{"id":9627,"date":"2023-09-16T22:51:58","date_gmt":"2023-09-17T03:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=9627"},"modified":"2023-09-16T23:16:16","modified_gmt":"2023-09-17T04:16:16","slug":"the-difficulty-of-seeing-messiah-in-the-ot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/16\/the-difficulty-of-seeing-messiah-in-the-ot\/","title":{"rendered":"The Difficulty of Seeing Messiah in the OT"},"content":{"rendered":"\nThe Difficulty of Seeing Messiah in the OT \n\n\n\n\n1When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with excellence of speech or wisdom, proclaiming to you the mystery of God. 2For I decided not to know about anything among you except Yeshua the Messiah\u2014and Him crucified. 3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power\u2014 5so that your faith would not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.\u200b6We do speak wisdom, however, among those who are mature\u2014but not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7Rather, we speak God\u2019s wisdom in a mystery\u2014a wisdom that has been hidden, which God destined for our glory before the ages. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it\u2014for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But as it is written, \u201cThings no eye has seen and no ear has heard, that have not entered the heart of mankind\u2014 these things God has prepared for those who love Him.\u201d 10But God revealed these things to us through the Ruach. For the Ruach searches all things\u2014even the depths of God.\n\n\n\n\n1 Corinthians 2:1-10 (TLV)\n\n\n\nDid you catch that?\n\n\n\n8None of the rulers of this age understood it\u2014for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.\n\n\n\nREVIEW \n\n\n\nLuke gives Joseph’s genealogy, while Matthew gives Mary’sT[...x]<\/span>
his view is much less common than the former, but it has been observed throughout Christian history. Clement of Alexandria expressed this early view, writing,
“And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord.”9<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Victorinus of Pettau also believed this, declaring,
“Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh.”10<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no support for this in the extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew, but proponents of this view believe the text has been corrupted and that Matthew originally referred to two Josephs: one being the husband of Mary and the other her father (this is also used to explain the discrepancy with the Lukan account and why the number differs on 14 vs. 13 generations)….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 21.

Also notable is that Irenaeus refutes this view in Adversus haereses, 3.21.9.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10 Victorinus of Pettau, Apocalypsin, 4.7\u201310.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11 Harold A. Blair, “Matthew 1:16 and the Matthaean Genealogy”, Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 149\u2013154.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

READ <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As has been shown in other articles of this series, the Greek New Testament is full of errors, contradictions, variants and bad grammar, while lacking the numerous wordplays, true meanings of idioms and poetry of the Peshitta. The Greek NT dilutes the original message, just as the Septuagint did, and is a main reason why the Judeans mourned it. In fact, the Greek NT reads much like the Septuagint, what with its bad grammar and \u201cKoine Greek\u201d. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of a Semitic original. Put two and two together\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can one prove that the Greek is the original? Nobody actually can. It\u2019s just taken for granted. Since all the Greek versions have corruptions, contradictions etc, it is clear that they are not the originals. Many will shout \u201cManuscript evidence\u201d at the top of their lungs, as supporting evidence of Greek primacy. \u201cManuscript evidence\u201d \u2013 the favourite term of the Greek primacist and it means nothing. There are 5000 Greek mss and fragments of mss. So what? There are millions of English Bibles worldwide, was the Bible then written in English? There is plenty of \u201cpublishing evidence\u201d that the New Testament was written in English!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about age? Obviously, the original must also be the oldest. Well, this we cannot determine either. It is acknowledged on both camps that the originals are long gone and that we are left with copies of copies. So, dating the various mss does not help anyone much. It is interesting to note however, that as of the year 2003 CE, the oldest dated Biblical manuscript is the Peshitta Old Testament Ms. 14,425 held in the British museum. It is believed to have been written in 464 CE. It is also notable that many Semites revered their Scripture so much that they would not let it disintegrate. Rather they would copy them precisely, and do away with the originals or older copies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of Greek mss and fragments postdate the 9th<\/sup> century \u2013 they were written nearly 1000 years after the originals were written, or later. Here are some of the primary Greek mss and the approximate ages that have been assigned to them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Codex Sinaiticus (Codex a<\/strong>) (350 CE) Contains almost all of the NT and over half of the LXX.
\u2022 Codex Alexandrinus (Codex A) (c. 400 CE) Almost the entire Bible (LXX and NT).
\u2022 Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) (325-350 CE) Contains most of the Bible (LXX and NT).
\u2022 Codex Ephraemi (Codex C) (400\u2019s CE) Represents most of the NT except 2Thes. and 2John.
\u2022 Codex Bezae (Codex D) (450 CE) Contains the Four Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin.
\u2022 Codex Washingtonensis (Codex W) (450 CE) sometimes called Codex Freerianus. Contains the Four Gospels.
\u2022 Codex Claromontanus (Codex D(p)) (500\u2019s) Contains the Pauline Epistles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These ages are hardly impressive, when Aramaic (that \u201cHebrew dialect\u201d) originals are quoted and being talked about as early as the second century, by ancient Eastern scholars!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These dates are especially unimpressive when looking over these quotes from modern scholars:<\/strong>
\u00abThe SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in it various forms: the \u201cPeshitto\u201d [Peshitta, the names are often confused \u2013 Raphael] (cent. 2) and the \u201cCuretonian Syriac\u201d (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses [the last 12 verses of Mark\u2019s Gospel \u2013 Raphael]. So with the \u201cPhiloxenian\u201d (cent.5) and the \u201cJerusalem\u201d (cent. 5)\u2026 Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto<\/em>, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170<\/strong>. Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West. “yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same.” Peshitto<\/em> means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses. Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those \u201cvarious readings\u201d with which the Syriac agrees.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. E. W. Bullinger, \u201cThe Companion Bible\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Scrivener on the Peshitta:<\/strong>
\u00ab\u2026the oldest and one of the most excellent of the versions whereby God\u2019s providence has blessed and edified the Church.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Frederick HA Scrivener, \u201cIntroduction\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even Dr. Westcott (of Alexandrian-text fame) saw\u2026:<\/strong>
\u00abno reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that the formation of the Peshitto Syriac was to be fixed within the first half of the second century. The very obscurity which hangs over its origin is proof of its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up spontaneously among Christian congregations…Had it been a work of later date, of the 3rd or 4th<\/sup> century it is scarcely possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott, \u201cThe New Testament Canon\u201d, 1855<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note:<\/strong> Westcott later changed his mind about the Peshitta, seeing how it often agreed with the Byzantine texts, against his beloved Alexandrian texts. He then concluded that the Peshitta must have been a revision of the Old Syriac (\u201cIntroduction to the NT Greek\u201d, 1882<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is a question you should ask the next Greek NT scholar you meet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Luke was written in Greek, why does the Aramaic word for “Strong Drink” (Shakira) appear in the Greek manuscripts as “Sikera”? (Lk 1.15)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it not because Greek lacks an original word for “Strong Drink”? So, they just transliterated the Aramaic word?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The frequency of this type of thing is astounding, to say the least. And then, people ask why there is a handful of Greek words in the Peshitta<\/strong>. How about the 5-fold quantity of Aramaic words in the Greek manuscripts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How about the Aramaic loan-word in Greek texts, “Sabbata” (Mt 12.10), as if the Greeks had no word for Saturday\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is “Pascha” (Lk 2.41), as if the Greeks couldn’t make up a word like the English people did \u2013 “Passover”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there are the following Aramaic words in the Greek manuscripts:
Lebonthah (frankincense, Mt 2.11)
Mammona (Lk 16.9)
Wai (Woe! Mt 23.13)
Rabbi (Mt 23.7,8)
Beelzebub (Lk 11.15)
Qorban (Mk 7.11)
Satana (Lk 10.18)
cammuna (cummin, Mt 23.23)
raca (a term of contempt Mt 5.22)
korin (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Lk 16.7)
zezneh (tares, Mt 13.25)
Boanerges (Mk 3.17)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then of course \u201cAmen\u201d, which appears about 100 times in the Greek text of the Gospels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, “Alaha” is Aramaic for “God”. It is not a name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allah and Alaha are simply the terms used for “God”. They are not names, and are not exclusive to any religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Primeramente al judio luego al griego<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Greek New Testament, there are often Aramaic words\/phrases that are written in the Aramaic (or a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic), then followed by a translation, such as in Mk 5.41.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark 5:41 (KJV)
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, we find these \u201ctranslations\u201d usually lacking in the Aramaic Peshitta, as it\u2019s all Aramaic anyway. Since the audience is Aramaic-speaking, there is no need to translate the phrase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark 5:41 (Younan)
And he took the hand of the girl and said to her young girl arise<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are three places where the \u201ctranslation\u201d (an explanation actually) still occurs in the Peshitta, and Greek primacists are only too eager to say, \u201cLook at how silly the Peshitta is! It mentions the phrase in Aramaic, then says it in Aramaic again!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These few examples actually have good reason for allegedly \u201cdoubling up\u201d (gloss) \u2013 and the repeated phrase is always different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)<\/strong> In Mk 3.17, Jesus calls James and John, \u201csons of thunder\u2019. The Peshitta then follows with the \u201ctranslation\/explanation\u201d, just like the Greek, because \u201cbnay raghshee\u201d, \u201csons of thunder\u201d, can also mean \u201csons of rage\u201d. Gospel writer Mark merely explains that the intended meaning was \u201cthunder\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2)<\/strong> The Peshitta again seemingly repeats itself in Ac 1.19 with \u201cakeldama\u201d, \u201cfield of blood\u201d, followed by an explanation. This explanation is given, because \u201cakeldama\u201d was a local nickname for that field and would most probably not have been understood by foreigners, even if they spoke Aramaic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3)<\/strong> In Mk 15.34, we have the famous \u201cmy God, my God, why have you spared me?\u201d As expected, in the Greek, we are given a translation. But in the Aramaic, we are also given this explanation. The reason is most likely that Jesus, coming from Galillee, spoke the Gallilean dialect of Aramaic. Mark, then \u201ctranslates\u201d the words into the Judean dialect of Aramaic, so his audience could understand. This is somewhat confirmed by some Jews at the time, thinking that Jesus called out to Elijah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REVIEW Neil Douglas-Klotz, former chair of the Mysticism Group of the American Academy of Religion, defends Lamsa and points out that the differences between the 1C Palestinian Aramaic and the Syriac of the Peshitta are minimal concerning the roots of the key words that Jesus must have used:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Aramaic Christians of all branches today use the version called the Peshitta, meaning \u201csimple\u201d or \u201cstraight.\u201d It is in an Aramaic dialect called Syriac; however, all the major words that Jesus must have used are the same in his slightly earlier Palestinian Aramaic.”[10]<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Douglas-Klotz, Neil (2022).\u00a0Revelations of the Aramaic Jesus<\/em>. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads. p.\u00a018.\u00a0ISBN\u00a09781642970418.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

George M. Lamsa<\/strong> (Syriac: \u0713\u071d\u0718\u072a\u0713\u071d\u0723 \u0720\u0721\u0723\u0710) (August 5, 1892 \u2013 September 22, 1975) was an Assyrian[1]<\/sup> author. He was born in Mar Bishu in what is now the extreme east of Turkey. A native Aramaic speaker, he translated the Aramaic PeshittaOld and New Testaments into English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lamsa was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, a Syriac church that uses the Peshitta as its Bible. Some of the modern Assyrian people speak a modern form of the classical Syriac language called Northeastern Neo-Aramaic. The Peshitta was written in classical Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic, which is in turn a Semitic language. The language spoken in the first century would have been Old Aramaic, like the Judeo-Aramaic language, while Ancient Aramaic like Biblical Aramaic was used in Old Testament times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lamsa was a strong advocate of a belief traditionally held by part of that Church; that the Aramaic New Testament of the Peshitta was the original source text, and that the Greek texts were translated from it.[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Lamsa, G. (1933) The Four Gospels According to the Eastern Version.<\/em> A. J. Holman Company. Philadelphia. Trans. by George M. Lamsa. p. xvi\u2013xviii<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Difficulty of Seeing Messiah in the OT 1When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with excellence of speech or wisdom, proclaiming to you the mystery of God. 2For I decided not to know about anything among you except Yeshua the Messiah\u2014and Him crucified. 3I was with you in weakness … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n\n

\n Sharing is caring<\/span><\/strong> \n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> +1<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Tweet<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n 2344 words 133 views<\/w>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9627"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9627\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9652,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9627\/revisions\/9652"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}