Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Acts 28:29 - absent verse in Khaboris Peshitta?
#1
Acts 28:29 - And when he had thus said, the Jews retired; and there were great disputations among them.

This verse is absent in Peshitta but present in Peshitto.
The more I read the more I see differences between them and see
how Peshitto is related to the corrupted texts of Greek and Latin just
forming one corrupted family.
This makes me think about probability that Peshitto was corrected
to fit Greeks and Latins.

Also, I checked Mingana148 and it corresponds to the Khaboris.
Reply
#2
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Acts 28:29 - And when he had thus said, the Jews retired; and there were great disputations among them.

This verse is absent in Peshitta but present in Peshitto.
The more I read the more I see differences between them and see
how Peshitto is related to the corrupted texts of Greek and Latin just
forming one corrupted family.
This makes me think about probability that Peshitto was corrected
to fit Greeks and Latins.

Also, I checked Mingana148 and it corresponds to the Khaboris.

Shkama Akhi Ivan:
You are correct. Acts 28:29 does not exist in the Peshitta. As a Peshitta Primacist of the New Testament it's my understanding that it was never there. It was a convenient place for the Greek redactor to add the verse. I have my own personal opinion as to why it was done, but this is not the place for that.
Ivan, here we see the Greek New Testament and the Peshitto, an Aramaic redaction to conform to the Greek New Testament, to show that something is missing from the Peshitta. I'm not at all surprised that Mingana Syriac 148 is missing this bogus verse 28:29 as well. Thanks for sharing this.
BTW, there are many previous posts on Peshitta.org which nail these atempts by Zorba to undermine the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver,
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Shlama akhi Stephen,

Quote:I have my own personal opinion as to why it was done, but this is not the place for that.
What if you would reconsider and give us your opinion?
This could open new point of view and direction in our
Aramaic primacy research.
Its a free discussion anyway.

There is no wonder for me, since Chaldean Catholic Church is under authority of Vatican then
it is in the interests of Vatican to accord the texts of both. Vatican did revisions of
their text then why to not revise Peshitto? The logic is simple.

The point is: making some corrections discredits whole text and it is strong move
to discredit Christianity. So, the people must know the truth.

Ivan.
Reply
#4
That verse is not in the mathematically perfect Greek text of Panin, Additionally, whichever Aramaic texts conform closest to the Westcott nd Hort Greek texts, is closer to the correct one, as Mr Panin's mathematical text does support a lot of Greek compilation in the Westcott and Hort, although the Westcott and Hort has many deleted words, in saying that, the Westcott and Hort texts are not exactly perfect either, but they are a little better than the Textus Receptus family texts that were used for the King james, but in saying that, there are many deletions from the Westcott and Hort texts that should not be so, and thus the Textus receptus proves superior in some areas. The truth appears to be that evil men in the past have not realized the consequences of altering God's word. However, by God writing His word in mathematics He never left us stranded, and so I am thankful to that. The fact that you guys haven't realized the importance of mathematics verifying the texts is a dying shame. The Panin mathematical text confirms all deletions and additions to the text so that now speculation is obsolete. If you want to stand by your Peshitta text and you want a superior translation of it, i would suggest you inspect the fourth edition of the AENT(.org), that is by far the best translation of Aramaic texts "ever" done, by the foremost Aramaic scholars on the planet and a team of dedicated experts. However, if you want the perfect original text, you know what i'm gonna say. Here is a question for you Aramaic primacists that can put the whole issue to rest: How many total words are in Revelation in your Aramaic texts. If it doesn't equal 777, then you drop your speculation and wishful thinking and download the Panin text, although i think you have already, but just in case, (numeric new testament/ unleavenedbreadministries). I know half of you have already downlaoded it, and have you given a word of appreciation or thanks to me, wheres your Christian manners. <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->
Reply
#5
Hi Zardak,

You are starting to sound a bit sweet there...Praise God.

I guess you haven't heard about the "Western Five" circumstance before, right?

The Aramaic Church of the East, who recieved the NT Books from the hands of the Apostles about 78 A.D....drum roll....did not receive 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, or Revelation in the collection.

Why? Because at the time they got their copy of the Aramaic Scriptures from the Apostles...the other 5 books/letters were not written as yet...That is how old the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta is.

Even in the Greek lands...these five books were disputed as being authentic, because of their late date and abscure history...it took a few hundred years before the Greeks could decided fully on them.

As to how many words are total Aramaic words are in the Western Aramaic Peshitto version of Revelation, which is said to be a translation from an ancient Greek text, though some dispute that notion...you can ask David Bauscher who claims that he has translated the perfect version of the NT from the 1905 UBS Peshitto text. He like numbers like you do...and plays with codes and stuff...you might like to talk to him about all that.

Or you can do a count yourself on Dukhrana.com (Maybe Stephen knows) where the text can be found for the 1905 Peshitto, which includes the Western Five books. The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta Khabouris Text does not have them, being it is not from Greek souces...and also lacks the supplied verses that were added to the Western Peshitto version to make an Aramaic conform to the Greek.

So you are real sure about Panin's Numeric NT I see...lets compare it with the Eastern Aramaic text then...see how it measures up to your favorite Greek re-constructed text. There is already one agreement there in Acts 28:29. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#6
Here are some other places I just checked where the Eastern Aramaic text agrees with Panin's edition...but not the T.R. Mark 2:17

"...I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." Numeric English N.T.
"...I came, not to call the righteous, but sinners." Murdock English N.T.

"Luke 7:31 does not have "And the Lord said" at the start of the verse.

I am sure there are many more agreements, and there are some disagreements...I just seen some.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#7
Zardak,

And are you sure about that 777 number for the total word count in the Panin Greek text? Seems very small to me for 22 Chapters...I just counted Chapter 22 in the Western Peshitto text...and it has 303 words just in that Chapter alone.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#8
Thirdwoe Wrote:Zardak,

And are you sure about that 777 number for the total word count in the Panin Greek text? Seems very small to me for 22 Chapters...I just counted Chapter 22 in the Western Peshitto text...and it has 303 words just in that Chapter alone.

Shlama,
Chuck


Just for fun, here is a word count of unique words found in Revelation in the Greek NT editions used at dukhrana.com:

# for file in $(ls gnt_*.txt); do echo -n "$file: "; grep "^Revelation " $file | tr ' ' '\n' | grep "&" | sort | uniq -c | wc -l; done
gnt_byz_05-unicode.txt: 2095
gnt_greek_orthodox-unicode.txt: 2627
gnt_st_scr-unicode.txt: 2131
gnt_tisch_8-unicode.txt: 2715
gnt_wh_na27-unicode.txt: 2144

It is worth noting that gnt_greek_orthodox-unicode.txt and gnt_tisch_8-unicode.txt both include diacritical markings and thus have a higher variance and more unique words than the other three texts. However, the word count in all texts clearly exceed 777. The only way to perhaps come down to around 777 words in Revelation would be to only count unique lexemes or root words and thus ignoring any variance introduced by inflections. Unfortunately, I have no easy way of testing this with the Greek NT texts I have <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Furthermore, the Aramaic Revelation found in the British and Foreign Bible Society's 1920 edition (also used at dukhrana.com) has the following stats:

unique vocalized words: 2482
unique unvocalized words: 2345
unique lexemes: 823
unique roots: 615

Shlama,
Lars
Reply
#9
Come on Thirdwoe, i've stated in my previous posts that i have already extensively investigated Aramaic primacy before i undertook translating the Greek, for seven years. So why would I not have heard of this 'Western Five" scenario.
Andrew Gabriel Roth, already had me up to speed on this "speculated theory" of Aramaic primacy, it doesn't get more knowledgeable than him. And none of his assertions proved Aramaic privacy to me. He has hundreds of detailed notes of ancient biblical history in his AENT.
That "Western Five" situation works against the Aramaic assertions when one acknowledges the true facts. The Panin text shows also the correct order of the books of the New Testament, which as it so happens clearly reveals that Peter and John wrote those letters directly after ACTS, which means they should have been delivered immediately to the Eastern Aramaic lands "IF" they had been addressed to the Aramaic speaking peoples, or else why did they not get them if they were written before the other epistles they received if the panin text shows that they were written before the others.
Seeing as the rest of the epistles which were written after, and those made it there, why not the western five", the books written later made it, so why did the Greeks end up with them, because it was written to the GREEKS and got delivered to them, that's why, very simple. And another thing disproving "The theory of Aramaic primacy" is that all your texts in one way or another have the same problems and variations as one or other of the Greek text family lines, You guys claim the that Aramaic was written earlier, how could they be if they all have the same problems as the Greek texts, just as you are proving right now by comparing the Panin text and confirming disparity. If all I have to do is prove to you that the Panin text is indeed flawless, and you say that you can see disagreement already between the Panin and the Eastern Aramaic, then if the Panin text is perfect (Which it is) then that proves your "Holy Grail" Eastern Aramaic text has the same flaws as the Greek, which means it was copied from the faulty Greek texts, which you guessed it, means the Aramaic was done later and copied from the Greek, and as can be seen by all the bad word choices in the Aramaic, Paul or someone elite nominated by him clearly had no hand in doing the Aramaic texts.

You cannot reasonably explain why those western five never made it to the Aramaic lands and still expect us to believe Aramaic primacy. I will now validate my assertion - If i write an important spiritual writing to God's chosen in China and it has been addressed directly to them, then clearly if it was first and foremost for the beloved Chinese believers and "addressed specifically to them" then i will be jumping on a plane as soon as i have finished writing it and taking it straight to them or sending it through priority registered post, right! So how come the "western five" never got to there destination and the Greeks got it first, did they intercept and ambush the apostles and steal it off them?? <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> LOL
The Aramaic was written quite a while after the Greek epistles, and as evidenced by the text they were not penned by Paul or anyone endorsed by him to do it, because it wasn't written to Greeks.
How do the eastern Aramaic church elders expect us to believe that it got delivered by the apostles, that could easily be a pride thing to make themselves superior to other Christian denominations, and if it was true, that doesn't mean it was written to them first does it. The Aramaic is not validated by astronomically astounding astonishing amazing miraculous mathematics, but the Greek is. The mathematics also only work to tie the Old Testament to the New if it calculates the Greek, not the Aramaic, so sorry guys, end of Aramaic primacy!! <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

And by the way Thirdwoe, you shouldn't be making condescending comments about Panins text, you call it a reconstructed text, well of course it is, all the texts and including the Aramaic got corrupted, God's mathematics was the only way possible to do the job, and "reconstruction" was absolutely necessary. You speak about "reconstruction" with a derogatory tone, why do you think you guys have been comparing the Aramaic texts for "years" because they need reconstructing, thats why, and why do they need reconstructing, because they were written a long time after the Greek, and thus copied corrupted Greek texts, as evidenced by all the similar deletions and additions that mimic one or other of the Greek texts. <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
Reply
#10
What needs to be reconstructed in the Khabouris Manuscript Zardak? Show me a place.

And you said:
Quote:The Panin text shows also the correct order of the books of the New Testament, which as it so happens clearly reveals that Peter and John wrote those letters directly after ACTS

Zardak, did Andrew tell you that in the Eastern Aramaic Kahbouris Manuscript, it shows that the letters of Peter, James, and John followed the book of Acts, being grouped with it.

Note the translated Aramaic words of the prescription and subscripton of Acts, Peter, James, and John below, from the Kahbouris, with a note from Jeremy (the burning one)

Praksees d?Shleekhe? (Acts of the Apostles) prescription:

The return to life of the Master Yeshu?a the Anointed One. The writing was written of the actions that brought life.

Petraws (1st Peter) prescription and subscription:

Again (Next), the letter of Petraws the sent one.
?
Finished is the letter of Petraws the sent one.


Yaquwv (James) prescription and subscription:

Again (Next), the letter of Yaquwv, the brother of our Master.
?
Finished is the letter of Yaquwv, the brother of our Master.


Yuwkhanan (1st John) prescription and subscription:

Again (Next), the letter of Yuwkhanan the sent one.
?
Finished is the writing of the actions of the good (blessed) sent ones, with the three general letters of good judgment.

Jeremy's note:
I find the above subscription of Yuwkhanan (1st John) of notable interest, as it appears to suggest that the book of Acts and the three catholic epistles were really meant to be lumped together from earliest of times.

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
Reply
#11
Zardak, you wrote:

Quote:And another thing disproving "The theory of Aramaic primacy" is that all your texts in one way or another have the same problems and variations as one or other of the Greek text family lines, You guys claim the that Aramaic was written earlier, how could they be if they all have the same problems as the Greek texts, just as you are proving right now by comparing the Panin text and confirming disparity. If all I have to do is prove to you that the Panin text is indeed flawless, and you say that you can see disagreement already between the Panin and the Eastern Aramaic, then if the Panin text is perfect (Which it is) then that proves your "Holy Grail" Eastern Aramaic text has the same flaws as the Greek, which means it was copied from the faulty Greek texts, which you guessed it, means the Aramaic was done later and copied from the Greek, and as can be seen by all the bad word choices in the Aramaic, Paul or someone elite nominated by him clearly had no hand in doing the Aramaic texts.

You believe Panin's recontructed greek text is "flawless". It seems to me that you want to believe that to be the case, because it disturbs you that no Greek text agrees with any other copy "flawlessly" and that bothers you a great deal. You sound like the KJV only group, with your Panin only stance and kind of cultic actually in your devotion.

So, if I understand you...God's Holy Word, was not "flawless" in any text...for thousands of years in any language, until Mr. Panin finished his re-constructed Greek text?

Zardak, you are of course free to believe anything you wish to...but that won't make it any more true if you do so. And Again...Show me a place in the Eastern Aramaic text, that is not The Word of God...and lets examine it.

Are you willing and able to do this? It would be much more productive than just having you repeat your stance over and over again like a taunting child in a rude tone.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi Zardak:
I have deleted your last post. Do not post anymore for a period of one month. You may post again February 15th, 2012. Don't even answer this post either by PM or on any other Forum topic.

The Reason:
You have pushed this topic past what is reasonable and into dissension. I won't tolerate your attitude, but I'm not banning you forever, yet. Consider all that I have said here and think about it for the next month. I have already asked you to agree to disagree, but you ignored my warning, so now I must take action. This one month banning is on your own recognizance. If you post while under this one month banning you will be banned permanently.
Sit back and read the former posts and also check out Dukhrana Biblical Research at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Forum Moderator
Reply
#13
I wish he would also think about his faith and trust in the mathematician who created this
numeric Greek NT (a new form of corruption based on many other corrupted Greek NTs).
Pretty soon another mathematician might create "more exact" numeric NT.
We have to be based on reality and not on different theories.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)