OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 06:23:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why  (Read 12971 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #90 on: August 03, 2006, 07:36:23 PM »

Er, well - they're not getting your point, and you're not getting theirs.ÂÂ  I wasn't taking a side, because neither side is making headway.

I agree with you, which is why I'd rather read a book which proves either side than continue this unfruitful discussion.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #91 on: August 03, 2006, 07:39:01 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=7782.msg130244#msg130244 date=1154633580]
Prolonging the agony of this thread...why don't YOU define an "outside source"? Outside what, the Church? Outside Orthodoxy and 99% of Heterodoxy? Buddhists, perhaps... Roll Eyes
[/quote]

Outside of this forum. Wink

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #92 on: August 03, 2006, 08:05:13 PM »

If Paul Younan were merely a follower of George Lamsa, he wouldn't be creating his own translation which deviates from Lamsa's. Younan is not a Lamsa cult follower, but a member of the Assyrian Orthodox Church.

http://peshitta.org/

Is it possible that the Peshitta does not contain four of the General Epistles, the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery, because the text dates back to before these were popularly accepted into the New Testament canon?

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2006, 08:08:00 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #93 on: August 04, 2006, 01:03:59 AM »


Is it possible that the Peshitta does not contain four of the General Epistles, the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery, because the text dates back to before these were popularly accepted into the New Testament canon?


And thus no one bothered to translate them into Aramaic? I don't think this supports your line of thinking Wink

John.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #94 on: August 04, 2006, 04:08:24 PM »

If Paul Younan were merely a follower of George Lamsa, he wouldn't be creating his own translation which deviates from Lamsa's. Younan is not a Lamsa cult follower, but a member of the Assyrian Orthodox Church.

http://peshitta.org/

Is it possible that the Peshitta does not contain four of the General Epistles, the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery, because the text dates back to before these were popularly accepted into the New Testament canon?

Peace.

I went to that link and found an interesting debate on the antiquity of the Peshitta vs. the Greek.

Here is a snip from that debate:

"The Dictionary of the New Testament Background - "In due course, the rather free translation of the Old Syriac was revised on the basis of an early form of the Koine, or Byzantine, Greek text; this revision, eventually called the Peshitta (to distinguish it from the Harclean), emerged ca. 400 to become the standard New Testament text of the Syriac churches. The Peshitta covers the whole New Testament, apart from 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation (none of which formed part of the early Syriac canon)."

....The oldest MSS of the Peshitta dates from A.D. 463-464, which can't compare to the surviving Greek MSS of the New Testament and the scholarly consensus is that your "holy" book originated from translated Greek MSS.  If I am wrong, then point me to the 30-40 A.D. Aramaic prototype. If you can't, then you are blowing hot air. "

Younan did not rebut this statement in his short reply back to his opponent.  What would the 'pro-Peshitta' rebuttal to the above statement be?  Anybody?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #95 on: August 04, 2006, 04:14:36 PM »

Good post, ROCORthodox.

Makes me miss our old 'bookmark' function for future reference.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #96 on: August 04, 2006, 10:42:08 PM »

And thus no one bothered to translate them into Aramaic? I don't think this supports your line of thinking Wink

John.

These were translated into Aramaic after the Peshitta was originally compiled. The Western Peshitto, a later translation, does not omit them.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 10:42:54 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #97 on: August 04, 2006, 10:48:37 PM »

What would the 'pro-Peshitta' rebuttal to the above statement be?ÂÂ  Anybody?

Probably that the Peshitta dates back to the second century, and that the Yonan codex testifies to this:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/khabouris.htm

I have no problem with the Greek New Testament other than its apparent mistranslations. I prefer the Aramaic Peshitta, among other reasons, because it is the traditional text of my church.
If one were able to prove that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, I would not feel disappointed or offended. I have nothing at stake other than finding and holding to the truth, whatever it may be.

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 10:49:57 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 10, 2006, 07:54:50 PM »

A point made recently, that was ignored, is that the Peshitta contains an earlier New Testament canon than the Greek:

"The seven "Catholic" Epistles (James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for their canonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

If the Peshitta were translated from a Greek text, why would it omit these books? It is more likely that the Peshitta is of an earlier date, and that these were added to the canon later on.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #99 on: August 10, 2006, 11:22:57 PM »

If the Peshitta were translated from a Greek text, why would it omit these books? It is more likely that the Peshitta is of an earlier date, and that these were added to the canon later on.

Ummmm, because there wasn't originally a single Greek canon? There are too many possible explanations here. They might have known of the books and rejected them, or they may have worked from a Greek text that omitted them, or.... The absence is interesting but not sufficiently telling in itself.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 11, 2006, 01:13:53 AM »

I can see why you'd make those considerations. But Greek primacists, if I am not mistaken, claim that the Peshitta was translated at a time when the Greek canon was long already established. What reasons would the translators have for omitting these books?

I'd like to stop this debate for a moment to say that God's Word is really all that matters, no matter its original language. As I've said before, I have nothing to lose if the Gospel were written in Greek, just as you have nothing to lose if it were in Aramaic.

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 02:15:08 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2006, 08:42:28 PM »

Peshitta?

I thought you guys have been arguing over that overpriced Italian ham!! Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 08:43:18 PM by Dismus » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #102 on: August 13, 2006, 07:37:50 PM »

Disimus -
What a great line!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2006, 11:59:53 PM »

I know that George Lamsa is quite the polarizing figure, but so was Father Seraphim Rose. Though his position on toll houses may have been questionable, that does not automatically discredit the entirety of his theology and scholarship.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #104 on: August 14, 2006, 07:44:20 AM »

Peshitta?

I thought you guys have been arguing over that overpriced Italian ham!! Cheesy

No, just a little bit of baloney.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #105 on: August 15, 2006, 08:49:17 AM »

This site provides an explanation for why Greek was chosen as the language of the New Testament, providing evidences that Jesus and the Apostles were fluent in this language:
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

Though it may not be enough for me to change my mind, it is the kind of source I would have hoped for in this discussion from someone in support of its position.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Dismus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #106 on: August 15, 2006, 11:40:59 AM »

I think I found all anyone needs to know in this book below:

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshitta_Dummies_FirstEd.pdf

You have to admit it is a catchy title.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 15, 2006, 12:35:29 PM »

It is a good read, and provides rather solid of a case for Peshitta primacy.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #108 on: August 19, 2006, 08:26:46 PM »

I know that George Lamsa is quite the polarizing figure, but so was Father Seraphim Rose. Though his position on toll houses may have been questionable, that does not automatically discredit the entirety of his theology and scholarship.

Except - Fr. Seraphim Rose was/is Orthodox ... Lamsa was not/is not. Lamsa is also not a scholar, but a psuedo-scholar.

The problem with the whole 'Peshitta primacy' argument is that it requires a Protestant worldview; that of a pristine text from the beginnings (or as the beginnings) of the Church. The term used to describe this is Primitivism. The push towards finding evidence for the theory of Aramaic Primacy is simply Primitivism (with a dash of support of local ethnocentrism for those who want to bolster feelings of inferiority vs. Greeks, Copts, Armenians, Arabs, etc.) There is archaelogical evidence enough that the environment was multi-lingual, and enough (onomastic, and cultural inertia) to show Greek, as well as Aramaic, were used from the beginnings. But, the onus is on those who are trying to prove 'Aramaic Primacy' to prove against evidence, that Greek was unknown. That is what the argument is really about for the Aramaic Primacists - their claim that Greek is bad, unknown, contrary to Christianity. It will take much more than the methods of 19th c. German Literary Criticism (extrapolating from prooftexts) to prove Aramaic Primacy. You've got to disprove the existence of 2nd Temple Greek texts in Jewish Palestine (which we do have in the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' from Qumran and else), disprove the cultural impact of the Empire of Alexander (still in evidence even as far east as Afghanistan), and so much more. The most important part - one has to prove a negative - there is no explicit information on the linguistic knowledge or ignorance of the Apostles. We do have onomastic evidence showing they had both Semitic and Hellenic names - and textual/historical evidence (even archaeological) that the Early Christians included both Hebrews, Aramaics, and from early on a *large* number of Greeks (whether ethnic or Hellenized Jews.) So - the advancement of the modern theory of Aramaic Primacy has quite a bit of a ways to go to gain any standing. As of yet, nothing solid has been offered to make the theory acceptable.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 20, 2006, 01:52:38 AM »

Lamsa is also not a scholar, but a psuedo-scholar.

That is obviously disputable.

The problem with the whole 'Peshitta primacy' argument is that it requires a Protestant worldview; that of a pristine text from the beginnings (or as the beginnings) of the Church.

If that were true, why would Peshitta primacy be the official teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East?

That is what the argument is really about for the Aramaic Primacists - their claim that Greek is bad, unknown, contrary to Christianity.

I have not seen or heard any Aramaic primacist who has actually made that claim. The argument made is that the New Testament was originally written by Semitic-speaking people, for Semitic-speaking people, and about Semitic-speaking people, and therefore would not have been written in Greek. The question of whether or not the Apostles spoke fluent Greek is beside the point.
The question is what would have been the best language to reach the lost tribes of Israel, who were to be the first receivers of the Gospel message. Numerous times, both Jesus and Saint Paul state that their mission was first for the lost tribes and then the Gentiles. I do not doubt that, early on, Greek versions of the New Testament works were created as to reach the non-Semitic peoples.
That does not mean, however, that Greek was the original language.

There are numerous internal evidences within the New Testament that point to an Aramaic original. For example, while John 12:20 in most English Bibles reads that Jesus was visited by Greeks, the Peshitta more accurately reads that they were Gentiles. This is more in keeping with Eusebius' account that the Prince of Edessa had sent representatives in order to learn of Jesus' mission:
http://www.biblefacts.org/church/edessa.html

As a descendent of the lost tribes, Abgarus wanted to know whether Jesus was the promised Messiah. Furthermore, early on, the Syriac peoples converted to the Christian faith. It is hard to believe that a Syriac version of the New Testament did not exist until centuries later.

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2006, 01:55:52 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: August 20, 2006, 02:58:06 AM »

If that were true, why would Peshitta primacy be the official teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East?

The rejection of the veneration of Icons is also a teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East which will not allow them in their Churches. So, since Protestants also reject the veneration of Icons, should we call it the "Assyrian mindset" since they came first? If they behave like Protestants, can't they be said to have a "Protestant worldview"?
And one more thing, if the Assyrian Church has made a mistake with the veneration of Icons, isn't it possible they also made a mistake with Peshitta primacy?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #111 on: August 20, 2006, 03:02:33 AM »

And one more thing, if the Assyrian Church has made a mistake with the veneration of Icons, isn't it possible they also made a mistake with Peshitta primacy?

The Assyrian Christians represent one of the earliest Christian communities. Their rejection of iconography could be that their faith tradition predates the popular usage of icons in liturgical life.
I have no intention of defending Assyrian theology, but to show that Peshitta primacy predates George Lamsa.ÂÂ  

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2006, 03:05:00 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #112 on: August 20, 2006, 04:06:34 AM »

The Assyrian Christians represent one of the earliest Christian communities. Their rejection of iconography could be that their faith tradition predates the popular usage of icons in liturgical life.

They predate Luke? Shocked Roll Eyes
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 20, 2006, 04:12:28 AM »

Either that, or it could mean that their group was isolated from any iconographical tradition, irregardless of when iconography began to be used in the liturgy of other groups.

Peace.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2006, 04:13:36 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #114 on: August 20, 2006, 06:19:30 AM »

Yes, they rejected icons per se, but they even more heavily venerate the image of the cross - same thing, no?
When they attempted to convert the Mongols khans they demonstrated their faith and praxsis by prostrations and veneration of the cross. Strange evangelizing technique.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2006, 07:38:34 AM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #115 on: August 20, 2006, 07:09:10 AM »

Quote
That is obviously disputable.

No - not disputable, just being denied by some. Denial doesn't mean something is in dispute - it just means that someone is in denial.

The claims of the Assyrian Church of the East as to primacy of their tradition is a mutable thing. To understand its history, one needs to understand the heavy hand of the Presbyterians and Evangelical/Puritan wings of the Anglican Church upon the Assyrians through the last two centuries. The 'primacy' of texts isn't a concern of traditional Assyrian theology - they got that from the Protestants.

Again: the search for a 'pure' text is not part of Syriac tradition. The best illustration of this is the existence of the canonical Syriac Diatessaron  (the Harmony of the Four Gospels) alongside that of the canonical Syriac Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe (the Gospel of the Distinct Evangelists.) The Syriac tradition was the origin of the 'Harmony' tradition, and was fine with its method of simplification/compilation ... even paraphrase (and that, from as early as the 170s.)

That the Assyrians may claim something now does not mean their claim has any veracity. And, what the Assyrian Church of the East claims does not reflect on the Malankara or Jacobite tradition (they aren't in union with the Assyrian Church of the East, nor share their peculiarities of theology and praxis.) Important to note that the West Syriac tradition *does* venerate icons (and always has) - one Syriac tradition with, one without. The modern 'spin' of ACOE is that the West Syriacs (which includes Malankara) have been 'corrupted by the Greeks'. Does the Malankara Archdiocese admit to such?
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #116 on: August 21, 2006, 01:50:41 AM »

No - not disputable, just being denied by some.

Numerous scholars in Lamsa's lifetime considered his insight to be important and helpful.

The claims of the Assyrian Church of the East as to primacy of their tradition is a mutable thing.

How long has the Assyrian Church made the claim of Aramaic primacy?

Does the Malankara Archdiocese admit to such?

No, not at all. I'd hope that our Church would not be the kind to refer to our Greek Orthodox brothers and sisters as corrupt in doctrine or practice.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 55 queries.