Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the Greek New Testament willfully corrupted
#16
Concerning Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. I have noticed that Younan, Lamsa, Roth, Pashka, and Bauscher, all have "works", in both places.... while Magiera, Jahn, Etheridge, Murdock, Alexander, have "children (or sons)" in the Luke passage.

So, which is it?

I checked The Diatessoron's text, and it harmonizes the two passages showing "children", rather than "works", and if the version whe have of Tatian's Gospel harmony is accurate, then a reading of "children" goes back at least mid-2nd century and even earlier.

Also, I have found a "children" reading quoted by St. Irenaeus, in about 180 A.D., so that reading, at least on one of the verses, goes back to at least the mid-2nd century and perhaps earlier.


.
Reply
#17
Thirdwoe Wrote:Concerning Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. I have noticed that Younan, Lamsa, Roth, Pashka, and Bauscher, all have "works", in both places.... while Magiera, Jahn, Etheridge, Murdock, Alexander, have "children (or sons)" in the Luke passage.

So, which is it?

I checked The Diatessoron's text, and it harmonizes the two passages showing "children", rather than "works", and if the version whe have of Tatian's Gospel harmony is accurate, then a reading of "children" goes back at least mid-2nd century and even earlier.

Also, I have found a "children" reading quoted by St. Irenaeus, in about 180 A.D., so that reading, at least on one of the verses, goes back to at least the mid-2nd century and perhaps earlier.


.


Shlama akhi Chuck,


if you recall, i discussed this with you some time back, and you shared it here, too (it's near the end of my quote you shared): <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3199&p=19858&hilit=children+deeds#p19858">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3199&p=19858&hilit=children+deeds#p19858</a><!-- l -->

the term B'NEH can easily be misinterpreted as "sons" in the Aramaic. the Peshitta is not wrong - it just must be correctly read as "deeds" instead of "sons."


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#18
Burning one Wrote:
Thirdwoe Wrote:Concerning Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. I have noticed that Younan, Lamsa, Roth, Pashka, and Bauscher, all have "works", in both places.... while Magiera, Jahn, Etheridge, Murdock, Alexander, have "children (or sons)" in the Luke passage.

So, which is it?

the term B'NEH can easily be misinterpreted as "sons" in the Aramaic. the Peshitta is not wrong - it just must be correctly read as "deeds" instead of "sons."


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
I have a friend who reads plain Peshitta and he says: "no" it does not read wrong. This is because of the vowels! The issue is here that the vowels have been applied later and this has been done in line with the Greek reading I suppose.
Reply
#19
:

Ahhh...I forgot that, Jeremy!...but, did remember the "deeds of disobedience" verse, which I think was my main focus at the time.

So, this looks like a very early mistranslation from the Aramaic text into Greek then.

And since the two texts I'm looking at of The Diatessaron are both English translations from the Arabic and Latin translations of The Aramaic text...perhaps the Arabic and Latin words can also be translated into English both ways? If not, I'm wondering if the Arabic translator of the Aramaic Diatessaron text, which the Latin and Arabic texts came from, might have gotten it wrong.

Clearly The Diatessaron's text is a mix of Matt 11:19 (1st part) and Luke 7:35 2nd part, because it has the word for "all" from Luke's account, where the parallel passage in Matt lacks the "all" word in the Aramaic text.

Any other explanation, or idea how this can be?

.
Reply
#20
distazo Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:
Thirdwoe Wrote:Concerning Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35. I have noticed that Younan, Lamsa, Roth, Pashka, and Bauscher, all have "works", in both places.... while Magiera, Jahn, Etheridge, Murdock, Alexander, have "children (or sons)" in the Luke passage.

So, which is it?

the term B'NEH can easily be misinterpreted as "sons" in the Aramaic. the Peshitta is not wrong - it just must be correctly read as "deeds" instead of "sons."


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
I have a friend who reads plain Peshitta and he says: "no" it does not read wrong. This is because of the vowels! The issue is here that the vowels have been applied later and this has been done in line with the Greek reading I suppose.

Shlama akhi,


it definitely doesn't read wrong. it is how a translator takes the meaning of B'NEH that can render an imprecise reading. i do agree that there are instances in the vowel-included Peshitta versions that are mispronounced, and thus, misinterpreted. that has been shown on this site in various posts, and i've encountered them in my own reading, as well. i've noticed some while reading the Hebrew Scriptures, as well, so it is just a part of the failure of us human translators, and not an actual error in the text itself. important distinction to make!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#21
Thirdwoe Wrote::

Ahhh...I forgot that, Jeremy!...but, did remember the "deeds of disobedience" verse, which I think was my main focus at the time.

So, this looks like a very early mistranslation from the Aramaic text into Greek then.

And since the two texts I'm looking at of The Diatessaron are both English translations from the Arabic and Latin translations of The Aramaic text...perhaps the Arabic and Latin words can also be translated into English both ways? If not, I'm wondering if the Arabic translator of the Aramaic Diatessaron text, which the Latin and Arabic texts came from, might have gotten it wrong.

Clearly The Diatessaron's text is a mix of Matt 11:19 (1st part) and Luke 7:35 2nd part, because it has the word for "all" from Luke's account, where the parallel passage in Matt lacks the "all" word in the Aramaic text.

Any other explanation, or idea how this can be?

.


Shlama akhi,

yeah, the "deeds of disobedience" was the focus, that was why i reminded you of my sidebar reasoning! <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

when it comes to the Diatessaron, i have not looked at the Latin or Arabic versions to know what the reading is, so i'm no help there right now. but you can clearly see how the Greek arrived at its take on the passage, for sure!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#22
Burning one Wrote: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."

Thanks, Jeremy that make sense. I was thinking that the error was in Greek and that maybe it wasn't in the Peshitta, but know understand the confusion of this verses. I read the introduction of "Misquoting Jesus" when Ehrman start talking the errors in the Greek. I don't like Ehrman, but I wanted to see if those problems that he mention will be easily solve in the Peshitta. I think Ehrman in his book talk about the Peshitta, but I am not totally sure. He said how bad is the Greek and I don't blame it, but the answer to those questions have to be solve in the Aramaic and the context of the Jewish culture.

A friend of mine told me that one of the best translations of the Tanakh is in Arabic. The reason is because it is a Semitic language, but the NT in Arabic is not nearly as good. Actually the NT, he told me, it is better in English.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)