04-03-2008, 11:44 PM
Shlama Akhi Rungold,
I will try to answer this as best I can, but just know that I have not reviewed Reverend Bauscher's work. Instead, I can only go by what he has said about this translation on this forum and on his website, so that is what I am drawing from. As far as I can determine from this process, these are the differences as I see them:
1) Mari/PEACE is a Sacred Name interlinear specifically geared for the needs of the Nazarene-Messianic communities. Bauscher has said that he uses common names, but I think the Peshitta's uses of MarYah, Alaha, Mari and Maran provide an exceptional opportunity to clarify LORD and Lord once and for all. I am aware of course that some English translations intend LORD to be YHWH and Lord to be Y'shua or other humans, but if you look at what Lamsa did, it is totally confusing to the English only reader.
2) David Bauscher follows the 1905 Critical Text for the Peshitta exclusively. Most of the time (99.99%) this is not a problem for me. However, there are cases where later Western readings crept into 1905 that bodies like the SOC admitted changing. I am thinking principally of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, but there are some other variances that 1905 has not included which I believe are original Eastern readings as well. So, I decided to list all these variants and let the reader decide. Again, without seeing David's footnotes, I can't know to what extent he has expressed these variants in his diglot. However, I can say that ALL EASTERN READINGS in the Aramaic text have been restored as base text in BOTH languages. Other later readings in the "Western 5" were also absorbed into 1905 and I have put the more reliable readings in there as well, or at least explain my beliefs as to why this or that reading should be considered as having more weight.
3) I know David believes his text is perfect for codes purposes and that codes research is part of his emphasis, but it is not part of mine. However, if I were doing codes research I would believe that my Critical Text is closer to perfect than his is, because some of those readings that made it to 1905 are blatantly too late to be authentic in my opinion. I don't want to get into specifics here, but just answer you with my intentions. Nor do I want to debate this or that matter because my time is limited as I am sure you understand. However, this is what I am shooting for: To have significant variants given sufficient voice ( in various ways, footnotes, articles, etc) so that the reader can make a judgment on their own. Generally though I give greater weight to Khabouris and other eastern witnesses than I do to 1905 in the very few cases where there is a significant variance, understanding of course that 1905 itself references many manuscripts that it consulted to read as it does.
4) The footnotes and articles reflect a Nazarene Jewish rather than a Western Christian viewpoint. "The Second Guide for the Perplexed" is meant to standardize the majority Nazarene outlook as best as I understand it and honestly reflect a method of interpretation that, while not the only way, has proved useful to many trying to explore the Hebraic roots of their faith. On the other hand, I have also tried to bring as many perspectives together into the text as possible. For example, all of Paul Younan's footnotes from Matti 1 to Acts 15 are carried over here and credited to him with a (PY). In places where I wanted to contrast my reading with Younan, Lamsa, Murdock or Etheridge, I have also duly noted why I disagree or expanded on their original points. Some of David Bauscher's points/questions to myself and others here have made it into the text and are answered to the best of my ability, but that's not the same thing as quoting from his actual diglot, which again I do not have. So while I am going from my point of view, I am trying to keep that mostly away from the text but also provide a kind of "one stop shopping" for different views on a verse as well.
5) The emphasis on Mari/PEACE is also as a teaching diglot. This edition is meant to preserve and protect not just the Aramaic NT traditions, but also the script they are preserved in, Estrangela. However, the other goal is to standardize pronunciation in a way that unpointed letters cannot. To do that, I had one of four choices: Abandon Estrangela for Serto letters and pointing; abandon Estrangela for Swadaya pointing/COE script; abandon Estrangela for Ktav Asshuri ("Hebrew") pointing or what I actually did: Keep Estrangela and pick the clearest vowel pointing system in existence to standardize the pronunciation. That answer was "Estrangela Midyat", which keeps the Eestrangela consonants intact but uses Serto vowel pointing of backwards Greek letters. To me, that made the most sense. It preserved the look of the text while at the same time making it more accessible. I knew when I did this however that many of my brethren would have preferred pointed Hebrew, but for this edition at least preserving the look of these precious mss was more important to me, so I supplemented the diglot with tables that showed Latin, Hebrew and Estrangela letters, as well as explained how to use "Western vowel pointing" to pronounce the Eastern Aramaic dialect.
6) I have also endeavored to do everything possible to establish the title "Critical Edition", by which I mean one that brings together and discusses all of the major variants in both Hebrew and Aramaic, including both Old Syriac mss and the three medieval mss of Matthew. Many of you have seen versions of these tables here at peshitta.org, and discussions from myself and Paul Younan on these matters are scrupulously credited and retained as well. It was more important to me to bring together the best of this information than worry about who said what and when, but obviously I would not have done that but for the "copyright statement" that has long graced this forum's homepage. Because there are times when I explain why I favor one reading over another but keep the other for the record, I think this MAY be a difference from David's, where he again just stays with 1905.
7) There are also deeper studies in Mari/PEACE that I am reasonably confident do not appear anywhere else. These include essays on what I view as the true scriptural calendar and how it may relate to certain events regarding Y'shua's return. Other articles stress strong linkages between Tanakh and NT that are not probable in Christian translations, but again I don't know for sure. I do think people will find it interesting to explore matters like how we go from 39 books in Christian reckoning down to 22 in Josephus (Against Apion 1.<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> and one of my very favorites involves a fresh study in assessing Josephus' true beliefs in the Testimonium and how he may have really been a Nazarene Jew after all based on a midrash in the Jewish War which others seem to have missed. For those who are looking for a strong defense of the Testimonium as written which turns liberal "common wisdom" on its head, this article is for you.
<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> There is also a very concerted effort to not have every other word sound "too Hebraic". While Sacred Names are retained, I have not gone to the other extreme that some others have where the average Christian needs to look through a glossary (assuming one is there) to find out what that odd word means. A general knowledge of English tinged with an interest for learning more about Semitic languages is all you need.
9) In general, I think Nazarene Messianics who are weary of using Lamsa and company and switching common for Sacred Names as they read will be most comfortable with this text. I also think that Christians and others who really want to delve into a very detailed and intricate Scripture study/comparison will find useful things in Mari/PEACE as well. My hope is that anyone can open this book up and guide themselves to those things most useful to them, because I have really tried to put as much in one volume as could possibly fit there--even to the extent of showing the writings of some Syrian Saints like Ephrem and Aphrahat. There is history and halakha, manuscripts and detailed annotations about them, so I pray it is just right for many as YHWH would demand of it.
That's all I can think of for now...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
I will try to answer this as best I can, but just know that I have not reviewed Reverend Bauscher's work. Instead, I can only go by what he has said about this translation on this forum and on his website, so that is what I am drawing from. As far as I can determine from this process, these are the differences as I see them:
1) Mari/PEACE is a Sacred Name interlinear specifically geared for the needs of the Nazarene-Messianic communities. Bauscher has said that he uses common names, but I think the Peshitta's uses of MarYah, Alaha, Mari and Maran provide an exceptional opportunity to clarify LORD and Lord once and for all. I am aware of course that some English translations intend LORD to be YHWH and Lord to be Y'shua or other humans, but if you look at what Lamsa did, it is totally confusing to the English only reader.
2) David Bauscher follows the 1905 Critical Text for the Peshitta exclusively. Most of the time (99.99%) this is not a problem for me. However, there are cases where later Western readings crept into 1905 that bodies like the SOC admitted changing. I am thinking principally of Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, but there are some other variances that 1905 has not included which I believe are original Eastern readings as well. So, I decided to list all these variants and let the reader decide. Again, without seeing David's footnotes, I can't know to what extent he has expressed these variants in his diglot. However, I can say that ALL EASTERN READINGS in the Aramaic text have been restored as base text in BOTH languages. Other later readings in the "Western 5" were also absorbed into 1905 and I have put the more reliable readings in there as well, or at least explain my beliefs as to why this or that reading should be considered as having more weight.
3) I know David believes his text is perfect for codes purposes and that codes research is part of his emphasis, but it is not part of mine. However, if I were doing codes research I would believe that my Critical Text is closer to perfect than his is, because some of those readings that made it to 1905 are blatantly too late to be authentic in my opinion. I don't want to get into specifics here, but just answer you with my intentions. Nor do I want to debate this or that matter because my time is limited as I am sure you understand. However, this is what I am shooting for: To have significant variants given sufficient voice ( in various ways, footnotes, articles, etc) so that the reader can make a judgment on their own. Generally though I give greater weight to Khabouris and other eastern witnesses than I do to 1905 in the very few cases where there is a significant variance, understanding of course that 1905 itself references many manuscripts that it consulted to read as it does.
4) The footnotes and articles reflect a Nazarene Jewish rather than a Western Christian viewpoint. "The Second Guide for the Perplexed" is meant to standardize the majority Nazarene outlook as best as I understand it and honestly reflect a method of interpretation that, while not the only way, has proved useful to many trying to explore the Hebraic roots of their faith. On the other hand, I have also tried to bring as many perspectives together into the text as possible. For example, all of Paul Younan's footnotes from Matti 1 to Acts 15 are carried over here and credited to him with a (PY). In places where I wanted to contrast my reading with Younan, Lamsa, Murdock or Etheridge, I have also duly noted why I disagree or expanded on their original points. Some of David Bauscher's points/questions to myself and others here have made it into the text and are answered to the best of my ability, but that's not the same thing as quoting from his actual diglot, which again I do not have. So while I am going from my point of view, I am trying to keep that mostly away from the text but also provide a kind of "one stop shopping" for different views on a verse as well.
5) The emphasis on Mari/PEACE is also as a teaching diglot. This edition is meant to preserve and protect not just the Aramaic NT traditions, but also the script they are preserved in, Estrangela. However, the other goal is to standardize pronunciation in a way that unpointed letters cannot. To do that, I had one of four choices: Abandon Estrangela for Serto letters and pointing; abandon Estrangela for Swadaya pointing/COE script; abandon Estrangela for Ktav Asshuri ("Hebrew") pointing or what I actually did: Keep Estrangela and pick the clearest vowel pointing system in existence to standardize the pronunciation. That answer was "Estrangela Midyat", which keeps the Eestrangela consonants intact but uses Serto vowel pointing of backwards Greek letters. To me, that made the most sense. It preserved the look of the text while at the same time making it more accessible. I knew when I did this however that many of my brethren would have preferred pointed Hebrew, but for this edition at least preserving the look of these precious mss was more important to me, so I supplemented the diglot with tables that showed Latin, Hebrew and Estrangela letters, as well as explained how to use "Western vowel pointing" to pronounce the Eastern Aramaic dialect.
6) I have also endeavored to do everything possible to establish the title "Critical Edition", by which I mean one that brings together and discusses all of the major variants in both Hebrew and Aramaic, including both Old Syriac mss and the three medieval mss of Matthew. Many of you have seen versions of these tables here at peshitta.org, and discussions from myself and Paul Younan on these matters are scrupulously credited and retained as well. It was more important to me to bring together the best of this information than worry about who said what and when, but obviously I would not have done that but for the "copyright statement" that has long graced this forum's homepage. Because there are times when I explain why I favor one reading over another but keep the other for the record, I think this MAY be a difference from David's, where he again just stays with 1905.
7) There are also deeper studies in Mari/PEACE that I am reasonably confident do not appear anywhere else. These include essays on what I view as the true scriptural calendar and how it may relate to certain events regarding Y'shua's return. Other articles stress strong linkages between Tanakh and NT that are not probable in Christian translations, but again I don't know for sure. I do think people will find it interesting to explore matters like how we go from 39 books in Christian reckoning down to 22 in Josephus (Against Apion 1.<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> and one of my very favorites involves a fresh study in assessing Josephus' true beliefs in the Testimonium and how he may have really been a Nazarene Jew after all based on a midrash in the Jewish War which others seem to have missed. For those who are looking for a strong defense of the Testimonium as written which turns liberal "common wisdom" on its head, this article is for you.
<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> There is also a very concerted effort to not have every other word sound "too Hebraic". While Sacred Names are retained, I have not gone to the other extreme that some others have where the average Christian needs to look through a glossary (assuming one is there) to find out what that odd word means. A general knowledge of English tinged with an interest for learning more about Semitic languages is all you need.
9) In general, I think Nazarene Messianics who are weary of using Lamsa and company and switching common for Sacred Names as they read will be most comfortable with this text. I also think that Christians and others who really want to delve into a very detailed and intricate Scripture study/comparison will find useful things in Mari/PEACE as well. My hope is that anyone can open this book up and guide themselves to those things most useful to them, because I have really tried to put as much in one volume as could possibly fit there--even to the extent of showing the writings of some Syrian Saints like Ephrem and Aphrahat. There is history and halakha, manuscripts and detailed annotations about them, so I pray it is just right for many as YHWH would demand of it.
That's all I can think of for now...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth