Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
Mic,

You can stay unsure as long as you need to...it won't bother me. It takes a lot of time to come to the truth sometimes and eventually you will...no doubt about it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:the harmonisation was replaced in the 5th century by the canonical four gospels individually, in the Peshitta version, whose Syriac text nevertheless contains many Diatessaronic readings.

"replaced....by the canonical four gosepls" Yes indeed.

"in the Peshitta version, whose (Aramaic) text...contains many Diatessaronic readings" Yes, of course, since it was crafted/edited from that Aramaic source text, later called "The Peshitta" in the 9th century...which was the standard and only Scriptures that those churches had ever used, since the time of The Apostles and the beginning of their Churches.

1: The regular Aramaic NT came 1st, from which Tatian used to craft/edit his Aramaic Harmony of the four Gospels.

2: His Harmony thus retains the unique readings of the Aramaic Scriptures, which he had used to craft/edit his Harmony.

3: It became very popular and had replaced the separate Gospels in some Western Syriac Church services during the 3rd and 4th centuries.

4: Tatian was later labeled a heretic long after his death, for some of his written teachings, and his Harmony began to fall out of popularity in these Churches which used them.

5: The Church leaders in these areas gathered up his Aramaic Gospel Harmony and "put them away", but some copies survived into the 9th century, where one of them was translated into Arabic in the 11th century, from which the English translation was made in the 19th century.

6: The Churches which had been using The Diatessaron, were ordered to use the regular Gospels for their liturgical readings. They had always had these, but had been using The Diatessaron version instead of them.

7: There never was a Greek version of the Diatessaron, not even a hint of one, and thus was never used in any Greek speaking Church...it (The Aramaic Diatessaron) was only used in Aramaic speaking Orthodox Churches west of the Euphrates River.

8: For some reason many people don't want to believe that an Aramaic NT existed before the 4th-5th century, when it clearly has been in existence all along since the 1st century, and used by The Church of the East, who was given it by The Apostles. Anything that points to it being so, is discounted, doubted, or mocked. It seems to unsettle them for some strange reason, and they simply can't bring themselves to believe it could be true.

9: I love the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta, and have found nothing wrong with it, and I praise God for keeping it safe from corruption all these centuries.

Blessings,
Chuck
.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - by Thirdwoe - 02-10-2013, 10:01 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)