+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Contradictions (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Variance in Acts 20:28 has led to more questions. (/showthread.php?tid=834)
Variance in Acts 20:28 has led to more questions. - bj bear - 04-20-2004
Greetings to all,
I was hoping to find further insight in the Peshitta regarding "ekklhsian tou qeou" in Acts 20:28 but instead it has lead me to more questions that I am hoping someone hear can answer.
In particular, I was wondering how the phrase above in Acts 20:28 read in the Peshitta. I first looked at Lamsa's english translation and saw that he translated it as Church of Christ. The second place I looked was the Peshitta that is available as an option in the OnlineBible. That version of the Peshitta uses Hebrew characters and seems to render the phrase "church of 0hl0."
This leads me to several new questions. First, am I reading the phrase correctly in the Peshitta of the OnlineBible? Second, If I am reading the phrase correctly are there different versions of the Peshitta out there? Lastly, If there is one authoritative version of the Peshitta and it is the version in the OnlineBible then why did Lamsa render the phrase church of Christ?
Thanks in advance for any help received.
Peace,
BJ -Bear
- Paul Younan - 04-20-2004
Hi BJ-Bear,
The western textual tradition of the Peshitta (called the "Peshitto") is what you're looking at in the OnlineBible version you are using. It differs in several places from the eastern textual tradition, which Lamsa (and I) use.
Thank you. - bj bear - 04-20-2004
Hi Paul,
Paul Younan Wrote:Hi BJ-Bear,
The western textual tradition of the Peshitta (called the "Peshitto") is what you're looking at in the OnlineBible version you are using. It differs in several places from the eastern textual tradition, which Lamsa (and I) use.
Thank you for the information. I found the Word docs today. If you don't mind I have a few more questions. Is there an Aramaic text only with critical apparatus similar to the Nestle-Aland? Is there a convenient way to know if the books on the Bookstore link are based on the Peshitta or Peshitto? What hard copy Bible would you recommend? Thanks again!
Peace,
John
Re: Thank you. - Paul Younan - 04-20-2004
Hi John,
bj bear Wrote:Is there an Aramaic text only with critical apparatus similar to the Nestle-Aland?
Not really a need for one, as there are no significant variants in the eastern textual tradition.
Gwilliam and Pusey created a critical edition comparing 42 or so manuscripts from both the eastern and western texts, but that is quite useless as these manuscripts are not really the same version.
When the Aramaic church broke up in 431 AD - there became two main traditions, that of the western half under Byzantine rule and that of the eastern half under Persian rule.
Because the eastern half was isolated from the rest of Christendom and living under a pagan government (with no "official Christian creed"), its manuscripts are considered to be superior.
bj bear Wrote:Is there a convenient way to know if the books on the Bookstore link are based on the Peshitta or Peshitto?
This is the eastern text: http://www.e-web-presence.com/aramaicbooks/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=31 (Aramaic only)
bj bear Wrote:What hard copy Bible would you recommend?
Lamsa's is pretty good, except for a few translation errors he had with supernatural issues like demons, angels, etc. Also, with issues regarding the divinity of Christ.
No English translation is perfect. Lamsa's is good - but, if your serious about subtle shades of meaning or precision, you should really learn the language itself rather than relying on a third person to do the translating for you. There's no substitute (Greek or English) for the original.
Short of learning the language, the best thing you can do is familiarize yourself with the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon on the "Links" section. It has the original text of the Peshitta there. Using their "text browse" functionality, you can click on a verse number from any book and get English lexical entries for each Aramaic token in the verse. It's a very powerful tool.
Here's a thought... - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 04-21-2004
You are way too humble Akhi Paul, so let me jump in here...
I think that one of the best ways to familarize oneself with the Aramaic language is to read Paul's excellent interlinear version of the Gospels, and see the word for word Aramaic and English side by side. I would further recommend a hard copy, available from the bookstore, and have fun exploring those words by:
1) Printing out the chart of the Aramaic alap-beet (alphabet) also available here, so you have it to consult.
2) Checking out words that interest you with the two lexicons we have here. SEDRA is pretty good (under Tools) since you can type in an English word and see all the places its Aramaic equivalent appears, and you can see that word in both English and Aramaic script.
I have a feeling if you do these things that not only will you learn a lot, but you will also have a lot of fun.
Please enjoy!
Thanks again, Paul. You've been very helpful! nt - bj bear - 04-22-2004
Thanks again, Paul.
You've been very helpful.
Peace,
John
Thank you. - bj bear - 04-22-2004
Thank you.
I have found Paul's interlinear very helpful. The tools and links at Peshitta.org are outstanding.
Peace,
John
- Ben - 09-14-2004
Dear Paul,
I'm new to this forum. I want you to know that I find this site very informative.
So is it correct to say that Lamsa correctly translated Acts 20:28 into "church of Christ"? You see, there are people (mainly greek primacists) who say that Lamsa mistranslated Acts 20:28.
I looked at the Acts 20:28 you provided, and if I'm not mistaken (I'm new to aramaic), the aramaic "0xy4md htd9l" correctly translates to "Church of Christ", right?
Thanks, and more power to your site!
Sincerely,
Ben
- Paul Younan - 09-15-2004
Hi Ben,
Yes that is the correct reading - "Edta da'Meshikha" (Church of Christ). Lamsa had his translational issues, but this wasn't one of them. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->