Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the Greek New Testament willfully corrupted
#1
Quote:Look at the Greek New Testament. Heavily corrupted. This was not mistakes
of the scribes. It was WILLFULLY corrupted. The logic tells us it was done by those
who were interested in destruction of Christianity. Who said to the Roman soldiers to
go and say to everybody that body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples and gave them money?

Shlama IPOstapyuk,

You say that the Greek New Testament was willfully corrupted, as I quote above. Nearly all of the differences I've seen between the Peshitta and the GNT seem to be simple mistakes. What examples do you have (or anyone else has) of examples of changes that seem more likely to be willful changes to the text? I'm interested in plausible reasons that someone would desire to make each change.

bar Sinko
Reply
#2
bar Sinko Wrote:
Quote:Look at the Greek New Testament. Heavily corrupted. This was not mistakes
of the scribes. It was WILLFULLY corrupted. The logic tells us it was done by those
who were interested in destruction of Christianity. Who said to the Roman soldiers to
go and say to everybody that body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples and gave them money?

Shlama IPOstapyuk,

You say that the Greek New Testament was willfully corrupted, as I quote above. Nearly all of the differences I've seen between the Peshitta and the GNT seem to be simple mistakes. What examples do you have (or anyone else has) of examples of changes that seem more likely to be willful changes to the text? I'm interested in plausible reasons that someone would desire to make each change.

bar Sinko

Shlama Akhan bar-Sinko,

I think most are not willful, of course, just simple scribal errors. Others, though ... Please see this for a (somewhat) humorous example:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=705

+Shamasha
Reply
#3
Shlama to all,

As ar as corruption is concerned, we get a double-dose of trouble in Colossians 3:11. Not only does "Greek" get substituted for "Aramaean" but "Scythian" is substituted for "Greek" !!!!! <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->
I'll give Victor Alexander's translation and comments......

11. It does not matter whether Jew or Aramaean,* circumcised or uncircumcised, Greek or barbarian,* a slave or the son of the free; except for all and for every human being, He is the Christ.

*3:11.1 "Jew or Aramaean" is correct, not "Jew or Greek" as is in Western translations. Jews and Aramaeans were culturally similar. They shared the same language for one thing. Customs were the same, etc.
*3:11.2 In this passage occurs a great distortion in Western translations. The name "Scythian" is substituted for "Greek." "Scythians" is a total fabrication. There was no reference to Scythians in the context of early Christianity anywhere in Scriptures or in the lands where Christianity was preached. "Greeks and barbarians" is correct, referring to the fact that both groups came from polytheism and paganism.

Shlama w'Burkate, Bro. Larry
Reply
#4
LawrenceRaymond Wrote:There was no reference to Scythians in the context of early Christianity anywhere in Scriptures or in the lands where Christianity was preached.
Scythians are referenced in 2 Maccabees 4:47. Roman Catholic Church classifies this book as canonical, while other churches classify it as apocryphal.
Reply
#5
I found this text, from an Asian website (slow!) so I quote it here
Quote:The Sakas were a population of Iranian nomadic tribesmen residing in and migrating over the plains of Eurasia from Eastern Europe to Xinjiang Province, China, from the Old Persian Period to the Middle Persian Period when they were displaced by or integrated with Turkic language speakers during the Turkic migration. In the Achaemenid Empire much of their range was made a satrapy, Saka, named after them. They also resided in other provinces of ancient Iran.

The ancient Greeks called the Sakas the Scythians but recognized that in the language of the Persian Empire they were called more nearly Sakai. To them the name Sakai in addition to meaning all the Scyths meant explicitly also the ones of Central Asia and the Far East. These latter lived in what is now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of India, parts of Iran, the Altay Mountains, Siberia in Russia, and Xinjiang Province of China in the centuries before 300 AD, the start of the Middle Persian period. Hence the Romans recognized both Sacae and Scythae.

The Scythians were recognized in ancient languages at either end of their range. They were known to the Chinese as the Sai. On the west they were among the first Iranians to enter the Middle East. The Assyrians of the time of Esarhaddon record campaigning against a people they called in the Akkadian the Ashkuza or Ishhuza. Hugo Winckler was the first to associate them with the Scyths and the identification remains without serious question. They were closely associated with the Gimirrai, who were the Cimmerians known to the ancient Greeks. These Scythians were mainly interested in settling in the kingdom of Urartu, which later became Armenia (Eastern Anatolia).

By the time of the Middle Iranian period, the Scyths had either dissimilated into peoples of other names, such as the Sarmatians, Alans and Roxolani, or had been displaced by or assimilated to the Huns. The Scythian language is considered by mainstream historians and linguists as one of the Iranian languages. The Saka speakers were gradually conquered and acculturated by the Turkic expansion to Central Asia beginning in the 4th century.
Reply
#6
How about Markus 7:19 as an example of a a willful, interpretational addition "Thus he declared all foods clean" ?

One has to remember that there is not one GNT, but there are multitudes of Greek variants. A "Greek mess", rather than Greek MSSs, so to speak.

Jerzy
Reply
#7
Shlama, Jerzy. That example is not found in any Greek Manuscript, but is only a modern English interpretational type of translation, where they attempt to help get the meaning they thought the Greek text was saying. I believe they got it very wrong. The Greek texts line up with what is found in the Peshitta text here.

..
Reply
#8
Surprise.. I admit I have not done my homework with this one, assuming that they would at least get an idea from some Greek manuscript, if the product is called a "translation" and not "message" ... how can one treat the text that way?

I have checked English translations and practically all "modern" have added this part, but most older have got it correct .. KJ21 (21st Century Kings James), DARBY, KJV, and the old ones (e.g. Geneva Bible) are good, ASV and its revisions RSV, ESV are "bad" ... so not so "essentially literal", just wondering where did that twist creep in.
With peace and blessings,
Jerzy
Reply
#9
My guess is it started with "The English Revised Version" of 1885. And most of the modern versions, which borrow from it's translation here and there, stuck with it's interpretive reading.

.
Reply
#10
What do you think about the problem in Mark 2:26? If the Greek is a corruption of the Aramaic, why did the Peshitta have the same error as the Greek?

"how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?? Matthew 2:26 NKJV

The Peshitta have the same mistake. Abiathar was not the high priest, it was Ahimelech. The passage is in 1 Sam 21.1-7 confirm this mistake:

So David said to Ahimelech the priest, ?The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ?Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.? And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.? 1 Samuel 21:2-3

So if the Aramaic was the original, why did the Peshitta had this terrible mistake too? Do someone had an explanation to this?
Reply
#11
carlosmendoza Wrote:What do you think about the problem in Mark 2:26? If the Greek is a corruption of the Aramaic, why did the Peshitta have the same error as the Greek?

"how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?? Matthew 2:26 NKJV

The Peshitta have the same mistake. Abiathar was not the high priest, it was Ahimelech. The passage is in 1 Sam 21.1-7 confirm this mistake:

So David said to Ahimelech the priest, ?The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ?Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.? And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.? 1 Samuel 21:2-3

So if the Aramaic was the original, why did the Peshitta had this terrible mistake too? Do someone had an explanation to this?


Shlama Carlos,


there is an explanation to this; don't be worried, as it is not a contradiction, as Bible critics like to often point out that it is.

i'm pasting this from another site, as he explains it well in as few words as possible:

Quote:Aaron had four sons: two died an early death with no survivors, and the other two sons survived:-- Eleazar and Ithamar. Thus the Levites who served as priests at the time of David are all descended from one of these two priestly lines.

In the Hebrew Bible, when we see the Ahimelech(father)/Abiathar(son) team, these two are the direct descendants of Ahitub (thus the priestly line of Eleazar).

When we see the Abiathar(father)/Ahimelech(son) team, these two are the direct descendants of Ichabod (thus the priestly line of Ithamar). Thus the guy who gave to David and his men the sacred consecrated bread to eat was Ahimelech (the son), who served at the time when his father Abiathar was the priest. Please see 1 Chronicles 18:16 in addition to 1 Sam 21:1-9 compared with Mark 2:26.

Ichabod and Ahitub happened to be brothers (1 Samuel 14:3), but they had different fathers. That is, according to this verse the father of Ichabod was Phineas, and of course the father of Ahitub was Amariah (according to 1 Chronicles 6:7 and 1 Chronicles 6:11).

So what is confusing is that there are two sets of people in the SAME tribe of Levi (priests from both the line of Eleazar and Ithamar) with the SAME names occurring in the SAME passages with limited clarification by the authors of the texts of exactly who is who.

(Very necessary but quick sidebar: The father of Phineas was Eli, who received the divine judgment from God that all the priestly descendants of Eli would die young according to 1 Sam 2:31-33 -- that is, no one in the priestly line of Eli would live to grow old. For example, 1 Chronicles 24:1-4 indicates that there were many less men available in the priestly line of Ithamar compared to the priestly line of Eleazar.)

We know that the Abiathar who was fired as a priest by King Solomon is the Abiathar who is the descendant of Eli (and therefore from the priestly line of Ithamar per 1 Kings 2:26-27). If Solomon was aware of the divine imprecation on the priestly line of Eli, then there was no need for him to kill him, but rather to dismiss him since the pronouncement of God's judgment would end his life early anyway. The ?good? Abiathar then moves in and takes the ?bad? Abiathar's job in 1 Kings 4:4. In other words, the ?bad? Abiathar was not one of the eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod and who were killed by Saul in 1 Samuel 22:18. The other Abiathar (the ?good? Abiathar), who occurs in the same time and space, and who also escaped this massacre, goes and helps David. (This goodwill eventually postured him to replace the ?bad? Abiathar.) This ?good? Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech, who is the son of Ahitub, who is the son of Amariah (which takes us back to the priestly line through Eleazar). Again, the ?good? Abiathar has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the priestly line of Eli (descendants of the priestly line of Ithamar) as was the case with the ?bad? Abiathar.

In summary, the confusion is understandable when one sees in the genealogy of Levi, for example, in 1 Chronicles 6 the names of the priests are repeated several times in the same family tree (e.g., the names of Elkanah, Ahitub, and Amariah occur several times among the Levites). It is no surprise then that two ?Abiathars? and two ?Ahimelechs? also create confusion when they happen to exist and live in the same time and space of David and Solomon. In fact it is not uncommon even in our modern era to find the same relatives, be it cousins, aunts, and uncles, and even fathers & sons, who happen to ?share? the same christened names (not to mention middle names) amongst themselves.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2955/was-abiathar-the-son-of-ahimelech-or-was-ahimelech-the-son-of-abiathar">http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... f-abiathar</a><!-- m -->

all this is kept in line even with the wording of Scripture, which in Samuel, calls Ahimelek "the priest," NOT "the high priest." the NT, specifically the words of Messiah, calls Abiathar "the high priest," and rightly so! isn't that awesome! Scripture is specific when it comes to the terms it uses, and this little "debacle" can be upheld as valid and non-contradictory even in this subtle usage of the qualifier "high."

hope that helps!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#12
carlosmendoza Wrote:What do you think about the problem in Mark 2:26? If the Greek is a corruption of the Aramaic, why did the Peshitta have the same error as the Greek?

So if the Aramaic was the original, why did the Peshitta had this terrible mistake too? Do someone had an explanation to this?

The Peshitta is a (small) corruption of the Original Aramaic (this might offend some here, but I am a proponent of the fact that the Peshitta is very clean), and the Greek is a corruption of the Original Aramaic.
like in evolution it is called 'common ancestor'. So, if some Aramaic misreading ocurred, it could happen into the (a)Syrian reading as well. Big chance it happens like that. (like for instance 'justfied by children or deeds?)

But as the Jeremy explained, not every contradiction is really a contradiction.
Reply
#13
Distazo, can you please show some of the small corruptions that you have found in the Peshitta? like maybe 10 of them...I'd like to look them over. Which verse says "justifed by children"?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#14
Thirdwoe Wrote:Distazo, can you please show some of the small corruptions that you have found in the Peshitta? like maybe 10 of them...I'd like to look them over. Which verse says "justifed by children"?

Shlama,
Chuck

Hi Chuck,

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=76">viewtopic.php?f=10&t=76</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#15
Thanks for the link, I'll look it over...but I was wondering if you had found any corrupted parts in The Peshitta (Eastern Text), we have today. You said: "The Peshitta is a (small) corruption of the Original Aramaic..."

What parts do you see as being corrupted?


.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)