10-14-2011, 04:10 AM
Shlama,
THIRDWOE wrote:
something i've noticed that i thought should be mentioned: Andrew's Aramaic text is actually a mixed reading of the Eastern and Western, from what i can tell -- reading the first edition, that is. i know in the introductory pages he explains that some readings are from the 1905 and some from the Khabouris, but only when no difference is really present (as in spelling / word order), and he makes notes saying that he goes with the 1905 readings in some cases, but it should be understood that the Aramaic text on the right is NOT the Khabouris Codex -- a fact that i don't think is ever stated outright in the first edition. anyone familiar with the KC can verify this, but for a brief example here: Hebrews 2:16 is the Western reading by far, not from the Khabouris.
i am not attacking him or his work (hey i'm a fellow "Netzari," if i must have a label), as contributions to the translation of the Peshitta / Peshitto are always a good thing, for the most part. i just thought given the topic that it would be helpful for those who may not be aware that the Aramaic text on the right page of his work is not the Khabouris, even though it has Eastern readings in the two major divergent verses. praise Alaha for every honest modern version out there! the English world is blessed to have so many translations of the Aramaic at hand!
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
THIRDWOE wrote:
Quote:Both Paul Younan & Andrew Roth go with the Eastern Peshitta Text..and Roth adds the Western Five books to his Eastern Peshitta Text translations.
something i've noticed that i thought should be mentioned: Andrew's Aramaic text is actually a mixed reading of the Eastern and Western, from what i can tell -- reading the first edition, that is. i know in the introductory pages he explains that some readings are from the 1905 and some from the Khabouris, but only when no difference is really present (as in spelling / word order), and he makes notes saying that he goes with the 1905 readings in some cases, but it should be understood that the Aramaic text on the right is NOT the Khabouris Codex -- a fact that i don't think is ever stated outright in the first edition. anyone familiar with the KC can verify this, but for a brief example here: Hebrews 2:16 is the Western reading by far, not from the Khabouris.
i am not attacking him or his work (hey i'm a fellow "Netzari," if i must have a label), as contributions to the translation of the Peshitta / Peshitto are always a good thing, for the most part. i just thought given the topic that it would be helpful for those who may not be aware that the Aramaic text on the right page of his work is not the Khabouris, even though it has Eastern readings in the two major divergent verses. praise Alaha for every honest modern version out there! the English world is blessed to have so many translations of the Aramaic at hand!
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy