Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
David Bauscher Peshitta Translation
#16
There is more than that problem with Dave's work...I use it to compare, not as a Bible to read or study. For that, I use the Peshitta/Peshitto texts themselves...then consult the various translations to get more light, when it is obscure. Over time, it's not hard to see the many bugs in the water....so, what I do, instead of throwing out the whole bucket of water...I just am careful not to eat the bugs and have a good drink of the pure water. And I'll point those bugs out to others who would like to have a drink of it too.

The only way I know of being able to read through Magiera's translation (which is very good, so far as I have seen), is by downloading the free Nook app from Barnes & Noble, and then adding the translation to the Library.

Here is the link to the free download app for PC

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/nook-for-pc/379002322/">http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/nook-for-pc/379002322/</a><!-- m -->

When the free download is finished, search in the window for Peshitta, and you will see both Janet Magiera's and Dave Bauscher's translations available for 9.99 each. Dave has a few editions there, but to get his latest edition there, make sure you click on the one with the 2012 date (5th Edition). I just added it to my Nook Library, so I can compare it with Janet's translation, which I say is much more faithful to the Aramaic text.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#17
Shlama Akhi Chuck:
I have found the URL for the PDF of Paul Phillip Levertoff.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.messianicart.com%2Fdavar%2Farticles%2Flevertoff.pdf&ei=HvqdT52QLoihiAKI-oWvCw&usg=AFQjCNGBLUfidwYHXCXSNzleSECcvAahtA">http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... SECcvAahtA</a><!-- m -->

I hope it works like a charm for you. Save a Copy of the PDF

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#18
Shlama akhi Stephen,


I mentioned Levertoff a while back on here concerning an English translation and a comment he made about an underlying Aramaic source for the NT. He was truly an amazing individual! I posted a link before of one of his Hebrew works worth checking out.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#19
Unfortunately, Ive been reduced to using public computers as of late, so I cannot access all those PDF files, Thirdwoe, thanks though.

Does Magiera use the Crawford or Harklean in her version?

I am exceedingly stressed right now with the Western 5...primarily, with biblical canons around the world and how they all differ in number and why God allows this madness. (Not an insult to the LORD, but obviously a pretty apparent truth, otherwise variations wouldnt exist PERIOD)

Ex. I just found out that the book of Jude mentions Noah, the 8th from Adam, when he is the tenth from Adam....This board has let me know over and over this book was spurious to begin with. Am I now wise and mighty enough that I now discard this book that Ive been brought up to know as absolute truth as mythical and suspicious? Arent there warnings about that sort of behavior and mindset in scripture?

But you cant pick and choose! Throwing out Jude means throwing out Revelation too....and that book just seems so authentic and serves as such a good "closer" for the extensive and chronological library that is called the Bible, I couldnt imagine it being a fake.

*Sigh*
Reply
#20
Im sorry guys, I think my sources were really wrong. About the Noah thing, its in the book 2 Peter. and when I read it for myself, it did not say Noah, the eighth from Adam, but said Noah along with the seven others. (Still a spurious book but still, my apologies) <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->
Reply
#21
As I understand it Rungold, The Church of the East does not reject the Western 5 as being "spurious", but since they did not recieve these 5 books from the Apostles...and never saw them in Aramaic form, as the others, they have held them in kind of a 2nd place, like the Apocrypha/Deteroconnonical books are held by some groups.

Even in the Greek and Latin Church, from the beginning 2nd-4th centuries, these 5 books were disputed among many for about 300 years in the Western Churches. If Im not mistaken, the Aramaic Church of the East did not even know about these books until the 1800s... And yet they managed to get things done just fine and hold things together just right. Not that these books are not worthy to study, but they just do not have the same Apostolic tradition as the others do, as far as they are aware.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#22
I'm not an Aramaic primacy believer, as I said before. But I'm pretty much a wannabe Bible scholar and theologian LOL. I'm planning to order the Roth translation tomorrow. I'll look at the Bauscher Interlinear and the "plain English" one soon and hopefully get them.
Reply
#23
Hi Rungold.

I want to reiterate what Chuck said. The CoE doesn't view these books like, say, an evangelical Protestant group would feel about the book of Mormon.

It's not a rejection in that manner, if anything it's more of an indifference. We respect that the majority of believers hold them to be authentic, even if we don't. Sort of like how the majority of believers revere Maccabees as a virtuous work of history and literature, at a minimum.

Someone wrote a fantastic and beautiful book in Revelation. It may very well have been the apostle John. I wish we had a longer history with that book, and that we had an Aramaic copy. I wish we had all of them so that the church would have a unified canon. But unfortunately this is a part of history that we have to accept for what it is.

Godhead given us His written word but more importantly His unwritten word which dwells in us, the Church. That is our sign of salvation, even if we didn't have the written word as the early church didnt have it.
Reply
#24
Has anybody ever considered just buying an NASB bible (due to its literal-ness and very thorough/reliable notes on the variation between texts), and just scratching out what you know to be Greek errors in your New Testament, as well as highlight or underline every instance that reads "the Lord" but that you know is YHWH due to Marya?

Kinda saves time and money, and if anything, helps relieve some of what I feel to be straining at a gnat. I doubt anybody would just sit around and wait for the perfect translation considering that there are NO major differences between all New Testament versions in terms of all the events that actually happened or the main message that the scriptures convey.
Reply
#25
Has anybody ever considered just buying an NASB bible (due to its literal-ness and very thorough/reliable notes on the variation between texts), and just scratching out what you know to be Greek errors in your New Testament, as well as highlight or underline every instance that reads "the Lord" but that you know is YHWH due to Marya?

Kinda saves time and money, and if anything, helps relieve some of what I feel to be straining at a gnat. I doubt anybody would just sit around and wait for the perfect translation considering that there are NO major differences between all New Testament versions in terms of all the events that actually happened or the main message that the scriptures convey.
Reply
#26
I have a copy of The Scriptures by The Institute for Scripture Research, for that type thing. It has most of the hard work already done and the large edition has gobs of room for notes...and follows a Greek text which is closer to the Peshitta's text than the NASB does.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#27
Thirdwoe Wrote:I have a copy of The Scriptures by The Institute for Scripture Research, for that type thing. It has most of the hard work already done and the large edition has gobs of room for notes...and follows a Greek text which is closer to the Peshitta's text than the NASB does.

Shlama,
Chuck

Shlama Akhi Chuck:
What I say to you, I say to all. There comes a time when English translations must give way to learning to read, and understand the Aramaic text with all its nuances and idioms. One could literally spend a lifetime looking for the perfect translation and not find it. There are just too many things to be considered. Most of us are learning little by little and I see myself in this place, as I endeavour to understand Aramaic as it's written, line by line and find it an adventure which is extremely rewarding though I have a very long way to go, while getting my bearings straight and in line.
This is the only way one can truly master the Aramaic Peshitta text of the Bible. To my understanding this is why Shamasha Paul Younan has stopped translating the Peshitta Interlinear New Testament. It's time to grow up and take our places as adults and grow in sound doctrine, by asking pertinent questions making bold our understanding of the text of the Peshitta New Testrament. All of this makes for bold conversation which is far mor valuable than trying to cut and paste a theology based upon previous writers. Yes we have our forefathers as a great guide but even the most experienced translator misses some of the idioms. There is no greater thrill than to find some of these idioms and peculiar ways of speach, and there are many many or them just waiting to be found.
Endeavouring down this path may lead to clouded areas but you will receive your own reward for your personal labours in the effort.
I wish each and every one of you all the best as you make an honest endeavour to do so and our Gracious MarYa will reward eack and every one of you as you join in.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Forum Moderator.
Reply
#28
I finally got my copy of the Roth translation today and I adore the translation, but I'm not a big fan of his theology, which seems rather Nestorian (and yes, I'm aware that the Church of the East is Nestorian) and too apologetic towards the Law. His footnotes are still interesting to read despite my disagreements.
Reply
#29
Hi SS2,

Did you get the 4th edition?

And last time I knew, Andrew is what is termed a "Messianc Jew" of the "Netzari" designation. But I was told he has been Baptised by The Church of the East.
And I wonder, what do you say "Nestorian" means exactly as it might apply to The Church of the East? I have seen some misinformation on that. I would say that Mr. Roth's being, as you say, "too apologetic towards the Law", would come rather from his interpretations and beliefs as a Netzari adherant, and not from an influence of The Church of the East.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#30
"Nestorian" as in the ancient heresy that teaches that Christ is two Persons (one human and the other divine). By being "apologetic towards the Law/Torah" I meant that his commentary seems too adamant to try to prove that Gentiles should keep the Mosaic Law.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)