Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question For Brother Paul (Or Any Other Peshitta Scholar)

You stated this: " What happened was some of the scholars of the Western Orthodox Church took the Peshitta and made it conform to the Greek copy that was used in thier lands, . . ."

In this statement do you mean that, when the Western Orthodox church did this (in taking the Peshitta and conforming it to their Greek copies) they produced the PESHITTO (at this point) ?? I don't think this is what your are stating but I wish to be sure.

I thought that the Western PESHITTO (Etheridge/Murdock's text) was very close text to the Eastern PESHITTA text? No?

The Western Peshitto (laying aside the Western 5 books) is very close (almost identical to the Eastern Peshitta text) is it not , with the exception of a few (say 7) places where the difference is tiny?

And how does all this relate to "Old Syriac" text (or what has been termed on this site as "Old Scratch." Where does "Old Scratch" fit in here?

Can you fill in soame of these blanks for me??

Tks so much Chuck.

Hi Mike, as I have been going through the Eastern Peshitta text line by line, word by word over the last number of months, checking the Khabouris text (Eastern), with the UBS text (composite Western), I find that the text is near identical as to the wording, but for the instances of the Aramaic word for "we", which is much more prevalent in the Khabouris Manuscript, with the number of significant variant readings under about 10 places in the entire NT, with about 4 of them quite important ones, which change the meaning. We've went through these at some length on other threads though, maybe you are aware of them?

So far as I can tell, this altering took place back in the 4th century sometime. The Eastern Peshitta NT, which was always used since the time of the Apostles, in the Aramaic speaking lands, were altered to varying degrees, as seen in the surviving Western "Peshitto" Mss. The altered readings conform to what is found in some minority (Alexandrian) Greek copies used during that time in those lands, west of the Euphrates. The Church of the East always used the original Aramaic Peshitta form, which has been left unchanged in text since the time of the Apostles.

You know when you are reading a Western "Peshitto" version, when you come across those few changes in the text, and the added 5 disputed books, that comnform it to the Greek form of the NT. If these changes don't bother you, then use it as your NT. I prefer to study the Original form of the Aramaic NT "Peshitta" (Straight), as found in the Khabouris Manuscript, which is an unchanged and most likely 3rd generational copy of the Original Aramaic New Testament, as given by the Apostles to the Christians of The Church of the East.

But, even though some of these differences are quite important, the Awesome Message of God's Salvation is given in both forms, though to me, it's like studying from a Majority Greek Text, vs a Minority Greek text...and learning from the School of Antioch, rather than the School of Alexandria.

Shamasha Paul Younan can better present the known facts about these things though...I'm still learning the details. Go Peshitta! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

This thread has grown more and more interesting during my absence! I didn't realize that Lamsa used the Peshitto (except for in the Western Five). He seems to have retained the Eastern reading in at least some places. The plan I have is to do a review of the Etheridge New Testament tomorrow since I am on fall break. I going to do the reviews in the order I received them in print (Lamsa, AENT, Plain English, Etheridge, Murdock). It'll be a while before I get the Bauscher Interlinear and the Magiera materials.
The world has yet to see a truly Eastern Peshitta in the English Language, though Mr. Roth has come close, in that he edited the Murdoch portion of his English revision, to read as the Eastern Peshitta text reads in every place. Adding the W5 does not make the whole thing the "Peshitto", but can confuse some who don't know they arent included in the Eastern Peshitta...which are even absent in some of the oldest Western Peshitto copies according to David Bauscher. Even the forth coming Official Church of the East Aramaic New Testament will have the W5 translated, but with a special note in plain view as to their relationship with The Peshitta.

Lamsa seems to have generally used the Eastern readings, but not 100% of the time. I'm not sure if I'd say that adding the Western Five makes it not be Peshitta though, Brother. I prefer Roth's translation over the Lamsa, and the Etheridge is probably my favorite of the translations of the Western Peshitto, with Murdock and Bauscher not far behind. Quick question: is Magiera's translation mainly Peshitto or Peshitta?

Quote:I'm not sure if I'd say that adding the Western Five makes it not be Peshitta though, Brother.

I don't say that, but adding the W5 makes it a Peshitta New Testament, ---> with the Western Peshitto books. For instance, The Khabouris Codex IS The Peshitta...and if one was to append the W5 to it, then you would have The Peshitta+the Peshitto's W5...BUT, even some of the earlier Western Peshitto Manuscripts lack the W5...while having the Peshitto readings in the other places of the non-W5 books. Aint this fun... lol

Quote:Quick question: is Magiera's translation mainly Peshitto or Peshitta?

From what I've seen, it has more of the Eastern readings in it than Mr. Bauscher?s does, though both add the Pericope Aldutera John 8:1-11. He adds acts 8:37 where she doesn?t. In Acts 15:34 Dave has it, Janet doesn?t. Dave?s has Luke 22:17-18, Janet?s doesn?t. For Acts 28:29, Dave?s has it, Janet?s doesn?t. Dave?s has the Western reading of Hebrews 2:16, where Janet?s has the Eastern reading.

While both say that they used the BFBS/UBS Critical Composite text, Dave sticks with its readings, while Janet says that she used it as a ?base text?, and we can see that she goes with some Eastern readings, not found in the BFBS/UBS text. Acts 8:37 is said to be absent in ALL Aramaic /Syriac Manuscripts, both East and West, but Dave chose to keep it, because it?s in the BFBS/UBS text?from the Greek. The reason is, that Dave seems to have convinced himself that the BFBS/UBS text is inspired, and thus represents 100% the Original Autograph in every place. And this based on his bible codes research, which is rather shady, once you know what happened there. I won?t go into that here though. Also, Dave needs to be upfront with the fact that it is the Western Peshitto that he chose to translate from, NOT the Eastern Peshitta. Janet makes this clear in her introduction, that even though she calls her translation a Peshitta translation, it?s really a Peshitto version, though less so, than Dave?s.

P.S. I just ordered Janet's "Messianc" version in paperback for 20 I think of all the Peshitto versions, she has the best one, as to accuracy and honesty in translation, and has a number of Eastern readings, which I've shown...though I haven't checked those with Murdoch, Etheridge, or Lamsa's versions yet...Im curios though.

I'm most likely to get the Magiera Messianic version first, it looks real good (using "Yeshue" instead of Yeshua is a little odd lol). I have the Etheridge, Murdock, and Lamsa translations in paperback with Bauscher and Roth in hardback. I have to say the Roth and Etheridge translations are my favorites, then Bauscher, Murdock, and Lamsa all not too far behind. I wish Magiera would release the Interlinear New Testament in one volume.

I have been using the Lamsa Bible quite a bit lately. It isn't the best but it is still a pretty good translation. I find it interesting how inconsistent Lamsa is with his translation of "devana" by sometimes translating it correctly and sometimes translating it with his own bias. The best example of this is in the story of the man/men with the legion of demons in the Synoptic Gospels (In Matthew and Mark they are called lunatics, in Luke they are said to be demon-possessed). I guess "insane" or "lunatics" is technically okay, as long as you understand the insanity to be spiritually caused and not natural! Even though the Lamsa Bible is one of my favorite translations to read, I would not use it for preaching (especially considering how KJV-only some of my church is).

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)