Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Janet Magiera's PeshittO--Barnes and Noble Books
#1
Average Rating: Customer Rating for this product is 4 out of 5


Customer Rating for this product is 4 out of 5 Janet Magiera's 'Peshitta' Translation
Albion, a Peshitta New Testament enthusiast, 06/29/2007

I've been reading Janet Magiera's Peshitta translation. I'm in Yohannon's (John's) Gospel right now. If the truth be told, I think that Ms. Magiera translated from the Peshitto, and NOT the Peshitta though. But I think that it's better than Murdock's Peshitto translation. Magiera did NOT use Aramaic (Syriac) names for Yeshua, or His disciples, nor for anyone else (or for place names either!) in her N.T. I personally found that to be a bummer. There are a few sentences that are redundant in her N.T. (which she calls 'The Peshitta'). I would have personally removed those, but since I don't speak Syriac, there MIGHT have been a logical reason to retain them in this translation. I think that Janet Magiera did a pretty good job of translating, and considering her tight connection to George Lamsa, her translation is remarkably free of 'Lamaism's'. That surprises me. Her N.T. is also bound well, and it's easy to read, overall. Sometimes I find myself reading a passage twice, or three times, and then checking it against another translation of the P'shitta. Usually that's Joseph Pashka's Peshitta N.T. (this translation by Pashka is also from The PeshittO), which I don't like near as much as Magiera's translation. The best of all (in my opinion) is Paul Younan's Peshitta translation, but it's only available in the four Gospels. I wish that Janet Magiera's Peshitta/Peshitto translation had also been published in a leather edition, but alas, it's published in hard back only. I personally think that when Andrew Gabriel Roth publishes his Mari/P.E.A.C.E. Peshitta translation, that there will probably be no longer a reason to study from Magiera's translation, but I guess that we'll find that out in due time. I would probably give this 'Peshitta' translation 4 out five stars. It's quite readable, but I think that Janet Magiera flaked out by not using Aramaic (or Syriac) names for N.T. character's and place names.


I have edited out several things here from my original review.

Here's my thought on the how, and the why, of Janet Magiera's "Peshitta" translation.

I think that she wanted to SELL this translation within "Christianity".

That was "her target audience", as they say in the world of Bible translation.

I think that she wanted to "shed" some of the bad stuff that George Lamsa had written in the years before, and I think that she tried pretty hard to do just that.

There's a distinct line that she did not cross, by making her "Peshitta" translation into another "Lamsa New Testament".

Although Lamsa IS mentioned many times, as are his teachings.

Janet Magiera seems to not really care about the world of 'Peshitta Primacy'(Which I find very odd!), nor did she translate for a Messianic/Nazarene audience either.

But for the very MANY denominations within organized Christianity, this seems to be who she's really trying to sell her translation to.

She also uses MANY footnotes, and readings that are directly transcribed from "The Old Syriac" texts. Which cause's me a lot of worry as to the accuracy of her translation as well.

Her translation is VERY TECHNICAL, and one really needs to be able to read Syriac, to totally understand it all.

She uses the text to help the student to learn, but it's still pretty tough to read, unless you understand Syriac.

If you read a piece of text, sometimes you'll 'get it' on the first reading, but other times, it must be read multiple times, to finally get to the point of understanding.

I think strongly that she blew it by not using Aramaic for people and place names, where that could easily have been done.

But then again, IF she HAD done this, would her translation have sold within Christianity to the point that it has?? I doubt it.

I guess that I would call this 'a hodge podge' kind of translation. It seems to have come together from many varied (and varying) sources.

I think that we paid about $40.00 for this translation, and it is absolutely NOT worth $40.00!

Let the buyer beware!

It seems that the longer that I've read this New Testament, the more that I don't like it. It's worn on me, in a kind of bad way.

And she will pull 'a fast ball' like with the term "Accuser", and she will say "this means THAT".

But exactly just HOW it means "that", she never let's you know. I especially dislike those parts of her "Peshitta".

And I'll end this rant by saying that she should have NOT called her translation "The Peshitta", but used the correct term 'The Peshitto'.

But I guess IF she had done THAT, she would have to a certain degree, broken ties with her old teacher, George Lamsa, and his 'Peshitta Bible'.

This is a pretty negative review, made more so by time, and numerous readings of Magiera's translation now.

It's interesting to note that Janet Magiera lives in "Truth or Consequences", New Mexico.

That might say more than I ever could, here in this review! <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

Shabbat Shalom, Albion
Reply
#2
Dear brother Albion in Yashua,Berek Maryah! Janet Magiera in her messianic version of her very good Peshitta Translation has properly used and transliterated all of the correct Aramaic Divine names as well as places,concepts and all other names.She faithfully uses Maryah for YWHW,Alaha for God,Yashua for Jesus,Msheekha for Christ,Ruach Ha Kodesh for the Holy Spirit,ect. I strongly encourage you to aquire her messianic version as this is the only Peshitta new testament translation that does use all of the appropriate Divine names consistently and only.In Yashua,Deacon Michael.
Reply
#3
Relevant to the following is, I am not literate in any Biblical language. For that reason, I am dependent upon Interlinears, Lexicons, and Concordances.

I have all of the Magiera "versions" including her 3-volume Interlinear, Lexicon, and Concordance. I also have Lamsa (gotten about 1974), as much as is available of Younan online, and several Bausher "versions" including his Interlinear. I just found (today) the Roth (from which I found this forum!) and will be ordering it. Which brings me to my purpose for posting ...

First, I don't put full stock in any one source, rather using and comparing all sources. Second, I wish Magiera had made her Interlinear more in the style of the Jay Green Interlinear. I find her 3-volume Interlinear to be excessively wasteful of space (and paper ...!), too costly for what one gets, and on the verge of frustrating to access. However, it is better than no Interlinear. Finally, I find the Bausher Interlinear is useless without Lexicon cross-reference numbers as I am "stuck" with trusting his interpretation of the Aramaic.

Maybe Roth and company will proceed to provide a usable Interlinear? One can hope.
Reply
#4
Dear (I'm sorry your name escapes me);
I recommend the viewing of a two-hour interview with Ms J. Magiera on GLC.org, which I am viewing at this moment. I found there to be such a stark contrast between her learned yet humble description of her journey - the work and experience through/to translation and publication, and those who seem to so easily pontificate. I have seen and heard many academics and pedagogues - I find that as I listen and watch just now, I am pointed to Hashem, not the glory of the author. How refreshing, and how very very rare - especially amongst those who parse and discuss and pontificate. I hope you too might perhaps be blessed by humbling yourself to view the interview, and might perhaps experience of what I speak. Since I am no high-powered academic but only one who seeks to be empowered to be obediant to Him who gave me breath, I have no Very Important Person words, only a recommendation to see the worker/studier - Ms Magiera - herself.
Reply
#5
If you are refering to Albion, above...pay no attention to the man behind the name...and besides, he is no longer around these parts.

Janet does a pretty good job at making her version smooth in English prose...though a bit less literal than I like, it's pretty acurate overall for the Western Peshitto UBS text she bases her work upon, + some Eastern Peshitta readings retained, that she prefers. Also, if you have The Way International's Aramaic "Word by Word" Translation, compare it's renderings with Janet's, and you will see the connection Janet's version has with it.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#6
Could you please post the link to the two hour interview? I'd like to view it.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#7
It is an interesting interview

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.glc.us.com/site/watch.php?program=23&video=3301">http://www.glc.us.com/site/watch.php?pr ... video=3301</a><!-- m -->

Blessings,

Chuck
Reply
#8
After viewing the above-mentioned interview with Magiera I see why many have deemed her translation free of bias. A humble and contrite soul if ever there was one.

Without getting overly-technical with regards to her translation I will say that one could possibly have one of the purest translations available with Magiera's; one quite bereft of the guile of the ages.

Do we need to go deeper and farther down the dusty lane to look for word-for-word than Magiera or Jahn?

Correct me ever so quickly if you know any better, but doesn't the mere word "Literal" in 'Literal translation' provide proof enough of due diligence in the world of Aramaic translations? (which are many).

To ACT on the word I need to know the VERY word that was given.

Hence: Literal
Hence: Magiera
Reply
#9
SeekEmet Wrote:After viewing the above-mentioned interview with Magiera I see why many have deemed her translation free of bias. A humble and contrite soul if ever there was one.

Without getting overly-technical with regards to her translation I will say that one could possibly have one of the purest translations available with Magiera's; one quite bereft of the guile of the ages.

Do we need to go deeper and farther down the dusty lane to look for word-for-word than Magiera or Jahn?

Correct me ever so quickly if you know any better, but doesn't the mere word "Literal" in 'Literal translation' provide proof enough of due diligence in the world of Aramaic translations? (which are many).

To ACT on the word I need to know the VERY word that was given.

Hence: Literal
Hence: Magiera

Despite all said, she has used 5 Western renderings within her translation. This defiantly shows a bias of some sort. She personally claims to only want to study the Aramaic to help her better understand Western Christianity which stems from the Greek texts, not because it was the oldest and best text we have today. Yes she did a great job for the most part, but she is a bit deceptive in saying she translated from the Eastern PeshittA Text. And Jahn has nothing but the Western renderings. Neither of these translations are of the PURE Eastern PeshittA Text but rather that of the Western PeshittO. So there is still a great need to want for better.
Reply
#10
She states in her introduction her reason for referring to the Peshitto as the Peshitta:

"Some would distinguish that the Peshitta is the name for only the eastern version and that the western text should be called Peshito. This is only because of the pronunciation of the two dialects."

While I think the distinction between the two Syriac textual families is important, I don't see any reason why it should be stated that Magiera is making a deceptive statement.
Reply
#11
Her interlinear renderings will be more literal of course and it's good that she has that resource to check her stand-alone translations for accuracy...as is the case with David Bauscher?s translations.

David sticks with the UBS critical Western Peshitto text exclusively...and when I spoke to Janet on the phone a few months back, she said that she only had used the same text...though she seems to have opted for a number of Eastern readings over it's text, as is seen in The Way International's translation, where the Manuscript texts they use have half Western and half Eastern readings for the variants.

For non-bias and or agenda in her renderings...Janet seems to be solid on the doctrinal front, though not sold on Peshitta primacy so much, and seems to think less of the Eastern Peshitta, than Andrew Roth does.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#12
Her statement there about the names "Peshitto" vs "Peshitta" is true to an extent, but it's not that simple...it goes deeper than that. The texts are not the same, so the terms work well to differentiate them and are used now to make that distinction. They both could be termed "The Peshitta" or "The Peshitto" but then the distinction is lost to the unsuspecting.
Reply
#13
Well to the unknowing - people will think she has made a copy of the Eastern PeshittA (One does not get to read the introduction until after they have bought a copy only to find that it is a translation of the Western PeshittO).

Yes the reason for the A and/or O is due to the dialect and the Western is that of O not A. Younan, as well as others here, say that both the Eastern and Western Aramaic Texts can be called the PeshittO but only the Eastern Text should be referred to as the PeshittA. All this aside she uses the terminology Eastern instead of Western as what she translated as well.

So just what does she say in her introduction as her reason/excuse for referring to the Western Peshitto as the Eastern Peshitta?
Reply
#14
Here is what she says in her intro about this matter. Skip down to the part "The Peshitta Text". Page 7 of the preview.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fBkW3JcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fB ... &q&f=false</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
#15
Thirdwoe Wrote:Here is what she says in her intro about this matter. Skip down to the part "The Peshitta Text". Page 7 of the preview.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fBkW3JcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=IH43fB ... &q&f=false</a><!-- m -->

.
After reading her intro, I noticed she has placed both the Eastern and Western Texts into one grouping as her excuse as to call her translation from the Peshitta, but they are two totally different texts so to speak - one (Eastern) from the first century, and the other (Western) a 5th century fabrication. She is also being misleading to the fact that the Peshitto did not exist until during the 5th century. She seems to be saying the Western Peshitto came first (as far back as 150 AD) and then the Eastern Peshitta was the one that redid the text after the split in 431 or 451, when really it is the other way around.

The reason I think she, as a Greek supremacist, claims the Peshitto to be the original is to help support Western Christianity. After all the Eastern PeshittA can not be used to support such theology.

.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)