Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Let no (pagan) therefore judge you..."
#31
Quote:Just a side note: I find it interesting that the early Greek only has (A), the Aramaic has (A) and (B), and the Textus Receptus has (A), (B), and ©. Hmm...

That is why I chose not to qoute there... since the teaching is given in the other passages, it is a true statement either way. I had three versions to chose from for the qoute...I chose to include all of them in my statement. I thought to go just with the early Greek MSS form...then added the further Peshitta clause, then thought...oh well, might as well say it all. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> It's all true.

Again, I find much to agree with in your positions and statements there as well.

P.S. Luc, is this you?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8memCHcIi0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8memCHcIi0</a><!-- m -->


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#32
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:Just a side note: I find it interesting that the early Greek only has (A), the Aramaic has (A) and (B), and the Textus Receptus has (A), (B), and ©. Hmm...
It's all true.
That it is!

Anyway, nope, that's not me. If there was a video of me around like that I'd be either preaching the Good News or going on about something fitness related (that's the industry I work in).

Shlama!
Luc
Reply
#33
:

Ah... I thought he looked like you pretty close there, just wondering.

So Luc, what do you say about the (pagan) word being added there and "no man" or "no one" being left out of Roth's translation, which is clearly there in the Aramaic NT and is present in Murdoch's translation, the source of Roth's edition of that book.

Any thoughts as to why?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#34
Well, what can I say? It's Roth's clarification of the text based on his own theological udnerstanding. While I personally would have kept that particular point to the footnote only, I can't be too hard on Roth because many different translations insert words left right and center in this particular passage, whether they're formal equivilance or not.
Reply
#35
He should have at least translated the Aramaic word there, which he ignors and leaves untranslated, then adds his interpretation into the text. Big no no. Put the interp in a note, and translate the real word of the text.
Reply
#36
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Well, what can I say? It's Roth's clarification of the text based on his own theological udnerstanding. While I personally would have kept that particular point to the footnote only, I can't be too hard on Roth because many different translations insert words left right and center in this particular passage, whether they're formal equivilance or not.

But the real question is, which party is the more likely "judge" ... the one with dietary restrictions, or the one without ? Obviously, the answer is in verse 21.

+Shamasha
Reply
#37
Paul Younan Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Well, what can I say? It's Roth's clarification of the text based on his own theological udnerstanding. While I personally would have kept that particular point to the footnote only, I can't be too hard on Roth because many different translations insert words left right and center in this particular passage, whether they're formal equivilance or not.

But the real question is, which party is the more likely "judge" ... the one with dietary restrictions, or the one without ? Obviously, the answer is in verse 21.

+Shamasha
I agree. But then context would be required to clarify the issue further, because we read in verse 22 that it is speaking of commandments and teachings not of God, but of men.

Further in this passage however, quoting the Greek in a literal sense, many are trying to interpret this verse as Roth says and then pointing to verse 17, say that judgment should come from the "Body of Messiah" (which would even still hold true if false teaching was coming from the unbelieving Jewish and not the pagan side). As far as I understand the Aramaic text though, does it not say that the "body is of Messiah"? (which Greek translations assume but don't have the literal text support)
Reply
#38
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Well, what can I say? It's Roth's clarification of the text based on his own theological udnerstanding. While I personally would have kept that particular point to the footnote only, I can't be too hard on Roth because many different translations insert words left right and center in this particular passage, whether they're formal equivilance or not.

But the real question is, which party is the more likely "judge" ... the one with dietary restrictions, or the one without ? Obviously, the answer is in verse 21.

+Shamasha
I agree. But then context would be required to clarify the issue further, because we read in verse 22 that it is speaking of commandments and teachings not of God, but of men.

Further in this passage however, quoting the Greek in a literal sense, many are trying to interpret this verse as Roth says and then pointing to verse 17, say that judgment should come from the "Body of Messiah" (which would even still hold true if false teaching was coming from the unbelieving Jewish and not the pagan side). As far as I understand the Aramaic text though, does it not say that the "body is of Messiah"? (which Greek translations assume but don't have the literal text support)

Hi Luc,

But taking it a step back again, I don't use the term pagan in this context, as a pagan would not even be in the assembly to begin with. It makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

Having established that, I've not heard of cases where the Gentile (not pagan) side judged the Jewish side for *not* eating pork, but it is certainly the case historically that the Jewish side has judged the Gentile side for their lack of dietary observation.

+Shamasha
Reply
#39
Paul,

Will you complete your translation of the Peshitta and publish it? I'd love to see an Interlinear like this. I might get David Bauscher's but I don't like the format.
Reply
#40
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Paul,

Will you complete your translation of the Peshitta and publish it? I'd love to see an Interlinear like this. I might get David Bauscher's but I don't like the format.

Hi Sniper,

Yes, most likely this work will be the basis for the official translation being planned by the Church of the East. I've no details yet on the format or what it will ultimately look like, but I would like to keep an interlinear style at least on the side.

The good news is, this will no longer be "my" translation, but a more proper collaboration by several scholars.

+Shamasha
Reply
#41
Paul Younan Wrote:
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Paul,

Will you complete your translation of the Peshitta and publish it? I'd love to see an Interlinear like this. I might get David Bauscher's but I don't like the format.

Hi Sniper,

Yes, most likely this work will be the basis for the official translation being planned by the Church of the East. I've no details yet on the format or what it will ultimately look like, but I would like to keep an interlinear style at least on the side.

The good news is, this will no longer be "my" translation, but a more proper collaboration by several scholars.

+Shamasha


Shlama Akhi Paul:
This is what we've been waiting for, a peer reviewed Pashitta New Testament, sanctioned by the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. I remember when you started your interlinear text and I remember when you stopped at Acts 16. Many have tried to follow in your footsteps and have fallen short of a peer reviewed text. It's fitting that the Peshitta New Testament translated from Aramaic into English in the Estrangelo text should be made available to all. I pray that this work will come to fruition so that we can all share the same text here in Peshitta.org. as well as add it to Dukhrana.com ifit is permitted. I know that Lars would certainly be very excited about the whole endeavour. May it come to pass in the time of Alaha.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#42
This is a major step in developments for the Aramaic primacy.

Personally, I would like to be able to get the Dutch translation peer reviewed, and I got positive reactions from the side of the local Syrian Bishop.
however, this takes a lot of diplomacy and time, which I, unfortunately, do not have.
In my case, it would require to join (something like that) the Aramaic studies department of the university in Leiden.

Maybe I just dont see possibilities, which just lay ahead.
Reply
#43
Paul Younan Wrote:But taking it a step back again, I don't use the term pagan in this context, as a pagan would not even be in the assembly to begin with. It makes no sense whatsoever in this context.

Having established that, I've not heard of cases where the Gentile (not pagan) side judged the Jewish side for *not* eating pork, but it is certainly the case historically that the Jewish side has judged the Gentile side for their lack of dietary observation.
Yeah, I'm sure Roth got the idea from a Michael Rood episode called "Let no pagan judge you" where Rood makes a case for this talking about pagans judging the Body of Messiah. But as you say, contextually I don't see it referencing outsiders either (either of the beliving community or the non-believing Jewish side).

A thought that popped into my head though in terms of judgment regarding food is thinking back to Romans (and to a lesser extent, Corinthians) about vegetarian vs meat eating. I think this may legitamently be one issue that Paul was referencing. Other issues I think may be ideas/halacha concerning Sabbath, New Moons, etc. but not necessarily the plain observance of them in and of itself. But to make a supportive case for that would I think exceed the scope of this thread (and perhaps forum in general; I do apologize if I've stepped across the rule concerning theological discussion).

But I think we can all agree that inserting theological interpretations into the text should be avoided whenever possible. And it's these things which I think emphasizes the need for a peer reviewed, official translation/interlinear that is being spoken of here (especially for the sake of practical everyday use as opposed to in-depth critical study, which can be done with all the great resources that are available here, at Durkhana, through Janet Magiera's materials, etc.)
Reply
#44
The "man" of verse 16, is clearly the same "man" of verse 18, and indeed the "man" spoken of through out the whole Chapter. If we are unbiased in our treatment of the text in its entire context, we can learn the following about this "man" that Paul is warning us about:

1) They are given to Philosophy. v8
2) They are Devoid of Truth (Vain Deciet). v8
3) They hold to Traditions of men. v8
4) They follow after the Elements of the World (Gal 4:8-9 shows us, Paul uses this term to refer to Pagan gods). v4
5) They do not follow after Christ. v8
6) They judge the believers in food and drink, and in the observation of holy days. v16
7) They worship angels (see what Paul tells us of Pagan gods in 1 Cor 8:5, 10:20, and Gal 4:8-10). v18
8 ) They are proud. v18
9) They are carnal minded ("the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Law of God" Romans 8:7). v18
10) They do not hold to the Head and are therefore not part of the Body of Messiah. v19
11) They are of the world. v20
12) They are subject to ordinances, commandments and doctrines OF MEN (NOT GOD). vs 20-22
13) They promote self-made religion (ESV). v23
14) They promote asceticism (ESV). v23
15) They engage in sever treatment of the body (NASB). v23

I think that it is abundantly clear when we allow the text to speak for itself, that Colossians 2 is NOT speaking of Torah-observant belivers judging non-Torah-observant believers. Nor does it appear to be talking of Jewish Pharisees, but rather it seems to be a warning about Pagans, or perhaps proto-Gnostics (perhaps even a Kabbalistic sect of Essenes?).

Furthermore we see that Paul talks of the observance of Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths as being present tense Shadows of things to come (Future Tense). When we compare this with Paul's own life, where he himself kept the Festivals (read Acts), and with the record of the first 250 years of Church History in the West where they all clearly kept the Sabbath and the Festivals. Aswell as the history of the pre-Roman Catholic Church of the East (notably in India and China) which all kept the Seventh-day Sabbath for over a thousand years, and kept Kosher ("the Nestorians eat no pork and keep the Sabbath [New Schaff Hertog Encyclopedia "Nestorians"]; the 16th century Indians were killed by the Portugese Roman Catholics for being "Judaisers" who kept Kosher and observed the Sabbath etc; and the entire church in China was called the "Hwuy that abstain from animals that do not have cloven feet"). It becomes overwhealmingly clear that Colossians 2 is in support of Torah-observance, or at the very least, is NOT teaching against Torah-observance.

May the Father give you eyes to see, and ears to hear, and hearts to understand.

Shalom.
Reply
#45
A2S,

Who were the people who would follow behind and run ahead of The Apostle Paul, who fought against him and tried to change his God inspired Message about the Reconciliation of God and man through The Messiah's sacrifice and the salvation by God's Grace through Faith/Trust in The Messiah's Atoning Sacrifice, and not by ones works?

I have never judged a person who desires to try to keep as much of the Law of Moses as is applicable to us today under The New and Better Covenant...walking in the commandments as they are led by Holy Spirit. I do the same, by God's help.

It would be good to consider this passage below, concerning this matter.

Romans 14: 13-23
13 From now on let us not judge one another, but determine this rather: ?You shall not lay a stumbling block for your brother.? 14 For I know and I am persuaded by YHWH Y'shua, that there is nothing that is defiled in his presence. But to the one who regards anything impure, it is impure to him alone. 15 But if you grieve your brother because of food, you are not walking in love. You shall not destroy, by your food, one for whose sake The Messiah died. 16 And let not our good be blasphemed. 17 For The Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in The Spirit of Holiness. 18 For whoever serves The Messiah in these things is acceptable to God and is approved before the children of men. 19 And now, let us run after peace and after building one another up. 20 And let us not destroy a Servant of God because of food, for everything is pure, but it is evil to a man who eats with offense. 21 For it is good that we do not eat flesh, neither drink wine, neither anything by which our brother is subverted. 22 You who have faith in your soul; hold it before God. Whoever does not judge his soul in the thing which he designates is blessed. 23 For whoever is doubtful and eats, is condemned because it is not in faith, for everything that is not from faith, is sin.

Shlama,
Chuck


..
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)