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

It was the western Syriac speaking churches, which were influenced by the Greeks and Latins, who changed their copies, not the Eastern Aramaic Church of the East, which has never changed their copies to conform to the Greek or Latin versions.

The Syrian Orthodox Bishop, Rabbula of Edessa, decided to replace the Diatessaron, which they had used for a long time, instead of The Peshitta, which (the Diatessaron) was edited from. What they did then, was to take the Peshitta text, and edit it to more conform to what was in the Greek text they were influenced by and in doing so, helped to make them more acceptable to the leaders of the Greek and Latin churches they were close to.

The Church of the East was not so inclined, and had never had Tatian's Diatessaron version as a replacement of the Peshitta's four separate Gospels in their Parishes.

Burkitt was very mistaken, if he thought that The Aramaic text as found in the Eastern Peshitta didn?t exist before the 4th century. What did all the Parishes of the Church of the East, East of the Euphrates River, use as their Bible then? The Greek version? What did the Aramaic speaking Church of the East in India use as their Bible? The Greek version?

As to what Mr. Burkitt says here: "Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation, although "his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them."

Ok...yes. And these were Aramaic Scriptures, not Greek or Latin versions. So he admits that The Aramaic NT was existing in the mid-4th century about 350 A.D. the same time that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was produced... and Jerome knew of their existence?and did he (Burkitt) think that it (the Aramaic Text) just appeared at that time? The Diatessaron was made from the Aramaic Gospel's about 160 A.D. and there has always been the separate Aramaic Gospels since at least 78 A.D.

But, he says there, that what is found in The Peshitta is not what St. Ephraem quotes from, but rather, what?s found in the Curetonian and the Sinaitic Palmipsest (old scratch) versions. Really? me some verses...and I'll check them out. I have copies of the Manuscripts all here to verify. But, I have found that the readings of the Diatessaron and The Peshitta...are most always the same. I've looked at them closely.

And please know...ALL versions of the Aramaic Scriptures, mistakes or not, say the very same thing, as to the overall Message of the NT. But the Eastern Peshitta Text, when all things are considered, is indeed the Original form of the Aramaic NT. And I believe that it was given to The Christians of The Church of the East by the Apostles, as they have always maintained, even the Syrian Orthodox says this.

Was it a translation of the 1st century Greek version though? It doesn?t seem so to me, as we can't find any Greek textual family that lines up with it, but many of their peculiar readings can be found in The Peshitta, and not the other way around, indicating that The Aramaic was the Original source of all of the various Greek versions, and the original Greek scribes who made the various 1st translations of the Aramaic, had their various renderings and peculiar readings?and mistakes crept in over the centuries that followed with the many thousands of copies that were made.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - by Thirdwoe - 02-03-2013, 10:16 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)