Hi Dave, may there be Grace and Peace for you as well.
Before I respond below, please know that I am happy you are translating the Old Testament books, and look forward to reading your version of them. I don't trust Lamsa's version, too much of interpreting his ideas going on there. I think that for the most part you try to stick close to what you find in the source text you use to translate. I appreciate that about your work, though the UBS text you chose to use is not the Original form of The Peshitta. I think you need to acknowledge that to help undo the confusion as to what is, and what isn't THE PESHITTA.
You said: "1905 Syriac Peshitta NT, Chuck."
Dave, that is the 1905/1920 UBS text you used. And it isn't the unadulterated Peshitta New Testament text, but rather, a hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT text, incorporating a number of Greek only passages, verses, and words, translated into it. I would have thought you knew this long ago. Maybe you didn't?
You said: "This is distributed by The Online Bible in Hebrew letters. Most online editions of the Peshitta are the same edition."
Did you change texts? I have your Estrangela 1st edition here. Same text in Estrangela and in Hebrew letters, correct? If it is the same text, that all your editions are translated from, then it is the UBS text, and that is not a true Peshitta document. It is a mixture, a hybrid text.
They are distributing a western hybrid, an Aramaic/Greek text source version of The Peshitta...Not The Peshitta as it is. Again, I would have thought you had known this long ago. Maybe not, if not, I am shocked to learn it.
You said: "I added nothing to it, nor did I delete a word from it. I simply translated every word in it.
I know that, but, it is not The Original Peshitta NT, but rather, a production from the 20th century. A patchwork text and not only from Aramaic NT sources, sort of like what Westcott and Hort did with their Greek text production in the late 19th century, thinking they were improving the Greek NT. Not.
You said: "This edition is the only edition I know of on the internet which is based on dozens of collated Peshitta mss. instead of just one, and it can be found in printed form in the UBS 1979 Syriac Bible as well.
It is the UBS text, as I have said. Same text, different name. It was produced in the early 20th century, a patchwork of a number of mostly western versions of The Peshitta's Original text. Sadly, it incorporates later additions from Greek only sources, which are not present in The Peshitta manuscripts, plus, it adds in the western 5 books, which were later translated from Greek copies, to make the western version of The Peshitta be more like the western cannon of the NT.
Much like what you have done, Dave. Neither the UBS text, nor your translation of it can truthfully be called The Original Aramaic New Testament, or The Peshitta, because it is not The Original form of its text.
It is a hybrid Aramaic/Greek, NT. To think otherwise, is being ignorant of the facts of the matter.
You said: "Show me a complete translation of the Peshitta NT which has only 22 books. In fact, show me a Peshitta edition in Aramaic only which has only 22 books, and you will show me what I have not yet seen, and I have been searching the internet for Peshitta editions for 16 years."
I have seen a few Peshitta manuscripts online which are 22 book Peshitta's which is the Original form. About a 22 book true Peshitta translation, give it some more time, Dave. I have spoken with a few translators the last few years, who are working hard to that end. The world has yet to see a true Peshitta New Testament in English translation. But, they are coming, and they are not going to be hybrid texts either, such as the UBS version, which most modern translations have used as their base.
You said: "Even Eastern editions have all 27 books in them. That should tell you something."
You mean in the modern printed versions, not the Eastern manuscripts themselves. The Peshitta has on 22 books in it. If you find a manuscript with 27 books, then it is a later production of western origins. The pressure is great to bring the western 5 books into modern versions, so they have the same books as the Greek version of the NT has. But, The Original Aramaic New Testament text, that was given to the leaders of The Church of the East in the 1st century by the Apostles had only 22 books, and that has remained their official Cannon since that time.
You said "As far as I can tell, the Crawford ms. is a Western Peshitta- but it has Eastern readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9."
Could you send me an electronic copy to look over? I have a copy of a true Peshitta here to compare it with. If it is a western version of The Peshitta, and it has The Peshitta's readings in those two places, then it is a East/West mixed text. I see this all the time these days in many of these English versions, which sometimes will go with a Peshitta text reading, then sometimes will go with a western version of The Peshitta text, when it lines up more with the Greek version of the NT. Janet's version comes to mind, and Roth's version also has a few of these instances in it. I know you have stuck with the UBS exclusively, but as I have said. It has Greek additions in its text, which were never part of The Peshitta New Testament. Like the P.A. for instance.
To date, there hasn't been a true and original Peshitta New Testament made available for the public to read in English. Not a complete NT, anyway. But, this will soon change, as I have said, with a few translators working to that end. I say its long over due, and I am glad to hear the news.
You asked: "Tell me, Chuck, do you believe that the Western Five books (2nd Peter,2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) are inspired, or not? If they are, why would we not have the Aramaic originals?
These books, as you might know, if you are a student of Church history, and the history of the western canon of the NT, were much disputed in the western branches of The Church. They finally were settled upon in the West. The Peshitta New Testament never contained them, for the simple fact that when The Aramaic New Testament books where given to The Church of the East in the 1st century, they were not present. And they may have not even been written at that time, as those 5 books are said to be of a later date than the other books. The Peshitta is the oldest form of The New Testament, and is as it existed in the 1st century. I don't reject those 5 later books, nor does The Church of the East. Paul Younan can tell you more about it.
You asked: "Would God not preserve them as well as the rest of the canon? Or do you think he would have inspired 22 books in Aramaic and five in Greek? Just what are you saying about these five books?"
I say that they were of later origin, and all indications are, is that they come from a Greek source. I know some have said that the Crawford version of the Book of Revelation seems to show it to be an Aramaic original text. Maybe it is, but it still was not given to The Church of the East with the other 22 books they received from the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century, it was added into western copies when the book was finally accepted as canonical in the 4th century in the West.
You said: "As far as the phrase "Ena na" is concerned, I agree with Paul Younan's notation at John 8:13 (in Paul Younan's interlinear)- "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim." I have translated the phrase to express this divine utterance and claim as "I am The Living God", as Lamsa expressed God's name in Exodus 3:14 as translated from "Ahiah esher High" (I AM WHAT I AM). Lamsa has "I am THE LIVING GOD".
Lamsa interpreted the text, rather than translated it, which he often does in his version. I say translate what is said, how it is said. And if you want to give your opinion as to what it means, i.e. an interpretation, then give that in a note. That way, a person who looks at your translation, which is stated to be a literal translation, wont think that Jesus literally said "I AM The Living God." He may indeed have meant that when He uttered those words, but He didn't actually say it that way. You are putting words into Jesus' mouth. I agree that in a few instances Maran likely meant to convey that meaning a few times He used the phrase Ena Na, but, in John 6:35 when He says "I am the bread of life;" You have it as, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Bread of Life;". If you are going to have a literal translation, then you need to have it read something like this "I AM (THE LIVING GOD), The Bread of Life;" Or put a note saying your opinion is that is what He meant when He used the phrase there, and in the other places in the passage.
Again, it may or may not mean that, but in any case, Jesus did not say the words I am the living God after He said "I Am" as you have Him appear to say.
The phrase itself does not mean that by itself. Such as in Luke 1:19 where you have it translated "I am Gabriel who am standing before God". You quoted Paul Younan's statement in his interlinear, "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim."
Not as we see used by Gabriel in Luke 1:19.
"You said: "So I have at least expressed the significance of this phrase as Yeshua's claim to Deity in my translation."
Yes, you have expressed the opinion in your translation, but as I said, opinions and interpretations should either be bracketed or noted in the margin when one is making a literal translation. You stick very literal for the most part in your version, but in this case, you choose to paraphrase a meaning into the text. It may be true enough, but the words translated are not what He actually said. Some of your editions come with no notes, so, if someone reads that edition, they might think Jesus literally said the words "I AM THE LIVING GOD" a number of times. Again, I say at least put your added words into brackets.
You said: "Pretty crazy, no? What else could he have meant in that verse which says: "If you do not believe that "Ena na", you shall die in your sins?" Was he saying that we must believe that he exists, or that he is the Living God? You decide. Your soul and mine hangs on the answer we give and the belief we hold."
I believe our Lord meant to convey that He was/is The I AM, who spoke with Abraham and Moses, The Word made flesh, who is The Messiah and Lamb of God, but what you have written is not what He actually said. Again, brackets or a note can be used there, Dave.
You said: "I am not going to get into more theology than that. Anyone who wants to can read my books to find out what I have said on the death of God and the scriptural support for my position. I do think we can all agree that the death of Maryah ( Lord Yahweh) The Messiah Yeshua was the most stupendous, significant and cataclysmic event that ever was or ever shall be. I will leave it at that."
You stated "the death of God".
MarYa (The Lord-YHWH) died on the Cross in His humanity, but, in His divinity, He was, is, and always will be impassible, and incapable of death.
If I have understood your past statements about your belief in "the death of The Trinity", then, you seem to be confused with the monophysite heresy that denies the separate natures (Human/Divine) present in The Messiah, and think (wrongly) that The Father and The Holy Spirit died while the body of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, was dying on the Cross. If so, this may be why you go with the western version of the Peshitta, because of the few later Monophysite changes it has in it, relative to the subject.
.
Before I respond below, please know that I am happy you are translating the Old Testament books, and look forward to reading your version of them. I don't trust Lamsa's version, too much of interpreting his ideas going on there. I think that for the most part you try to stick close to what you find in the source text you use to translate. I appreciate that about your work, though the UBS text you chose to use is not the Original form of The Peshitta. I think you need to acknowledge that to help undo the confusion as to what is, and what isn't THE PESHITTA.
You said: "1905 Syriac Peshitta NT, Chuck."
Dave, that is the 1905/1920 UBS text you used. And it isn't the unadulterated Peshitta New Testament text, but rather, a hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT text, incorporating a number of Greek only passages, verses, and words, translated into it. I would have thought you knew this long ago. Maybe you didn't?
You said: "This is distributed by The Online Bible in Hebrew letters. Most online editions of the Peshitta are the same edition."
Did you change texts? I have your Estrangela 1st edition here. Same text in Estrangela and in Hebrew letters, correct? If it is the same text, that all your editions are translated from, then it is the UBS text, and that is not a true Peshitta document. It is a mixture, a hybrid text.
They are distributing a western hybrid, an Aramaic/Greek text source version of The Peshitta...Not The Peshitta as it is. Again, I would have thought you had known this long ago. Maybe not, if not, I am shocked to learn it.
You said: "I added nothing to it, nor did I delete a word from it. I simply translated every word in it.
I know that, but, it is not The Original Peshitta NT, but rather, a production from the 20th century. A patchwork text and not only from Aramaic NT sources, sort of like what Westcott and Hort did with their Greek text production in the late 19th century, thinking they were improving the Greek NT. Not.
You said: "This edition is the only edition I know of on the internet which is based on dozens of collated Peshitta mss. instead of just one, and it can be found in printed form in the UBS 1979 Syriac Bible as well.
It is the UBS text, as I have said. Same text, different name. It was produced in the early 20th century, a patchwork of a number of mostly western versions of The Peshitta's Original text. Sadly, it incorporates later additions from Greek only sources, which are not present in The Peshitta manuscripts, plus, it adds in the western 5 books, which were later translated from Greek copies, to make the western version of The Peshitta be more like the western cannon of the NT.
Much like what you have done, Dave. Neither the UBS text, nor your translation of it can truthfully be called The Original Aramaic New Testament, or The Peshitta, because it is not The Original form of its text.
It is a hybrid Aramaic/Greek, NT. To think otherwise, is being ignorant of the facts of the matter.
You said: "Show me a complete translation of the Peshitta NT which has only 22 books. In fact, show me a Peshitta edition in Aramaic only which has only 22 books, and you will show me what I have not yet seen, and I have been searching the internet for Peshitta editions for 16 years."
I have seen a few Peshitta manuscripts online which are 22 book Peshitta's which is the Original form. About a 22 book true Peshitta translation, give it some more time, Dave. I have spoken with a few translators the last few years, who are working hard to that end. The world has yet to see a true Peshitta New Testament in English translation. But, they are coming, and they are not going to be hybrid texts either, such as the UBS version, which most modern translations have used as their base.
You said: "Even Eastern editions have all 27 books in them. That should tell you something."
You mean in the modern printed versions, not the Eastern manuscripts themselves. The Peshitta has on 22 books in it. If you find a manuscript with 27 books, then it is a later production of western origins. The pressure is great to bring the western 5 books into modern versions, so they have the same books as the Greek version of the NT has. But, The Original Aramaic New Testament text, that was given to the leaders of The Church of the East in the 1st century by the Apostles had only 22 books, and that has remained their official Cannon since that time.
You said "As far as I can tell, the Crawford ms. is a Western Peshitta- but it has Eastern readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9."
Could you send me an electronic copy to look over? I have a copy of a true Peshitta here to compare it with. If it is a western version of The Peshitta, and it has The Peshitta's readings in those two places, then it is a East/West mixed text. I see this all the time these days in many of these English versions, which sometimes will go with a Peshitta text reading, then sometimes will go with a western version of The Peshitta text, when it lines up more with the Greek version of the NT. Janet's version comes to mind, and Roth's version also has a few of these instances in it. I know you have stuck with the UBS exclusively, but as I have said. It has Greek additions in its text, which were never part of The Peshitta New Testament. Like the P.A. for instance.
To date, there hasn't been a true and original Peshitta New Testament made available for the public to read in English. Not a complete NT, anyway. But, this will soon change, as I have said, with a few translators working to that end. I say its long over due, and I am glad to hear the news.
You asked: "Tell me, Chuck, do you believe that the Western Five books (2nd Peter,2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) are inspired, or not? If they are, why would we not have the Aramaic originals?
These books, as you might know, if you are a student of Church history, and the history of the western canon of the NT, were much disputed in the western branches of The Church. They finally were settled upon in the West. The Peshitta New Testament never contained them, for the simple fact that when The Aramaic New Testament books where given to The Church of the East in the 1st century, they were not present. And they may have not even been written at that time, as those 5 books are said to be of a later date than the other books. The Peshitta is the oldest form of The New Testament, and is as it existed in the 1st century. I don't reject those 5 later books, nor does The Church of the East. Paul Younan can tell you more about it.
You asked: "Would God not preserve them as well as the rest of the canon? Or do you think he would have inspired 22 books in Aramaic and five in Greek? Just what are you saying about these five books?"
I say that they were of later origin, and all indications are, is that they come from a Greek source. I know some have said that the Crawford version of the Book of Revelation seems to show it to be an Aramaic original text. Maybe it is, but it still was not given to The Church of the East with the other 22 books they received from the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century, it was added into western copies when the book was finally accepted as canonical in the 4th century in the West.
You said: "As far as the phrase "Ena na" is concerned, I agree with Paul Younan's notation at John 8:13 (in Paul Younan's interlinear)- "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim." I have translated the phrase to express this divine utterance and claim as "I am The Living God", as Lamsa expressed God's name in Exodus 3:14 as translated from "Ahiah esher High" (I AM WHAT I AM). Lamsa has "I am THE LIVING GOD".
Lamsa interpreted the text, rather than translated it, which he often does in his version. I say translate what is said, how it is said. And if you want to give your opinion as to what it means, i.e. an interpretation, then give that in a note. That way, a person who looks at your translation, which is stated to be a literal translation, wont think that Jesus literally said "I AM The Living God." He may indeed have meant that when He uttered those words, but He didn't actually say it that way. You are putting words into Jesus' mouth. I agree that in a few instances Maran likely meant to convey that meaning a few times He used the phrase Ena Na, but, in John 6:35 when He says "I am the bread of life;" You have it as, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Bread of Life;". If you are going to have a literal translation, then you need to have it read something like this "I AM (THE LIVING GOD), The Bread of Life;" Or put a note saying your opinion is that is what He meant when He used the phrase there, and in the other places in the passage.
Again, it may or may not mean that, but in any case, Jesus did not say the words I am the living God after He said "I Am" as you have Him appear to say.
The phrase itself does not mean that by itself. Such as in Luke 1:19 where you have it translated "I am Gabriel who am standing before God". You quoted Paul Younan's statement in his interlinear, "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim."
Not as we see used by Gabriel in Luke 1:19.
"You said: "So I have at least expressed the significance of this phrase as Yeshua's claim to Deity in my translation."
Yes, you have expressed the opinion in your translation, but as I said, opinions and interpretations should either be bracketed or noted in the margin when one is making a literal translation. You stick very literal for the most part in your version, but in this case, you choose to paraphrase a meaning into the text. It may be true enough, but the words translated are not what He actually said. Some of your editions come with no notes, so, if someone reads that edition, they might think Jesus literally said the words "I AM THE LIVING GOD" a number of times. Again, I say at least put your added words into brackets.
You said: "Pretty crazy, no? What else could he have meant in that verse which says: "If you do not believe that "Ena na", you shall die in your sins?" Was he saying that we must believe that he exists, or that he is the Living God? You decide. Your soul and mine hangs on the answer we give and the belief we hold."
I believe our Lord meant to convey that He was/is The I AM, who spoke with Abraham and Moses, The Word made flesh, who is The Messiah and Lamb of God, but what you have written is not what He actually said. Again, brackets or a note can be used there, Dave.
You said: "I am not going to get into more theology than that. Anyone who wants to can read my books to find out what I have said on the death of God and the scriptural support for my position. I do think we can all agree that the death of Maryah ( Lord Yahweh) The Messiah Yeshua was the most stupendous, significant and cataclysmic event that ever was or ever shall be. I will leave it at that."
You stated "the death of God".
MarYa (The Lord-YHWH) died on the Cross in His humanity, but, in His divinity, He was, is, and always will be impassible, and incapable of death.
If I have understood your past statements about your belief in "the death of The Trinity", then, you seem to be confused with the monophysite heresy that denies the separate natures (Human/Divine) present in The Messiah, and think (wrongly) that The Father and The Holy Spirit died while the body of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, was dying on the Cross. If so, this may be why you go with the western version of the Peshitta, because of the few later Monophysite changes it has in it, relative to the subject.
.