07-27-2013, 04:37 PM
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for your question. Yes, Jahn relied upon the Peshitta/Peshitto for his translisteration work. Here is Matthew, John, and Revelation.
I do have some important caveats in regards to that man you quoted above who was pointing the finger at Jahn. I don't know who he is but perhaps it may help retract the finger to know that Jahn was simply making a study tool for English speakers who are new to Aramaic. Consider the faith and diligence it would take to look up every single bible word and its synonym in a concordance and write it all out line-by-line while also citing the part of speech (i.e., verb, adjective, noun). After a man completes such a task (which would take years), I don't think this statement from the finger-pointer could possibly be true, "Jahn himself does not know a word of Aramaic." So having found one untrue statement that feels like it was made with bitterness, I wonder what else is untrue in the finger-pointer's online comments.
I can only offer my experience that Jahn's interlinear helped me learn Aramaic, because it's like reading the bible through root words, which is actually a pretty neat study tool not offered elsewhere. Also, I don't recall seeing any gnarly translations in Jahn's work - the man was a conservative Christian and definitely relying on standard doctrines for his English translations. Another false thing in the finger-pointer's comment above is that Jahn only translated in the present sense. Read any chapter for yourself in the links I provided and you'll see the finger pointer's claim is false. Lastly, as an attorney with a contracts practice I've learned over the years to take with a grain of salt a bitter man's claim that his contract was breached if he is making false statements while describing his claim. Also, where's the second witness?
I'm glad you pointed out that Amazon description - because that too would be false, and I would venture it was not written by Jahn himself (if i'm not mistaken Jahn is deceased). Again, Jahn's work is simply a specific-type of contribution to the larger body of Aramaic bible study tools. It may not be right for everyone (especially advanced Aramaic speakers), but my experience is that it helped me a lot as a beginner. To help confirm that Jahn knew he what he was making, here is what Jahn wrote on the intro to his interlinear, "Now, for the very first time, you have a Literal Translation & Transliteration of the New Covenant on one line, followed by the Aramaic root, part of speech and its synonyms on the following lines in the Aramaic sequence." Having searched many other Aramaic study tools, I found his statement was correct at the time he wrote it, and I think it's still correct today.
Hope this response has been helpful. Thanks again for your question.
Greg
Thanks for your question. Yes, Jahn relied upon the Peshitta/Peshitto for his translisteration work. Here is Matthew, John, and Revelation.
I do have some important caveats in regards to that man you quoted above who was pointing the finger at Jahn. I don't know who he is but perhaps it may help retract the finger to know that Jahn was simply making a study tool for English speakers who are new to Aramaic. Consider the faith and diligence it would take to look up every single bible word and its synonym in a concordance and write it all out line-by-line while also citing the part of speech (i.e., verb, adjective, noun). After a man completes such a task (which would take years), I don't think this statement from the finger-pointer could possibly be true, "Jahn himself does not know a word of Aramaic." So having found one untrue statement that feels like it was made with bitterness, I wonder what else is untrue in the finger-pointer's online comments.
I can only offer my experience that Jahn's interlinear helped me learn Aramaic, because it's like reading the bible through root words, which is actually a pretty neat study tool not offered elsewhere. Also, I don't recall seeing any gnarly translations in Jahn's work - the man was a conservative Christian and definitely relying on standard doctrines for his English translations. Another false thing in the finger-pointer's comment above is that Jahn only translated in the present sense. Read any chapter for yourself in the links I provided and you'll see the finger pointer's claim is false. Lastly, as an attorney with a contracts practice I've learned over the years to take with a grain of salt a bitter man's claim that his contract was breached if he is making false statements while describing his claim. Also, where's the second witness?
I'm glad you pointed out that Amazon description - because that too would be false, and I would venture it was not written by Jahn himself (if i'm not mistaken Jahn is deceased). Again, Jahn's work is simply a specific-type of contribution to the larger body of Aramaic bible study tools. It may not be right for everyone (especially advanced Aramaic speakers), but my experience is that it helped me a lot as a beginner. To help confirm that Jahn knew he what he was making, here is what Jahn wrote on the intro to his interlinear, "Now, for the very first time, you have a Literal Translation & Transliteration of the New Covenant on one line, followed by the Aramaic root, part of speech and its synonyms on the following lines in the Aramaic sequence." Having searched many other Aramaic study tools, I found his statement was correct at the time he wrote it, and I think it's still correct today.
Hope this response has been helpful. Thanks again for your question.
Greg