Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paul Younan Interlinear
#31
Thanks a lot Paul.

I do feel perplexed a little about the Mosul text decision, because the Aramaic W5 are a translation of Greek sources. Why not use the Greek sources?

If not, then you have ever heard of the WEB bible... It is open source -- no copyright. It can be modified, adapted, distributed, published, etc. If this is any good help -- try getting your hands on the WEB Western Five http://ebible.org.

Because if the translation team decides to use Mosul text -- they can just use the WEB text and adapt it to Aramaic variant readings. That will spare a lot of time and effort translating.

Shlama,

~DC
Reply
#32
That would take allot of work actually, because the WEB text is translated from the Alexandrian text type, which varies in many places with the Majority Greek textual type. And the Aramaic text goes with the Majority/TR text most of the time.

Lamsa seems to have done a fair amount of editing his text using the KJV as a base, rather than a straight translation work...which I think is a misjudgment on his part.

I say all from the Aramaic text, both NT & OT...no Greek texts, as we have many Greek/English Bibles to read...no need for another one I say.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#33
Shlama,

DC does bring up a good point about the Western 5 books - wouldn't the Greek be the preferable texts to use for them only, if even the CoE admits that the Aramaic are translations from Greek texts?

what's better:

Greek to English

or

Greek to Aramaic to English (hypothetically, it would be: Lost Aramaic to Greek to Aramaic to English, right? if so, then *perhaps* something special could be reclaimed via this manner, but it would be surmising for the most part...)

ultimately that decision is up to the translators.

tho i so desparately wish Hebrew/Aramaic copies survived whose legitimacy could be attested-to of the "W5"... but until that day comes (here's hoping it does, right?), wouldn't the Greek reveal the closer picture? we're all pretty much aware of places where the Aramaic got the Greek wrong in those books.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#34
:

Quote:we're all pretty much aware of places where the Aramaic got the Greek wrong in those books.

I haven't got the memos on those yet Jeremy; can you show me a list of these, please? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Also, can we say with any certainty that any variant readings in the Aramaic W5 are not original readings? And which of the variant readings found in the various Greek text types, which often do not even agree with themselves should be considered the more original? Perhaps the Aramaic W5 preserves the original text, as it was at 1st.

Sort of like the Peshitta OT...it being about 300 years older in its oldest copy than the oldest MT Hebrew copy of the OT. It's best to go with the Peshitta OT, even though it is a translation of the Hebrew, as it may preserve the more original readings. I love to compare this kind of thing with the DSS, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan, and Latin Vulgate texts, to see which agrees with what.


Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#35
Thirdwoe Wrote:That would take allot of work actually, because the WEB text is translated from the Alexandrian text type, which varies in many places with the Majority Greek textual type. And the Aramaic text goes with the Majority/TR text most of the time.

Lamsa seems to have done a fair amount of editing his text using the KJV as a base, rather than a straight translation work...which I think is a misjudgment on his part.

I say all from the Aramaic text, both NT & OT...no Greek texts, as we have many Greek/English Bibles to read...no need for another one I say.

Blessings,
Chuck

Thirdwoe:

I have talked to one of the WEB translators by email before, and he said it is actually based off the Hodges-Farstad 1985 and the Robinson-Pierpont text (either 1995 or 2005). Yes, the WEB is derived from the ASV ("Alexandrian" text-type), but it has been conformed to the Byzantine tradition.

Shlama,

~DC
Reply
#36
DC, I was thinking of the NET online Bible translation, sorry.

But even though I prefer an English translation of the Greek NT to come from the Majority text, (as the WEB does) rather than the Alexandrian/Critical text, (as the NET does) you will find that sometimes the Peshitta NT will agree with the readings of the Textus Receptus Greek text form, rather than what is found in the Majority text form.

The Aramaic Peshitta is thus unique, in that it does not fully conform to any of the Greek textual families alone, but is rather independent of them all. So, there are a number of Greek versions of the NT, but only one Aramaic Peshitta NT, the Eastern Peshitta. The Western version, termed the "Peshitto", with the W5, is of a later production and influenced by the Greek version, (in various places) that was in use at the time and place of its construction.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#37
Shlama akhi Chuck,


you didn't get the memo?? we all got the memo. we even got a shirt that says "i got the memo." plus a bumper sticker that says I <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: --> The Eastern Peshitta! (actually a fine idea, huh?)

we'll have to rectify that! lol

Aramaic Revelation has ample evidences of errors. though the Greek itself is no walk-in-the-park, from what i understand of it. 2nd Peter also appears quite different. even the "tone" of books like 2nd Peter, 2nd / 3rd John read *differently* in the Aramaic from the first of both books. i'm sure others here could validate my observation from the Aramaic.

i actually don't have a list in front of me of the disparate errors, but that brings up a great opportunity to get one compiled. i do know there are scattered mentions here and there on this forum of some of the issues in the W5. i'm really swamped for time for compiling (should have done it before, i know), but maybe i can offer some examples in the next few days if you haven't found any yourself by then.

i'm not contesting inspiration, to be honest. my ideas of what the canon must consist of is not set in stone as of now. i think it is a very personal issue, honestly.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#38
Burning one Wrote:Aramaic Revelation has ample evidences of errors. though the Greek itself is no walk-in-the-park, from what i understand of it. 2nd Peter also appears quite different. even the "tone" of books like 2nd Peter, 2nd / 3rd John read *differently* in the Aramaic from the first of both books. i'm sure others here could validate my observation from the Aramaic.

i actually don't have a list in front of me of the disparate errors, but that brings up a great opportunity to get one compiled. i do know there are

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

I've done work on it and it's based on Dave's Bauschers translation. It's merely missing some words when we compare with the Greek.
However, the Greek version, is even critized by the biblecritics, for having those lines, which they doubt to be authentic.
Eg: Greek rev 20:5 speaks about the 1000 years. It is out of context.

Further, it contains a poem, which points to authenicity.
What errors do exist in the Aramaic revelation?
Reply
#39
Shlama,


sorry for the lateness of the reply, but here's one i've found just in a cursory searching, from Revelation:

8:13 - an eagle with a tail of blood???

you can verify this at Dukhrana here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=5&id=617">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=5&id=617</a><!-- m --> -- it isn't actually contained in the searchable analytical version of the 1905 text used, but you can read the variant starting with the sixth word from the right in verse 13, or if you have a copy of "The Little Red Book" then check out page 609, again starting with the sixth word from the right. i honestly haven't checked to see how the Crawford reads.

this reading was apparently arrived at by misreading the Greek, correct?

see what i mean? a simple error from Greek-to-Aramaic that makes no real sense in the Aramaic, and i'm assuming will be carried-over into the new English translation that is in the works. i'm just guessing here -- i could be totally wrong, but i'm basing this off the idea that since it is found in the PeshittO text, it will indeed be used, instead of the Crawford. again, i haven't looked into the Crawford hardly at all, as i stated before.

i would ask Distazo if you have any info on how the Crawford reads there? again, it doesn't help much if the Crawford is not going to be used, though... but i'm just doing a bunch of surmising at this point and wouldn't mind being wrong at all! <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

anyhow, that's all i've really gotten so far. i'll see what else sticks out at me and get back as time allows.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#40
Thank you! I see that also Etheridge describes this error.

Dave Bauscher used the Crawford version for his translation. He really boasts about the quality of the manuscript and I believe his opinion on this.

Here you can see that the Crawford (??) text does not have this error.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Revelation+8:13&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyz ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

Actually, I'm not sure what source Lars Lindgren used for revelation, I thought the John Gwyn collection is the same as crawford, but it is certainly not the Harklean for the Western 5.
Reply
#41
Paul Younan Wrote:With regards to names and places, so far the consensus is that for an English Study Bible, that we should use plain English wherever possible. Footnotes can be used for examples like MarYah, or perhaps more of a paragraph in the introduction.

(1) May this translation be de-Hellenized? Examples, "M'sheeha" instead of "Christ" "Yihudah" instead of "Judas" and bar-abba instead of "Barabbas", etc. (Not a racial thing, but since we have so many Greek-based bibles, it would be nice to have something that stands out)

(2) If it is to be de-Hellenized, may the traditional readings be relegated to footnotes to help the reader?

~DC
Reply
#42
*bump*
So the CoE translation will still have "Greek-isms" in it?

The reason I ask is that Hellenized names of individuals seem inaccurate. Cephas, Barabbas, Ananias, Judas, etc. They all have the "s" prefix! Keepha, Bar-abba, Hananiah,Judah,etc. would seem like better English translations. Many English translators (KJV,NIV,ESV,etc.) failed to de-Hellenize Aramaic names from the GNT.

Paul, what's your input on this?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)