Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
Mic,

You can stay unsure as long as you need to...it won't bother me. It takes a lot of time to come to the truth sometimes and eventually you will...no doubt about it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:the harmonisation was replaced in the 5th century by the canonical four gospels individually, in the Peshitta version, whose Syriac text nevertheless contains many Diatessaronic readings.

"replaced....by the canonical four gosepls" Yes indeed.

"in the Peshitta version, whose (Aramaic) text...contains many Diatessaronic readings" Yes, of course, since it was crafted/edited from that Aramaic source text, later called "The Peshitta" in the 9th century...which was the standard and only Scriptures that those churches had ever used, since the time of The Apostles and the beginning of their Churches.

1: The regular Aramaic NT came 1st, from which Tatian used to craft/edit his Aramaic Harmony of the four Gospels.

2: His Harmony thus retains the unique readings of the Aramaic Scriptures, which he had used to craft/edit his Harmony.

3: It became very popular and had replaced the separate Gospels in some Western Syriac Church services during the 3rd and 4th centuries.

4: Tatian was later labeled a heretic long after his death, for some of his written teachings, and his Harmony began to fall out of popularity in these Churches which used them.

5: The Church leaders in these areas gathered up his Aramaic Gospel Harmony and "put them away", but some copies survived into the 9th century, where one of them was translated into Arabic in the 11th century, from which the English translation was made in the 19th century.

6: The Churches which had been using The Diatessaron, were ordered to use the regular Gospels for their liturgical readings. They had always had these, but had been using The Diatessaron version instead of them.

7: There never was a Greek version of the Diatessaron, not even a hint of one, and thus was never used in any Greek speaking Church...it (The Aramaic Diatessaron) was only used in Aramaic speaking Orthodox Churches west of the Euphrates River.

8: For some reason many people don't want to believe that an Aramaic NT existed before the 4th-5th century, when it clearly has been in existence all along since the 1st century, and used by The Church of the East, who was given it by The Apostles. Anything that points to it being so, is discounted, doubted, or mocked. It seems to unsettle them for some strange reason, and they simply can't bring themselves to believe it could be true.

9: I love the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta, and have found nothing wrong with it, and I praise God for keeping it safe from corruption all these centuries.

Blessings,
Chuck
.
Reply
Quote:How exactly does the Diatesseron format its harmony? For example, in the Synoptic Gospels, does Tatian include each Gospel's account of an event that is recorded in at least two of the three, or does choose one and use it only? I have built part of my own Gospel harmony, but I haven't worked on it in a long time.

Hey Dylan...as far as I can see, Tatian combines the statements found in all versions, and makes them into one longer statement, not repeating anything...I'm not sure how accurate he was in all places, but that seems to be his overall approach. When they conflict, like the account of the roster crowing during Apostle Peter's denials, I think he went only with Mark's account...but I will have to check again.

But he had to choose which one to go with there, as Mark differs from the others, in how it's said to have happened.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
Yea...he goes with Mark's unique reading there, for what is found in Mark 14:30, which has a reading that is unlike the other three Gospels. But he weaves in the others so it works out. But...this hides the apparent contradiction in the texts.
Reply
That's interesting. I wonder why he chose Mark and not any of the others?
Reply
:
Here is how he seems to have done it...for these verses anyway.

Matthew 26:34: ?Jesus said to him, ?Truly I say to you, in this night before rooster crows three times, you will deny me.? -Magiera

Mark 14:30: ?Jesus said to him, ?Truly I say to you, today in this night, before the rooster will crow two times, you will deny me three [times].? -Magiera

Luke 22:34: ?Jesus said to him, ?I say to you, Simon, that the rooster will not crow today before you insist three times that you do not know me.? -Magiera

John 13:38: ?Jesus said to him, 'Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow until you deny me three times.'? -Magiera

The Diatessaron: ?(all-->Jesus said unto him, (John-->Wilt thou give up thy life for me? Verily, verily, (all-->I say unto thee, (all-->Thou shalt (Mark-->to-day, Matt-->during Mark & Matt-->this night, (all-->before the cock crow (Mark-->twice, (all-->three times deny me, that thou knowest me not.?

So, he did use all four Gospels, but left out "Simon", that is found in Luke.

If you notice closely, both Matthew and Mark say the same thing as to what point during the roster crowing he would deny Christ three times. It was to be "before a roster will crow three times" (Matt) and "before the roster will crow twice" (Mark). While both Luke and John have it stated that "a roster will not crow until you deny me three times"

Tatian went with what Matthew and Mark agree with, as to what point he denied Christ three times. The Greek Matthew is not the same wording as The Peshitta there, which matches more with Luke and John.

.
Reply
There is another English translation out now, by A. Frances Werner, called the "Ancient Roots Transliner Bible". The OT is said to be translated from the Hebrew text, and the NT is said to be from the Aramaic text which is "supported by The Apostolic Catholic Church of the East", but it does not, as the translation is clearly from the Western Peshitto version of The Peshitta NT.

The Translation is interesting, in that it's sort of like The Amplified Bible translation of the Greek NT.

"the Messiah", "Jesus", "the Lord Jesus", Spirit-wind, The Holy Spirit-wind, the Lord (Yahweh), and "God", are used in the translation. It blurs the lines with the instances of "Lord"...making 2 Lord's, when The Scriptures tells us we have only One Lord.

.
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:There is another English translation out now, by A. Frances Werner, called the "Ancient Roots Transliner Bible". The OT is said to be translated from the Hebrew text, and the NT is said to be from the Aramaic text which is "supported by The Apostolic Catholic Church of the East", but it does not, as the translation is clearly from the Western Peshitto version of The Peshitta NT.

The Translation is interesting, in that it's sort of like The Amplified Bible translation of the Greek NT.

"the Messiah", "Jesus", "the Lord Jesus", Spirit-wind, The Holy Spirit-wind, the Lord (Yahweh), and "God", are used in the translation. It blurs the lines with the instances of "Lord"...making 2 Lord's, when The Scriptures tells us we have only One Lord.

.
ARTB's ONLINE OT @:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ancientrootsbible.com/artb-bible-search-mainmenu-92.html">http://www.ancientrootsbible.com/artb-b ... nu-92.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
Akhi Chuck, Shlama

I want to know, why the Peshitta used the word 'Kristyone' (like the Greek origin terms) on Acts 11:26 insteads of 'Mshikhaya'?

Alaha minookh.
Reply
Hi Akhi P.I.,

They were most likely referred to by both terms, among the two people groups. The Greeks of the region would naturally go with the Greek form, and they may have at the time Acts was written by Luke, which was probably in the late 60s, plenty of Greek speaking converts, being that it was now 30 or so years since the Church of Antioch was established...and the Greeks of the region would have called them by that term, rather than the other.

Some even suggest that it was originally a derogatory term, meant to mock them.

What do you say?


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
peshitta-indonesia,

there is a PDF that might help you on this @ (be sure and download them as they do not always display right on the website's PDF veiwer):
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/110599835/i01-One-Faith-Two-Expression-Theology">http://www.scribd.com/doc/110599835/i01 ... n-Theology</a><!-- m -->

and

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/110759237/i01-Nazarenes-vs-Christianity">http://www.scribd.com/doc/110759237/i01 ... ristianity</a><!-- m -->


More relivent stuff on this subject @:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/collections/3926541/g-Torah-Renewed-Covenant-Noahide-Laws">http://www.scribd.com/collections/39265 ... ahide-Laws</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Chuck,

Thirdwoe Wrote:I've noticed that Janet Magiera's translation reads often the exact same or very close to the same way as TWI's translation in a number of verses Ive looked it, so it may be that she used this translation as a base text to some degree, and then edited it against the UBS text and going with readings that she felt were best, while keeping the rest as is.

Don't quote me on this, but I do remember reading somewhere that Ms. Magiera was on the Way International translation team.

+Shamasha

From the lips of Janet Magiera herself:
(See minute 17 seconds 13-53)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.glc.us.com/site/watch.php?program=23&video=3301">http://www.glc.us.com/site/watch.php?pr ... video=3301</a><!-- m -->
Reply
The Link didn't work, Will.

But I watched the whole video...painful at times. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

So, it?s true that she was with The Way International and that it was the type of study materials that she was helping them with, which got her going with hers.

It seems she took it to the next level and made the whole thing better, with all the helps tied into the interlinear and translation. After talking with her on the phone, it seems to me that she is not convinced about the Eastern Text being the original form and the Western version being compromised with the Greek version.

She said that she noticed that the Lamsa translation had many KJV leaning renderings, which got her curious what the Aramaic Text really said....I can understand that, as I've seen what she is talking about. Interesting what she said about Lamsa being pressured to not be so literal, and I wonder if there was pressure placed on him to make it as close to the KJV as possible.

.
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:The Link didn't work, Will.
Thanks for the heads-up, I fixed it now.


Thirdwoe Wrote:So, it?s true that she was with The Way International and that it was the work that she was part of with them, which got her going with her work.
I was under the impression that she started her work long before the Way International got started, and that she joined with them to help them out as she was by that time qualified to do so, and then afterwards continued to finish what she had set out to do in the first place -which was to produce a translation without biases strewn throughout.


Thirdwoe Wrote:It seems she took it to the next level and made the whole thing better, with all the helps tied into the interlinear.
Yes she did say that the Strong's numbering was the Way International's idea that she decided to incorporate in to her work.


Thirdwoe Wrote:After talking with her on the phone, it seems to me that she is not convinced about the Eastern Text being the original form and the Western version being compromised with the Greek version.
Yes I got the idea that she is one that wishes to hold onto her Western Greco-Christian Doctrinal Practises, so she decides to hold the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta in a position of lower esteem, like unto it's Western rendition, in order to gaze upon it with a less authoritative veiw. Other wise she would be faced with FACTS which would necessitate repentance of many unorthodox practices.

It should be of no surprise though as this is highly common among all the Greek Supremacist. They have to hold onto what little Greco-Roman translations they can find as the oldest and best of our day in order to justify their heritage. Yet it is funny that the extant Greek text which date back no farther than the Western Peshitto's days, and are no more prevalent than that of the Western PeshittO copies, which are know to be 5th century concoctions. And now here is the real kicker, the Oldest Eastern PeshittA Texts are dated back to this same time frame as well and are just as prevalent in the amount of extant copies still available to us today. So really the Greek Primmest have no so-called Older text to draw from than that of the Eastern PeshittA Textural tradition.


Thirdwoe Wrote:She said that the noticed that the Lamsa translation had many KJV leaning renderings, which got her curious what the Aramaic Text really said.... ... ... ... Interesting what she said about Lamsa being pressured to not be so literal, and I wonder if there was pressure placed on him to make it as close to the KJV as possible.
I was struck with the same idea, and could also no help but wonder as well as to just how much they made him straighten out the lunatical essence within his translation?

Anyway, I wish that Janet would had put her translational notes into her Messianic Version so that I would not have to do so much mental white washing as I muddle through the plethora of Hellenizations in her Creco-sitto Version in order to make benefit of the footnotes. And, I really like her Messianic Version other than a hand full of the Western heretical inundations wrought upon the Eastern PeshittA Text from the 5th century onward. But these are few and far in between, and it doesn't take much white-outing to get around them, weighing in with only 10 out of 19 PeshittO inundations. Yep a little white-out tape and a fine tipped black ball-point pen is able to fix a thing here and there, yet no where near the massive litterations of Helleniazation strewn about the other.

For the reasons listed above I would prefer Roth's Hebra-ShittA due to the lack of Hellenized words/names, and that he has translational notes therein if it was not for the blunderous translational errors that are getting a bit old now a days (unto a 5th and most likely sixth Version), Ow Vey <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad --> .

Oh, for the day wherefore the crocked would be made straight. Yea, I pray an unHellenized, English translation of the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA Text would come forth <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> .

Wait, what is that I see? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Could it be a light at the end of the tunnel? <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Awmayn <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> , I did <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> - I did <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> -I did <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> see some light at the end of the tunnel!!! <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->

Coming soon to your neck of the woods - once and for all -
a real Straight English translation of the PeshittA tradition. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

Please stay tuned for future notifications. <!-- s:listen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/listen.gif" alt=":listen:" title="Listen" /><!-- s:listen: -->
Reply
Quote:I was under the impression that she started her work long before the Way International got started, and that she joined with them to help them out as she was by that time qualified to do so, and then afterwards continued to finish what she had set out to do in the first place -which was to produce a translation without biases strewn throughout.

Yea, your right, it seems she had started her Aramaic language studies 1st, and then later joined with The Way International to work on their Interlinear and translation, and them made her version afterward, or maybe had been working on it all along. I've restated what I had said above.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Shlama,


i noticed this reading from the AENT 1st edition:

ACTS 11:21
And there was the hand of the Master among them, and many believed and turned face towards the Master.


the actual Peshitta text has D'MARYA and MARYA, not the expected MARA if it were truly "Master."

is this error corrected in any subsequent editions?

BTW, if this post needs to be inserted into another topic, let me know and i can move it.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)