastern church has the Western five books in their Eastern NT (1886 edition & 1986 edition) , with notes to the effect that the Peshitta mss. do not contain those books, but other ancient mss. do have them.

Shlama Akhi Dave,

One small correction here. If by the "Eastern Church", you mean the Church of the East, then the statement above is incorrect and should be clarified. The printed editions from 1886 and 1986 were, in fact, produced by the Syriac Catholic Church along with the Chaldean Catholic Church, both of whom regard these books as fully canonical.

This work is popularly known as the "Mosul Edition", as the Patriarchate of the Chaldean Church resided in Mosul, Iraq at the time. This edition was published 1888-1892 by Clement Joseph David (Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Damascus) and by Mar Georges Ebed-Iesu Khayyath (Chaldean Patriarch in Mosul) for the Dominican (Roman Catholic) mission.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audishu_V_Khayyath">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audishu_V_Khayyath</a><!-- m -->

I know of no printed edition of the Peshitta, by the Church of the East, which has the five "Western" books.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
:

Dave says:
Quote:My brother Chuck gives the impression that my translation is filled with my personal doctrinal beliefs, in both the notes and the translation itself. By far most of my notes are textual in nature, and there are hundreds of them, located under the pertinent verses. I doubt that more than 10% of my notes touch on my personal beliefs, as the purpose of the notes is to demonstrate that the Greek text is not the original, but a translation of the Aramaic text, which I think I have well documented in each of the 27 books of the NT. If one wants the translation without notes, I have made that available.

I had said:
Quote:some of his notes in his translation editions are more doctrinal than textual, which I do not agree should be the place to do that.

Ok Dave "Some" is about 10% then, according to your own testimony. I hadn't used my pie chart. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
And I don't dislike your other notes on textual matters or Aramaic primacy. And my overall brief review was not all negative was it? Are you happy about the positives that I said? <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->

Dave...this is not about you or me.

Dave says:
Quote:That is simply an outrageously biased remark which is very misleading. Where the two Peshittas are compared, line for line, there is about a 0.3% significant difference! You are blowing the differences way out of proportion.
I can think of two verses which may represent doctrinal differences in Christology: Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Besides these two verses, each of which essentially differs in the Western versus Eastern versions by one word, where are all the doctrinal differences in Christology? And you yourself said that you could accept either reading in Acts 20:28, since you believe The Messiah is God, who died for us. That leaves one word variation in one verse-Hebrews 2:9.

I had said:
Quote:The BFBS/UBS Text is an edited text, which is said to cull its readings from about 70/80 Manuscripts, some Eastern & some Western...but the text retains all the Western (Greek) influenced readings, from the Western Aramaic speaking groups, who were doctrinally aligned with the Greeks and Latins, in their Christology, so you will see some variants and variations in its text from that which is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text, as represented by the Khabouris Manuscript, though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.

Dave if you would have noticed the last part of what I said there? ?Though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.?

And those two verses as worded in the Western Peshitto version, for Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9 are not a small matter, but changes correct doctrine as found in the rest of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament?making not just The Messiah bleeding and dying on the Cross, who is the Lamb OF GOD?but leads to the false conclusion, which you run with in your notes, that The Trinity as a whole, The Father & The Holy Spirit along with The Son (Lamb) of God, bled and died on the Cross. You going so far as teaching that The whole Trinity died ?spiritually? before The Messiah died physically. That makes two deaths of God in your mis-interpretation?1st spiritually, then physically. And you also teach that the atonement was made, not when The Messiah died physically, but it was made before, when you say that GOD/The Trinity, died spiritually...before The Messiah died physically on the Cross?

Show me one source in the Early Church teachers, Eastern or Western, or any Apostle in the New Testament Scriptures that ever taught that. I have never heard this taught before I read it in your notes.

The rest of the New Testament witnesses that it was The Lamb of God who shed His human blood and atoned for sin, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit who died ?spiritually? to atone for mankind.

I won?t go into the other things that this teaching has led you to believe right now. But I see in some of the other places in your translations, where I see you coloring the verses to make them conform to the image you have of these things?as I pointed out in another post recently, where you went south of your Interlinear readings, to make a stronger case for your Theology/Christology.

You are not the 1st person to do this of course Dave? But you have joined the ranks of all those who have done so.

And as for your last statement Dave, we are not to rejoice in false doctrine, but rather reprove it, where it exists. You can?t have it both ways?there is only one truth, not two truths about this issue. But, as to those who hold to a false doctrine about this issue affecting their salvation, I think that is going too far, and have not said that. And as far as I have heard, The Church of the East has had its hands out to the other groups, but not the other way around. And the other groups have made it a salvation issue seems to me.

I have said that the ?God? reading in Acts 20:28, could work IF it is understood rightly?that The Messiah is God, The Word, as to His Divine Nature?and being that there is only ONE Son, not two Sons, but who does nave two Natures, Divine/Human?then the Son of God (The Word), shed His human nature blood to atone for sin. So, In a way, it is God?s blood?but not in the way the Monophysites, or you teach it.

In any case, I do not believe the reading is authentic as found in the Western Peshitto, nor those Greek copies that have the 4 variant readings for that one verse. The Eastern Peshitta?s ?Messiah? reading, fits much better with the other 5 or so verses that say the same thing?that it was the Lamb of God, The Messiah, Yeshua?who shed his blood on the Cross to atone for sin.

..
Reply
#9
:

Dave said:
Quote: from two divergent Christian groups that could not tolerate each other for the past 1550 years

Dave...I see it as not that its about "each other" but the false doctrine that can't be tolerated.

The Western Syriac (Greek Orthodox/Roman Catholic infuenced) groups believe their doctrine is correct, yet it is not taught in the New Testament, nor is it taught in the Early Church of the late 1st to late 2nd century...it was not until the time of Pantaneus and Clement of Alexandria, and his pupil, Origen, that this doctrine began to be formed...and a reason it was solidifed as it has been, was because of the Arian and Gnostic groups, who came in with false teachings about The Messiah and his nature and relationship with The Father.

If you would take the time to read both the commentary on the Nicean Creed by Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, and what Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople wrote in his book "The Bazaar of Heracleides" you can see that these men were Orthodox in their teachings, and agree with the early 1st - 2nd century teachers from the Apostles to Tertulian. And can hear from themselves what they really believed and taught, rather just go on what is told to you by their condemers, who have always mis-represented what they truly believed.

But if you are of Alexandria's School...then you would not like what they have to teach, as they are of the School of Antioch and have no Gnostic teachings mixed in with their Scriptual Doctrine.
Reply
#10
Shlama all,

I apologize for my statement about the Eastern Church Peshitta edition of 1886, and accept Paul's correction about its Syrian provenance. I have observed, however, that its text in the 22 book canon presents the Eastern text readings in every place I have compared it with the Eastern Peshitta. That seems quite unusual, given that it is used by Western Syrian and Chaldean Catholic churches.

Chuck wrote:
Quote:the text retains all the Western (Greek) influenced readings, from the Western Aramaic speaking groups, who were doctrinally aligned with the Greeks and Latins, in their Christology
I was primarily objecting to that, because you make the Western Peshitta out to be edited to conform to "
Quote:all the Western (Greek) influenced readings"
, etc. How many are all the Western Greek influenced readings? It is simply a lie to say the Western Peshitta is based on Greek. That is Greek primacy. The only provable Greek based Aramaic is the Harklean Version; the 1905 (actually the entire NT was published 1920) Peshitta does not use the Harklean at all. The text of the Western five is very different and superior to the Harklean text throughout, as John Gwynn solidly establishes in his books on the Apocalypse and the General Epistles in the Crawford and other Aramaic mss. As to the 22 Eastern Peshitta book canon, the Western and Eastern Peshittas are practically identical, as I have stated.
It is extremely misleading to say that the Western text is based on Greek or Latin, with regard to the doctrine of Christ, or any other doctrine.But you insist in making two words in two verses into some vast doctrinal conspiracy of corruption. If someone were to alter the NT Christology, he would not stop with Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9; in fact, it is hard to imagine why those verses would be bothered with at all, especially if the Eastern readings were the originals. Why would anyone target, "the church of the Messiah, which He purchased with His blood" (Acts 20:28) as a heresy? Why would "He tasted death for everyone apart from God" (Hebrews 2:9) be targeted as a heresy and altered? Surely the Gospels would be first targeted and then the Acts, General Epistles, Paul, etc. I can't imagine a Syrian Orthodox Christian objecting that either of those statements are heretical; neither can I see that a Monophysite would want to change those statements in the NT, reading them for the first time, as there is nothing objectionable in them. Of course the Messiah shed his blood; of course He died for men and not for God.
I can imagine someone objecting to the Western readings of those two verses, even to the point of altering them; hence, I can see why the Western readings would be deliberately altered by some over zealous Christian, though I am not convinced that this explains the alterations. They both can easily be explained as misreadings of the Aramaic text, and I have illustrated these in my notes for those particular verses. As I have said, if someone were to deliberately change readings about God's blood or God's death, he would need to alter verses in 1 Cor. 11:27 as well as Hebrews 9:16, along with every verse that names Yeshua as LORD Jehovah- "Mar -Yah" (32 places in Eastern Peshitta NT).
Reply
#11
:

Quote:It is simply a lie to say the Western Peshitta is based on Greek.

I agree. And I never said that Dave. Please be more careful when you read my statements, so you don't mis-interpret my sayings, and mistakenly put a false version out of something I truly said.

As I have said...The Western Peshitto, is the same as The Eastern Peshitta for the most part, in all its shared 22 book readings, BUT with some verses, being present from other sources, such as the Greek and Latin versions...and there is even one verse in it, (you know which one) that is not found in any Aramaic Manuscript, Eastern or Western, yet you chose to translate it with the rest of what was in the text you used, as if it were part of the Original Aramaic Text. Is it? Where is the proof?

You can't find proof of the "Messiah" reading outside of the Eastern Peshitta Text, so you can't believe that its authentic, yet you can't find Acts 8:37 in any Aramaic Manuscript, but believe it has to be authentic? Why? Because it was in the text that produced the codes?

DAVE...when you put the text in the code finder the 1st time...you said it came up with some long codes...BUT that the text had a few errors in it...that when you corrected them, the long codes disappeared. BUT, instead of learning an important lesson from that event...you took it as a sign from GOD, that He was showing you that you had the Original Representative of the Autograph Text in your hands, minus the errors you fixed in it, and that He had chosen you to translate it into English.

And what about that verse in Acts 8:37? Did God lose a verse of Holy Scripture Dave? I don't think so...Mabye it has just been misplaced by man then, in some forgotten Manuscript some place in a box or on a shelf somewhere? Again...I don't think so.

Dave...The Eastern Peshitta Text...I believe is all the Original readings, as given, without change, since The Church of the East recieved those 22 books from the hands of The Apostles themselves.

You don't believe this seems like...and that is why you don't translate from the Eastern Peshitta Text, but rather from the Western Peshitto version instead. And thats fine. Its good we have a modern English version of that textual version to compare and see the differances, which I have said are not many...but the few that do exist, are important. And much more so, than you are trying to make it seem.

I wonder if you had an Eastern text instead back then, when you put the 1905 text through the code finder program...and you found codes, would you stand for it, like you stand for the other? I think so. You should run an Eastern Text Dave...see what happens.

Quote:But you insist in making two words in two verses into some vast doctrinal conspiracy of corruption.

Its not a conspiracy, its just false doctrine creeping into a text, that was not there from the start. This happens all the time with scribes and translators, that think that their interpretations are the right ones, and go with a reading from another source that they feel is the right one, and translate the verse a certain way to advance their belief as to what the verse is teaching. It?s very simple stuff really.

I believe that the Eastern Peshitta is right in all its wordings...just like you believe that the Western Peshitto is right in all its wording. That is just the way it is with us Dave.

Quote:As I have said, if someone were to deliberately change readings about God's blood or God's death, he would need to alter verses in 1 Cor. 11:27 as well as Hebrews 9:16, along with every verse that names Yeshua as LORD Jehovah- "Mar -Yah" (32 places in Eastern Peshitta NT).

Again, YHWH IS The Word of Alaha/GOD, who does His (The Father?s) speaking and revealing of Himself, mind, and will, in and through, to mankind, and in and through which, He created all things that exist, He (The Word/Miltha) proceeding forth FROM THE FATHER, begotten of Him, not made, before anything was created.

The WORD/MILTHA=YHWH=MAR-YAH=The SON of GOD=Y?SHUA, whom GOD, THE FATHER has caused to be both YHWH & Y?SHUA, in the SAME PERSON. BUT, Y?Shua IS NOT The Father Himself. He is distinct from His Father and He reveals The Father to mankind, whom (The Father) NO man, has EVER seen, or can see.


Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#12
:

Quote:neither can I see that a Monophysite would want to change those statements in the NT, reading them for the first time, as there is nothing objectionable in them. Of course the Messiah shed his blood; of course He died for men and not for God.

You are being crafty again Dave...that last part, where you speak about what is writtin in Hebrews 2:9 is not what the verse means, nor how it reads in the text. Plus, you say in your notes, that you can't exept either reading anyway...so why would the Monophysite not object to the reading, either way it is to be understood?

Dave...The Father DID NOT DIE, spiritually, or otherwise on the Cross that day. His Son did.

IT IS WRITTEN: Luke 20:13-16

"The owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I shall send my beloved son. Doubtless they will see him and they will be ashamed.' But when the workers saw him, they were counseling among themselves and they were saying, 'This is the heir; come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.' And they cast him out of the vineyard and murdered him. What therefore will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He shall come and destroy those workers, and he shall give the vineyard to others; but when they heard, they said, ?May this not be!?

But it was to be...and The Father (The Owner of the Vineyard) sent His only begotten Son...and it was His Son, whom they cast out of the vineyard and murdered ...NOT the Owner of the Vineyard (The Father) but His Son. Hello...McFly. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->


..
Reply
#13
Chuck, I think we are getting nowhere with this discussion. You will not answer my questions to you, so I am not going to answer any more of your questions to me.
You seem to think you are the sole arbiter of correct and false doctrine, yet you refuse to acknowledge that Nestorian doctrine was declared heresy 1500 years ago by the rest of the Christian church. You hold what is considered heresy by most of the Christian church; so do I.

The last quotation I gave you to consider is from Theodore of Mopseustia, the "Interpreter of the faith" to the Assyrian Church. He was a self avowed Universalist. The Church of the East is universalist to its roots. Do you condemn him as a heretic for that, or are you a Universalist also?

You remind me of the guy with a beam in his eye who wants to take a splinter out of his brother's eye. You seem to be able to see splinters as if they were telephone poles, and your own telephone pole as if it were less than a splinter, but it really is blinding you. Two words out of 100,000 are "false doctrine creeping into a text" according to you, and you instinctively know that the Western text is false where it varies from the Eastern text. Why does it have to be deliberate and sinister? I am not convinced that is the answer, and I can account for the difference in readings as simple mistakes in reading a few letters in Aramaic. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

So I believe Acts 8:37 is original- so what? So you don't believe it is original-so what? Is it going to make any difference theologically or spiritually? I don't think so.
I have listed five versions (including Itala-2nd cent.) ,Greek mss. according to Bede, & seven church fathers, but I digress.

You also want me to publicly debate my doctrinal beliefs about the Trinity on this forum, when I have written to you privately and given you scriptures to consider on this question, and you have not responded, nor answered my questions to you on this matter. I told you I do not think it appropriate to discuss that on this forum, and if you really are interested in it, you know my email address. I am fully able to defend my position on this.

To demonstrate my point above about the beam in the eye blinding you, while you still claim to see specks in others' eyes:
Your response to my call to pray for the Iranian Pastor sentenced to hanging was, "I wonder if he reads the Eastern Peshitta"?

I rest, your Honor.

Dave
Reply
#14
gbausc Wrote:I apologize for my statement about the Eastern Church Peshitta edition of 1886, and accept Paul's correction about its Syrian provenance. I have observed, however, that its text in the 22 book canon presents the Eastern text readings in every place I have compared it with the Eastern Peshitta. That seems quite unusual, given that it is used by Western Syrian and Chaldean Catholic churches.

Shlama Akhi Dave,

No need to apologize, it can be confusing.

To explain the situation with these various groups in an easier way:

Two original groups:

Syrian Orthodox ("Monophysite"). Uses the Western Peshitto, containing 22 books. "Monophysite-leaning" readings of significance in these two verses.
Church of the East ("Nestorian"). Uses the Eastern Peshitta, containing 22 books. "Nestorian-leaning" readings of significance in these two verses.

Two more groups:

Both of these groups had schismatic events that united a portion of their people to Rome. "Syriac Catholic" refers to that group which broke off from the Syrian Orthodox, and united with the Pope. "Chaldean Catholic" is the group which split from the Church of the East, and united with the Pope.

Both of these schismatic groups adopted the entire 27-book canon of the Roman Catholic Church, as a condition of course to their conversion.

The book printed you mentioned is very faithful to the eastern Peshitta, in the 22 books. For the other five, they used earlier translation made by the Monophysites.

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Thanks for the information on this edition and on the various schisms from the COE and SOC.
Its good to hear from you.

Tehweh khaleem,

Dave
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)