Was Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+ AT HIS+ BIRTH ? OR . . . Did HE+ "Earn" the MESSIAH+-ship by Keeping TORAH ?

WAS Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+

 BORN  AS THE SON+ of DAVID,
 the MESSIAH+ ,

the KING+ of Israel

. . .  or did HE+ "earn"  that  privilege by being a "RIGHTEOUS, Torah-observant" Jew ? 

A Review of Galatians 4:4 in Andrew Roth’s Aramaic-English New Testament , 

The PESHITTA

This CONCEPT --- that Y'SHU+ earned the MESSIAHship --- is the main issue throughout Mr. Roth's New Testament. This CONCEPT is the reason Mr. Roth changes so many things in the book of Galatians.


 In changing the Apostle's GOD-breathed, inspired words,  Mr. Roth puts forth his man-devised doctrine that The LORD Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+ was chosen as MESSIAH+  because HE+ followed TORAH. . .  not because HE+ came as our MESSIAH+ at His+ Divine Birth !

 Mr. Roth tries TO CORRECT the Apostle Paul's writings in Galatians, making his own translation of that book. 

How can ANYONE 

correct the Apostle Paul ? 

Have we been:

• Beaten 5 times, each time receiving 39 stripes,

• Beaten with rods 3 times,

• Stoned once,

• Been shipwrecked 3 times, and floundered in the deep a night and a day ?

( Let us not forget being bitten by a poisonous viper, as well.)

Have we : 

• been smitten to the ground by a fabulous LIGHT from Heaven,

• heard the glorious Voice of The RISEN LORD Y’SHU+ the M’SHIKHA+ , and

• been delivered from Celestial Blindness by an Anointed disciple ?

If our answer is NO, then we have

NO right, NO anointing, and most assuredly NO authority FROM our HOLY LORD and SAVIOR Y’SHU+ the M’SHIKHA+ to “adjust” the writings of The Apostle Paul. . .

who was:

• of the stock of Israel,

• circumcised the 8^th day,

• of the tribe of Benjamin,

• a Hebrew of the Hebrews;

• as touching The LAW, a Pharisee,

• concerning zeal,  persecuting the Church

. . .  as touching the righteousness

 which is in The LAW,

BLAMELESS.

[ See 2 Corinthians 11, Acts 28,  Acts 9, and Philippians 3. ]

+  +  +

So now, let’s look at Galatians 4:4. First in Aramaic-Syriac and then in English: 

Courtesy of Dukhrana; SEE the embedded link at the word "analyze" , in blue, after the Aramaic verse.  Click on it to see the GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS of each Aramaic word. Scroll down to find each word analyzed on the DUKHRANA website. 

- ܟ݁ܰܕ݂ ܡܛܳܐ  ܕ݁ܶܝܢ  ܫܽܘܠܳܡܶܗ   ܕ݁ܙܰܒ݂ܢܳܐ   ܫܰܕ݁ܰܪ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ  ܠܰܒ݂ܪܶܗ    ܘܰܗܘܳܐ   ܡܶܢ  ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܰܗܘܳܐ   ܬ݁ܚܶܝܬ݂    ܢܳܡܽܘܣܳܐ ܀ ^(analyze)

But when the fulness of the time was come, 

GOD sent forth  HIS SON+,

made of a woman, 

made under The Law, 

Galatians 4:4

It is a rather straight-forward, simply-stated verse in the Greek, the Latin, and in the Aramaic-Syriac PESHITTA texts, as well. All agree. 

There are NO variants in this verse among the Greek texts, i.e., the Alexandrian texts agree with the Byzantine texts, according to the Nestle-Aland 26^th edition.  

As a matter of fact, there is only one variant in these ancient texts, and that variant is found in the Latin:  “born” [ natum ] replaces “made” [ factum ]. 

[ NOTE: IF a modern English version such as the American Standard Version of 1901, prints “born” in this verse, its editors obtained that word directly from three Latin manuscripts which DIFFERED from the Latin Vulgate at this point. The 1970 St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, a Roman Catholic Bible , replaces “made” with “born” in this verse as well.

Those Latin MSS are:  Codex Armachanus ( Book of Armagh) Dublinesis  , 9^th Century;  Codex Fuldensis, 6^th Century, a Latin Diatessaron; and Codex Vallicellanus, 9^th Century.  This information is contained in footnote at Galatians 4:4 in the Wordsworth-White Latin Vulgate, 1889 edition, reprint.]

 

Now, here is the English translation printed in Andrew Roth’s Aramaic-English New Testament ( AENT), 2008, Third Edition.

Galatians 4:4

But when therefore the fullness of time had come,

Elohim sent His Son

who was born of a woman,

and was subject to Torah.

Mr. Roth, who generally defends the Apostle Paul, here in this verse subverts the Apostle's message. 

Mr. Roth has ADDED  five extra words  into the Holy Writ in this short verse --- as well as concepts --- which are not found in the Aramaic text which he is SUPPOSED to be translating into English.  The extra words are in brown.

But when therefore the fullness of time had come,

Elohim sent His Son

who was born of a woman,

and was subject to Torah.

Let’s look at these words closely. The first word in brown, “therefore”,  is simply not in the text. [ We can CHECK IT OUT ON THE DUKHRANA analyze link above. ]

From our study , we already know the word “born” came directly from three Old Latin manuscripts which varied even from the Latin Vulgate, which has “made”, like the Greek manuscripts. 

This is what the Aramaic-Syriac PESHITTA actually states:

. . . HE+ was from a woman 

[ wahwa men attha ] 

. . . reading left to right

ܘܰܗܘܳܐ   ܡܶܢ  ܐܰܢ݈ܬ݁ܬ݂ܳܐ

  (... reading RIGHT to left. )

Of note, we see on Dukhrana's ANALYZE page for Galatians 4:4 that George Lamsa ALSO translated this Peshitta verse exactly like the Old Latin manuscripts !

(Lamsa) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son who, born of a woman, became subject to the law,

Interestingly, all the Greek texts here state this phrase with the same word:  GENOMENON: 

. . . HE+ brought HIMSELF+ into being out of a woman

[ genomenon ek gunaikos ]   

or more literally, HE+ was generated from out of a woman. STRICTLY SPEAKING, IT DOES NOT MEAN "born." Because this verb is a MIDDLE form, it carries the connotation that the MOVEMENT was done by HIMSELF+ (  ! ). Here is the explanation from M. Vincent about this verb, courtesy of  https://biblehub.com/greek/1096.htm

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being / manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

However, we can comfortably state that these  two changes Mr. Roth has made are within  reasonable bounds of a translator’s  margin of freedom. 

Even though not a literal translation of those Aramaic words, Mr. Roth's changes  do not alter the substance of this verse. 

These changes  do not change the Truth originally written in this verse, nor do they change the Truth found elsewhere in Scripture.  

 Likewise, they do not change any CONCEPT found in the New Covenant. 

The last words in brown, subject to Torah   , however DO CHANGE the substance of the message, the Truth as found in Scripture, and portrays an erroneous CONCEPT. . .  in addition to grammar and vocabulary errors.

A QUICK look  shows us that "TORAH" is not in the Aramaic; the Greek loan word for "law" is: 

 namusa . . . ܢܳܡܽܘܣܳܐ

Likewise, there is no "to" in this sentence.

Aramaic usually uses an "-- L " , a Lamed, attached to the beginning of a word to mean "to." 

The L ( Lamed) is not there in the text. 

And lastly,  Mr. Roth has mis-translated  "under." 

He takes the Aramaic word for "under" totally out of context of this passage.

T'CHAYT = under . . .    ܬ݁ܚܶܝܬ݂

For here, "under" means "under the jurisdiction of The Law" of Moses. 

In this passage, "under" does not mean "subject to" or "in bondage to." 

There is another Aramaic word used for that meaning . 

 M'SHA'B'DIYN = were subjected to =  ܡܫܰܥܒ݁ܕ݂ܺܝܢ

And it is found in the verse just prior to Galatians 4:4. 

From Galatians 4:3 , we read:

 (Etheridge)  

So we also, while children, 

under the principles of the world were subjected.

As is apparent, "under"  and "subject to"  are TWO DIFFERENT  Aramaic WORDS and TWO DIFFERENT GRAMMAR FORMS,  used to communicate TWO DIFFERENT concepts, in the verse just prior to verse 4:4. 

Certainly, the Apostle Paul selected the APPROPRIATE word to convey the appropriate meaning of "under"  instead of "subject to"  in verse 4, as well as he did in verse 3 .

Additionally as he corrected the Apostle, Mr. Roth changed the grammar  of the text in his translation into English. He changed the particle ( preposition) "under"  INTO A VERB FORM  by substituting " subject to " in its place. 

Furthermore, Mr. Roth substantiates his error in his explanatory footnote at Galatians 4:4 !

 In changing the Apostle's GOD-breathed, inspired words,  Mr. Roth puts forth his man-devised doctrine that The LORD Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+ was chosen as MESSIAH+  because HE+ followed TORAH. . .  not because HE+ came as our MESSIAH+ at His+ Divine Birth !

 . . . CONTRARY TO MATTHEW 1:1 

and Matthew 1:16

and a host of other Scriptures.

SO, WE CONCLUDE THAT . . .  

• If word meanings must be muddled, 
• if grammar forms must  be changed, 
• if our text Scriptures must be "adjusted,"  
• if the Words of the Apostles must be changed 

in order to support our doctrines, 

then something must be

DREADFULLY WRONG.

We will be leading the flock AWAY from The LORD 

and unto a muddled, confused death.

+  +  +

COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE, 

AND TOUCH NOT THE UNCLEAN THING.

 FLEE from such teachers and leaders, 

for they are laid in the balances

and found wanting.