FREE/BARGAIN — Christian Interest

[Difflugia]

George M. Lamsa's Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text is on sale for $1.99. It's published by the HarperCollins imprint HarperOne.

Here's a link to the page at HarperCollins, which includes links to the major ebook sellers. Note that if you buy it from HarperCollins itself, the ebook is delivered via the Bookshout application. The Tools don't handle Bookshout DRM.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062225092/holy-bible/

This book is a 1933 English translation of the Syriac Peshitta texts of the Bible. The Peshitta is itself a translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialiect of Aramaic. The Peshitta is analogous to the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate and is interesting for similar reasons. All three were translated before the standardization of the Old Testament Masoretic Text and show variations from the Masoretic Text that may reflect readings closer to the original.

The Peshitta is additionally interesting because portions of the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) were translated as early as the second century, a period from which we have few and fragmentary Greek manuscripts. It's therefore likely that the Peshitta retains older readings of New Testament passages that changed during the next two centuries or so.

The main problem with Lamsa's translation is that he also subscribed to the idea that the Gospels were originally written in Syriac. What most people consider the Greek originals were, according to Lamsa, actually translated from the Syriac. A number of his translation decisions reflect that.

So, to sum all of that up, this translation is of particular value to anyone interested in textural traditions, criticism and translation issues. In that case, it's worth far more as a reference than $2 or even the $15 regular price. If you're bored by all this, you can probably pass.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

George M. Lamsa's Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text is on sale for $1.99
<snip>

Thanks for your above post. I saw the book offering, but didn't know what to make of the book. You cleared things up.

[Little.Egret]

Amazon UK Monthly offer £1.99


Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

brings together C.S. Lewis’s legendary radio broadcasts during the war years, in which he set out simply to ‘explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times’.

Rejecting the boundaries that divide Christianity’s many denominations, ‘Mere Christianity’ provides an unequalled opportunity for believers and nonbelievers alike to absorb a powerful, rational case for the Christian faith.

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Mere-Chri...dp/B002RI9TG4/

CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS (1898-1963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a fellow and tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics, the Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.

[Ricky D'Angelo]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

George M. Lamsa's Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text is on sale for $1.99. It's published by the HarperCollins imprint HarperOne.

Here's a link to the page at HarperCollins, which includes links to the major ebook sellers. Note that if you buy it from HarperCollins itself, the ebook is delivered via the Bookshout application. The Tools don't handle Bookshout DRM.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062225092/holy-bible/

This book is a 1933 English translation of the Syriac Peshitta texts of the Bible. The Peshitta is itself a translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialiect of Aramaic. The Peshitta is analogous to the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate and is interesting for similar reasons. All three were translated before the standardization of the Old Testament Masoretic Text and show variations from the Masoretic Text that may reflect readings closer to the original.

The Peshitta is additionally interesting because portions of the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) were translated as early as the second century, a period from which we have few and fragmentary Greek manuscripts. It's therefore likely that the Peshitta retains older readings of New Testament passages that changed during the next two centuries or so.

The main problem with Lamsa's translation is that he also subscribed to the idea that the Gospels were originally written in Syriac. What most people consider the Greek originals were, according to Lamsa, actually translated from the Syriac. A number of his translation decisions reflect that.

So, to sum all of that up, this translation is of particular value to anyone interested in textural traditions, criticism and translation issues. In that case, it's worth far more as a reference than $2 or even the $15 regular price. If you're bored by all this, you can probably pass.

The Hebraic Roots bible is free in various formats at the following link.
http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bibleDownloadKindle.php

This complete bible also has the New Testament based on the original Aramaic Peshitta text, the very language that our Savior spoke. The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. This is a literal translation and we believe to be the closest bible to the original language that was written thousands of years ago - the bible as it was! The Old Testament is from the original Hebrew manuscripts and the NT from the original Aramaic.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Ricky D'Angelo

The Hebraic Roots bible is free in various formats at the following link.
http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bibleDownloadKindle.php

Thanks for your post.

Corrections and additions to the following are solicited.

The Kindle link worked just fine; I couldn't get the "Nook & Sony (ePub)" version to open, even from Adobe Digital Editions, which I think is supposed to open ePub's.

That Bible is available in several other formats, not mentioned on the webpage that opens from the link. (None of the webpages, to which I navigated, showed sublinks (that's probably not the proper word, but the URL's with them are in the form of "www.domainname.com/sublink")) in the address bar of my browser). Here are all of them:
PDF.
eSword module
eSword iPad module.
theWord module
Android mySword module
Kindle eBook
Kindle Fire eBook
Nook & Sony eBook
I found these by clicking on the thumbnail of the Bible, on the publisher's homepage. The webpage that opens has links on the lefthand side to "Bible" (which is the one under consideration) and "Books." The webpage that opens up if you click on "Books" has about 5 books, any one or all of which you might find valuable.

Some tentative conclusions, and questions, from exploring the website of the publisher:
- The Bible is published by the Congregation of Yahweh, which seems to adhere to Messianic Judaism.
- The website says that "The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. This is a literal translation and we believe to be the closest bible to the original language that was written thousands of years ago - the bible as it was!"

The statements above can cause people to reach the wrong conclusions--namely, that this Bible is a translation from Aramaic. True, scholars say that the New Testament was written in Aramaic, but we have copies only written in Greek.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

Some tentative conclusions, and questions, from exploring the website of the publisher:
- The Bible is published by the Congregation of Yahweh, which seems to adhere to Messianic Judaism.
- The website says that "The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic. This is a literal translation and we believe to be the closest bible to the original language that was written thousands of years ago - the bible as it was!"

The statements above can cause people to reach the wrong conclusions--namely, that this Bible is a translation from Aramaic. True, scholars say that the New Testament was written in Aramaic, but we have copies only written in Greek.

It's a little messier than that.

First, the terms are a bit confusing. Aramaic is a family of languages that includes Syriac, so all Syriac is Aramaic, but not all Aramaic is Syriac. As the terms are generally used, "Aramaic" usually refers to the "language of Jesus" (Old or Western Syriac) and is the dialect that was spoken/written in Palestine during the first century AD. Without a modifier, "Syriac" usually means a later (third century) dialect associated with the eastward expansion of Syriac Christianity. That's the "Eastern" in Lamsa's subtitle, "From the Ancient Eastern Text".

We have early copies of the New Testament in both Greek and Syriac (as well as several other languages like Coptic, Ethiopic, Slavic, etc.). There are extant, complete copies of the Peshitta in Eastern Syriac that date to the fifth century, fragmentary Old Syriac ("language of Jesus") manuscripts that date to the third century, and evidence that Old Syriac translations were made of the Gospels (the Diatesseron) in the mid-to-late second century.

The argument made by the "Aramaic originals" crowd is that the New Testament was actually written in Old Syriac and then translated into Greek during the second century. They claim that the Eastern Syriac Peshitta is a minor revision of the Old Syriac and that certain features of the Peshitta are strong evidence that the New Testament was composed in Old Syriac. I don't find the arguments compelling, but I would recommend this website to anyone that wants to explore them. It offers the Greek text, various ways of displaying the Syriac text ("square" Hebrew if you don't read Syriac script, for example, or transliteration if you don't read either one), and several English translations of both.

Now, the Hebrew Roots Bible is an entirely different thing. Despite the claims of the author, it is not a "literal translation", nor is it even a primary translation at all. For the New Testament, the author compared several translations in English and selected readings that he thought sounded more original. As an effort, I find the results as interesting as actual translation, but I think the process is more similar to the production of The Clear Word. James Blanco, the author of The Clear Word, referred to it as a "devotional exercise."

Now, the whole reason that I came to Mobileread today was to post a free book.

Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership by Ally Kateusz is Open Access and available under a Creative Commons license (give it away to whomever you want, but you can't sell or modify it). It can be downloaded as epub or PDF from SpringerLink or for Kindle at Amazon.

This book reveals exciting early Christian evidence that Mary was remembered as a powerful role model for women leaders—women apostles, baptizers, and presiders at the ritual meal. Early Christian art portrays Mary and other women clergy serving as deacon, presbyter/priest, and bishop. In addition, the two oldest surviving artifacts to depict people at an altar table inside a real church depict women and men in a gender-parallel liturgy inside two of the most important churches in Christendom—Old Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome and the second Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Dr. Kateusz’s research brings to light centuries of censorship, both ancient and modern, and debunks the modern imagination that from the beginning only men were apostles and clergy.

Edit: I just reread your post where you said that "...scholars say that the New Testament was written in Aramaic..." and I think you're referring to the idea that Matthew initially wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. That's a claim attributed by Eusebius to Papias and is often repeated in evangelical commentaries. Matthew as we have it is pretty much certain to have been composed in Greek, but there is some conjecture (and only conjecture) that Matthew wrote a separate collection of "logia" in Aramaic.

[Freehunter]

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine by Gregg Allison - Kindle edition

description:
"Most historical theology texts follow Christian beliefs chronologically, discussing notable doctrinal developments for all areas of theology according to their historical appearance. And while this may be good history, it can make for confusing theology, with the classic theological loci scattered throughout various time periods, movements, and controversies. In Historical Theology, Gregg Allison offers students the opportunity to study the historical development of theology according to a topical-chronological arrangement, setting out the history of Christian doctrine one theological element at a time...."

US$ 7.99

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Th...dp/B004UABPL4/

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Freehunter

Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine by Gregg Allison - Kindle edition

description:
"Most historical theology texts follow Christian beliefs chronologically, discussing notable doctrinal developments for all areas of theology according to their historical appearance. And while this may be good history, it can make for confusing theology, with the classic theological loci scattered throughout various time periods, movements, and controversies. In Historical Theology, Gregg Allison offers students the opportunity to study the historical development of theology according to a topical-chronological arrangement, setting out the history of Christian doctrine one theological element at a time...."

US$ 7.99

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Th...dp/B004UABPL4/

I paid $9.99 for this ebook, about 5 years ago. If anything, it should have been cheaper then, or more expensive now, what with the factor of inflation, though small, over those 5 years) thrown into the equation

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

<snip>

Edit: I just reread your post where you said that "...scholars say that the New Testament was written in Aramaic..." and I think you're referring to the idea that Matthew initially wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. That's a claim attributed by Eusebius to Papias and is often repeated in evangelical commentaries. Matthew as we have it is pretty much certain to have been composed in Greek, but there is some conjecture (and only conjecture) that Matthew wrote a separate collection of "logia" in Aramaic.

I think that more than one teacher that I've had, some "expert" (to one degree or another), and/or some author made the blanket statement that the Gospels were penned in Aramaic, and later the Gospels were translated into Greek. That circumstance reminds me of something that I remember as coming from Mark Twain: "don't believe everything that you read in the [news]papers."

Bart Ehrman (a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a prolific author), who is not an evangelical now (he has described himself as an agnostic with atheistic leanings) pointed out, in his book Did Jesus Exist?, an instance in the Gospel of John which shows that it must have been originally written in Aramaic. I don't see a copy of the book here in my office at the present moment, and I don't remember what the passage it is that he had referred to. Anyway, I won't take the time, now, to find (out); if someone wants to know what the specific passage in the Gospel of John is from which he made the argument, and/or what the argument is, let me know and I will do some sleuthing to find it.

If Ehrman is right, that potentially means that there is evidence that two of the four Gospels were originally written in Aramaic.

However, Papias, if Eusebius is correct, said that Matthew wrote the logia (sayings) of Jesus in Aramaic. It may be impossible to determine if Papias was speaking of the Gospel of Matthew or some other writing of Matthew's (now lost). But anyway, the position that Papias was speaking of the Gospel of Matthew is what Difflugia was referring to when he commented that at it "is often repeated in evangelical commentaries."

There are a couple of different reasons that non-evangelicals would prefer that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew (aka "Levi"), the Gospel of Mark was not written by Mark, the Gospel of Luke was not written by Luke, and the Gospel of John was not written by John. I refer you to NT Pod(cast) 83--"Who Wrote the Gospels and When?", a 21 minute podcast at ListenNotes.com (I'm sorry, but I think that I'm not able to give you a specific webpage, because the webpage of the podcasts keep changing, as new podcasts are added (the podcast to which I refer is the most recent one, as of this writing)). It is a great, succinct discussion of pro's and con's concerning the authorship of the individual Gospels. NT Pod(cast) is Mark Goodacre's. Goodacre is professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Duke University. Goodacre, though not being an evangelical, seems fair-minded and presents facts on both sides of an issue of who wrote the Gospels. A bonus is that he has a pleasant voice (however, he is from England or some other part of the U.K. and some people on this side of the Pond might have to strain to understand something that he said. But maybe that's a good thing).

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

Bart Ehrman (a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a prolific author), who is not an evangelical now (he has described himself as an agnostic with atheistic leanings) pointed out, in his book Did Jesus Exist?, an instance in the Gospel of John which shows that it must have been originally written in Aramaic. I don't see a copy of the book here in my office at the present moment, and I don't remember what the passage it is that he had referred to. Anyway, I won't take the time, now, to find (out); if someone wants to know what the specific passage in the Gospel of John is from which he made the argument, and/or what the argument is, let me know and I will do some sleuthing to find it.

The example you're looking for is in chapter 3 of Did Jesus Exist? He's discussing several recorded sayings of Jesus that originated in Aramaic. The specific example from John, though, is the other way around. John 3:3 begins a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus that, according to Ehrman, must have been composed in Greek because it includes a misunderstanding that could only have happened in Greek.

As it turns out, some sayings of Jesus cannot be translated into Aramaic. Jesus could not have said these things since he spoke Aramaic. Let me give one rather famous example.

In John 3 comes the well-known story of Jesus’s conversation with the rabbi Nicodemus. Jesus is in Jerusalem, and Nicodemus comes up to him and tells him that he knows he is a teacher from God. Jesus tells him: “Unless you are born anothen you will not be able to enter into the kingdom of God.” I have left the key word here in Greek. Anothen has two meanings. It can mean “a second time,” and it can mean “from above.” And so this is the passage in which Jesus instructs his follower that he has to be “born again.” At least that’s how Nicodemus understands the word because he is shocked and asks how he can possibly crawl back into his mother’s womb and be born a second time. But in fact Jesus does not mean “a second time”; he means “from above.” This is what the word anothen means in the other instances it is used in John’s Gospel, and it is what Jesus means by it here, as he then corrects Nicodemus and launches into a lengthy explanation that a person needs to be born from the Spirit who comes from above (the upper realm) if he wants to enter into the kingdom of God.

This is a conversation, in other words, that is rooted in the double meaning of the key word anothen, which Nicodemus understands in one way but Jesus means in another. Without that double entendre, the conversation does not flow and does not quite make sense. But here’s the key point. Even though the Greek word anothen has this double meaning, the double meaning cannot be replicated in Aramaic. The Aramaic word for “from above” does not mean “a second time,” and the word for “a second time” does not mean “from above.” In other words, this conversation could not have been carried out in Aramaic. But Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke—and the language he certainly would have been speaking in Jerusalem with a leading Jewish rabbi (even if he were able to speak another language, which is doubtful). In other words, the conversation could not have happened as it is reported.

This is to illustrate the point from earlier in the chapter:

Even though the Gospels were written in Greek, as were their sources, some of the surviving traditions were originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine.

I won't analyze whether or not I think he's correct, but I will point out that while Ehrman and most other modern scholars think the entire New Testament was composed in Greek, there is an important minority that disagrees.

George Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is an analysis of a medieval copy of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew that is, Howard claims, descended from a Hebrew original that isn't dependent on any of the known textual sources. He concludes that Matthew wrote two versions of the same Gospel, one in Hebrew and one in Greek. Some of his analysis can be read in the Google Books preview.

Another interesting book that was published in 1922 and is available in its entirety at Google Books is The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel.

Google the phrase "Aramaic primacy" and you'll find a number of web pages addressing the subject.

[GtrsRGr8]

Mea culpa.

I should have taken the time to find my copy of Ehrman's book, and looked up the information, instead of relying on memory! The point is an important one!

Anyway, it was good for Difflugia to give up some of his time to straighten me out, and to share some of his deep knowledge on the subject with all of us.

[Fluribus]

Credo Courses is offering Mark Hitchcock's course on Revelation for $0.00. You can add both the audio and video to your cart.

https://www.credocourses.com/product...eid=9c1cff3baf

[Difflugia]

The Gnostic Gospels of Jesus by Marvin Meyer is $1.99.

Kobo
B&N
Amazon

This book is a collection of gnostic texts that fit (or are similar enough to) the literary type of "gospel":

• The Gospel of Thomas with the Greek Gospel of Thomas fragments
• The Gospel of Mary
• The Gospel of Philip
• The Gospel of Truth by Valentinus
• The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit or the Egyptian Gospel
• The Secret Book of John
• The Secret Book of James
• The Book of Thomas
• The Dialogue of the Savior
• The Second Discourse of Great Seth
• The Book of Baruch by Justin
• The Round Dance of the Cross

Marvin Meyer is the editor of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures and indeed, the first ten of the twelve included texts are in that book as well.

The Book of Baruch is a book for which we have no surviving manuscripts, but which was argued against so thoroughly by Hippolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies that the text can be more-or-less completely reconstructed. Note that this is not the book of Baruch from the Catholic Apocrypha.

The Round Dance of the Cross is a hymn that is contained within another gnostic work known as The Acts of John. The Acts of John (including this excerpt) is included in Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures, but in a different translation.

Since I have the other books mentioned (The Nag Hammadi Scriptures was $1.99 about six months ago), the regular price of $9.49 is kind of steep for the little bit of new material. I can justify $2, though.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Credo Courses is offering Mark Hitchcock's course on Revelation for $0.00. You can add both the audio and video to your cart.

https://www.credocourses.com/product...eid=9c1cff3baf

Thanks.

I think that I had that bookmarked. If I did, it went bye-bye when Chrome closed all of my open tabs (I've found it to be bad about doing that, but I usually can catch it, now, before all of the tabs disappear into cyberspace for good).

[GtrsRGr8]

I ran across the following harmony of 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles today.

It's in PDF. It's free.

There are at least two or three other harmonies of these books, commercially published, around. Perhaps the best know one is an old one compiled/arranged by a fellow with the last name of "Crockett". It's widely available for free, also. However, it uses a text published in the 1880's.

This one was arranged in 2004, and uses the much more serviceable Revised Standard Version (1952) as the text.

I don't know how good or bad the following harmony is; I haven't had a chance to review it.

Samuel, Kings and Chronicles: A Harmony.