embed/christianity2.0
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity

Updates

embed 2023-10-10 17:12:57 +00:00
parent 426947e783
commit 639d0b84e2
10 changed files with 1745 additions and 52 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

144
AramaicClarificationStatementsInNT.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
Parent: [[ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta]]
## Aramaic Clarification Statements In NT
http://www.peshitta.org/for/archive/index.php?thread-2572.html
The Greek text of the New Testament along with the AENT have a
number of places where Aramaic words are embedded within the
text. What I struggle to understand is why the authors needed to
provide clarification statements for these words if the Aramaic
readers already knew the words?
So far as I have seen...here are all the places (Yes) in the Eastern
Aramaic Scriptures (PeshittA) which have these clarifications, like
the Greek and all other language versions, which translated from the
Greek version...AND here are all the verses (No) which the Greek and
all other language versions have, but which the Aramaic Scriptures do
not have, being alone in this respect, since it is not a translation
of the Greek text, like all other language versions are: To compare
the texts, I have added the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Western
Peshitto readings as well.
Matthew:
| 27:33 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
| 27:46 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
Mark:
| 3:17 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
| 5:41 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: N/A | Western: No |
| 7:34 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
| 7:11 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
| 14:36 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: N/A | Western: No |
| 15:22 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
| 15:34 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
John:
| 1:38 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
| 1:41 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
| 9:7 | PeshittA: No | OldScratch: No | Western: No |
| 11:16 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
| 19:13 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: N/A | Western: Yes |
| 20:16 | PeshittA: Yes | OldScratch: No | Western: Yes |
Acts:
| 1:19 | PeshittA: Yes | Western: Yes |
| 4:36 | PeshittA: Yes | Western: Yes |
| 9:36 | PeshittA: No | Western: No |
| 13:8 | PeshittA: Yes | Western: Yes |
-Note: Here, an Arabic name is translated into an Aramaic name for the sorcerer.
Hebrew:
| 7:2 | PeshittA: Yes | Western: Yes |
Note: Here, a Hebrew name is translated into an Aramaic name for the Priest.
Galatians:
| 4:6 | PeshittA: No | Western: No |
**No = 10 times Yes = 11 times**
Ten (10) times there is no clarifications given in the Eastern
PeshittA and Western Peshitto Aramaic Scriptures, where the Greek and
all other Language versions have them.
Eleven (11) times there are clarifications given in the Eastern
PeshittA and Western Peshitto Aramaic Scriptures, as also in the Greek
and all other Language versions.
Therefore the Greek and all other Language versions, which translated
from the Greek text...have all the 21 occurances...whereas the
PeshittA Eastern Aramaic Scriptures only have 11 of these 21
occurances...and in this it is unique to all others, which have
translated from the Greek their source text.
To me this is more proof that The PeshittA is NOT a translation of the
Greek...if it were...it would show, it seems to me all of these 21
occurrences I have found, like all the Latin and all the Coptic
versions do for instance.... and all the other Language translations
of the Greek text version.
### distazo 08-20-2011, 07:36 AM
I also have made such a list where I got the result that 6 times, no
clarification is given.
In addition, I would like to add to this list:
John 11:16 (Didymus / Tuma)
John 9:7 Hebrew-Syriac
John 19:13
Mark 7:11 Korban/Qurbany
(Here the Greek shows a hebrew word, not an Aramaic one)
Acts 13:8 (Here there is an Arabic translation. G.d. Bauscher says
that Alumas is Arabic for sorcerer)
Hebrew 7:2 (Hebrew- Aramaic)
Galatians 4:6 Aba ho pater - Abba Abun
### Thirdwoe 08-20-2011, 10:45 AM
This brings the totals to 20 clarifications/interpretations in the
Greek and its translations. And adds 3 more as I judge, to the 6
verses in the Aramaic Scriptures where no clarifications/interpretations
are given...for a total of 9 verses/places where they do not appear.
**New Clarification Total in Eastern Aramaic PeshittA (Khabouris Codex):**
11 Yes
9 No
As far as I know...this does not occur in any translation of the Greek NT.
Is it not more probable that the Greek version is translating the
Aramaic Scriptures in all these 20 places...and needs to clarify or
interpret the Aramaic terms for its readers...than it would be that
the Aramaic Scriptures would not need to clarify or interpret the
terms in the 9 places that it leaves be as worded?
If there is a good study on all this, I would love to read through
it...if not, I think it would be an interesting investigation...as to
which is more likely and why, from a language vantage point.
Certainly it seems not likely a case of scribal error, where the
Aramaic Scribe of the Eastern PeshittA would have missed these 9
places out of the 20 found in the Greek text (if it is to be believed
that the PeshittA is a translation of the Greek text)....but more
likely, it is that the Greek Scribe has made all the clarifications
that seemed best to make the meaning clear to the Greek readers...in
all the 20 places where this need arises in the Aramaic NT Scriptures.
If the Aramaic is translating the Greek...then the Aramaic Scribe is
deleting parts of what he would know to be the inspired Word of
God...something that I don't think he would do, or his employers would
tolerate....But the Greek Scribe...in adding clarifications or
translations in brackets or otherwise indicating what he is doing in
bringing the meaning of the source text (Aramaic)...is not destroying
the reading at all, but retains all of it...yet enhancing it.. when
bringing the meaning of the Language through into the Greek Language...
I say this is great proof of Aramaic Primacy.
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

3
ChurchOfTheEastPeshitta.md

@ -39,11 +39,12 @@ that have near perfect agreement regardless of the century they date from:
The differences to the TR are relatively small, and the Eastern PeshittAs
should also be free from Constantinunist or Roman or [[KjvTampering]],
unlike the Westerns which were brought info alignment with Zorba.
unlike the Westerns which were brought info alignment with the Greek.
I think the OT is considered to be from the Hebrew before 3 c.,
so neither Masoretic nor LXX.
* [[PeshittasEasternOrWestern]]
* [[AramaicClarificationStatementsInNT]]
* https://peshitta.org
* https://www.dukhrana.com/

18
CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md

@ -9,7 +9,23 @@ that does not conflict with an upcoming "One World Religion". Or both.
A bibles based on the combination of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are based
on a fraud and are to be avoided.
See [[Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus]]
See [[GreekHierosolymitanus]]
Here's a great [19th c. style quote](http://web.archive.org/web/20120512021709/http://preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html)
on the Sinaiticus:
But whether or not the Sinaitic Ms. is the most ancient of all now
known to exist, it is, beyond any doubt whatever, the most defective,
corrupt, and untrustworthy. Our reasons for this assertion
(reasons which are ample to establish it) will be given later on.
We wish at this point merely to note the fact (leaving the proof
thereof for a subsequent chapter) that the most serious of the
many departures of the R.V. from the A.V. are due to the unhappy
conjunction of an unsound principle of evidence and the fortuitous
discovery, by a scholar who had accepted that principle, of a very
ancient Greek Ms. of the N.T., a Ms. which, despite its
unquestioned antiquity turns out to be about the worst and most
"scandalously corrupt" of all the Greek Texts now known to exist.
### Links

169
EarlyEbioniteMatthew.md

@ -12,39 +12,39 @@ All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the
Semitic origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following
quotes demonstrate:
**Papias (150-170 C.E.)**
**Papias (150-170 AD)**
Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated
as he was able. (quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)
**Ireneus (170 C.E.)**
**Ireneus (170 AD)**
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
dialect. (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)
**Origen (c. 210 C.E.)**
**Origen (c. 210 AD)**
The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a
tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who
having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)
**Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.)**
**Eusebius (c. 315 AD)**
Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on
the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing
in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to
them by his writings. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24)
Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he
found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before
his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom
Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is said, had proclaimed, and
left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters. (Eusebius;
**Eccl. Hist. 5:10)**
**Pantaenus... (d. 200 AD, teacher of Clement of Alexandria)**
penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the
Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his
arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew,
one of the emissaries, as it is said, had proclaimed, and left them
the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10)
**Epiphanius (370 C.E.)**
**Epiphanius (370 AD)**
They 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)
**Jerome (382 C.E.)**
**Jerome (382 AD)**
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an
emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in
Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of
@ -62,19 +62,19 @@ there preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to
the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which,
on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him." (De Vir. 3:36)
**Isho'dad (850 C.E.)**
**Isho'dad (850 AD)**
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone
acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew... (Isho'dad
**Commentary on the Gospels)**
### Other "church fathers"
#### Other "church fathers"
Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at
least one of Paul's epistles. These "church fathers" claim that Paul's
Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew
original, as the following quotes demonstrate:
**Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)**
**Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 AD)**
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he has
given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures,... the
Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews,
@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke,
and published among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes;
referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)
**Eusebius (315 C.E.)**
**Eusebius (315 AD)**
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country;
some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the
epistle. (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)
@ -120,7 +120,144 @@ Jerome around 400 AD says:
which is in the library at Caesarea), ... (Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2)
[original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html](.../Hebrew-Matthew/original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html)
### Peshitta.org Forum
The Texas RAT 10-24-2012, 06:29 AM
http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2927&page=3
TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS
Many of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, from the 2nd century
to the 8th Century testified to the Semitic origin of the Book of
Mattith-YaHu, as the following quotes demonstrate:
**Papias (150-170 AD)**
Mattith-YaHu composed the words in the Hebrew dialect,
and each translated as he was able.#1
**Ireneus (170 AD)**
Mattith-YaHu also issued a written Gospel
among the Hebrews in their own dialect.#2
(Ireneus; Against Heresies 3:1)
**Origen (c. 210 AD)**
The first [Gospel] is written according to Mattith-YaHu,
the same who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yehoshuah
the Messiah;
who having published it for the Yehudish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. History 6:25)
Mattith-YaHu also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,
when on the point of going also to the other nations,
committed it to writing in his native tongue,
and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
(Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:24)
**Pantaenus...**
penetrated as far as India, where it is reported that he found the
Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu, which had been delivered before his
arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew,
one of the emissaries, as it is Said, had proclaimed, and left them
the writing of Mattith-YaHu in Hebrew letters.
( Eusebius; Eccl. History 5:10)
**Epiphanius (370 AD)**
They [the Nazarenes], have the Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu, 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)
**Jerome (382 AD)**
"Mattith-YaHu, who is also Laywee,
and from a tax collector came to be an emissary;
first of all evangelists, composed a Gospel of Messiah in Yehudea,
in the Hebrew language and letters,
for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed,
who translated it into Greek, is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at
Caesarea,
which the martyr Pamphilus, so diligently collected.
I also, was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of
Borea, to copy it.
In which is to be remarked that,
wherever the evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture,
he does not ? follow the authority of the seventy translators [the Greek
Septuagint], but that of the Hebrew."
( Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3)
"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries,
had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord Yehoshuah the Messiah
according to the Gospel of Mattith-YaHu, which was written in Hebrew letters,
and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him."#8
(Church History by Eusebius. Book V Chapter 10. Pantaenus the Philosopher.)
**Isho'dad (850 AD)**
His [Mattith-YaHu's] book, was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands, in Hebrew...
(Jerome; De Vir. 3:36)
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)
#1 quoted by Eusebius Eccl. History 3:39
Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of
Shaul's/Powlos's[Paul's] epistles. These "church fathers" claim, that Powlos's
Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original, as the
following quotes demonstrate:
**Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 AD)**
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly, he
[Clement of Alexandria], has given us abridged accounts of all the
canonical Scriptures. The Epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was
written by Powlos, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue, but that it
was carefully translated by Loukanus, and published among the Greeks.#10
**Eusebius (315 AD)**
For as Powlos had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his Country,
some say that the evangelist Loukanus; others that Clement, translated the
epistle.#11
**Jerome (382)**
"He (Powlos), being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew:
that is, his own tongue, and most fluently,
while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew,
were more eloquently turned into Greek.
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)
#10 Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. History
6:14:2
#11 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:38:2-3
It should be noted that these church fathers, did not always agree
that the other books of the New Testament were written in
Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Mattith-YaHu?, put
the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New
Testament, in the Hebrew language and letters."#13
Epiphanius does however, tell us, that the Yehudish believers would disagree
with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of Yo-Khawnawn and Acts
in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Yisra-Ail.#14 Epiphanius
believed these versions to be mere "translations,"#15 but admitted that the
Yehudish believers disagreed with him.#16 The truth in this matter is clear:
If Greek had replaced Hebrew as the language of Yehudeem as early as the 1st
Century, then why would fourth century Yehudeem have any need for Hebrew
translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in 4th
Century, testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that
the Yehudish believers regarded them as authentic. Also not only does the Church
of the East testify that they received the Gospels directly from the Apostles in
a Semitic, not Greek, language but the Targums [Commentaries] of the Hebrew
Scriptures are all written in Aramaic! So if the Hebrew people had been so
familiar with Greek why would they need Commentaries of the Scriptures in
Aramaic? Would they not known Aramaic? And if Aramaic had also fallen to the
wayside why are there still people to this day still using it handed down
to them from antiquities?
#13 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
#14 Epipnanius, Pan. 30:3, 6
#15 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3, 6, 12
#16 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
* Eusebius; Eccl. History
https://archive.org/download/eusebiusecclesia0000euse/eusebiusecclesia0000euse.pdf
### Links

4
JWO/JWO_11_01_WasJamesWritingHisEpistleForATrialofPaul__0049.md

@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ What Eusebius says, we see occurring in Acts ch. 15.
Church in conjunction with the apostles. Memoirs of Hegesippus
Book V (quoted by Eusebius).
3. Roman Catholicism insists Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Yet, in (Matt. 13:55-56) when the people of Nazareth are amazed at Jesus, they ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Catholic authorities claim brother here should be understood as cousin. However, there is a word in Greek for cousin, cmepsios. When ancient writers spoke of James, they called him the brother of Jesus. In the same context, they identified Jesus' cousins, using the word cmepsios. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.4; see 2.23.4 and 3.20.1 (quoting Hegesippus).) Also, Matthew 1:24-25 states Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was bom. Once he knew of the pregnancy, Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had bom a son." This is the same as saying he had sexual relations with Mary only after she had a son. Furthermore, if Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have defrauded him. (1Cor. 7:5). Marriage in Judaism meant having sex with God's purposes in mind: to sustain a family line. (Ben Witherington, Woman in the Ministry' of Jesus head of the Church at Jerusalem.'
Jerome, the famous translator of the entire Bible into the Latin
Vulgate (405 A.D.), devotes chapter two of his On Famous Men to a
biography of James the Just. This is another name for the James who is
@ -116,8 +118,6 @@ unscriptural and dangerous .) However, what is important is that
Jerome cites Hegesippus for the fact that James was appointed the
"bishop 4 of Jerusalem" by the "apostles." Jerome writes:
3. Roman Catholicism insists Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Yet, in (Matt. 13:55-56) when the people of Nazareth are amazed at Jesus, they ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Catholic authorities claim brother here should be understood as cousin. However, there is a word in Greek for cousin, cmepsios. When ancient writers spoke of James, they called him the brother of Jesus. In the same context, they identified Jesus' cousins, using the word cmepsios. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.4; see 2.23.4 and 3.20.1 (quoting Hegesippus).) Also, Matthew 1:24-25 states Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was bom. Once he knew of the pregnancy, Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had bom a son." This is the same as saying he had sexual relations with Mary only after she had a son. Furthermore, if Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have defrauded him. (1Cor. 7:5). Marriage in Judaism meant having sex with God's purposes in mind: to sustain a family line. (Ben Witherington, Woman in the Ministry' of Jesus head of the Church at Jerusalem.'
Likewise, Epiphanius, a bishop in the late 300s, writes of James
in his Panarion 29.3.4. He says that "James having been ordained
at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord....

40
KingJamesIRulesOfTranslation.md

@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ the bishop of London in 1604. These translation principles are as follows:
Rules 1 and 14 make the King James Bible a revision, largely in the
family of Tyndale Bibles, with the additions from the Geneva bible.
Almost all of the Tyndale family are explicitly refered to; in
Almost all of the Tyndale family are explicitly listed; in
chronological order (still to be checked for the exact order) they are:
1. Tyndale’s 1524 1534,
@ -126,11 +126,11 @@ chronological order (still to be checked for the exact order) they are:
5. The Bishops Bible 1568 1572 1602,
Tyndale's bible had a couple of versions but was incomplete in the OT,
and was completed after his execution by Coverdale
(with Archbishop Cramer's support), to give Coverdale's bible. But Coverdale
read neither Greek nor Hebrew and may have worked from German and Latin translations,
notably Luther's andx the Vulgate. Tyndale worked from Erasmus' 2nd. edition,
before the latter's 3rd edition corruption(s).
and was completed after his execution by Coverdale (with Archbishop
Cramer's support), to give the Cramer-Coverdale's bible. But Coverdale
read neither Greek nor Hebrew and may have worked from German and Latin
translations, notably Luther's and the Vulgate. Tyndale worked from
Erasmus' 2nd. edition, before the latter's 3rd edition corruption(s).
[Matthew’s bible](https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Matthew-Bible-NMB/)
was the completion of Tyndale's work by John Rogers (with Coverdale's help),
@ -139,20 +139,21 @@ to be burned at the stake, and brought back Tyndale's latest
corrrections and translations into the Matthew's. Rogers also added
footnotes that were Sola Scriptura/Protestant in nature, and ruffled
some catholics when the bible came out - this may be another reason
why James prohibited commentary footnotes. Archbishop Cramer somehow
managed to get Henry VIII's licence to publish the bible, but it was
called Matthew's as the possession of a Tyndale bible was still
punishable by death (and torture) at the time. John Rogers was a
preacher in London, and was the first person Bloody Mary burned at the stake.
why James prohibited commentary footnotes in the KJV. Archbishop Cramer
somehow managed to get Henry VIII's licence to publish the bible, but it
was called Matthew's as the possession of a Tyndale bible was still
punishable by death (and torture) at the time. John Rogers was a preacher
in London, and was the first person Bloody Mary burned at the stake.
The Great Bible was just a large format version of the Tyndale-Coverdale-Cramer
version, and by Henry's command, to be placed in all Church of England churches.
Cramer and Crowell had [previously ordered all churches in England](https://newmatthewbible.org/firstauthorizedbible.pdf)
to buy a copy of the Coverdale or Matthews version. Coverdale was
I think the Great Bible was just a large format version of the
Tyndale-Coverdale-Cramer version, and by Henry's command, to be
placed in all Church of England churches. Cramer and Crowell had
[previously ordered all churches in England](https://newmatthewbible.org/firstauthorizedbible.pdf)
to buy a copy of the Coverdale or Matthews version. Coverdale was also
involved in the production of the Great Bible.
The Bishop's bible was a revision of the Great Bible, in an attempt to
remedy the OT translation from the Vulgate rooted in the
remedy the OT translation from the Vulgate in the
Tyndale-Coverdale-Cramer version, and began to replace Tyndale's
translation of certain words, like charity. It was appointed to be
read in the Churches.
@ -160,7 +161,7 @@ read in the Churches.
The Geneva bible was done from Erasmus' 3rd edition, and contains a large
number of footnotes. It was the bible of the Calvanists and the Puritans
and was used by the Scottish Presbyterians. King James I was brought up
as a Scottish Presbyterian, but the Geneva bible footnotes were
as a Scottish Presbyterian, but the Geneva bible footnotes were
incendiarily anti-ecclesiastical and anti-Royalist; hence another
reason why James prohibited commentary footnotes.
@ -176,5 +177,8 @@ back at the sadist defending his translation of eklesia as "Congregation"
not "the Word Church". The book explains in detail his reasons for the
critical choices of translation he made of the "et. cetera" words:
---
The best part of the KJV is:
* [[KjvTranslatorsToTheReader]]
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

1004
KjvTranslatorsToTheReader.md Normal file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

9
PeshittAEnglishTranslations.md

@ -23,13 +23,14 @@ which vary (subjective opinion):
(Western see comment by [the lates Steven Silver](http://www.peshitta.org/for/archive/index.php?thread-3284.html))
7. The Way International - based on UBS PeshittO (Western)
8. Georgia Press Antioch Bible, [avoid](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=3384).
9. Bauscher - [not a Peshitta/o](http://peshitta.org/for/archive/index.php?thread-2930-3.html)
9. Bauscher - based on UBS Syriac Text (Western) [not a Peshitta/o?](http://peshitta.org/for/archive/index.php?thread-2930-3.html)
10. [et alia](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2927)
See [[PeshittAEnglishTranslations]] for a comparison of 29 passages for
See [[PeshittasEasternOrWesternStats]] for a comparison of 29 passages for
Eastern PeshittA vs. Western Peshitto. The CoE PeshittA (HAS Etherridge)
should also be free from Constantinunist or Roman tampering, unlike
the Western Peshittos which were intentionally Greeked.
the Western Peshittos which were intentionally Greeked. See also
[[PeshittaVsPeshitto]].
The PeshittA OT is said to be a translation into Aramaic from the
Hebrew done before 3 c., so neither Masoretic nor LXX nor Constantined.
@ -37,6 +38,8 @@ Hebrew done before 3 c., so neither Masoretic nor LXX nor Constantined.
The discussions on this take/took place at:
* http://www.peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3 with
* http://peshitta.org/for/member.php?action=profile&uid=2
* http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2474&page=2
* http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2927
Other discussions on the Peshitta take/took place at:
* http://watch-unto-prayer.org/peshitta.html

381
PeshittaVsPeshitto.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
<!-- http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2474&page=2 -->
Parent: [[]]
## the PeshittA confluence with the PeshittO and Old Scratch manuscripts
The differences between the Eastern PeshittA and Western PeshittO manuscripts
that have been translated into English are highlighted, with an eye on
what we call Old Scratch, the Sinaiatic Palimpsest found by Agnes Smith,
right around the same time as the Codex Simondes/Sinaticus.
The aim is to see:
* is Old Scratch is as old as it claims to be,
* do the differences between it and the PeshittA somehow play into the
Vaticanus+Sinaticus
* does it look like an 19 c. production like the Codex Simondes/Sinaticus
* can we exclude Old Scratch from further consideration
The Eastern PeshittA does not include the 5 books:
Revelation, Jude, 2Peter, 2John, 3John. These books were marked by
Eusebius as "disputed writings", except for Revelation of John
which he says the "opinions of most men are divided".
https://bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html
It could be the Church of the East canon was closed before they were
in general use and hence they were not known rather than refused, or
were considered disputed as they were later in Eusebius' time.
Here is a list of other differences between the two manuscript families
compiled by Thirdwoe (Chuck Hudson).
https://theoscholar.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-eastern-peshitta-vs-western-peshitto.html
**1: Matthew 4:21**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "and Eshu' called them" The Ashael Grant, The
Mingana, The 1886 Mosul, and the Paul Younan Interlinear text, all have “and
Eshu called them”. The Curetonian has "and Eshu called them'", but the
Sinaitic has "and he called them". English translations that have the
Khabouris or Eastern Peshitta reading: Paul Younan, Andrew Roth, James
Murdock, John Etheridge, George Lamsa, Joseph Pashka, Lonnie Martin, Victor
Alexander.
UBS Peshitto: has "and He called them", as does ADD MSS 14470 (5th-6th
century) and the Sinaitic (Old Scratch) version. English translations that
go with the Western Peshitto version: David Bauscher, Janet Magiera, The Way
International, Herb Jahn, Francis A. Werner.
**2: Matthew 6:32**
Khabouris Peshitta: The Khabouris, in it's secondary script (East Adiabene),
which is a later scribal replacement page, has “the Nations of the World.”
as does Younan's Interlinear, Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Magiera, Alexander,
Pashka, and Lamsa. The Curetonian text reads as The Khabouris Peshitta text
does here. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. text in its extant 10th century
Arabic translation from an 8th century Aramaic Ms. has the Khabouris
Peshitta reading. Neither the Latin or any of the Greek versions have "of
the World".
UBS Peshitto: has “the Nations", as does Bauscher, Jahn, and A. Frances
Werner. Lon Martin has "the heathen" and The Way International's ANT & MS.
ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) doesn't have "d'Alma" (of the World) in that
Aramaic MS. The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the UBS text and the 1199 A.D.
"Asahel Grant" Ms. does too, both being clearly Eastern Peshitta Ms, also
the 1886 Mosul Edition Peshitta text does not have "of the world"....which
begs the question...is the reading "of the World" actually an Eastern
Peshitta reading?
**3: Matthew 21:4**
Khabouris Peshitta: has “all this happened” as does Younan, Etheridge,
Murdock, Alexander, Pashka, and Lamsa. Martin has "This all took place". The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the Peshitta reading. The Byzantine Greek
(Greek Orthodox Church, Majority Greek Text, and the Textus Receptus) and
The Latin Vulgate text has the Eastern Peshitta reading. The Mingana Ms.
reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has “this happened” as does *Younan's interlinear (see note),
Bauscher, Magiera, *Roth, Jahn, and Werner.
The Curetonian text reads the same as the Western Peshitto does here. The
Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) does not have
"K'uleh" (all) in it's text. The Alexandrian Greek text has the Western
Peshitto reading.
* Note: Paul Younan has said that this is a mistake in his interlinear
readings, and should have the Eastern reading of The Peshitta.
* Roth follows Paul Younan's mistaken Interlinear reading, as it was his
base text.
**4: Mark 14:31**
Khabouris Peshitta: has “all the Disciples said” as does Younan, Etheridge,
Murdock, Roth, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, and Martin. The Way International's
ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) has "T'almiyd'e" (the Disciples). The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the Peshitta reading. Neither the Latin
Vulgate or any Greek version has "the Disciples", nor do they have "my Lord"
in this verse, as does both the Eastern and Western forms of the Aramaic NT.
The Diatessaron though, has the Peshitta text's reading "my Lord". The
Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has "they all said" as does Bauscher, Magiera, Jahn, and
Werner, lacking "the Disciples". The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest
(Old Scratch) and The Curetonian versions have "and so all of them also said".
**5: Luke 22:17**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have this
verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the
Curetonian. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century)
does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The
Mingana Codex doesn't have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Etheridge, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa,
Jahn, and Werner, has it. All Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate has this verse.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.
**6: Luke 22:18**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have this
verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the
Curetonian. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century)
does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The
Mingana Ms. doesn't have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Etheridge, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa,
Jahn, and Werner, has it. All Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate has this verse.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.
**7: John 7:53**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, and Roth, don't have it. Neither does
the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The
Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The Mingana does not have
it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, Jahn,
Werner, and Martin (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's "The Aramaic New Testament" which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th
century) for the Gospel of John, shows this verse in [brackets]. The old
Latin and the Latin Vulgate has it, as do the standard Greek texts, which
the translations use, though many Greek Ms copies lack it.
**8: John 8:1-11 (The story of the Woman caught in adultery)**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge and Roth, does not have it. Neither
does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian
versions. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Many Greek Ms
copies lack it, and some have the passage in other places, such as John
chapter 21 . The Mingana Ms. does not have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, Lamsa, Alexander, Pashka, *Jahn,
Werner, and Martin, (citing Bauscher's notes), have it. The Way
International's ANT which uses MS ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) for the Gospel
of John, shows these verses in [brackets].
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.) The old Latin and the Latin Vulgate has this passage,
some Greek Ms copies have it.
**9: John 16:27**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "from the presence of The Father" as does Younan,
Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Alexander and Martin. The Diatessaron of
165 A.D. has "from my Father". Alexandrian Greek versions have "from The
Father". The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has "from the presence of God" as does Magiera, Bauscher,
Pashka, Jahn, and Werner, who has "from next-to God". The Curetonian version
has "from God" as does The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th
century). Byzantine Greek versions and the Latin Vulgate text, have "from God".
**10: Acts 3:6**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads, "...of our Lord Eshu' M'Shikha..." Etheridge,
Murdock, Lamsa, Pashka (and shows the variant in brackets), Martin, and
Alexander, have the Eastern Peshitta reading. The 1199 Ashael Grant Mss has
the Khabouris reading, as does the Mingana Codex, and the 1886 Mosul
Peshitta.
UBS Peshitto: reads, "...of Eshu' M'Shikha..." Roth, Bauscher, Werner, The
Way, Magiera, and Jahn, and MSS 14473 (Jacobite), have the Western reading.
Paul Younan's Interlinear text shows the Western reading for some reason.
**11: Acts 8:37**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have
it. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not
have it. The Mingana does not have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, [Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.
**12: Acts 15:34**
Khabouris Peshitta: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have
it. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not
have it. The Mingana Ms. does not have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, *[Murdock], Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Murdoch has this note: “this verse is removed to the margin in the
editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society.”
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic",
yet he has it translated.
**13: Acts 18:23**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...in the regions of Phrygia and of Galatia." as
does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Pashka, Alexander, and Lamsa. Also, the 1199
(Ashael Grant MS.), the Mingana MS., the 1846 Urmia printed Peshitta text,
and the 1886 printed Peshitta text has the same reading as the Khabouris
does here.
UBS Peshitto: reads "...in the regions of Galatia and of Phrygia." as does
Bauscher, Magiera, The Way International, Werner, Martin, and Jahn. Also,
MS. 14473 has this reading, which seems to be the source for the UBS text,
as I have seen it match up many times against the Eastern text's readings.
It is a Western "Jacobite" text, not the Eastern Peshitta text.
**14: Acts 20:28**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...the Church of M'shikha... as does Etheridge,
Roth, *Alexander, Lamsa, and Martin, have the Eastern reading. The Mingana
reads as the Khabouris does.
UBS Peshitto: reads "...the Church of Alaha..." as does Bauscher, Magiera,
Pashka, Murdock, Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading. The Way
International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) has the Western
reading.
* Victor Alexander has this reading “…to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ,
that which he established by his blood.”
**15: Acts 21:13**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...Eshu' M'shikha." at the end of the verse.
Etheridge, Murdock, *Roth, **Pashka, Alexander Martin, and Lamsa have it as
the Khabouris does. Also The 1199 Ashael Grant MS, The Mingana MS, The 1886
printed Peshitta text, and The 1846 Urmia printed Peshitta text has it as
The Khabouris MS does.
* Roth has the same Eastern Peshitta reading here as Murdock, since he
revised Murdock's translation, but, his Aramaic text to the right in his
editions have the UBS reading, since he revised the UBS Peshitto text, while
leaving a number of Western readings in...like this one. His note says as
much.
* Pashka has the Eastern Peshitta reading in his translation, but, his
Aramaic text, which I believe is the UBS edited to some degree, has the
Western Peshitto reading.
UBS Peshitto: reads "...Eshu'." at the end of the verse. Bauscher, Magiera,
The Way International, Werner, and Jahn, have it as the UBS does. Also MSS
14473 (Jacobite) has the UBS reading. The Greek texts match the UBS Peshitto
text.
**16: Acts 26:28**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...King Agrippa said..." as does Etheridge,
Murdock, Lamsa, Martin, Alexander, *Roth, **Pashka. The 1199 Grant MS, The
Mingana MS, the 1846 Urmia Peshitta, and the 1886 Peshitta, all agree with
the Khabouris.
* Roth has the same reading as Murdock here, though his interlinear (UBS
with edits) has the Western Peshitto reading still there.
* Pashka has the Eastern Peshitta reading in his translation, while his
Aramaic text has the UBS reading.
UBS Peshitto: reads ..."Agrippa said..." as does Bauscher, Magiera, The Way
International, Werner, and Jahn. The UBS follows MS 14473, which is a
Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church) MS. The Way International's Aramaic text
is taken from the same MS 14473.
**17: Acts 28:29**
Khabouris Peshitta: Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, and Martin, don’t have it. The
Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) doesn't have it.
The Mingana Ms. does not have it.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, *Murdock, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, *Jahn, and
Werner, have it.
* Murdoch notes, “this verse 29 is not in the MS., nor in any of the earlier
editions: and the later editions place it in the margin.”
* Herb Jahn has a note for this verse which says, "not in the Aramaic", yet
he has it translated.
**18: 1 Corinthians 16:24**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...in M’shikha Eshu’ Amiyn." the same as the
Byzantine Greek text form, as does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Norton,
Alexander, Martin. Also The Mingana Codex has the same reading as the
Khabouris, and the other Eastern Peshitta Manuscript I can see, from 1199,
given to the English Protestant Missionary Asahel Grant, by Mar Abraham, The
Patriarch/Catholicos of The Church of the East, has the same reading as the
Khabouris.
UBS Peshitto: reads "...in M’shikha Eshu’." the same as the Alexandrian
Greek text form, as does Bauscher, Magiera, Werner, Jahn, Also, MS ADD.
14475 (5th-6th century), as well as The Way International's translation of
it's text has this reading.
**19: 2nd Corinthians 13:1**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "...three times that I'm ready to come unto you."
as does Roth, Murdock, Etheridge, Lamsa, Norton, *Alexander, and **Martin
* Victor Alexander's version reads "...three seasons that I have desired to
come to you." The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text.
** Lonnie Martin's version reads "...the third time that I have prepared to
come to you. As does Roth's and Murdock's version.
UBS Peshitto: reads "...three times that I come unto you." as does Bauscher,
Jahn, Werner, Magiera, and The Way International
**20: Galatians 6:17**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "Our Lord Eshu' M'shikha" as does Roth, Etheridge,
Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Martin, and Lamsa. The Mingana reads the same as
the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: reads "Our Lord Eshu' " as does Magiera, Bauscher, Jahn, and
Werner. The Way International's translation and MS. ADD. 14475 (5th-6th
century) has the Peshitto reading.
**21: Ephesians 1:8**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "of The Spirit" at the end of the verse, as does
Etheridge; where Roth, Murdock, Lamsa, and Martin, all have ("Spiritual")
and Norton has ("the Spirit's") and Alexander has ("of Spirit"). The Mingana
reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: doesn't have any mention of "Spirit" or "Spiritual" in the
text, nor does Magiera, Bauscher, Jahn, and Werner. The Way International's
ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century) doesn't have it.
**22: Ephesians: 1:15**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "all the Holy Ones" as does Etheridge, Murdock,
Roth, Lamsa, Norton, Alexander, Martin, and even Bauscher (though his
Interlinear Aramaic text and word for word translation has the Western
Peshitto reading). The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: reads "the Holy Ones" as does Magiera, Jahn, and Werner. The
Way International's TANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), have the Western
reading.
**23: 2nd Thessalonians 3:18**
Khabouris Peshitta: reads "all of you, my brothers; Amen." as does Roth,
Etheridge, Alexander, Norton, and Murdock. The Way International's TANT &
MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the Eastern reading. The Mingana has
the same reading as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: reads “all of you; Amen." as does Lamsa, Bauscher, Magiera,
Jahn, Martin, and Werner.
**24: Philemon 1:25**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "be with your spirit, my brothers; Amen." as does
Roth, Etheridge, Murdock, Norton, and Alexander. The Mingana reads the same
as the Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has "be with your spirit; Amen." as does Magiera, Bauscher,
Lamsa, Jahn, Martin, and Werner. The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475
(5th-6th century), which doesn't have "my Brothers".
**25: Hebrews 2:9**
Khabouris Peshitta: Roth, Lamsa, and *Martin, have the Eastern reading. The
Mingana Ms. has the Eastern reading. "who independently from God, for all
men tasted death".
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Magiera, Murdock, *Alexander, Norton, Etheridge,
Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading.
While The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the
Western reading, it's odd that the text agrees with the Khabouris readings
in the other places in the verse where the Khabouris varies with the UBS
text.
(* Victor Alexander has this reading: “He is, then, very little like the
angels, for we have seen that He is Eashoa because of the Passion of His
death, and the glory and honor that was consecrated on His head is,
therefore, imposed by God in tasting death on behalf of every human being.”)
* Lonnie Martin has a strange reading here, which doesn't line up with what
is actually in the text itself. "9 But now we see Someone who was made
slightly inferior to the spirit messengers, ‘namely’ Yeshua Himself, crowned
with majesty and honor, because He suffered death. Due to YHVH’s mercy, He
could ‘experience’ death for everyone."
**26: Hebrews 2:16**
Khabouris Peshitta: Etheridge, Roth, Murdock, Magiera, Alexander, Norton,
Lamsa, and Martin, all have the Eastern reading. The Mingana has the Eastern
reading.
UBS Peshitto: Bauscher, Jahn, and Werner, have the Western reading. The Way
International's ANT & MS. ADD 14475 (5th-6th century), has the Western
reading, exactly as the UBS text reads.
**27: James 3:10**
Khabouris Peshitta: has "curses and blessings" as does Etheridge, Roth,
Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Lamsa, and Martin, which is a unique reading
only found in the Eastern Aramaic text. The Mingana reads the same as the
Khabouris text.
UBS Peshitto: has "blessings and curses" as does Bauscher, Magiera, Jahn,
and Werner, which aligns with the Greek and Latin reading. The Way
International's ANT & MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century), has the Western
reading.

25
TheDidache.md

@ -18,14 +18,13 @@ places, seems to have been a sort of church manual for primitive
[early] Christians, probably in rural areas dependent mostly on
itinerant ministers.
The only known complete Didache in Greek is
the[[CodexHierosolymitanusGreek]] Hierosolymitanus, which was first
published by Bryennios in 1883. The Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
No. 1782, dating from the late 4th century, contained fragments of a
codex that preserved Didache 1:3b-4a and 2:7b to 3:2a in slightly
variant and expanded form. A Coptic fragment from the 5th century
contains Didache 10:3b through 12:1b,2a, and appends a prayer for oil
at 10:8.
The only known complete Didache in Greek is the
[[CodexHierosolymitanusGreek]], which was first published by Bryennios
in 1883. The Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus No. 1782, dating from the late
4th century, contained fragments of a codex that preserved Didache
1:3b-4a and 2:7b to 3:2a in slightly variant and expanded form. A
Coptic fragment from the 5th century contains Didache 10:3b through
12:1b,2a, and appends a prayer for oil at 10:8.
A 19th-century manuscript preserved at Constantinople contains a
complete Georgian version of the Didache, the translation of which
@ -53,6 +52,9 @@ http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm
### Links
* https://prophecytoday.uk/study/resources/item/1457-the-didache.html
* https://www.destinyimage.com/blog/dennis-and-jenn-clark-discovered-lost-teaching-of-the-apostles-didache
* https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Didache.html?id=6jGeDAAAQBAJ
* http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Although the Didache has been known of since early christianity,
it was only recently "found" in Constantinople in the library of the
@ -67,9 +69,10 @@ Unfortunately, although it is referred to often by early church writers,
it is quoted rarely, or they haven't survived, so it's difficult to validate
the Didache in Codex Hierosolymitanus.
Although this is unfortunate we will accept it as is, because of its great beauty
and its great simplicity. It leads to a Christian Community wil a very different
flavour than the Church.
Although this is unfortunate we will accept it as is for now, because
of its great beauty and its great simplicity. It leads to a Christian
Community wil a very different flavour than the Church.
### JWO Videos