Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mattai 20:28, Bezae and Old Scratch
#1
Shlama Akhay,

Check out this spurious reading from Old Scratch in Mattai 20:28:

Rabbula the Maniac Wrote:[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwbr0t Fwrw0z Nmd w0b Nyd Jwtn0
0nynmdzmd 0m Jwr0zt Fwbr Nm fw

Nykmtsm Jwtywh f Fym4x0 tybl Jwtn0
rtymd Nm F0n fd Frtym Fkwdb

Brqt0 Fym4x0 0rm Kl rm0nw Knm
Nyd n0 0kyms Yny9b thbtw txtl

rycbd Nm F0nw Frycb Fkwdb Kmtst
Brqt0 Fym4x0 0rm Kl rm0nw Knm

Fxwb4t Kl 0whtw Kmts0w f9t0w
0kyms Yny9b Frtym
[/font]

Translation:

Quote:"But you should seek to increase from that which is small, and to become less from that which is greater. When you enter into a house and are summoned to dine, do not sit down in the highest places, lest perchance a more honorable man than you come in afterwards, and he who invited you to come should say to you, go down lower; and you be ashamed. But if you sit down in the worst place, and one worse than you should come in afterwards, then he that invited you will say to you, go up higher; and this will be advantageous for you."

Why this addition of this spurious made-up reading? Well, the Bezae contains it....why else? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Paul,

I can not find this story in any book other than Luk 14:8-10 in any English Text, even the Emglish translations from the Aramaic. I looked in many diferrent versions. Even check the Greek Texts. Nothing of this story in Matthew.

Why do you say it is in "Mattai 20:28"?
Reply
#3
The Texas RAT Wrote:Why do you say it is in "Mattai 20:28"?

Shlama Texas Rat,

Because it's in the "Old Syriac" and "Codex Bezae" versions of Matthew 20:28, hence the "spurios" comment =) It's a good thing you didn't find it in any other of the manuscripts you checked...not supposed to be there.

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
Paul Younan Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:Why do you say it is in "Mattai 20:28"?

Shlama Texas Rat,

Because it's in the "Old Syriac" and "Codex Bezae" versions of Matthew 20:28, hence the "spurios" comment =) It's a good thing you didn't find it in any other of the manuscripts you checked...not supposed to be there.

+Shamasha


I thought that the Byzantine text was the same as Bezae, is why I tried to hunt it down in the Greek Byzantine and also any English translation that used it. Guest not?

Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my question. And thanks for this forum where you and others can share their knowledge and expertise.
Reply
#5
The Texas RAT Wrote:I thought that the Byzantine text was the same as Bezae, is why I tried to hunt it down in the Greek Byzantine and also any English translation that used it. Guest not?

Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my question. And thanks for this forum where you and others can share their knowledge and expertise.

First, you're welcome. And you're welcome here.

The Bezan text is an odd Greek version that contains many variant readings when compared to both the Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek texts. Interestingly, the Old Syriac (which we jokingly refer to as "Old Scratch") also contains many of the same variants. I was attempting to illustrate the relationship between them, with this odd reading.

+Shamasha
Reply
#6
Paul,

I have been reading many of your' and other' posts on Old Scratch and y'all have very well shown how the OLD SCRATCH is nothing other than a revision of the Peshitta to conform it with the BEZAE Greek text. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not an original Aramaic text.

I will have to admitt here that the imfomus Dr. Trimm had me thinking that it was of the oldest Aramaic Texts but thanks to you guys I can see clearly that HE, as well as OLD SCRATCH, is WRONG. Please never tire of refuting James or many of us (as less educated than he <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: --> ) would not understand that for the best New Testament one needs look no farther than the Aramaic Peshitta. Personally I can only understand the English language and will have to rely on people like you to get a translation of it into the English language. Other than your Interlinear is there a complete English translation of the Peshitta that you recommend. I do not want to read from the ones that claim to be a Peshitta translation but in reality used the King Iames version as their underlying text, as I think of them to be in the same catagory as OLD SCRATH - i.e.: TRASH! I wish for only the purest English translations of the Eastern Peshitta, for as when it comes to seeking The Anointed One' WORD only the Eastern Peshitta will do <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->, awmane(?)!

Again thanks. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
will brinson: ferguson
Reply
#7
Hi Will,

With regard to translations in general, the versions in English currently out there are all very good. Lamsa, Murdock, Etheridge, etc. I find the history of translation fascinating, of course, but I don't consider the interlinear here to be a translation per se, but rather a guide to the underlying Aramaic. I doesn't work very well at all as a translation, sounds rather harsh to the Western English-speaking ear and is rather clumsy as a literary work.

Perhaps we as the Body of Christ should more closely followed the tradition of the Jews (and even, the Muslims) in that we regarded all translations as mere guides to help us understand the originals, rather than placing them on equal (or in some cases, greater) footing than the originals.

For the Jews, they made the Targums so they could understand the underlying Hebrew better...not so that they could just read the Aramaic and forget the Hebrew. For the Muslims, the Koran is always in Arabic no matter if they are from Arabia or from Bosnia.

Much the same way, I suppose, the Church did early on carry on a similar tradition...mostly for which it earned the ire of the reformists. In the west, the Latin version (I know!) reigned as authoritative and people had to learn the language to understand it. In the east, to this day, that tradition still remains in the Aramaic version....although I fully expect "reform" to come eventually as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is my hope that people across the world use translations (and interlinears) as a guide, a temporary crutch, in their journey to understand the scripture as it was intended in all its idiom and nuance.

The basics of the faith, the most important tenets are of course conveyed by the Holy Spirit in all languages, without question. But something is always to be gained, a greater appreciation realized, when the original is seen, read and understood in its own milieu. We can get that appreciation through the work of scholars, and also for those who are ambitious enough this can be achieved with enough study on their own. And I do wish I could share that experience, which I have by mere accident of birth, with everyone. It is a fleeting thing, one which less and less people will have as this language continues is slow decline to the status of a liturgical curiosity. It probably will be gone in a generation or two, but we continue our work and hopefully this will help it go a little bit longer.

If I can help to pass this heritage, which is your heritage, to the west so that it can reclaim it as its own then I will have fulfilled what I feel my calling is.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
I think all translations are only a literary help to understand the originals, and that is why I am on a search to find out which text come closest to them. I now believe that the EASTERN PESHITTA is the closest thing (if not an exact copy thereof) we have to the GOOD NEWS of our Savoir thanks to this forum.

At this point and time I am English bound, but with the help of interlinears and Lexicons/Dictioaries I will in time learn Hebrew and Aramaic.

I ask which English translation sticks closest to the PeshittA (not PeshittO) because I want the closest writings to our Moshiach' Words. I am told that Lamsa, Murdock, Etheridge, and the likes used the King Yames Version (which is based on the Greek text) for their underlying text more so than the PeshittA. This will not do for me as I want the PeshittA as the only underlying text to an English translation. I know that they are better than nothing and that salvation can be acheive by reading and accepting the Anointed One, but still the closest one can get to HaMoshiach' Words the more they can understand how to please and obey Him.

Jeremy is making a translation and has let me have PDF copies even though they are not totally finished so that I can start my studies on English translation of the Eastern PeshittA.

I would like to know if there are any others that used the PeshittA and only the PeshittA, as I said if they used anyother text to arive at there translation I really do not have the time to try and pick through it as I have been having to do up to this date. Easier to just have one that is English of PeshittA alone. And that is what I am seeking after. Be a real shame if the world had to what for me to learn Aramaic and make a translation myself as this could take years on end. I thank you and Jeremy for all y'all have done to get the the purest English translations to study our Savoir' Word, hallelu-Yahu, awmane.

From Huntville Texas, USA,
will brinson: ferguson
Reply
#9
Hi Will:
If you are looking for help in understanding the words of the Peshitta, go to Dukhrana Biblical Research at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->. Use the "Peshitta Tool". It was compiled and made "user friendly" by Lars Lindgren. It's a great start for the beginer as well as the seasoned scholar.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#10
Thanks Stephen,

I saved it to my favorites and will go through the site.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)