Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Compare Translations
#1
I am new to this site. Would someone please compare Aramaic Peshitta English New Testament Translations by Magiera, Bauscher, Roth, Alexander, Pashka, Jahn. I have been reading Bauscher's.
Reply
#2
I have no knowledge of Jahn's edition, but none of the others in their present form can be called "The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament" in English.

All of these English versions (in their present form) are what is known to be the "Western Peshitto Version", which has in its pages a number of verses not found in The Real and True "Aramaic Peshitta New Testament" and also the Western Five books of 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation, though, Mr. Roth's version, is in the form (in the English section at least) of The True "Aramaic Peshitta New Testament" in its 22 Book cannon (but not always translated as it reads in Aramaic)...and he also adds the "Western Five" books as found in the "Western Peshitto Version", so it is not really The True "Aramaic Peshitta New Testament" in English, in its current form and translation. It's a version, edited in the way he believes it should read, but is sadly a "sectarian version", rather than a strict translation of the actual text as it is.

So...we all still have to wait for a true to form and text of The True "Aramaic Peshitta New Testament" in English.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#3
If one makes themselves familiar with the differences between the Eastern PeshittA and Western PeshittO they could start using Magiera's translations and do fine, as she is purported to have stuck to the Western PeshittO text very well. So if one knows what to look for and know what should be read they will actually be as though they were reading the Eastern PeshittA.

But as mentioned Roth strays in other ways other than the Western PeshittO, so even though he uses the variations of the Eastern PeshittA trying to figure out where he goes on his own way is a whole nother task in its self (OYE VEY!).

Bauscher is purported to have went with the Western PeshittO variations but as with Roth Bauscher also wandered off as he pleased from the Aramaic texts when and where he saw fit. So again unless you can read Aramaic you will not know where he has gone astray.

I have not heard anything as to whether any of the others mentioned are as true to the PeshittO Text as Magiera is.

At this point I recommend using Magiera's translations and adjust to the Eastern PeshittA variants in one's mind as they read along. In this one can get a jump up on what the Eastern PeshittA actually says, and by the time a truthful/faithful English translation of the Eastern PeshittA comes along they will be ahead of the pack.

Now even though Roth's version and Bauscher's translation are not faithful to the texts they claim to have used for their's they do have some footnotes worthy of reading, and could be used as side study tools while reading either of Magiera's translations. Yet keep in mind that as they have strayed from the actual text so follows some of there footnotes as well. So it would not be wise to trust much of their theological notes.
Reply
#4
The Texas RAT Wrote:But as mentioned Roth strays in other ways other than the Western PeshittO, so even though he uses the variations of the Eastern PeshittA trying to figure out where he goes on his own way is a whole nother task in its self (OYE VEY!).
Actually, if you had a copy for yourself and read it you'd see it's not really that bad (you can even figure it out without having to read Aramaic). All translations have a bit of bias though and require at least some form of interpretation when translating (it's impossible to avoid that). But it's much more literal and in line with the text than Bauscher's translation, although I apreciate the smoothensss of Bauscher at times.
Reply
#5
The Texas RAT Wrote:If one makes themselves familiar with the differences between the Eastern PeshittA and Western PeshittO they could start using Magiera's translations and do fine, as she is purported to have stuck to the Western PeshittO text very well. So if one knows what to look for and know what should be read they will actually be as though they were reading the Eastern PeshittA.

There are lists on this forum that just a few verses differ (acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9) and others have minor differences. But I hardly would see any problems between Peshitto and Peshitta, as if they would lead to a different understanding of teachings.
Reply
#6
I own the Lamsa, Roth, and Bauscher translations, so I can give you my reviews of these three translations.

The Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text was translated by George M. Lamsa, a native speaker of Syriac from Mar-Bishu in modern day Iraq. His translation is the one that really made the Peshitta a more well-known text in the Western world. He used the style of the KJV/NKJV in his translation. His translation is pretty accurate, but there are several places (mainly in the Gospels in Acts) where he lets his beliefs interfere with his translation, which includes what I believe to be the main problem with his translation: his not translating the Aramaic word "devana" correctly as demons, he instead translates it as "insane" or "lunatic". Lamsa also makes no distinction between the Aramaic "Mar" (Lord) and "MarYah" (Lord YHWH) except in the Old Testament (MarYah is translated as LORD, as most mainstream translations translate YHWH). The Peshitta New Testament makes a unique distinction between "Lord" and "LORD" that is not made in the Greek. The divine name MarYah is applied to Jesus Christ several times (ex. Luke 2:11 and Philippians 2:11) His translation is by no means a bad translation, it is actually one of my favorites but it is the least accurate of the three Peshitta/Peshitto translations I own.

The Aramaic New Testament in Plain English was translated by Reverend Glenn David Bauscher, who has a proficiency in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. It includes notes that are mainly textual in nature (there are some more theological ones) that compare the Greek texts to the Western Peshitto text he uses. Bauscher's translation is very literal but he occasionally delves into interpretation (but not anywhere near as much as Lamsa's translation). In Matthew 13:42, he translates the Aramaic word that means "furnace" as "essence", which is a result of his universalist theology. He also translates, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." in Matthew 5:2 as "Blessed by the Spirit are the poor..." He states, 'See Matthew 22:43, the only other place in The Gospels where the same form of the Aramaic word "b'Rukh" (in, by spirit) is used, refers to the Holy Spirit. See also Luke 6:20: "And He lifted His eyes upon His disciples, and said: Blessed are ye poor, for the Kingdom of God is yours". He was talking about the poor, not "the poor in spirit". God does not want us poor in spirit; He wants us to be spiritually rich.' In his Interlinear version (The Aramaic New Testament Interlinear) he translates it more correctly as "Blessed are they who are poor in The Spirit because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." Bauscher also makes a distinction between Mar and MarYah that is not seen in Lamsa's translation.

Luke 2:11, Aramaic New Testament in Plain English- "For today, the The Savior has been born to you, who is the LORD JEHOVAH The Messiah, in the city of David."

Philippians 2:11, Aramaic New Testament in Plain English- "And every tongue shall confess that Yeshua the Messiah is THE LORD JEHOVAH to the glory of God His Father."



The Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) is translated from the Eastern Peshitta by Andrew Gabriel Roth. It is a more literal translation than Lamsa or Bauscher's and also less interpretive. Roth also makes a distinction between Mar and MarYah by translating Mar as "Master" and MarYah as "Master YHWH". The Semitic names are retained (ex. Jesus is Y'shua, Simon Peter is Shimon Keefa, John is Yochanan). The Aramaic word "Alaha" (God) is translated into the more familiar Hebrew term "Elohim". There are a couple of places, but not very many, where Roth delves into interpretation. Usually when you see bias in his translation, it is pro-Torah observance for Gentiles and Jews alike. This really effects his translation in one place that I can think of.

Colossians 2:16, Aramaic English New Testament- "Let no (pagan) therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats."

In a footnote on this verse, Roth states, "The Body of Mashiyach must not be concerned with the judgements of those who are outside the Malchut Elohim [Kingdom of God], that is, those who don't know Torah or Mashiyach. It is clear, given the location of this audience and the fact that Rav Shaul always references Jews directly, that Shaul is addressing the local talk of the pagans whose religion dominates this region."

Unfortunately, the context screams that Paul is talking about the judgments the unbelieving Jews were making against the Body of Christ. When Paul deals with stuff like this, he is usually stating that the Jews should not force the Law of Moses onto the Gentiles. Roth's commentary is interesting and he mainly handles his theology in that. His translation is mainly his own edition of the Paul Younan Interlinear of the Peshitta (Matthew 1-Acts 15) and James Murdock's New Testament translation of the Peshitto (Acts 15-Revelations 22). He includes some of Younan's footnotes in his commentary section as well. When Murdock uses the Western reading of the Aramaic, Roth replaces it with the Eastern reading.

Acts 2:38, Murdock New Testament- "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath established you bishops; that ye feed the church of God, which he hath acquired by his blood."

Acts 2:38, Aramaic English New Testament- "Take great care of yourselves, and of all the flock over which the Ruach haKodesh has established you as overseers for; that you feed the assembly of Mashiyach, which He has acquired by His blood."

Roth's translation also includes the Aramaic text he used. The left side has the English translation while the right side has the Aramaic text he used. There is also an extensive appendix in the back of the book that causes this New Testament to look almost the size of an average Bible. The AENT is my favorite of the three translations.
Reply
#7
distazo Wrote:There are lists on this forum that just a few verses differ (acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9) and others have minor differences. But I hardly would see any problems between Peshitto and Peshitta, as if they would lead to a different understanding of teachings.

If that was true then why was the PeshittO made to start with? They wanted to make the PeshittA more in line with the perverted Greek texts that Constantine had rendered unto his christian views was it not? And if so, it be as the Greek, with perversion therein. The Eastern PeshittA is known to be the text that the Western PeshittO people twisted to line up with Constantine's theology of Christianity so it is best to trash all trash and get on with the truth alone. Trying to condone one iota of perversion is ridiculous.

So as mentioned there are lists of PeshittA vs. PeshittO & Greek variants @:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2633&start=15">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2633&start=15</a><!-- l -->
(scroll down toward the bottom of the page)

It is said that "you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything". Ergo I stand with the Eastern PeshittA <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->
and refuse to be sold an extra bill of goods <!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: --> (be it Greek variants from Greek translations of the Eastern PeshittA
or Greek variants from the Western PeshittO revision of the Eastern PeshittA). So to make this point very clear - anyone trying to sell the PeshittO, or any deviation thereof, to me is wasting their time - cause I do not have the ears nor eyes for that kind of stuff.
Reply
#8
Hi Texas,

Be my guest <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I cannot call those differences except for the 2 verses a major change in favor of any Greek manuscript! (Because the Majority Greek still differs a lot with the PeshittO)
The most other minor differences are either copyist errors or typically Aramaic issues where us/they and such personal nouns, are difficult to read because they look alike.

By spreading the message that the PeshittO is corrupted to be like the Greek, what do new curious people who sniff at this Aramaic subject think of this all? They would think that nearly all but some litle left-overs of the East are 'faithfull'? I don't think so.

The PeshittO is also very reliable except for the 5 added books.
And betting on one horse <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> is also risky. What if, for example, the PeshittA turns out to have Hebrews 2:9 as a corrupted variant (aka, deliberate changes in view of the creed of Ephesus in 431)?
Reply
#9
distazo,

you keep studying textural criticism and you will come to see that the Western PeshittO is nothing more than a corrupted copy of the eastern PeshittA to conform it to the Greek text. The Western PeshittO is known to be a late text, while the Eastern PeshittA is shown to be the text that the Greek translated from. And yes the Greek text are even more corrupted as they never seemed content to stop adding and subtracting from/to them. Now I am not against the Western 5 Books and wish an ancient text of them would come forth, but as for the other 22 Books the Eastern PeshittA is the only one that we have that has been unchanging to the whims of man, so ergo I - with or with out you my Brother. With or without!
I will preach Eastern PeshittA RULES <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> !!!
And my prayer is that others that seek will find what they are looking for, awmane.

So, I encourage you to not only read the Scriptures but to continue studying textural issues. And what ever you decide on is fine with me so long as it is not to try and make me eat Greek/PeshittO. <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->

As for causing confusion if people would stop claiming to be translating from the Eastern PeshittA when they are not, and just be honest and say that they are translating the Western PeshittO, being they seem to like it so much, it would help as this kind of honesty is the only way to stop the circus act. Talk about adding confusion to the newbies. But if one claims to be translating from the Eastern PeshittA and does what they say - this too will not cause confusion to newbies either. It is when people try to be deceptive and claim one thing and do another that causes the confusion to the Aramaic cause. So if you catch me presenting Western PeshittO renditions while claiming to be putting fourth the Eastern PeshittA call me on it.

Anyway sitting on the fence is fine but do not call East West and West East, as there are two sides to the Aramaic fence. Be honest and teach that there is a difference even though you are not totally clear as to what those differences are. This will help cut down on confusing newbies.

Oh and while we are on the subject of being totally honest about things - you do know that there is no Santy Claus - right? Just checking.
Reply
#10
distazo Wrote:Hi Texas,

Be my guest <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I cannot call those differences except for the 2 verses a major change in favor of any Greek manuscript! (Because the Majority Greek still differs a lot with the PeshittO)
The most other minor differences are either copyist errors or typically Aramaic issues where us/they and such personal nouns, are difficult to read because they look alike.

By spreading the message that the PeshittO is corrupted to be like the Greek, what do new curious people who sniff at this Aramaic subject think of this all? They would think that nearly all but some litle left-overs of the East are 'faithfull'? I don't think so.

The PeshittO is also very reliable except for the 5 added books.
And betting on one horse <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> is also risky. What if, for example, the PeshittA turns out to have Hebrews 2:9 as a corrupted variant (aka, deliberate changes in view of the creed of Ephesus in 431)?
The Eastern & Western Aramaic Texts are almost identical in their readings; indeed, they are virtually identical upon every page (except for the extra Western 5 Books and the ?pericope adultera? story) [keep in mind that the Western Aramaic scripts are nothing more than some conforming the Eastern PeshittA Text unto the perverse Greek readings of Constantine's perverted Catholic Church, whereby making the Western PeshittO but only a version of the Eastern PeshittA with Greek renderings ].

In a few of the places where these Aramaic Texts differ, there is essentially a doctrinal controversy at stake between the Eastern and Western ?Assemblies of the East?, which is over the the Personage of The Anointed One: ?Nestorianism? in the East versus ?Monophysitism? in the West. Nestorius teaches that The Anointed One had two natures (human and Divine) and two "qnomas" (one human and One Divine) in one Personage [a "qnoma" is essentially translated "self" or "person" in the English translations of the Scriptures]. Monophysitism teaches that The Anointed One not only has but One Nature and One Qnoma, Both Divine, but that He is Alaha Himself. The Western {Monophysitism} Assembly modified several verses in an attempt to try and provide support for their ?Monophysitism Doctrine?.

There are also many words reflecting a difference in dialect; for one The Name of Alaha is written as ?Mar-YaH? in the Eastern Texts, and ?Mor-YaH? in the Western texts. This is believed to be the reason the Eastern Texts are commonly called the ?PeshittA?, and the Western texts are called the ?PeshittO?.

On Hebrew 2:9 -
From Page 137 to 183 (William Norton's Book), we see Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. In Page 139 (Hebrews 2:9) on Origen's comment about this verse: (a) Ver. 9. Instead of the words rendered, " by the gracious favour of Alaha," other Syriac manuscripts have two variations. The Greek does not seem to be correct, because the exaltation of The Anointed One did not determine the object of His death. A reading older than the time of the Nestorians, was mentioned by Origen, who died about A.D. 254. It is, "For He, apart from Alahahead." Some Nestorians adopted this reading. The Jacobites seem to have altered the position of " Alaha," to suit their creed. They have in their copies,?" He, Alaha, in His gracious favor, tasted death." The PeshittO edited for the B. and F. Bible Society, partly by Dr. Buchanan, and partly by Dr. Lee, and which is founded on some ancient manuscripts, has the reading given above, which differs from that of the Jacobites only in the position of the word " Alaha."

As you known Origen live from late 2nd century to mid 3rd century (185 AD - 254 AD). Origen died 132 years before Nestorius (386 AD - 451 AD) was born. So the idea that Hebrews 2:9 is a Nestorian modification to Western manuscripts is wrong.

More about Hebrews 2:9 -
(From William Norton's Book about Peshitto-Syriac Translation of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, Page xxxix.) "Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia, a celebrated Greek writer, who died about A.D. 429, said that some persons had removed the reading, " without Alaha," and had substituted, " by the merciful favor of Alaha. He said also that the context shows that the apostle was not speaking of Alaha's mercy, but of the relation between the Deity and manhood of The Anointed One. (See Tischendorf's 8th edn., under Heb. ii. 9.) Tischendorf says, "From these testimonies, it is certain that the reading, without Alaha, did not originate with the Nestorians ; for Origen found it in his copies," There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that the Nestorian text of the PeshittA in Heb. ii. 9, is the result of any change made by them ; but there is reason, on the contrary, to regard it as part of the original text of the PeshittA ; and a proof that the Greek copies which had the same reading in the time of Origen were correct."

The very slight alteration in the Yacobite copies of the Western PeshittO for this reading is of immense significance. With just this tiny alteration to their text, the Monophysite creed (that Alaha Himself "died", khasli) is justified. This occurred precisely for that purpose. I can't imagine a more innocent or reasonable explanation, like a simple scribal error. This is clearly an alteration.

It is not much different from what the JWs did with John 1:1....with "a god". With a simple English one-letter-word, they have completely altered the meaning. Christian branches have been altering Scripture to suit their theological agenda from the beginning, this is nothing new. It's partly the reason why we have hundreds of Greek variants, and thousands of English
ones.

On Hebrew 2:16 -
Eastern Texts have -
?He did not take [the form] of Messengers, but He took [the form] of the children of Abrawhawm?.
The Western texts have -
?For death was not authorized over the Messengers, but over the children of Abrawhawm it was authorized?.

Some early Western PeshittO Manuscripts agree with The Eastern PeshittA on Hebrews 2:16. While the later Western PeshittO manuscripts don't. This shows that changes were made to Western PeshittO manuscripts to suit the theory of Monophysitism.

And Acts 20:28 -
Eastern Texts have - ?feed the Assembly of the The Anointed One?.
Western texts have - ?feed the Assembly of Alaha?.

Again being the Eastern PeshittA tradition has evidence that it goes well back to the 2nd century A.D., and if the Western PeshittO is but only a translation of the Greek, how then is it that the Western PeshittO is almost word for word a copy of the Eastern PeshittA other than its few added verses and the Monophysitic modifications?

Last but not least Yo-Khawnawn 7:53-8:11 -
The pericope adultera - is not present in the Eastern PeshittA Texts, nor was it in the earliest Western PeshittO texts either. I believe it was not just added to the Western PeshittO to line up closer to the Greek texts but also to advance the cause of Monophysitism as they have the lady calling The Anointed One MorYah to further aid in support of their Monophysitism. Being it is known that they got this from the Greek texts alone they can not find justice for having inserted MorYah into this story, as the greek texts alone present no bases for this.

Preservation of an original Text is very easy to do. The CoE doesn't really deserve any credit here. It's really mindless work, all they did is copying letter-for-letter. The most difficult part would be staying interested and being careful enough to not allow for scribal mistakes (like spelling errors and iterations ) to creep in. But it really is a trivial matter. The copies are going to turn out pretty much identical with the originals. Unlike the Western PeshittO, the Eastern PeshittA stayed the way it is. These are evidences that elevate the importance of the Eastern PeshittA. The Assembly of the East preserved PeshittA beautifully.

Translations are a different beast altogether. Even today, translators will go back and change the way they worded something in their earlier translation, or see a mistake that they made. They could go back a thousand times and still find a good reason to revise it. We can see this in action with the multiple revisions that are made to versions that we know to be translations, such as the NIV or king Iames.

Now imagine the state that the Greek texts are in. At some point, prior to their becoming an official version (which stabilized things somewhat), the textual history is in complete disarray. You can hardly find two manuscripts that read the same way. Why? Well, they're translations. They naturally went through an evolution with certain readings being corrected, others being
introduced later, etc. Not to mention the various translators misunderstanding an Aramaic Word with dual meanings and picking the wrong definition to translate.

The very state of the textual history will testify to whether a document was originally penned in that language. The Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Texts are stable, whereas the Greek is wildly divergent. One acts the part of an original, the other a translation. It's rather easy to tell and recognize. (The Western Aramaic text are well know to have been nothing other than a result of revising the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA unto some of the later Greek text for the soul purpose of Monophysitism alone, so it can not be seen as the original by any stretch of the imagination.)

But, if the Western PeshittO textual tradition was stable while the Eastern PeshittA copies varied, well then I would be a Greek Primacist. It would be obvious which is the original and which the translation.

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> The forensics speak volumes...textual CSI. The Eastern PeshittA RULES!!! <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

May,
YHWH bless thee and keep thee;
YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee;
YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom.

Your Brother in Y'hoshuah The Anointed One.
Reply
#11
I'll be honest, I don't see how Acts 20:28 teaches that Jesus has only a divine nature. It merely shows that the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ is God's flesh because Jesus is God. The Father, the Spirit, does not have flesh, but whenever this divine Person took on flesh He became the Son, who had full sinless humanity and deity. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is YHWH God existing as a true Man.
Reply
#12
It is a so-called verse which Names The Anouinted One by MorYah. I know that this in itself does not prove Monophysitism but it is one of the first places people that promote Monophysitism point to. So I assume that the only reason for the Name/Title MorYah in this verse would be to help support Monophysitism. If it did not help their cause they would not use it in their arguments. Yet you will not find the Anointed One in this so-calleed verse in the Eastern PeshittA though. Apparently the keepers thereof did not feel a need to inject extra stuff in an attempt to prove what they believed. Thank YHWH for that, awmain! Or we really would be in a pickle as to just what the True ReNewed Covenant says due to the fact that no other textural tradition has a constant preservation.

The Eastern PeshittA copies we have today while not the original texts, their contents are attested to have gone as far back as the 1st and 2nd centuries (as quoted and attested to by early Aramaic Assembly fathers), and preserved beautifully every since. The Western PeshittO was/is nothing other than a 5th century concoction and known to be the Eastern PeshittA trashed out with the Greek texts variances. Try and find quotations from the early Syrian Fathers of the PeshittO variants before the 5th century. They never quoted the Western Five either because like the other Greek variants they too did not exist in the Aramaic until they where translated from the Greek texts in the 5th century. If the PeshittO people did not take an Aramaic texts to twist around then it is funny that they have ended up with an almost word for word with an Aramaic Text known to exist before they made the PeshittO. If you ask me it looks like they took the Eastern PeshittA to do just that, as they are other than the Greek variants a word for word rendition. And being it is proven that Western PeshittO is not in line with the so-called Old Syriac, we know that the Eastern PeshittA is the only candidate left.

All evidence when taken together points to the Eastern PeshittA as the oldest and best there is. Nothing else can come close to its purity and/or age that we have available to us today.
Reply
#13
<!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> SS2, you wrote...
Quote:but whenever this divine Person took on flesh He became the Son,

Brother, you know I love you...that is called "Sabellian modalism" an old heresy, which is not supported by The Scriptures, nor the teachings of The Church as seen from the earliest witnesses.

The Father did not become His own Son, He brought forth/Begat His one and only Son, of His Own substance. All others can only be called adopted Children...

The Son of God is The True Offspring of His Father, not His Father Himself in another "mode", but really and truly The Son of His Father.

If we teach this false idea, that The Father, just "became The Son", then there is really No Son, and really No Father...because it is all just an illusion, and an act.

As to The Throne in Heaven...The Father is not sitting beside Himself there...His Son is sitting beside His real Father.

I know we are going over this matter on the sidelines, but I thought I would point this out here on the field.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#14
Quote:What if, for example, the PeshittA turns out to have Hebrews 2:9 as a corrupted variant (aka, deliberate changes in view of the creed of Ephesus in 431)?

Quote:As you known Origen live from late 2nd century to mid 3rd century (185 AD - 254 AD). Origen died 132 years before Nestorius (386 AD - 451 AD) was born. So the idea that Hebrews 2:9 is a Nestorian modification to Western manuscripts is wrong.

Tex, brings up the important, but little known fact, that Hebrews 2:9, as it reads in The Eastern Peshitta, predates the early 430s A.D. controversy over the nature of the Messiah a number of centuries...to at least the time before Origen quotes it's reading, as being the majority Greek reading that he knew, indicating that the other reading was a minority reading in "some" copies as he reveals, but which he did not favor in his application of the verse.
Reply
#15
arrrise Wrote:I am new to this site. Would someone please compare Aramaic Peshitta English New Testament Translations by Magiera, Bauscher, Roth, Alexander, Pashka, Jahn. I have been reading Bauscher's.
arrise, your wish has come true -see:
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224</a><!-- l -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)