Followers of the "English Aramaic New Testament" are by their own authority > claiming < that Matt.23:8 doesn't say "Rabbi" (Be not called Rabbi). Can we trust these "Aramaic Roots" movement claims?
The "English Aramaic New Testament" Is a Modern bible version and the article claims the following: "But I want to look at the verse with you in Matthew 23 which reads (in the original Aramaic)" (Matt.23:6-11).... Then it gives its translation as:
"But you should not be called ‘My Great One’ for there is only one Who is Great and you are all brothers. "...
The article goes on to say: "it is properly translated in the Aramaic English New Testament from the original manuscripts of the New Testament."
We don't have an "Aramaic Manuscript" of Matthew or the "New Testament" we do have the Peshitta which is a translation To the Syriac From The Greek and the so called Aramaic scholars of the "English Aramaic NT" basically just used their own authority and their biased view of "scholarly works" to compile their texts (source).Claiming that an Aramaic scholar can know what proper words these texts Would Have been relative to the Aramaic. (Feel free to correct me and give a "Aramaic Manuscript" and not a later source that has no real foundation).
None of the earliest texts of this verse support the claim made here. There are two separate words used in the Greek here but the first is to say "rabbi" as in "call no man rabbi" (in The Greak Manuscripts (earliest copies) and Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew! We can't make attempts to change it by creating our own texts but if its gonna be taken seriously better support needs to be given rather than just telling people this is the proper text "bases on manuscripts" (WHAT MANUSCRIPTS?). The claims of the "Khaboris Codex" is that its a medieval (5th - 15 century) text. What is the exact date? What studies have been done on it? Most of those making claims and studies of this source are supporters of the New Aramaic New Testament Bible so I tend to think they are biased. Where are scientific studies of the date of this texts? The claim is that this is a "Medieval" text (of course claims I by those people who push and use this source/ claims I have yet to even see supported but lets act like they have said this much in truth without demanding them to document it) which conclude it at a later date (500-1500 AD)! The Book of Mathew was "said" to be originally written around 60-65 AD!
The Earliest texts we have of this book are Greek (no denying that)! Thus to show an Aramaic source ("purchased from a Kurdish monastery") that came long after that as being a trust worthy "original text" rather than a (LATER) translation just isn't trust worthy without Evidence (Especially when it has a different context). Example the Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the earliest Complete copy of the New Testament) was hand written in the middle of the fourth century (Codex Vaticanus another nearly complete manuscript dates to the same time period & there are many other Earlier fragments of manuscripts / None of which are Aramaic)... So I think the foundation of the claims is misleading to begin with. Many DO consider Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew to be a Hebrew manuscript of Matt. and it says Do not desire to be called רבנים (Rabanim/ plural sense of Rabbi)...
I would have to get get past this before considering this article any further (be cautious who does your "translating". Looking forward to a response.
(רבי / H#4461 rhabbi -Resh Bet Yod/ רב H#7230 rob/ רב rab H#7227)
.......... The "Complete Jewish Bible" makes an attempt as well. (KJV) Jn.13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." ... You see here the KJV uses a Different word than that used in Matt.23:8 for Good reason it is a different Word here in the Greek Manuscripts! (Jn.13:13 / Greek #1320 Master, instructor, doctor, teacher....) (Matt.23:8 G#4461/ my master, title of honor, rabbi) KJV Matt.23:8 " But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."....
“You call me ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Lord (G#2962),’ and you are right, because I am.” – (John 13:13) Yahshua’s words ("Complete Jewish Bible" – Translation by David H. Stern)... This verse doesnt contradict Matt 23 in any way! Notice how this source uses the same word in both verse when its two different terms in the manuscripts. I think you can see how these people are Playing word Games and why.These people that Love to be called rabbi are attacking the Word cause they love their social positions of power and they do the very things that Messiah condemned false shepherds of doing many times. Matt 23:8 (C.J. Bible) "But as for you do not desire to be called Rabbi: For one is your Rabbi, even the Moshiach; and all you are Yisraelite brothers. (the Word "Yisraelite" isn't even present in the verse)
KJV Matt.23:4-7
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
I don't expect to agree with anyone on all things all the time (where two or more agree in truth there he is in the midst of us) nor do I think that any two people are always at the same stage of their walk. With that being said I do know that G-d uses others as instruments of truth and edification in our lives. I personally acknowledge a number of people I consider as Elders, or sages. But I know no one has it all figured out. We all have room to grow in Faith and I only look to GOD for my completeness! Everything works to the good for them that Love the LORD. A truth seeker can learn even from an enemy. On our paths we will choose weather we trust GOD or put confidence in man. I also find bards (or a Azmari, minstrel, skald, scop, rhapsode, udgator, griot, ashik) to be useful for carrying on history and culture (tribal identity), Christ himself taught in parables!
.......................
Below is the relevant entry for "Gamla" (root fmg) in the Lexicon Syriacum (Bar-Bahlul, Bishop of the Church of the East, 963 AD)
I am a bit concerned about the growing support for this NEW source. I listened to a portion of a speech by one: "Andrew Gabriel Roth" who stated that there were mistranslations in the Greek manuscripts that could have "only" come from mis-translation of aramaic Texts. In this small clip there were No examples given and even through discussion with many who supported the source i was being left without any such example.
* The thing to stay mindful of is that this New bible and those who push it claim to have The Proper translation of a Source (manuscripts) they don't have (that dont exsist) while we do already have accepted greek manuscripts.
updated interests:
____Eunuch?_____
I have been taking note of some claims that have recently come to my attention. And while they seem to show how some mistranslations could have taken place by misunderstanding Aramaic when attempting to translate it this gives no one authority to claim they know better how to rewrite the N.T. without any proper manuscripts.
1) Acts.8:27 And he (Philip) arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, aneunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.
Anyone familure with the Torah and the culture of Israel would know it is forbiden 4 a eunuch to enter the gates of YHVH (Deut.23:1) to do anything including to worship.
Hebrew term for eunuch is saris (#5631) and is basically to mention one with injured stones (male privates) or a castrated one.
However the Aramaic term M'Haymna (M'HAIMNA/ pronounced: mahameanah) Can mean "eunuch" yet can also mean "Believer", "faithful one".
This seems to be the only correct context of the verse! This faithful one went to Jerusalem to worship.
(Matt.19:12?)
__Gamla?__
Matt.19:24/ Mk.10:25/ Lk.18:25
While I have recieved understanding on the verse before hearing the aramaic claims i will share the claims for individuals to do their own research!
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "
While many of us clearly understand this verse as saying the rich man must not allow his personal material riches to cause him to stumble rather if his focuss is on The commands of YHVH then the LORD is 1st and also others which would lead the man to use these material riches to please God.
THe same message is repeated elsewhere in the NT making it more problematic that this was a one time mistranslation and to me personally the verse makes GOOD sense with the term camel. Oral Torah uses two simular Habraisims and even the quran (not like its a reliable source) carries the use of a camelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle.
This has been revealed to many with the concept of the needle gate. It is said that before the (Golden/ eastern) gate was sealed (Eze.44:1-3) that within the gate was a smaller gate (door) which would have been used at night and perhaps times of increased defense, this needle gate is recorded within Jewish writtings such as Rashi's commenatry of Eze.44:2 "shall be closed": "Our Rabbis interpreted this verse as referring to the southern wicket, for the gate of the Heichal had a wicket, a small entrance. So we learned in Tractate
Middoth (4:2): The Great Gate had two wickets, one in the south and one in the north. No one ever entered the one in the south, of which Ezekiel says, “This gate shall be closed.” ...and "comes through it": is described as "in the future" Of this being given (and of course Rashi who didnt know Yeshua as King Messiah would have still insisted on this being future however the gate that once was is no more and will never be again! No one shall enter that gate again and the location now is a bricked up surface (sealed gate) not made to enter. This needle gate would only be big enough for a single file line entrance and a overloaded camel would first have to unload in order to enter.
Anyway will share their claim:
Below is the relevant entry for "Gamla" (root fmg) in the Lexicon Syriacum (Bar-Bahlul, Bishop of the Church of the East, 963 AD)
Translation:
The term Gamla can mean "camel" or "Large/Thick Rope"
Khawla (Aramaic) Khevel (Hebrew).
According to this its harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than a Large Rope to pass through the eye of a needle. I will leave it up to the individual to study the verse for themselves. A rich man's camel having to be unloaded and possibly still would probably have to stoop down to enter in a needle gate seems to relate more to a rich man entering in much more than a big rope and a sowing needle comparision. (please feel free to share on any of these points for i am not a exspert on Aramaic and am but sharing recent claims i have come across)
Matt.19:24-26 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this isimpossible; but with God all things are possible.
(iI was impossible with man, thus tends to be pointing to the literal camel passing through eye of needle.)
Seems to me these Aramaic "scholars" would do better to list the "mistranslations" they find rather then creating a New source (version) that they ask we put side by side with our already supported sources to see if we approve of their "New" translations (bible versions)
Parts of the bible were written in Aramaic in relation to our latest sources (manuscripts). Example: Daniel 2:4b-7:28 I know there are other areas so if anyone else cares to share those that would be nice but to create a whole bible in Aramaic based on how man thinks it would have ("originally") read in the Aramaic is silly and knocks the door down to allow leaven and traditions of man (perversion).
What to think of this? There are claims that the world's oldest Torah scroll found in Italy.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22697098
