Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question For Brother Paul (Or Any Other Peshitta Scholar)
#1
I am making a series of videos on my Youtube channel about the Peshitta and the translations of it. Since I can't read Aramaic very well, I am mainly focusing on the English translations and giving my opinions of them. A viewer and I were wondering if the Eastern canon was in different order (besides the Western Five being omitted in the Eastern Peshitta) than the Western canon. I said I'd ask you so I am making good on my promise!

This is a link to my Peshitta videos in case anyone is interested in viewing:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc3c7Yr11CHxz0fBy--SYKgl1XANEA2R2&feature=view_all">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... e=view_all</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
:

Quote:A viewer and I were wondering if the Eastern canon was in different order (besides the Western Five being omitted in the Eastern Peshitta) than the Western canon.

The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta Kahbouris Manuscript, which is most likely only a 3rd generational copy of the same New Testament that was given by The Apostles to The Church of the East, has this order of N.T. Books.

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Acts of The Apostles

The Letter of Apostle James
The Letter of Apostle Peter (1st)
The Letter of Apostle John (1st)

The Letters of Apostle Paul, 14 including Hebrews

Which ends The New Testament, as was given to the Church of the East by The Apostles, as witnessed to be as early as 78 A.D. and before the other books, which were long disputed (300 years) to be from The Apostles, even in the Western Church, which often added even more books to their copies of the New Testament, such as The Letter of Hermas, The Letter of Barnabas, and The Letters of Clement.

The Church of the East didn't even know about the books of 2nd & 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation, as late as the 1840s, when a Missionary brought a copy of the Protestant Vesion of the Bible among them. They didn't/don't reject them, but hold them in a 2nd place position and do not include them in the Liturgical readings...though they are studied and qouted in Church teachings.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#3
:

Bro, just started listening to your 1st video there...and you should edit something before it gets out far...you said that The Church of the East considers that the Masoretic Hebrew OT came from the Aramaic Peshitta OT. You got that reversed. They believe it's the other way around. But, it's true that the Aramaic Peshitta OT, in it's oldest Manuscript copy (6th century) is the oldest copy of any OT we can study, either in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin form.

Also, if you get a chance, check Mr. Norton and Mr. Khan, who also have translations available. I have Norton's, but not Khan's yet.

I'll listen to the rest of your videos...thanks for sharing! The more people know about it the better.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#4
Thanks, Brother! The only video that I didn't stutter much in was in my review of the Bauscher translation. As my knowledge of Aramaic increases, hopefully I'll be able to get into more detail.
Reply
#5
:

Hey Bro...I just listened to both your Bauscher and Roth reviews...very good quick overviews there. I would recommend Mr. Bauscher?s Interlinear over his translation though, as it is more accurate over all, but not as accurate to the Peshitto text as Magiera's Interlinear and Translation is. Hope you cover her as well...She has done an outstanding job, with great helps to go with her translation. It's pricey, but worth it, if you like things in printed form...but NOTHING beats Dukhrana.com. So...please alert people to that site!!!

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#6
I've gotta get the Magiera Interlinear and her translations (both Messianic and...normal?), as well as the Bauscher. It'll be a while before I can get them. The Murdock and Etheridge translations seem to have the least amount of bias in them of the translations I have. Roth and Bauscher don't have a whole lot, but there are some places where they go off into interpretation (typical in any translation). I give a more detailed review of all of the translations I do in the description part of my videos.
Reply
#7
:

Etheridge and Murdoch's translation are pretty literal and faithful to the text they used, but it's not the Eastern Peshitta, but rather the Western Peshitto version. Roth worked in the Eastern Peshitta readings into Murdoch's translation, modifying some of the names and this and that to make it sound more "Hebrew", Alaha=Elohim MarYa=Master YHWH, and M'Shikha=Mashiyach...which to me is no big deal, as it gets things across just fine.

You can download the "Nook" program on your computer, and get Magiera's regular translation for 9 bucks. I did that, so I could check it out 1st, before buying the printed copies.

Iv'e also got William Norton's translations here in printed form, which I got pretty cheap from Amazon.com...and you can read his translations free online...but again it's translated from the Western Peshitto version of the Eastern Peshitta Text, though his notes indicate where a variant exists.

So far, Mr. Younan's Interlinear, and Mr. Roth's version are the only English texts, which has all the Eastern Peshitta readings intact. Both Mr. Lamsa and Mr. Bauscher, have mislead people, by calling their translations the "Original" and "Eastern" Peshitta, neither of them are. They are the Western Peshitto, in a new dress. All others we can look at, are also the Western Peshitto text.

I'm glad you made the videos. Good job.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#8
Thanks, I really appreciate it. I have been having a rough time lately so please keep me in prayer. One thing interesting about Etheridge is that I have noticed that he occasionally incorporates the Eastern reading (such as in Acts 20:28, making it read "Meshiha" instead of "Aloha"). I know you said something about how Murdock sticks more to the Western Peshitto than Etheridge does...this is one instance that shows that. I prefer the Etheridge (which seems almost like the Young's Literal Translation of Syriac New Testament translations) over the Murdock. I am not a "Sacred Namer" but I do like it when they translate the Aramaic in a style where they transliterate the names, like Etheridge does (even though "Jeshu" is not an accurate way to put Jesus' name, but I guess he must have got it from the pronunciation "Eshoo").
Reply
#9
:

Yea, Etheridge is the more literal of the two, and leans towards the Eastern Text readings more. Actually, "Jeshu, is closer to form than Yeshua is, for the Peshitta Text. Though the "J" is a latinised version of the "Y", just like in "Jehovah" rather than "Yahovah". So to be a bit more accurate, you would spell it, Yeshu'...with that little mark at the end, which was talked about on another thread, if you remember. The "Y" and "e" serves as a loooong eeeee sound. eeeeeshu', with the little dash at the end, being a very quick ah type stop, not like Yeshuahhhhh, which would be more how it would sound in Hebrew.

Anyway...it's fun to learn.

Sorry to hear your having some rough times Bro, I certainly will be praying for you. Hang in there.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#10
That's interesting. I know Etheridge stated to pronounce "Juchananon" as "Yuhananon", so I assume you are pronounce "Jeshu" as "Yeshu". I prefer the Etheridge of the two. How much difference is there between the Peshitto and the Peshitta? I only know that Acts 20:28 is different and that the Western Five is not in the Peshitta canon. Out of all of the translations of the Peshitta I've genuinely read, the Etheridge, Murdock, and AENT are the best translations of the Aramaic New Testament. Bauscher is real good too, but delves into interpretation more than the prior three I mentioned. The Lamsa Bible is a decent translation, but it is the least accurate translation of the Peshitta I own.
Reply
#11
:

Look for the thread called "Peshitta-Peshitto variants" in the forum, and a few lists are there, some minor, some major. There are only about 7 major differences in the whole NT, besides the extra 5 books that came into the Western Peshitto around the middle 4th century, from the Greek text of those long disputed books of the Western Church. The Eastern Peshitta was not influenced at all by the Greek copies, as was the Western Peshitto version of the Eastern Peshitta text.

What happened was, some of the scholars of the Western Syriac Orthodox Church, took the Peshitta, and made it conform to the Greek copy that was used in their lands, but we know that the Eastern Peshitta is the Original form, as seen in the 160 A.D. Diatessaron text, which has the Eastern Peshitta form. The Diatessaron (4 Gospel Harmony) by Tatian, was no doubt put together from 4 Aramaic Text Gospels, which were in Tatian's hands about 60 years after the last Apostle died (John). And The Eastern Peshitta is near identical with its readings, but not the Greek copies, and not the Western Peshitto.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#12
Hi Third,

It would be nice to have some source text for the text of Tatian.
Reply
#13
:

Yes Distazo,

It would be. I'd also like to look at that 78 A.D. Edessian Aramaic NT, but I trust that God has preserved His Holy Scriptures through The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church of the East.
Reply
#14
But Thirdwoe, isn't there a Greek translation of it, available for research?
Reply
#15
:

No, nothing has ever been seen of or heard of regarding a Greek Diatessaron, It was always used in the Aramaic/Syriac speaking Churches, but never in the Greek speaking Churches...and all that has survived of the Aramaic Diatessaron Text, is an Arabic translation made of an ancient Aramaic copy, which corresponds for the most part with the Eastern Peshitta Aramaic NT Text, an Armenian translation that corresponds more with the Western Peshitto Syriac Text was made from some edited Mss constructed from various Syrian qoutations of the Diatessaron...and a Latin translation of that same version was made as well.

Greek Scholars like the Armenian version best, because it matches best with the Greek NT and the Western Peshitto of course, while those who know better about the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta, like the Arabic translation of the Aramaic Diatessaron, because it lines up most of the time in it's readings with the Eastern Peshitta Text.

In English translation, you can read online the Arabic translataion of the Aramaic text at these two links below...I'm not sure about the Armenian version in English translation being online or in print, or the Latin version either. But I'll be checking on that, as I want to compare certain readings, comparing then with the Eastern Peshitta vs. the Western Peshitto.

You can read the Arabic translations into English here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.i.html
And here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://archive.org/stream/earliestlifeofch1894tati#page/n5/mode/2up">http://archive.org/stream/earliestlifeo ... 5/mode/2up</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)