Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
#76
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Hmmmm...It's a wonder why there has never been a completely Peshitta translation. I don't see why Roth doesn't go ahead and update the 1 Peshitto passage he has in his.
The only reason I can think of is because he doesn't know that Paul made a mistake and thinks that it is simply a variation in Khabouris and that the Eastern text generally reads differently. But, this of course is not the case. Very small variation though. Hade deyn kula dahawat...
Luc, I know it may sound like a lot but it is something you could think about, being you have already wrote the Introduction to the Aramaic text to the AENT, you could quickly edit the public domain Western PeshittO 1905 version unto an Eastern PeshittA Text for public domain. And that way the AENT and any others that would want to use it could. You could even make it as a PDF and post it on the Internet for free downloading. It would not take you 10 minutes to get rid of the Western verses and wording in few places. Of course it would take a little longer to convert the rest of the variant wording that really does not change anything other than spellings here and there. It would be the first TRUE Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Text since the Khaboris Codex in the 10th century. Making a translation is way harder than just editing the Western PeshittO to be the Eastern PeshittA being the Western PeshittO used the Eastern PeshittA as a base Text to start with.
Reply
#77
The Texas RAT Wrote:Luc, I know it may sound like a lot but it is something you could think about, being you have already wrote the Introduction to the Aramaic text to the AENT, you could quickly edit the public domain Western PeshittO 1905 version unto an Eastern PeshittA Text for public domain. And that way the AENT and any others that would want to use it could. You could even make it as a PDF and post it on the Internet for free downloading. It would not take you 10 minutes to get rid of the Western verses and wording in few places. Of course it would take a little longer to convert the rest of the variant wording that really does not change anything other than spellings here and there. It would be the first TRUE Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Text since the Khaboris Codex in the 10th century. Making a translation is way harder than just editing the Western PeshittO to be the Eastern PeshittA being the Western PeshittO used the Eastern PeshittA as a base Text to start with.
Ha, if I was retired! I work 60 hours a week with two prayer meetings and two bible studies/Yeshivot on top of it, Shabbat completely set aside for fellowship, worship and prayer, and then I have to prepare three sermons for the next month and a half. My only down time was picking apart the AENT (some people watch soap operas, I find translation errors in Hebrew Roots Bibles, haha). But if Roth wanted to put together a team of Netzarim to work on the AENT, I would maybe consider it. But I wouldn't want to do just another patch job on the 1905. I would want to do it right and have all the grammatical variations and voweling correct as well, which would require me to go line by line with a Hebrew keyboard and special programming.
Reply
#78
I was thinking of one without vowel marks, but if you insist. But yes by no means a patch job.
Reply
#79
:

Just to let everyone know...I've added Lonnie Martin's Eastern/Western readings to the list and stats area on the 1st page here...for his edited modern English revision of Etheridge and Murdoch's Translations.

In my hour looking over his renderings there, I find them to be less literal than most others, and at times more paraphrasistc and wordy than need be. Also, he seems to favor the "sacred name" trend, and makes The Aramaic Text read more like a Hebrew Old Testament document, with how it would be rendered into English. If he were to just render the Text as is, it would be better...I'm not against a dynamic equivalent reading in some cases, where the language is too hard to bring over literaly, but too much interpreting isn't a good thing...especially when it's a one man job.

I'll continue to review his online edition and comment when and If I see something that really needs to be fixed. But he has lots of notes there and his version leans towards the East more than most of the others who use the Peshitto as their base text.

Thanks for the heads up Tex. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#80
Hi there,
the "hebrew Matthew" quoted by some church fathers, was not the same like our version we have today (not the same like in the Peshitta and not the same like the greek texts)! It was shorter and missing the the first 2 chapters!

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#81
:

But, who told you that it was/is not the same as what is in The Eastern Aramaic New Testament?

It's clear that during the time that Matthew would have written, the Jews all spoke in the Aramaic langauge, often termed the "Hebrew languge" since all the Hebrews spoke and wrote in it for hundreds of years...

And in case you haven't heard. Saint Pantaenus, an early Church Missionary/Teacher in the latter part of 2nd century, says that he saw a copy of Matthew's Gospel in India, written "in Hebrew letters" which they were using when he was there among The Church...and there's still a copy of it today in India, in the very same Church. The Church of the East, which was established in India in the 1st century by The Apostle Thomas, which has a copy made from The Apostle Thomas' copy he brought them in the 1st century...and It's the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

God's Holy Words, have not been lost or destroyed by man....He has preserved them all! In The Eastern Aramaic Scriptures.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#82
Hi Chuck,
Nicephorus, when drawing up his list
of canonical and apocryphal books, stated that the Gospel of the
Hebrews contained only 2200 lines, 300 fewer than Matthew. It has
been suggested that these three hundred lines are the birth narratives
of the first and second chapters of our canonical Matthew.

In the "Gospel of the Hebrews", written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day
(I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea) - Jerome,
Pelag. 3.2

According to Pantaenus, it was also in circulation in India, having been brought there by Bartholomew not by Thomas!.
Pantaenus became head of the School in Alexandria and was responsible for much of the Library in Caesarea.
In this library was preserved a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Nazarenes of Beroea gave a copy to Jerome.

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
#83
:

I have a copy of Matthew's Gospel right here...and it's in Aramaic too. God saw fit to have His Holy Word's preserved through every generation and not lost or mishandled.

So, according to the stories, Apostle Thomas evangelized in India, and later Apostle Bartholomew brought them a copy of Matthew's Gospel...how can we be certain, which way it actually happened...either way, they still have a copy of it today, and it was never lost, and it matches what the rest of The Church of the East has always had from The Apostles. Unless you believe that the Gospel of Matthew that we have today is a forgery, or perhaps that Apostle Matthew wrote two of them.

What say you?

.
Reply
#84
:

Also, 250 years is a long time for stories to morph...so Eusebius might not have retold all the details correct there. If we were to go with the various stories...then we would have to say that Matthew's original Gospel is no longer around, and that the one we have today is not the same thing. So, did God have it written twice by inspiration, or just once? I say...just once, and it is the very same one that is found in The Church of the East today, which has always had only one version of Mathew's Gospel, and which is Inspired by God.

By the way...in the 1st and 2nd century...the Christians of The Church of the East were called "Nazarene's" and for good reason.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#85
mickoy Wrote:Hi Chuck,
Nicephorus, when drawing up his list
of canonical and apocryphal books, stated that the Gospel of the
Hebrews contained only 2200 lines, 300 fewer than Matthew. It has
been suggested that these three hundred lines are the birth narratives
of the first and second chapters of our canonical Matthew.

mmm, the first or (in other cases, like with Hebrews) last chapters are missing. Could that not just be loss because of use?
Reply
#86
:

Distazo, who says that the Letter to the Hebrews is missing some "last chapters"? Has anyone ever seen these "lost chapters" or ever qouted from them? It looks fine to me there at the end. I see all the lines in Matthew's Gospel and all the lines in the Letter to the Hebrews. What is missing?
Reply
#87
Mickoy,


You've piqued my curiosity. In the ancient texts, there were no "chapters" or "lines" for that matter.

Can you give any more information directly from the supposed source of the claim?

+Shamasha
Reply
#88
Thirdwoe Wrote::

Distazo, who says that the Letter to the Hebrews is missing some "last chapters"? Has anyone ever seen these "lost chapters" or ever qouted from them? It looks fine to me there at the end. I see all the lines in Matthew's Gospel and all the lines in the Letter to the Hebrews. What is missing?

Don't worry Brother,

I'm just talking about the vaticanus, which is to my opinion a translation of a 22 canon NT, possibly the Eastern version. It's worn out, so Hebrews lacks a lot of papers. This is quite logical. Old books at the beginning and at the end tend to bleach and get corroded.
Reply
#89
Ahh...I see. Some say that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are two survivors of the 50 copies that were made in the time of Eusebius...I don't see how, since they don't agree with each other in thousands of places. I've found a place online to view the Sinaiticus, but do you know if the Vaticanus is available online to check it's readings out?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#90
Note: As I am slowly looking over each verse of the Aramaic NT to see any differances between the Eastern and Western texts, I have found another variant.

Galatians 6:17

Eastern = "Our Master Eshu M'shikha"
Western= "Our Master Eshu"

I have updated the list and the stats on the 1st 2 posts of this thread, so you can see which translations go with which reading.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)