Who would name the child according to custom?

[Dave]

No.
He would not sacrifice the Peshitta and it's truths, his whole campaign was on the truth is brought to light, he would not change words. In fact he followed the peshitta at the end of that chapter with:

"and she called his name Jesus"

if he was changing words around to suit him, that would have been changed also.

[drmlanc]

1) Lamsa's version is full of errors. Note that he didn't believe that Jesus was God, nor that He actually was physically resurrected.

2) The Peshitta doesn't specifically NAME the one who is to name Jesus, but it is said straight after "Mary will bear a son and..." Put 2 and 2 together...

[Dave]

I'm gonna leave this as I don't want this to degrade further.

I'm spending some time in Hebrew customs, and I sincerely suggest more should also. There are mistakes within this Peshitta, and with mistakes come questions as to it's authenticity. Again, I admire the truths prevelant, but some small errors are creeping up. I won't be part of the King james only crowd that accepts it no matter what, so I will point them out from time to time, and attempt to be as forthright as possible with each of you.

[Rob Vanhoff]

Akhi Dave,

Do you really want to die fighting on this hill?

I don't know where you're getting these "Hebrew customs", but you might want to check out what TaNaKh itself has to say! (Off the top of my head I can't think of a better place to look for Hebrew customs)

The following were named by their mothers:

Seth
Reuben
Simeon
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Asher
Issachar
Zebulun
Dinah (daughter of Leah)
Joseph
Moses (by Pharoah's daughter)
Samuel
Oved (David's grand-daddy, named by women)
Solomon (in the traditional reading of 2 Sam. 12:24)

That's 15! Must not be too big of a deal.


Shlama,
Rob

[Dave]

Rob,
I know you were ready to jump in on that but, I didn't say that a child was never named by the woman in scripture.

What i said was this:

The Angel told Joseph he would name the child, then the Peshitta makes the mistake by saying that Mary named it towards then end of the chapter.

Now it's very clear about this. 2 translators, Murdock translated the person the angel was talking to as "thou", and Lamsa went farther by translating it "you". Very precise and very clear. Also, if there was an agenda that either of them had over this, they would have changed the the angels words or chapter ending, but they didn't, they translated it just as it was worded.

This points to a mistake with the Peshitta.

Now on top of that, as you go through Murdocks translation, you find where he pointed out interpolations/additions. His notes would say "most ancient manuscripts don't have,...blah blah." Now this caught me by surprise cause I was told directly by Paul on here that the manuscripts agree completely with themselves. But that is not the case. So far I've found quite a few, but will look more tonight. Might list them when I get farther into it.

The problem with interpolations and mistakes is, someone attempted to make this adhere to something else, as you look at the addition, it lines up perfectly with the Greek addition.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[Rob Vanhoff]

Dave,

You're being wishy-washy. Which do you want to address? So-called "Hebrew customs" or what you call mistakes in the Peshitta?

You have no support for the "Hebrew custom" claim. And the Talmud did not appear for another 4-5 hundred years.

You might want to re-read the Peshitta of Matthew. The Angel tells Joseph that Mary will concieve and that SHE will call the child Yeshua. Then, later in the chapter, SHE names him Yeshua.

Am I missing something, here?


Shlama,
Rob

[Guest]

I didn't say I was debating hebrew customs here, I said I was studying it, and recommended other to also.

Back to the obvious:

why would 2 translators translate it as He would, in reference to the angel talking to Joseph?

So who are we to believe here? Why are they translating it He and this site translates it she?

Interesting huh?

These guys put a good portion of their life into this, so why would they translate it wrong. Murdock in particular was a very learned man, if it said she, he would have translated it as such.

Not being wishy washy, I'm staying on the topic I addressed, the Peshitta says one thing then it says another,..therefore there is a mistake in that particular area.

2 translators have pointed it out. Now how am I not being clear about this?

[Paul Younan]

Dave,

The reason for the variance in how translators approach this is that the Aramaic verb used there happens to be in a conjugation that can be either in the 3rd-person feminine - [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rqt[/font] (see Lexicon word#18903) or the 2nd-person masculine (see word# 18904). Same exact spelling.

This is why your 2 translators got it wrong. They obviously understood the word to be in the 2nd-person masculine rather than in the 3rd-person feminine.

Please learn a tad bit about Aramaic grammar before you make such silly claims as this! A 3-year old child would know this. You never spoke the language, so we can't be too harsh on you - but at least take the time and make the effort to learn rather than relying on translators who are liable to make mistakes. <!-- s:yell: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/yell.gif" alt=":yell:" title="Yell" /><!-- s:yell: -->

If you want to debate Aramaic with me you'd better get a lot smarter than you think you are, Mr. Elect.

[Guest]

So your saying that these translators, who had much more training than you have, Mister Paul, are wrong?

I think they have more credentials than you have, remember, your just the average Joe with a little background in this, this is by your own words.

So I'm to believe you?

Murdock had an actual degree, a major one in fact; Lamsa actually came from the country, if I remember correctly, and spent all his life translating it and promoting it till his death,....and you run a website, with a mediocre amount of knowledge, but your own words.

Hmm, by chance, how would they not know this and translate it according to what you say??

So why would they on purpose translate it incorrect, so as to show the mistake within the peshitta? So they didn't know what they were doing and were just old men who knew nothing huh?

I'm just asking questions here fellas, I'm sure you can appreciate that.
This is just in the first chaptor of Matthew, I've haven't even gone farther then that yet.

I'm not relying on my knowledge of aramaic, and it's funny how you jump so fast to belittle me over it,..but really it's just as easy to rely on ones translation, in fact I have "2" to rely on. Both are ledgit.

Come on guys, the mistake is there. Don't make excuses here for it. Your sounding like another group.

[Paul Younan]

Dave,

All translators make mistakes.

The two that you are referring to made a very simple mistake. The angel was talking to Yosef - when translating, they thought they saw a verb in the 2nd-person masculine - because the conversation was between the angel and Yosef. See? Very easy mistake to make. 2nd-person masculine and 3rd-person feminine are conjugated the exact same way - and both have the spelling [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rqt[/font]

See? I explained thoroughly enough to where even you should understand the grammar behind it.

Now get over it - you're wrong and so were they. If Lamsa was here right now and I pointed this out to him, he would agree with me and revise his translation.

I make mistakes in translating, too. When they are pointed out to me (by someone who actually knows what they're talking about), I make the corrections and move on.

But that doesn't mean that I need to defend myself or my Aramaic skills to someone who can't even speak a word of the language. I'll debate you in Aramaic, if you would even understand what I'm saying.

You are not even at the student level - so please take your "elect" attitude elsewhere!

Sheesh!

[Guest]

Oh, about forgot,

Heres another one. The genealogy is wrong just like the greek, there are only 13 names after the exile, just like the greek.

Interesting, I must say. I'm sure Matthew would not have made sure a blatant error being the Hebrew he was, especially in a genealogy. He would know better.

What was this copied from? It carried the same errors as others did. So how can this be original?

[Paul Younan]

Dave,

You didn't even read my article, apparently.

If Mary's father was named Yosef, as recorded in the Aramaic of Mattai, then there are 14 generations.

Dave - you're really embarassing yourself right now. Please stop while you have some semblance of respect left around here.

This is painful to watch. <!-- s:nervous: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nervous.gif" alt=":nervous:" title="Nervous" /><!-- s:nervous: -->

[Guest]

Also,

You said that the peshitta manuscripts agreed amongst themselves. So why does Murdock have notes to the side about ancient manuscripts not having certain text items. That is called an interpolation. That means the text was revised at one point. Dare I say it was revised to the Greek? Same interpolations and such, exact almost.

I thought these manuscripts were the same, and all said the same? What is going on here with this?

I'm just asking questions here. And I havent even got to chap 2

[Paul Younan]

Dave,

It is understandable that after you made such a silly claim based on your zero-knowledge of Aramaic, and seeing that you're so embarassed by that mistake - that you would just go all over the board now and switch to a totally different topic.

Please, Dave - stop making such a fool of yourself. You're making it look too easy.

You are talking to your superior in this topic - I don't need to learn anything from you, it's the other way around.

So learn your place, otherwise this is the last interaction I have with you - it's a waste of time as you obviously don't know what you are talking about and you are wasting my time and my bandwidth.

[Guest]

I'm just asking questions Paul, and hoping for answers. No need to get defensive.

Please answer the questions. Many others on here are paying attention to this also. I can assume that I believe.

Why is there notes in Murdocks translation?

Why is there a change in the texts?