{"id":9691,"date":"2023-09-18T14:25:22","date_gmt":"2023-09-18T19:25:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=9691"},"modified":"2023-09-18T14:25:23","modified_gmt":"2023-09-18T19:25:23","slug":"paraphrase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/18\/paraphrase\/","title":{"rendered":"Paraphrase"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\nEdward Hills Wrote:\n\n\n\nIt is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his (Rabbula’s) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text. (The King James Version Defended, 1956; Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174p.174).\n\n\n\n\nIt must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Aramaic Church continued to be loyal to it – regardless of the factions into which they came to be bitterly divided after 431 A.D. – precisely during the episcopate of Rabbula.\n\n\n\nNo serious scholar or student today still subscribes to Burkitt’s hypothesis that the Tyrant of Edessa produced the Peshitta. The Peshitta is extensively quoted patristic writers long before the time of Rabbula – particularly by St. Aphrahat, the Bishop of Nineveh of the Church of the East.\n\n\n\nIn his “Demonstrations” (~320 A.D.) – more than 100 years before Rabbula of Edessa was born, are found direct word-for-word quotes from the Peshitta against all other versions. It is impossible to suppose that the writings of Mar Aphrahat would quote a version that wouldn’t exist yet for another century!\n\n\n\nIn summary, to believe Burkitt’s hypothesis that the Peshitta was the work of Rabbula’s hands would be akin to believing that the Roman Catholic Church would accept as their &[...x]<\/span>
#8220;official version” an N.T. written by Luther!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The same reason why there are Aramaic words in the Greek NT (i.e., Sikera, Luke 1:15 among many others), Persian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., Tirshatha, Ezra 2:63, Neh. 8:9 among many others), Egyptian words in the Hebrew OT (i.e., hartummim, Genesis 41:8 among many others)…..and, for that matter, Spanish words in English (and vice-versa.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They are called loan-words, and all languages have them. Every language borrows from every other language it comes into contact with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you study the Aramaic text of the Elephantine Papyri (5th-c. B.C. -Egypt), you will notice many Greek loan-words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See <!– l –><a class=”postlink-local” href=”; l –> for more Aramaic loan-words in the Greek versions of the NT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument goes that Luke (whose name is of Latin origin) addressed his Gospel to someone named Theophilus (whose name is of Greek origin), and that therefore we should assume that this communication was written in the Greek language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there are many more questions raised here. For instance, Luke’s name is Latin in origin. The same argument can be made for an original Latin version to his gospel – just because the author’s name is Latin!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact of the matter is, the original language of any piece of literature is not as simple as the ultimate origin of the names of either the author\/recepient or the language of the intended audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is an epistle (dated June 7, 2004) from a bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Meelis (Aramaicized form of “Miles”, of Latin origin meaning “soldier”) to another bishop of the Church of the East by the name of Gewargis (Aramaicized form of “Georgos”, of Greek origin meaning “farmer”).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<!– m –><a class=”postlink” href=”; m –><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here you have a guy with an Aramaicized Latin name writing to another person with an Aramaicized Greek name. Much the same as Luqa (Aramaicized form of a Latin name) writing to Tawpeela (Aramaicized form of a Greek name).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What language is above epistle written in? Is it not Aramaic, because these two people have Aramaicized Latin and Greek names?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de’Beth-Younan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum<\/em>, composed in the mid-200s, the author, in the course of instructing bishops to exercise a measure of clemency, states that a bishop who does not receive a repentant person would be doing wrong \u2013 “for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?’ She said to Him, ‘No, Lord.’ And He said unto her, ‘Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.’ In Him therefore, our Savior and King and God, be your pattern, O bishops.”[24]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/sup> Knust, Jeniffer (2007). “Early Christian Re-Writing and the History of the Pericope Adulterae”. academia.edu<\/em>. Journal of Early Christian Studies. p. 497-498. Retrieved 12 October 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is clear reference to the pericope adulterae in the primitive Christian church in the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum<\/em>. (II,24,6; ed. Funk I, 93.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s been claimed that the NT quotes the LXX. These tables give an overview of NT quotes of the OT:


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

A few parts of the Book of Ezra (4:8 to 6:18 and 7:12\u201326) were written in Aramaic, and the majority in Hebrew, Ezra himself being skilled in both languages.[12]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup> James H. Charlesworth \u2013 “Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Nehemiah” \u2013 The Institute for Judaism and Christian Origins<\/em> \u2013 Retrieved 20 August 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The book of Esther has more Akkadian and Aramaic loanwords than any other biblical work and the names of the key protagonists, Mordechai and Esther, for example, have been read as allusions to the gods Marduk and Ishtar, who, symbolizing respectively Babylonia and Assyria,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

What comes to mind when I say ‘blatant changes’ is 1Chronicles 20:3:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

JPS 1917 Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Lamsa Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he brought out the people who were in it, and bound them with chains, iron bands, locks and fetters. And thus David did bind all of them, and did likewise to all men who were found in the cities of the children of Ammon; but he did not kill any one of them; and he brought them and settled them in the villages of the land of Israel. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is clearly a redaction of an earlier text, as the original would be unlikely to so emphatically state that “he did not kill any one of them.” Cf. Deuteronomy 2:19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s a less striking version of 2Samuel 12:31 (of which the parallel is above):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

JPS 1917 Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Lamsa Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he brought forth the people who were in it, and put them in iron bands and in chains, and made them pass through the measuring line; and thus did he to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Clearly this verse is not as bold as the one in 1Chronicles, even so, it needs special care because of the redaction found in the 1Chronicles parallel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the versions have strengths, it’s not that just one version is ok. Also in Jesus time, it looks like there were targums (translations) which had slightly other wordings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyway, the oldest Septuagint is good for it’s non modified state in Daniel, and the birth registers, so it even can be used to calculate the first coming of the Messiah. The MT has been modified in order to make bar kochba the Messiah (Bar Akiva did this).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You also mentioned the dead see scrolls. There is no complete OT-dead-see scrolls. Depending whom you ask, most jews even ignore the dead-sea Isayah scroll and they consider the MT Isayha as more authentic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct quotes from the OT are rare. People simply did not do that at that time. Paraphrasing was more of the style back then, as we can tell from the Aramaic Targums produced during the period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It is written” \u2013 Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Does the New Testament always quote from the Septuagint?<\/blockquote><\/iframe><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote earlier that \u2018there is a popular misconception that the earliest Christians used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as their Scriptures, and that all the quotations from the \u2018Old Testament\u2019 in the New Testament are from this Greek translation, commonly known as \u201cThe Septuagint\u201d.\u2019 Before moving on to look at some New Testament quotes that are likely to be direct translations from a Hebrew manuscript I\u2019d like to comment further about the use of the \u201cSeptuagint\u201d. I put \u201cSeptuagint\u201d in quotation marks because this term is somewhat of a misnomer because there are in fact several quite different Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible which are all identified as \u201cSeptuagint\u201d. It would be more accurate to label these texts as \u201cSeptuagints\u201d (plural), as many scholars do, rather than identifying any one text as \u201cthe<\/em> Septuagint\u201d. This multiplicity of Greek translations may account for why the New Testament quotations differ quite markedly from the popular Septuagint texts (such as the translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton: The Septuagint version of the Old Testament, according to the Vatican text: translated into English; with the principal various readings of the Alexandrine copy, and a table of comparative chronology, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the differences between the New Testament quotations and the Septuagints could be explained on other grounds as well. The NT writer may have been making his own translation of a Hebrew text (or an Aramaic translation \u2013 a targum<\/em> \u2013 for that matter), quoting or paraphrasing from memory, or making a deliberate change for his own theological reasons. I\u2019d like to explore these possibilities with a few examples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark 7:6-7 and Matthew 15:8-9 are parallel accounts which include a quotation from Isaiah 29:13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

 This people honours me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
   <\/sup>in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In Beale and Carson\u2019s \u201cCommentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament\u201d on Mark 7:6-7  the author (R.E. Watts) notes that Mark\u2019s quotation \u201cgenerally follows the tradition in the LXX\u201d but is actually closer to the Masoretic Text than the Septuagint (p. 163). This suggests that Mark either used a different Greek manuscript which was closer to the MT, or he was translating directly from the MT. To illustrate this, if we compare the NT quotation with the LXX we see that the NT has the same words for the latter part of the verse but in a different order and omitting \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76, demonstrating that Mark and Matthew were not dependent on the LXX.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (LXX)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd (NT)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A careful analysis of the NT quotations of the OT reveals that almost every quotation has  at least minor variants from the Septuagints (or major ones) and is never verbatim. That is significant. Either the NT writers were using different Greek manuscripts to the extant versions of the Septuagints or something else was happening. If the Greek Jewish Scriptures were regarded so highly by the NT writers why do they appear to be so careless in quoting it (if they were indeed quoting it) so as to have so many variants? There is hardly a single quote in the entire New Testament which quotes verbatim from any Septuagint manuscripts that we have (the only exception to this that I\u2019m aware of is Matthew 21:16 which is identical to the Septuagint of Psalm 8:3 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c9 \u03b1\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. See the comments below.) I think the current scholarly consensus is that for at least the first two centuries of Christianity the church used a variety of Greek translations as well as Hebrew manuscripts. Some New Testament quotations of the Old Testament appear to be translations directly from a Hebrew text, while others are paraphrases, possibly from memory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this one example I think we could conclude that the NT writers were either using a different Greek text to our Septuagints, they were making their own translation from the Hebrew, or they were using a Septuagint but changing it or improving it as they went, but more examples will follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Craig A. Evans states as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cJesus cites in a synagogue (4:18-19) what appears to be a passage from Isaiah 61, but it turns out to be a mixture of several passages or themes from the book of Isaiah.  Among them is Isaiah 42, which in the Targum (42:3, 7) especially refers to the poor, the blind, and prisoners, who are pointedly mentioned in Jesus\u2019 \u201ccitation.\u201d\u201d (Dr. Craig A. Evans, From prophecy to testament: the function of the Old Testament in the New).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

rungold315 Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yes, Judge…..believing in something cause the church fathers say so is so so wrong on so many levels, lol.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Also wrong on so many levels is that the statement assumes there is only one set of “Church Fathers.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which Church? Which Fathers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Church of the East certainly rejects the PA, and so does its Patristic Tradition. I assume the previous writer, Dr. P. I believe it was, considers only the Fathers of the Western Church to be legitimate authorities on the topic of what should and shouldn’t be scriptural. I suppose the canon of the Ethiopic Church doesn’t really count, nor that of the Church of the East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By “Universal Church”, you have to understand that these people really mean the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. No other tradition or testimony is valid in their estimation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

+Shamasha Paul<\/p>\n\n\n\n

–<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shlama Dr. P.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

@Shamasha Paul: “poisoning the well (ie, western therefore illegitimate)” is not a good debate tactic;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I merely intended to point out the well-established fact that many western copies of the New Testament are quite unreliable, and that there is far more variance within the Greek and Latin textual tradition, than within others like the Aramaic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

neither is falsely attributing a position to one’s opponent. I never said there was only one set of fathers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

You spoke of the opinions of Elder Statesmen of the Church, which gave the impression that there is some sort of unified belief on the canonicity of the P\/A. I’m sure you know that is not the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You also speak of the Church in the singular, as if there is (or ever was) agreement between her various branches on this and other topics. I’m sure you know that isn’t the case, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You seem to be speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective. If that is the case, then I understand your reasoning for wording in that manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’d simply like to draw your attention to the fact that there is, and has historically been, branches of the “Church” who do not consider the P\/A to be authentic, who do not know about or consider Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine to be authoritative within their own patristic or exegetical tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The P\/A is part of the Greek and Latin mss traditions, and was believed by Ss Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine. See <!– m –><a class=”postlink” href=”; m –> for further elaboration on how widespread it really was – including Syriac sources (eg Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions: “The text can be reconstructed from the Apostolic Constitutions, a few Greek fragments, a complete Syriac translation, an old Latin translation of about half, and the Arabic and Ethiopic Didascalia that depend on the Didascalia Apostolorum. [J. Quasten (Patrology, 1958, vol. 2, pp. 147-148]).”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Yes, it is part of the (later) Greek and Latin mss traditions. And all of the Syriac and Arabic sources you mention had their origin in the Western empire, and are not part of the body of literary work of the Church of the East. There is a “Syriac” branch of the Western tradition, and that it later conformed to things within the Empire’s realm is not at all surprising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “Syriac” branch in the other Empire, had no copy of the P\/A nor does it accept the later copies of the western tradition which do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m not speaking of something strange here. I can open any number of modern versions, including Catholic ones, at my disposal and almost all mention the reading is spurious. This is coming from the western tradition, not from me personally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is also not exclusively a scientific discussion, as it also hinges on the question of church authority; ie who has the final say-so as to canonicity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Precisely. Some traditions accept the P\/A because their Branches declared it so. Others didn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This being the case, your reference to the Ethiopian church is somewhat self-defeating, as she has a number of books in her bible recognised by no other church.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It’s actually the exact message I intended to send. Am I supposed to consider the Epistle to Clement canonical because the Ethiopian Church has the authority to declare it so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the difference to someone in the tradition of the Church of the East, between the Pericope Adultera and the Epistle to Clement?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A majority doesn’t count, if by majority you mean the number of Christians today who have the P\/A in their copy of the New Testament. A majority of Church Fathers (if they are to be incorrectly lumped together from all traditions) would all disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I fail to see how any of this makes the P\/A more credible as to its possible canonicity. I look to the evidence in the manuscripts as my final judge, and to context within the material itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nothing within the P\/A is offensive to the Christian faith, actually it is consistent with it. I agree with the original author who stated that it does, indeed, sound like something Christ might <\/em>have said. My argument is not with the message or meaning of the P\/A, it’s with the delivery. As a Semite I abhor any alteration to scripture, and if it looks like a duck…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These decisions are not made by scientists per se, but by scholars within the church having both the authority and expertise to make them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And there again there is no consensus, except within a given tradition….and even then, the Western Fathers were not unanimous in this, or in the very number of books they considered canonical. Those decisions came much later, and affected only their own jurisdiction, and no one else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

dr p Wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Going with the majority” is what you as an ordained church officer (should) do routinely, and is a good idea for unordained members. Your thoughts?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Going with the majority is not actually a good observation to be made with regards to the Church of the East in general, nor with myself in particular. Not sure if you’ve noticed, but I’m kinda pushing the envelope here. =)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The Aramaic of the OT is more Hebraic than that of the NT. By that I mean you can tell it was translated from Hebrew. Much in the same way the Greek NT is very Aramaic like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

There aren’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you know, the LXX was translated by 72 Jews in Alexandria from a Hebrew source. The logic is quite simple: If the LXX has a Hebrew source as it’s background text, then there MUST have been a Hebrew text which, at one point in time, read that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many times the Peshitta NT seems to be quoting from the MSS, sometimes it seems like the LXX, other times you would swear it’s from the POT or an Aramaic Targum like Onkelos (there are examples of this)…..sometimes it appears to be quoting something which is not currently in existence (there are examples of this as well.) In other words, there is no one single OT source that the NT quotes from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact of the matter is, the Peshitta NT is not quoting directly from any of these sources….it’s quoting from the text that these sources are quoting from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think of it this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) Several versions of Text (A<\/strong>) exist, each with slight variant readings.
(2) Text (B<\/strong>) is a translation of Text (A<\/strong>)
(3) Text (C<\/strong>) quotes Text (A<\/strong>)
(4) Over the centuries, Text (A<\/strong>) becomes Text (A-standardized<\/strong>). All the original variant<\/strong> manuscripts of Text (A<\/strong>) are eventually lost due to the standardization efforts of scribes. Only Text (A-standardized<\/strong>) remains in the original language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, when someone 2,000 years later examines Text (C<\/strong>) and says AHA! LOOK! Text (C<\/strong>) is quoting Text (B<\/strong>), because there are no copies of Text (A-standardized<\/strong>) that read this way!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that begs the question. Text (A<\/strong>) is lost…..and Text (C<\/strong>), while it appears to be quoting Text (B<\/strong>), is in reality quoting Text(A<\/strong>)….of which Text (B<\/strong>) is a faithful witness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It only appears<\/em> that Text (C<\/strong>) is quoting Text (B<\/strong>). Text (C<\/strong>) is, in reality, quoting (A<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legend<\/em><\/strong>:
Text (A<\/strong>) – Pre-Masoretic Hebrew originals with variant readings. (Dead Sea Scrolls are surviving example)
Text (B<\/strong>) – LXX
Text (C<\/strong>) – NT (any language)
Text (A-standardized<\/strong>) – MSS Hebrew<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Masoretes, of course, were responsible for transforming (A<\/strong>) into (A-standardized<\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de’Beth-Younan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

REVIEWWWW Could the Greek NT scribes standardized any OT\u00a0quotes\u00a0they found in the NT as it seems they tried to do in some mss with the gospels (ex. matthew 27:49 sinaiticus) or this is a guess?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Henry Barclay Swete<\/strong>FBA (14 March 1835 in Bristol \u2013 10 May 1917 in Hitchin) was an English biblical scholar. He became Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1890.[1]<\/sup> He is known for his 1906 commentary on the Book of Revelation<\/em>, and other works of exegesis.[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1922). “Swete, Henry Barclay“. Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica<\/em>. Vol. 32 (12th ed.). London & New York: The Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica Company. p. 637.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. ^<\/strong> SWETE, Henry Barclay’, Who Was Who, A & C Black, 1920\u20132008; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2007 retrieved 1 Oct 2012<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Edward Hills Wrote: It is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his (Rabbula’s) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text. (The King James Version Defended, 1956; Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174p.174). It must have been that … 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 3875 words 134 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-9691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9691","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=9691"}],"version-history":[{"count":35,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9726,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9691\/revisions\/9726"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}