Glenn David Bauscher has translated the Peshitta NT and OT, except for its OT deuterocanonical books.
The Aramaic ‘d-i-n,’ a ‘thought switcher,’ is the second word in Peshitta 1:18 and 1:19.
Matthew 1 (Bauscher)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
16 Yaqob begot Yoseph the guardian of Maryam, her from whom was begotten Yeshua, who is called The Messiah.
17 Therefore all generations from Abraham until David were fourteen generations, and from David until the captivity of Babel, fourteen generations, and from the captivity of Babel until The Messiah, fourteen generations.
18 The birth of Yeshua The Messiah was thus: when Maryam his mother was engaged to Yoseph before they would have a conjugal relation she was found pregnant from The Spirit of Holiness.
19 But Yoseph her lord was righteous and did not want to expose her, and he was considering divorcing her secretly.
“The Number of Generations in Matthew 1: A Proposition Based on the Peshitta” (2017), 61pp., on 54
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Conclusion
Due to the semantic ranges of … [g-b-r-h, i.e. ‘her g-b-r-a’] and … [b-ai-l-h, i.e. ‘her baal’/ lord] in Matthew 1.16 and 1.19, respectively, Matthew 1 may speak of two people named ‘Joseph.’ This would make the third section have 14 generations. It would also harmonize the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, albeit with Joseph as Mary’s guardian instead of either tradition of Joachim or Zadoq as her father.
This proposition may be unconvincing, perhaps depending on one’s regard for _P_ [i.e. the Peshitta]. It may disregard the midrashic nature of the genealogy in Matthew 1. Nevertheless, it is less strained than the other explanations, and the most likely.
“for Mt 1,16, Younan says, ‘It is unclear whether the text refers to Maryam’s father or to her husband.'”
Younan wrote
Feature 3 – Mistranslating the Genealogies of Yeshua, pp. 228-241.
On 241:
So this example makes a very clear case for translating 0rbg as “father”, if it is drawn from the proper context.
in
‘Raphael Lataster,’ _Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy_ (2008), 298pp.
PDF: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Thank you for pointing that out”
You’re welcome, Robert.
“what I said still holds for… Aramaic”
For Old Syriac Curetonian, I see lack of the Khabouris Peshitta’s rhyming in Mt 6:10 (see the -s around the rhyme-breaking word), and in 6:11.
Because OS Sinaitic has merely 6:9 completely, 6:10 fragmentarily, and lacks any more text until Mt 8:3, it’s too incomplete to check its rhyming.
OS Curetonian is missing 6:13’s ‘and the power,’ and has an added-later ‘amen.’
using Peshitta tool of
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matthew 6:9 – ܗܟܢܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܨܠܘ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ
ܢܬܩܕܫ ܫܡܟ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:9 – ܗܟܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܘܝܬܘܢ ܡܨܠܝܢ ܐܒܘܢ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ
ܢܬܩܕܫ ܫܡܟ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:9 – Thus pray: Our Father who art in the heavens!
be sanctified thy Name. (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:10 – ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ ܢܗܘܐ ܨܒܝܢܟ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܦ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:10 – ܬܐܬܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܟ -ܘܢܗܘܘܢ- ܨܒ̈ܝܢܝܟ ܒܐܪܥܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:10 – Come thy kingdom. Be done thy will, as in heaven, also in earth. (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:11 – ܗܒܠܢ ܠܚܡܐ ܕܣܘܢܩܢܢ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܀ (Khabouris) n a, n a
Matthew 6:11 – ܘܠܚܡܢ ܐܡܝܢܐ ܕܝܘܡܐ ܗܒ ܠܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian) n a, a n
Matthew 6:11 – Give to us the bread of our need to-day; (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:12 – ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܢ ܚܘܒܝܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܚܢܢ ܫܒܩܢ ܠܚܝܒܝܢ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:12 – ܘܫܒܘܩ ܠܢ ܚܘ̈ܒܝܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܐܢܚܢܢ ܢܫܒܘܩ ܠܚܝ̈ܒܝܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:12 – and forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors; (Etheridge)
Matthew 6:13 – ܘܠܐ ܬܥܠܢ ܠܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܦܨܢ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܗܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܚܝܠܐ ܘܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܀ (Khabouris)
Matthew 6:13 – ܘܠܐ ܬܝܬܝܢ ܠܢܣܝܘܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܦܨܢ ܡܢ ܒܝܫܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܕܝܠܟ ܗܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܘܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܀ (OS Curetonian)
Matthew 6:13 – and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory to the age of ages. (Etheridge)
///////////////////////////
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Charles Cutler Torrey, (born Dec. 20, 1863, East Hardwick, Vt., U.S.—died Nov. 12, 1956, Chicago), U.S. Semitic scholar who held independent and stimulating views on certain biblical problems.
Born: December 20, 1863 Vermont
Died: November 12, 1956 (aged 92) Chicago Illinois
Subjects Of Study: Bible Islam Semitic languages
Torrey studied at Bowdoin (Maine) College and Andover (Mass.) Theological Seminary and in Europe. He taught Semitic languages at Andover (1892–1900) and Yale (1900–32), and was founder and first director (1900–01) of the American School of Archaeology (later renamed the American School of Oriental Research) at Jerusalem.
…. In The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933), and Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals. The posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in AD 68.
“Is this the same Raphael Lataster, the self-proclaimed ‘ahistoricist scholar’ who now ‘argues that agnosticism over Jesus’ historical existence is more than reasonable, that outright denying Jesus’ historicity is quite fair’ and the logical impossibility of the monotheistic concept?”
Yes– the one and the same.
“That does not seem likely”
Christopher Lancaster aka ‘Raphael Lataster,’ Michael Shermer, and Bart Ehrman were Christians at one point, but presently aren’t Christians.
“Did Younan change his mind about ܓܒܪܐ in Mt 1,16?”
I’m sure his views on the word have changed through the years.
This is from 2016:
peshitta.org, the forum
Paul Younan
Administrator
*******
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 2
#203-01-2016, 11:05 PM
“Gabra” in all Aramaic dialects just means the generic “man”, in contrast to “Talia” which means “boy.”
So a father and a husband can be referred to as “gabra”.
Hence, it was Mary’s father who shared the same common name as her future husband, and both were properly referred to as her “gabra.”
+Shamasha
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de’Beth-Younan
“Does he still believe in Peshitta primacy?”
Probably not, judging by this:
_Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists_, Raphael Lataster with Richard Carrier (2015)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
2. THE CASE FOR HISTORICITY: CASEY
….
In a section on dating the synoptic Gospels, Casey continues to rail against the likes of amateurs like ‘Blogger Godfrey’ and Acharya S, and notes his own reliance on a ‘special’ type of source.[327]
“Our earliest source, the Gospel of Mark, is also full of peculiarities which are due to his use of sources which were written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and all of his earliest followers… This is one of many pieces of evidence that parts of Mark’s Gospel were translated from Aramaic sources.”[328]
That didn’t take long. Just like Ehrman, Casey places great importance on hypothetical sources, and partly argues for them on the basis of mistakes caused by the supposedly poor translating skills of the Gospel authors.[329] That is worth repeating. Casey relies on sources that _do not exist_, and apparently, that is perfectly acceptable to New Testament historians.
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Would this be an “impossible” reading?:
from Lataster’s book on Jesus:
[483] Ronald F. Hock, _The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas: With Introduction, Notes, and Original Text Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation_ (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995), p. 109. The surrounding pages portray Jesus’ _Carrie_-style rampage, killing, cursing, and blinding, left and right.
“the more difficult reading, as long as it is not impossible, is most likely the original reading”
Would this be an “impossible” reading?:
Wilson, vol. 1, on 6, for Matthew 1:16
“Jacob begat Joseph, the Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, he begat Jesus, who is called the Messiah.” — Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
/////////////////////////
“kh-n-p-th-a” — godless, gentile, heathen, foreigner, profane.
Lexeme 1:1096 appears in
Matthew 6:7, 10:5, 18:17
Mark 7:26
John 7:35
Acts 18:4, 18:17
1Cor 5:1, 10:20, 10:27, 12:2
1Peter 4:3
_The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 2, Luke and John) (Eastern Christian Studies)_ (2003), with pages numbered 384-850, by E. Jan Wilson, on 750
John 7:35
“going then to teach the descendents of the Arameans” — both Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus and Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus
‘Old Syriac’ Codex Palimpsestus Sinaiticus has the mistranslation ‘Simon the leper’ in Matthew 26:6 and again in Mark 14:3. See pages 246 and 328 of Wilson.
We lack Codex Nitriensis Curetonianus for those verses.
As you look at the Greek Luke 7:47, do you agree with Torrey that, “this passage is not merely ‘difficult,’ the trouble is incurable– in the Grk.”?
_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 98, 100-101
** you do not have permission to see this link **;
Exhibit XVII. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic.
….
c. Lk. 7:47 ac. to Grk.: Therefore I say to you,
THAT HER many sins are forgiven (…[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]…),
FOR SHE LOVED MUCH (…[snipping Hebrew/Aramaic characters]…),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
True rendering: Therefore I say to you,
SHE WHOSE many sins are forgiven (same words)
WILL LOVE MUCH (same words),
but he to whom little is forgiven will love little.
….
Exhibit XVII, C (Lk. 7:47). This passage is not merely “difficult,” the trouble is incurable– in the Grk. Jesus indicates to Simon that he has a lesson for him, and the Pharisee listens politely, perhaps not eagerly. Jesus then shows, in a clear-cut little parable, what he wished to establish as his major premise: A debtor released from his debt is grateful in proportion to his feeling of relief from the burden. Simon assents, and waits for the application. When, however, Jesus proceeds to show how his parable applies to _the forgiveness of sins_, our Grk. version suddenly turns aside with an announcement (introduced by “therefore”) out of keeping with what had preceded. The parable need not have been uttered. The argument is turned upside down, leaving Simon (and the rest of us) in bewilderment. The despair of interpreters, ancient and modern, is only too well known. Among recent commentators, Klostermann and Lagrange discuss the problem from all sides, but are obliged to leave it unsolved. Wellhausen tries to rewrite the Greek. Easton finds three distinct strata in the little section.
In the Aram., everything is clear; Jesus’ lesson to Simon is really given, and the application of the parable is now perfect. As was remarked in _The Four Gospels_, the cause of the mistranslation was misunderstanding of the particle di [- over i], which here was the relative pronoun, not the conjunction. Any student of Aram. who looks at the restored text (above) will see at once how very natural Lk.’s mistake was, and how certainly the right interpretation of the ambiguous particle restores the original reading. Lk.’s manner of dealing with his circumstantial participle, which he properly renders “for she loved,” hardly needs comment. The past tense of his translation was of course prescribed by the preceding Aram. participle.
This is not an instance of wrong vocalization, for no change of any sort is needed in the Aram. text. The passage is introduced here merely for the sake of juxtaposition with the preceding example.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out “Salome”?
(‘no motivations–- both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s mention of ‘Salome”?)
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out “they asked each other, ‘Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?'”?
(‘no motivations–- both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s “they asked each other, ‘Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?'”?)
Mark 16 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew 28 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
Luke 23 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.
56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
Luke 24 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.
5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?
6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:
7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”
8 Then they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.
10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out “the father of Alexander and Rufus”? (‘no motivations–- both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s mention of “the father of Alexander and Rufus”‘?)
Mark 15 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Matthew 27
** you do not have permission to see this link **
32 As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”).
Luke 23
** you do not have permission to see this link **
26 As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out “and the gospel’s”? (‘no motivations–- both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s mention of “and the gospel’s‘?)
Mark 8:35 (NKJV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
Matthew 16:25
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Luke 9:24
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke turning
Mark’s “nest under its shade” into “nest/nested in its branches”?
(‘no motivations–- both Matthew and Luke thoughtlessly
turned “under its shade” into “in its branches”’?)
Mark 4 (NKJV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
30 Then He said,
“To what shall we liken the kingdom of God?
Or with what parable shall we picture it?
31 It is like a mustard seed which,
when it is sown on the ground,
is smaller than all the seeds on earth;
32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs,
and shoots out large branches,
so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.”
Matthew 13
** you do not have permission to see this link **
31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,
which a man took and sowed in his field,
32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds;
but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree,
so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”
Luke 13
** you do not have permission to see this link **
18 Then He said,
“What is the kingdom of God like?
And to what shall I compare it?
19 It is like a mustard seed,
which a man took and put in his garden;
and it grew and became a large tree,
and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out mention of “He took them up in His arms”?
(‘no motivations– both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s mention of “He took them up in His arms”‘?)
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out mention of Jesus’ indignation/ being “greatly displeased”?
(‘no motivations– both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked Mark’s mention of Jesus’ indignation?)
Mark 10 (NKJV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Assuredly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
will by no means enter it.”
16 And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.
Luke 18
** you do not have permission to see this link **
15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them to Him and said,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 Assuredly, I say to you,
whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child
will by no means enter it.”
18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
Matthew 19
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said,
“Let the little children come to Me,
and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Matthew 18
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,
3 and said,
“Assuredly, I say to you,
unless you are converted and become as little children,
you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke leaving out “So they called to the blind man, ‘Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.’ Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus”?
(‘no motivations– both Matthew and Luke completely overlooked that Mark material’?)
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke replacing the ‘rabbi’ in Mark’s “Rabbi, I want to see” with ‘lord’?
(‘no motivations– both Matthew and Luke mindlessly misread ‘rabbi’ as ‘lord”?)
Mark 10 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
48 Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.”
So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.”
50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see.”
52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.”
Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
Matthew 20
** you do not have permission to see this link **
31 The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”
32 Jesus stopped and called them.
“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
33 “Lord,” they answered, “we want our sight.”
34 Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes.
Immediately they received their sight and followed him.
Luke 18
** you do not have permission to see this link **
39 Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
40 Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him,
41 “What do you want me to do for you?”
“Lord, I want to see,” he replied.
42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”
43 Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God.
When all the people saw it, they also praised God.
Do you know the motivation(s) behind both Matthew and Luke turning Mark’s “the wine will be destroyed” into [Mt]”the wine is poured out”/ [Lk]”it will be spilled out”?
(‘no motivations– both Matthew and Luke mindlessly mis-rendered ‘destroyed’ as ‘poured out’/’spilled out’?)
Mark 2:22 (Berean Literal)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins;
otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins,
and the wine will be destroyed—and the wineskins.
Instead, new wine _is poured_ into new wineskins.”
Matthew 9:17
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Nor do they pour new wine into old wineskins.
Otherwise the wineskins are burst,
and the wine is poured out,
and the wineskins are destroyed.
But they pour new wine into new wineskins,
and both are preserved.”
Luke 5:37
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins;
if now otherwise, the new wine will burst the wineskins,
and it will be spilled out,
and the wineskins will be destroyed.
38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)