| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM |
| Object: |
translated from the Greek? |
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
04 Nov 2003 11:59:22 PM |
|
|
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:Eignb.970$ou1.254660625@news.nnrp.ca...
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking? Try
to be more clear...
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
Somebody is saying this? Who? Why would it be impossible? Why would
anything he taught be TRUSTED if it DID.
That's probably why I'm not even finishing this article. It just doesn't
interest me. John 10 says it all. His sheep will know his voice. If
people lie whether through 'scripture' or whatever, a person with the spirit
of truth will have something bear witness in their heart that this isn't
right. I often refer to my first reading of the bible; much of which I did
in NIV translation. The spirit quickened my heart to see several bobbles in
the translation and I referred to a Hebrew interlinear for instance in
Ezekiel and found that they had added words to 'smooth over' what the
scripture was really saying.
Walking with the spirit calls a person to have principles...not to be
socialized or compromised by society. I can tell many stories in my growing
up of people trying to influence me towards being involved in secret orders,
conspiracies to hurt others and make ourselves look good, etc. When you
humble yourself before God, that all just grieves your heart and you wind up
being a social outcast with just about everyone. Religious people hate me
the most I find. Occasionally I meet someone who is like me and they love
God and have become outcast themself and we hit it off. Not too often. But
God is a comfort to those who love him and his spirit does led them into all
truth. It's worth it. It really is. I don't worry about how God managed
to preserve history with as good integrity as their is. He used some
unorthodox vehicles for sure. But the bible is, logically, an amazing piece
of literature like no other which is why it's still preserved and considered
the word of God ...EVEN by people who abuse it! -Bob
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
06 Nov 2003 01:00:28 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:Eignb.970$ou1.254660625@news.nnrp.ca...
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking? Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
Somebody is saying this? Who? Why would it be impossible?
This was my use of irony. In real life, of course it's possible, and
even probable, that the original teachings of Jesus had indeed been
transmitted north into Syria at a very early stage. And because Jesus
taught in Aramaic, those ancient Old Syriac Aramaic manuscripts are
likely to preserve a lot of the original teachings of Jesus.
So then why these ancient Aramaic manuscripts are still being ignored
by our biblical professionals?
That's probably why I'm not even finishing this article.
It's your loss...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief"
-- Henry George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
07 Nov 2003 01:55:25 AM |
|
|
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:Eignb.970$ou1.254660625@news.nnrp.ca...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell? The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of
Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north
across
that border!
Somebody is saying this? Who? Why would it be impossible?
This was my use of irony. In real life, of course it's possible, and
even probable, that the original teachings of Jesus had indeed been
transmitted north into Syria at a very early stage. And because Jesus
taught in Aramaic, those ancient Old Syriac Aramaic manuscripts are
likely to preserve a lot of the original teachings of Jesus.
So then why these ancient Aramaic manuscripts are still being ignored
by our biblical professionals?
Well..they're not 'my' biblical professionals. :-) They may be other
people's. The people who did the NIV and Living made a lot of moola off the
venture...well the people who marketed them anyway. I guess some of the
guys who actually 'did' the NIV died peculiar horrible deaths I heard.
Details anyone?
That's probably why I'm not even finishing this article.
It's your loss...
Or...gain. The spirit will lead us into all truth. IF YOU were going to
have to pick either a book perfectly translated, or...the spirit...which
would you take Yuri? :-) EACH of us has either confusion or a leading from
God's holy spirit I believe. I will not judge YOU saying 'it is your loss
that you preoccupy yourself with working out fine details in translations
such that everything reads exactly as it was.' while I'm focusing on how I
can relieve the burden God has placed on MY heart.... It may WELL BE that
God has led you to do this. Praise God. Do it to his glory if so. Amen.
It...may however be your loss that you didn't absorb the heart of what I was
saying in this...while we were here together for a moment in time. Each of
us obviously has different burdens. It doesn't mean one is righter than the
other. God leads people to do different things. The text was very
confusing to me. Thanks for clarifying it. -Bob
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief"
-- Henry George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
09 Nov 2003 12:45:34 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell?
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence. So this is the traditional
Christian view. It is only the modern scholars who, in a perverse way,
have tried to twist this evidence for it to mean exactly the opposite
of what it says...
....
This was my use of irony. In real life, of course it's possible, and
even probable, that the original teachings of Jesus had indeed been
transmitted north into Syria at a very early stage. And because Jesus
taught in Aramaic, those ancient Old Syriac Aramaic manuscripts are
likely to preserve a lot of the original teachings of Jesus.
So then why these ancient Aramaic manuscripts are still being ignored
by our biblical professionals?
Well..they're not 'my' biblical professionals. :-) They may be other
people's. The people who did the NIV and Living made a lot of moola off the
venture...well the people who marketed them anyway. I guess some of the
guys who actually 'did' the NIV died peculiar horrible deaths I heard.
Details anyone?
In my view, all English translations that use Westcott & Hort Greek
text (aka Nestle/Aland's) are hopelessly flawed. KJV is much better.
The spirit will lead us into all truth.
Let's hope so...
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
09 Nov 2003 01:14:00 PM |
|
|
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311091045.7ecb95d4@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
yeah dittos. I actually tried to reason with him about something that was
out of line...some kind of legalism thing as I recall..and he basically just
blew it off so I asked to be removed from his list...again...and again... I
never asked to be on it in the first place as I recall. :-) Oh well finally
got me off.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read.
There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all
in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence. So this is the traditional
Christian view. It is only the modern scholars who, in a perverse way,
have tried to twist this evidence for it to mean exactly the opposite
of what it says...
Yeah like many things. I'm not a fan of 'modern scholars' for the most part.
So then why these ancient Aramaic manuscripts are still being ignored
by our biblical professionals?
Well..they're not 'my' biblical professionals. :-) They may be other
people's. The people who did the NIV and Living made a lot of moola off
the
venture...well the people who marketed them anyway. I guess some of the
guys who actually 'did' the NIV died peculiar horrible deaths I heard.
Details anyone?
In my view, all English translations that use Westcott & Hort Greek
text (aka Nestle/Aland's) are hopelessly flawed. KJV is much better.
I find it less easy to mistake the meaning of things in KJV, once you go to
the work of understanding the old language of course. :-) NASB seems to
work fairly well for me. Do you know of any way out of line things in it?
Thanks, -Bob
The spirit will lead us into all truth.
Let's hope so...
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
11 Nov 2003 02:34:36 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.ancient Bob Weigel <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:2b61489c.0311091045.7ecb95d4@posting.google.com...
:> In my view, all English translations that use Westcott & Hort Greek
:> text (aka Nestle/Aland's) are hopelessly flawed. KJV is much better.
: I find it less easy to mistake the meaning of things in KJV, once you go to
: the work of understanding the old language of course. :-) NASB seems to
: work fairly well for me. Do you know of any way out of line things in it?
: Thanks, -Bob
Sorry, Bob, but NASB is also based on Westcott & Hort, just like NIV and
RSV. And there are _lots_ of things that are wrong with Westcott & Hort!
In fact, just in the gospels alone, there about 6000 differences between
Westcott & Hort and the Majority Greek Text, which was the basis of the
KJV.
On my webpage, I have some examples of passages where KJV agrees with the
Aramaic against Westcott & Hort,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/lk11-12.htm
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/hdis.htm
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/geogr.htm
And there plenty more such cases...
All the best,
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
11 Nov 2003 10:25:35 PM |
|
|
EXCELLENT page. You've done some good work there. Many subtle things like
this have been done in modern translations. The NIV takes it up a whole
nother step of course in just blatantly adding/deleting as needed in places.
The one where it says "You will be enriched to all liberality" which
literally means being so full of love that you have no hinderance in giving
away what you have in 2Co 9...to the outrageous NIV "You will be made rich
in every way" Baahahahhahh! Oh yeah, rings, cars, houses, horses, yachts,
battleships, yaks...did I mention yaks?? :-) Hehehe.
The interesting thing is though, the bible is too knit together.
Anything that is of significance like this gets revealed somewhere else it
seems. For instance, the concept that Jesus was being persecuted by the
pharisees because he publically humiliated them is pretty danged obvious
from other passages where he grilled them for a page length or so :-)
They..kind of had difficulty masking that over. hehehe.
The 'lying in wait' thing...well that's negotiable. They may have meant
well on that one. lying in wait MIGHT be individual. It doesn't always
have to involve a conspiracy, since one in their own heart can lie in wait
in the context described. Meanwhile...
The one that stands out to me is the difference between "hypocrisy" and
"respector of persons". This is a trademark of human involvement in
interpretation. One of the hardest things for man to do is admit that the
lowest is equal to them. They steer away from the exhaustive teachings that
again, can't be masked in this area. Man wants to be able to establish
himself by his own goodness instead of admitting that he's a hopeless wretch
who without a moment by moment relationship with the holy spirit; being
hidden in Christ, could be destroyed in a flash and the lowest prostitute or
thief could enter into heaven because they humbled themself before God.
So Jesus is talking about a core issue here. And the translation masks
it; calling it something somewhat related but much easier to deal with in
pride. Well done. And again Lord bless you in the ministry he's given you
here. -Bob
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:wJbsb.1392$HA.438706231@news.nnrp.ca...
In soc.history.ancient Bob Weigel <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:2b61489c.0311091045.7ecb95d4@posting.google.com...
:> In my view, all English translations that use Westcott & Hort Greek
:> text (aka Nestle/Aland's) are hopelessly flawed. KJV is much better.
: I find it less easy to mistake the meaning of things in KJV, once you go
to
: the work of understanding the old language of course. :-) NASB seems to
: work fairly well for me. Do you know of any way out of line things in
it?
: Thanks, -Bob
Sorry, Bob, but NASB is also based on Westcott & Hort, just like NIV and
RSV. And there are _lots_ of things that are wrong with Westcott & Hort!
In fact, just in the gospels alone, there about 6000 differences between
Westcott & Hort and the Majority Greek Text, which was the basis of the
KJV.
On my webpage, I have some examples of passages where KJV agrees with the
Aramaic against Westcott & Hort,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/lk11-12.htm
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/hdis.htm
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/geogr.htm
And there plenty more such cases...
All the best,
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frederick Weller" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
13 Nov 2003 09:30:24 AM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vr3d4r8ena9k21@corp.supernews.com>...
EXCELLENT page. You've done some good work there. Many subtle things like
this have been done in modern translations. The NIV takes it up a whole
nother step of course in just blatantly adding/deleting as needed in places.
The one where it says "You will be enriched to all liberality" which
literally means being so full of love that you have no hinderance in giving
away what you have in 2Co 9...to the outrageous NIV "You will be made rich
in every way" Baahahahhahh! Oh yeah, rings, cars, houses, horses, yachts,
battleships, yaks...did I mention yaks?? :-) Hehehe.
Bob,
Excellent? May I ask what lingusitic and text critical criteria you
have used to come to this conclusion? Do you read Greek? Have you
actually looked at the critical apparatus within USB4/NA 27 to see
whether Yuri's claims about what the "Alexandrian" and the "Western"
text "say/read" are true? Have you checked the texts of SyrC and SyrS
to see if Yuri claims about what the OS Gospels say is true and that
he hasn't fudged the data by not noting when there are disagreements
between the two MSS?
Frederick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
13 Nov 2003 11:05:23 AM |
|
|
Frederick. I read some greek. Pretty rusty right now. HOwever, that
isn't what the bible seems to bear out as relavant across the board in ALL
translations. The spirit (not our mental abilities) will lead us into all
truth IF we choose to trust God and walk with his spirit instead of trying
to figure it all out ourselves.
In the past, many have tried to figure it all out themselves. AS A
RESULT...what do we have Frederick? A loving church that the world sees
taking care of their own? Heck no. They have to go the most blatant cult;
the mormons to find that! :-) The spiritual man judges things by the
spirit. When I see things from translations the spirit often bears witness
that something is strange there. And usually there's just a simple
contextual understanding that gives me insight to the fact that
1) the greek language wasn't quite cracked up to handle the meaning that was
originally being conveyed by...people who obviously didn't speak greek!
2) the translation was deliberately hacked even beyond 1) as per the NIV,
Living, NWT, etc.
So really, it doesn't matter to me. You either believe that the
spirit leads you into all truth and find that relationship so that you don't
have to worry about such things, or, you go on in confusion with regard to
these things. I ALREADY OUTLINED how the last point of the first excerpt I
read on Yuri's page BORE WITNESS with scriptural context ACROSS THE BOARD!
Did you miss that? Then..why are you asking these irrelevant questions.
It's EXCELLENT when the text lines up with biblical context better than a
previously held translation....I think. don't you? :-) -Bob
"Frederick Weller" <FSWeller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70b21bb.0311130730.4fc80981@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vr3d4r8ena9k21@corp.supernews.com>...
EXCELLENT page. You've done some good work there. Many subtle things
like
this have been done in modern translations. The NIV takes it up a whole
nother step of course in just blatantly adding/deleting as needed in
places.
The one where it says "You will be enriched to all liberality" which
literally means being so full of love that you have no hinderance in
giving
away what you have in 2Co 9...to the outrageous NIV "You will be made
rich
in every way" Baahahahhahh! Oh yeah, rings, cars, houses, horses,
yachts,
battleships, yaks...did I mention yaks?? :-) Hehehe.
Bob,
Excellent? May I ask what lingusitic and text critical criteria you
have used to come to this conclusion? Do you read Greek? Have you
actually looked at the critical apparatus within USB4/NA 27 to see
whether Yuri's claims about what the "Alexandrian" and the "Western"
text "say/read" are true? Have you checked the texts of SyrC and SyrS
to see if Yuri claims about what the OS Gospels say is true and that
he hasn't fudged the data by not noting when there are disagreements
between the two MSS?
Frederick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frederick Weller" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
14 Nov 2003 09:41:39 AM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vr7e4qiggrn9f3@corp.supernews.com>...
Frederick. I read some greek. Pretty rusty right now. HOwever, that
isn't what the bible seems to bear out as relavant across the board in ALL
translations.
But this is not the issue. The issue is whether Yuri's claims about
what is and is not set out in Greek and OS MSS are true and whether or
not he has translated the texts of those MSS correctly.
They are not. He has not.
The spirit (not our mental abilities) will lead us into all
truth IF we choose to trust God and walk with his spirit instead of trying
to figure it all out ourselves.
If you are saying that the Spirit has revealed to you that what Yuri
says is true, then you need to test the Spirit you rely on. It
doesn't know Greek or Syriac and it lies about what is and is not in
"Alexandrian" and "Western" and OS MSS.
Frederick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
14 Nov 2003 12:17:54 PM |
|
|
Frederick...
if I saw that you were trying to be helpful LIKE Yuri...I would
continue this. ALL I see below (which is why I'm top posting...if you post
logical arguments...I'll line by line reason with you. However what am I
supposed to reply to? "YES SIR, you sure sound intimidating like you know
what you're talking about sirr!" ) are your opinions stated as FACT. That
bothers me. I made statements relating to things like 'obviously the
original authors didn't speak greek as their native language'. Instead of
responding, you tell me what you want the issue to be. LISTEN. I haven't
had time to survey all the work Yuri has done. I read one example he posted
and NOTED that the translation BETTER ALLIGNED with the BULK OF THE CONTEXT
OF SCRIPTURES IN GREEK BASED BIBLES I HAVE READ! That's all. Follow? THAT
is the issue surrounding the post I made. That is why I lent credibility to
his work based on that observation. Follow? If you want to take the time
to ask the spirit about all of Yuri's work you are entitled to. Then post
what you think. OR you can even post a specific gripe you have about
something where you claim it's in error. IF it has a logical basis, people
will believe you. I WILL BELIEVE YOU! But just spouting opinions that
discredit a person who appears to be my brother...I don't believe you. -Bob
"Frederick Weller" <FSWeller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70b21bb.0311140741.53cb2c89@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vr7e4qiggrn9f3@corp.supernews.com>...
Frederick. I read some greek. Pretty rusty right now. HOwever, that
isn't what the bible seems to bear out as relavant across the board in
ALL
translations.
But this is not the issue. The issue is whether Yuri's claims about
what is and is not set out in Greek and OS MSS are true and whether or
not he has translated the texts of those MSS correctly.
They are not. He has not.
The spirit (not our mental abilities) will lead us into all
truth IF we choose to trust God and walk with his spirit instead of
trying
to figure it all out ourselves.
If you are saying that the Spirit has revealed to you that what Yuri
says is true, then you need to test the Spirit you rely on. It
doesn't know Greek or Syriac and it lies about what is and is not in
"Alexandrian" and "Western" and OS MSS.
Frederick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frederick Weller" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
14 Nov 2003 10:07:26 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vra6r8jcb7js2b@corp.supernews.com>...
Frederick...
if I saw that you were trying to be helpful LIKE Yuri...I would
continue this. ALL I see below (which is why I'm top posting...if you post
logical arguments...I'll line by line reason with you. However what am I
supposed to reply to? "YES SIR, you sure sound intimidating like you know
what you're talking about sirr!" ) are your opinions stated as FACT. That
bothers me. I made statements relating to things like 'obviously the
original authors didn't speak greek as their native language'. Instead of
responding, you tell me what you want the issue to be. LISTEN. I haven't
had time to survey all the work Yuri has done. I read one example he posted
and NOTED that the translation BETTER ALLIGNED with the BULK OF THE CONTEXT
OF SCRIPTURES IN GREEK BASED BIBLES I HAVE READ!
How would you know that it's better alligned if you are have not read
the Greek text itself or you have no idea whether Yuri's claims about
what's there in that text are true? Follow?
Frederick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
15 Nov 2003 07:47:47 PM |
|
|
Frederick. You're questions are a repeticious waste of time for the
most part. Sorry. But I already said that I had studied the greek
some...but regardless the KJV is a fairly close bible to the greek texts.
The NASB is a word for word translation from the Greek. The words used have
been heavily deliberated over the years and it's pretty much DOWN at this
point to where unless YOU OR I spend MORE of our lives studying the greek
than...guys who devoted their whole life to it already...hehehe. we're not
going to get a better idea than just reading a faithful translation from
Greek like the NASB in our modern day language. I'm not even going to ask
if you follow because at this point I don't care because I can see you are
into posturing and not reasoning...since you ignored the points I made
previously that you would have done better to have acknowledge. Thus
I'm...gonna have to just killfile you and save myself the trouble of saying
the same things over and over. have a better one. -Bob
"Frederick Weller" <FSWeller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70b21bb.0311142007.792d5b5f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vra6r8jcb7js2b@corp.supernews.com>...
Frederick...
if I saw that you were trying to be helpful LIKE Yuri...I would
continue this. ALL I see below (which is why I'm top posting...if you
post
logical arguments...I'll line by line reason with you. However what am I
supposed to reply to? "YES SIR, you sure sound intimidating like you
know
what you're talking about sirr!" ) are your opinions stated as FACT.
That
bothers me. I made statements relating to things like 'obviously the
original authors didn't speak greek as their native language'. Instead
of
responding, you tell me what you want the issue to be. LISTEN. I
haven't
had time to survey all the work Yuri has done. I read one example he
posted
and NOTED that the translation BETTER ALLIGNED with the BULK OF THE
CONTEXT
OF SCRIPTURES IN GREEK BASED BIBLES I HAVE READ!
How would you know that it's better alligned if you are have not read
the Greek text itself or you have no idea whether Yuri's claims about
what's there in that text are true? Follow?
Frederick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trotter960" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
14 Nov 2003 10:59:08 PM |
|
|
From:
SCRIPTURES IN GREEK BASED >>BIBLES I HAVE READ!
Bob had a little qualification here. Earlier he had said that he read a little
Greek.
here he says that Yuri is in line with what *he has read.* I would guess that
Bob is using George Berry's interlinear which puts the KJV next to the TR.
Whatcha reading, Bob?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? |
13 Nov 2003 12:28:27 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.ancient Bob Weigel <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
: EXCELLENT page. You've done some good work there.
Thank you, Bob!
Best wishes,
Yuri.
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:wJbsb.1392$HA.438706231@news.nnrp.ca...
:> On my webpage, I have some examples of passages where KJV agrees with the
:> Aramaic against Westcott & Hort,
:>
:> http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/lk11-12.htm
:> http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/hdis.htm
:> http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/geogr.htm
:>
:> And there plenty more such cases...
:>
:> All the best,
:>
:> Yuri.
:>
:> Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
:>
:> Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
09 Nov 2003 06:03:02 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell?
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato) TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
What other evidence is there? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
10 Nov 2003 12:54:40 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAED5B6.3946FCEC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell?
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato) TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
What other evidence is there? -- L.
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. … he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
10 Nov 2003 09:03:27 PM |
|
|
Yeah and besides..duhhhhh....why would matthew have been speaking greek?
Obviously as we go towards the root version, we're going to see something in
a language that was being spoken by the author :-). Translating a book in
sight of the persecution that followed the first believers doesn't seem real
likely so I wouldn't be surprised if it remained in that tongue for some
time only. Lib's in my killfile for a good reason. He just lashes out
with this stuff that makes no sense but is aimed at inflaming people. It
doesn't even do that for me. It's just a waste of time. -Bob
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311101054.9fd047e@posting.google.com...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FAED5B6.3946FCEC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just
talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the
Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally
in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and
have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it.
Ring a
bell?
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit.
Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read.
There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it
all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that
is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato) TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
What other evidence is there? -- L.
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. . he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
11 Nov 2003 10:42:00 AM |
|
|
Bob Weigel wrote:
Yeah and besides..duhhhhh....why would matthew have been speaking greek?
===>Who said MATTHEW spoke Greek?
Obviously as we go towards the root version, we're going to see something in
a language that was being spoken by the author :-).
===>The AUTHOR of the Gospel known as "Matthew" DID write it
in Greek.
Translating a book in
sight of the persecution that followed the first believers doesn't seem real
likely so I wouldn't be surprised if it remained in that tongue for some
time only. Lib's in my killfile for a good reason. He just lashes out
with this stuff that makes no sense but is aimed at inflaming people. It
doesn't even do that for me. It's just a waste of time. -Bob
===>It is like the old "sour grapes" story:
Your limited intellectual capacity forces you to withdraw,
saying "Lib is a waste of time".
The "Gospel of the Hebrews" was NOT what we call the
Gospel of Matthew. Can you refute that?
"the Gospel of the Hebrews shows no dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew.
The story of the first resurrection appearance to James the Just suggests that
the
Jewish-Christian community that produced this document claimed James as their
founder. It is reasonable to assume that the remainder of the gospel is synoptic
in
flavor. The Gospel of the Hebrews seems to be independent of the New Testament
in the quoted portions; unfortunately, since the gospel is not extant, it is
difficult to
know whether unquoted portions of the Gospel of the Hebrews might show signs
of dependence." FROM: "The Gospel of the Hebrews" at
http://earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html
Libertarius
===========
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
[SNIPALOT]
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato) TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
What other evidence is there? -- L.
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. . he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
10 Nov 2003 05:46:05 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAED5B6.3946FCEC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<vqmjd6hcgc5m06@corp.supernews.com>...
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
news:2b61489c.0311061100.2e05041f@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<vqh3rn80l78e54@corp.supernews.com>...
This looks like a quoted article..is it? Or is this you just talking?
Try
to be more clear...
Yes, I was the one who wrote this article.
My article was a parody of the sort of a dishonest and hackney
"analyses" that are coming from the mainstream supporters of the Greek
First dogma.
It is my belief that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Ahh. Ok. Yes I was on James Trimm's mailing list for a while and have seen
pieces of the Matthew "Hebraic roots" version I think he called it. Ring a
bell?
Yes, Bob, I'm well familiar with James Trimm's theories. While I don't
necessarily agree with him on everything, yet, in my view, much of
what he says is well based.
The excerpts he showed me bore witness of the truth in my spirit. Of
course I get the same things from the holy spirit whenever I read. There
are so many ways to read so many things but the spirit assembles it all in
our heart when we let him in a way that has a clarity/cohesion that is
unlike anything else.
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato) TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
What other evidence is there? -- L.
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
===>EPIPHANIUS???
He is a late FOURTH CENTURY author, his f
earliest book, the "Ancoratus", or "The Well-Anchored",
appearing in 357!
Eusebius preceded him by nearly a century, ;
born about 260. It is from Eusebius that we know about the
collection or rather COMPOSITION of a book of Jesus
SAYINGS, but not a full GOSPEL.
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. … he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
===>Why should the Gospel according to the Hebrews be identified with
what we know as the Gospel according to Matthew???
It sure does not look like the same thing.
(SEE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-ogg.html)
Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
11 Nov 2003 02:15:44 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0233D.CA604A44@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
===>EPIPHANIUS???
He is a late FOURTH CENTURY author, his f
earliest book, the "Ancoratus", or "The Well-Anchored",
appearing in 357!
Eusebius preceded him by nearly a century, ;
born about 260. It is from Eusebius that we know about the
collection or rather COMPOSITION of a book of Jesus
SAYINGS, but not a full GOSPEL.
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. ? he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
===>Why should the Gospel according to the Hebrews be identified with
what we know as the Gospel according to Matthew???
It sure does not look like the same thing.
(SEE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-ogg.html)
Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.
Hey, Libertarius, I can provide a lot more such citations, if that's
not enough...
But, meanwhile, can you provide _any evidence at all_ that Matthew was
originally written in Greek?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
11 Nov 2003 05:46:52 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0233D.CA604A44@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
===>EPIPHANIUS???
He is a late FOURTH CENTURY author, his f
earliest book, the "Ancoratus", or "The Well-Anchored",
appearing in 357!
Eusebius preceded him by nearly a century, ;
born about 260. It is from Eusebius that we know about the
collection or rather COMPOSITION of a book of Jesus
SAYINGS, but not a full GOSPEL.
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. ? he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
===>Why should the Gospel according to the Hebrews be identified with
what we know as the Gospel according to Matthew???
It sure does not look like the same thing.
(SEE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-ogg.html)
Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.
Hey, Libertarius, I can provide a lot more such citations, if that's
not enough...
But, meanwhile, can you provide _any evidence at all_ that Matthew was
originally written in Greek?
===>It really depends on what you call "Matthew".
I think SOME of the material may have been taken by the author
(who probably was NOT Matthew) from some Jewish Messianist
sources (labeled as "Matthew"), especially the portion that
appears to be pro-Torah and anti-Pauline and anti-Gentile.
E.g. the "Shem Tov" version, which contains the passage:
"And this gospel will be preached in all the earth for a witness concerning me to all
the nations and then the end will come. This is the Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which
desolates which was spoken of by Daniel as standing in the holy place. Let the one who reads
understand."
The editing by the (I think) Greek author is apparent if we compare
e.g. the ST version re. John the Baptizer with the canonical Gospel.
The ST version does NOT contain the qualifying put-down
"yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he".
According to some sources I have not verified, it is
also missing from some of the manuscripts of LUKE.
Anyway, although I cannot prove it, I do think in its final (present) form
that Gospel was composed in Greek.
Libertarius
===========
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
12 Nov 2003 08:29:05 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0233D.CA604A44@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
The idea that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue is of
course based on massive patristic evidence.
===>PLEASE!
That "massive evidence" is nothing more than an often mistranslated
quote of Papias by Eusebius, who supposedly wrote that a
Matthew COLLECTED (synetaxato), or, according to two manuscripts,
COMPOSED (synegraphato)
Which manuscripts? (I.e. what is your source for this interesting
statement).
TA LOGIA, i.e. the SAYINGS or MAXIMS
of Jesus "in the Hebrew language", and that "each one translated them as
best he could."
It is most likely that the work was a COMPOSITION rather than a
"collection" of sayings, as were no doubt all four Gospels.
And in any case, it certainly does not sound like
the quasi-biographical novel called the "Gospel according to Matthew"
we are familiar with!
Eusebius, HE iii, 39 actually says this:
'But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted
the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the
Gospel. ... These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But
concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the
oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he
was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle
of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story
of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is
contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. '
Isn't the context a discussion of the canonical gospel of Matthew?
(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm)
What other evidence is there? -- L.
Here's the evidence, Libertarius.
Papias is really irrelevant to any of this. There's no proof that all
the other Church Fathers were basing themselves on Papias when they
wrote about a Semitic language Matthew. They saw that Semitic language
Matthew _with their own eyes_!
Or rather, *a* semitic language recension of Matthew.
For example, the Church Father Epiphanius writes,
"They [Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete
in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as
it was first written, in Hebrew letters."
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)
===>EPIPHANIUS???
He is a late FOURTH CENTURY author, his earliest book, the "Ancoratus",
or "The Well-Anchored", appearing in 357!
But he was also Bishop of Salamis, and in a position to know what
contemporary Nazorean heretics possessed. If I recall correctly,
Jerome also knows of this work. I have a vague idea that the
Ebionites also had an Aramaic gospel attributed to Matthew. These
texts have not come down to us, so of course we do not know whether
they were translations of the Greek, or whatever.
Also, the Church Father Eusebius writes this about the much earlier
Christian writer Hegesippus:
"Hegesippus, in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us,
has left a most complete record of his own views. ? he quotes some
passages from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and from "the
Syriac", and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he
was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken
from the oral tradition of the Jews."
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:22)
===>Why should the Gospel according to the Hebrews be identified with
what we know as the Gospel according to Matthew???
It sure does not look like the same thing.
(SEE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-ogg.html)
As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this. Further, this is
identified by Jerome as the Nazorean gospel mentioned by Epiphanius:
"According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the
Nazaraeans read," which means that it is indeed a version of Matthew.
Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.
Doesn't the above discussion suggest pretty clearly, even without
Papias that at least the first version of Matthew was written in a
hebraic tongue? Why else do these documents exist, with Matthew's name
on them, if no such tradition existed? With Papias' testimony, I
would have thought that this rather adds up to testimony to a first
composition in a Hebraic language. Or have I perhaps misunderstood
the point at issue?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
12 Nov 2003 10:44:51 AM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.
===>Certainly. But that is not the point.
Further, this is
identified by Jerome as the Nazorean gospel mentioned by Epiphanius:
"According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the
Nazaraeans read," which means that it is indeed a version of Matthew.
===>How and why does it mean that?
Because you say so?
Anyway, from the above, it does not look like there really IS
such a "massive evidence" that "Matthew was written originally
in a Hebraic tongue", after all. It seems there is a confusion
about what "Matthew" really was. -- L.
Doesn't the above discussion suggest pretty clearly, even without
Papias that at least the first version of Matthew was written in a
hebraic tongue?
===>No, it does not.
It only shows that there was SOMETHING called a "Gospel",
that was written in a "Hebraic tongue". Of course in addition
to that there may have been another COLLECTION OF SAYINGS
(LOGIA), as quoted from Papias, which Papias attributed to a
"Matthew".
Why else do these documents exist, with Matthew's name
on them, if no such tradition existed?
===>What documents exist with the name of "Matthew" on them?
With Papias' testimony, I
would have thought that this rather adds up to testimony to a first
composition in a Hebraic language.
===>It adds up to *A* composition in that tongue, which is not
likely to be EITHER the "Gospel of the Hebrews" OR the
"Gospel according to Matthew" we are familiar with.
Or have I perhaps misunderstood
the point at issue?
===>It appears you probably have.
Hope this clears it up. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yuri Kuchinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
13 Nov 2003 12:18:46 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.ancient Libertarius <Libertarius@nothing_but_the_truth.net> wrote:
: Roger Pearse wrote:
: [SNIPALOT]
:>
:> As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
:> the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
:> existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.
: ===>Certainly. But that is not the point.
:> Further, this is
:> identified by Jerome as the Nazorean gospel mentioned by Epiphanius:
:> "According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the
:> Nazaraeans read," which means that it is indeed a version of Matthew.
: ===>How and why does it mean that?
: Because you say so?
Libertarius,
Please keep in mind the probability (in the opinion of many scholars) that
the earliest Christian gospels didn't yet carry the attributions to
"Matthew, Mark, etc." They were most likely anonymous, or known simply as
"the Gospel of Jesus".
Thus, one can well expect that what we _now_ know as "the Gospel of
Matthew" would have also been known earlier on as "the Gospel of the
Hebrews".
It's quite likely that, early on, the Aramaic-speaking Christians in
Israel and Syria would have been using only one gospel, and they would
have referred to it as "the Gospel of Jesus". But, to the outsiders, it
may have also been known as "the Gospel of the Hebrews" (i.e. of the
Aramaic-speaking Christians). So this may well have been an early version
of Matthew.
In any case, in regard to what I said earlier about the *massive early
patristic testimony*, here's a useful URL,
Church Fathers' Witnesses on the original language of the Gospel according
to Matthew
http://www.angelfire.com/id/nasrani/pb/HebMatthew.html
So, yes, it sure does seem like this gospel was written originally in a
Hebraic tongue.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frederick Weller" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
13 Nov 2003 04:28:15 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<aWPsb.1445$MR4.456079392@news.nnrp.ca>...
In soc.history.ancient Libertarius <Libertarius@nothing_but_the_truth.net> wrote:
: Roger Pearse wrote:
: [SNIPALOT]
:>
:> As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
:> the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
:> existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.
: ===>Certainly. But that is not the point.
:> Further, this is
:> identified by Jerome as the Nazorean gospel mentioned by Epiphanius:
:> "According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the
:> Nazaraeans read," which means that it is indeed a version of Matthew.
: ===>How and why does it mean that?
: Because you say so?
Libertarius,
Please keep in mind the probability (in the opinion of many scholars) that
the earliest Christian gospels didn't yet carry the attributions to
"Matthew, Mark, etc." They were most likely anonymous, or known simply as
"the Gospel of Jesus".
Interesting. Aren't the scholars whose opinion you are now appealing
to se the very scholars whom you have been claiming for yonks now are
members of your purported "Jesus was a Greek" cult, who lie all the
time, and who are clueless when it comes to really knowing anything
about Gospel MSS?
Isn't it hypocritical to appeal to their opinion on whether or not the
Gospels were anonymous as something L should really be listening to?
And doesn't Epiphanius actually go on to say that he thinks the claims
from various "Jewish Christian" groups about Matthew having been
originally written in Hebrew were rubbish?
Frederick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? -- MATTHEW |
13 Nov 2003 03:43:08 PM |
|
|
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
In soc.history.ancient Libertarius <Libertarius@nothing_but_the_truth.net> wrote:
: Roger Pearse wrote:
: [SNIPALOT]
:>
:> As we see from this collection of quotes, tho, the Gospel according to
:> the Hebrews was not in Greek or Latin, but in Aramaic. Thus the
:> existence of Aramaic gospels is validated by this.
: ===>Certainly. But that is not the point.
:> Further, this is
:> identified b | | | | | | | | | | | |
