Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Assyrian Eastern Peshitta?
Shlama All,

I recently received a new copy of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament (Kathiva d'Dyatheeqee Khadatha d'Maran Yeshua Meshikha) from The Assyrian Church of The East book web site, which Paul Younan recently posted.
I am amazed at the Western nature of the text. It definitely retains the distinctly Eastern readings of Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9 and 16, as well as Matthew 6:32 (1 extra word) and others.
But it includes John 7:53-8:11, as well as the verses of Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29 , as well as all the Western 5 books :2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
This means that the text of this "Eastern Peshitta" is actually more Western than Eastern!

I congratulate The Church of The East for these changes in the text, which I believe make it more accurate by supplying missing text and books to the old Eastern text. The added books and the passage in John 7:53-8:11 have a preface in Aramaic saying: The (2nd,3rd,-) epistle (of (Peter,John,Jude) is not in what are called The Peshitta copies, but is in other ancient copies." The John passage has a variation of that, commenting :"The lection on the sinner woman is not in the copies called Peshitta, but is in the Greek and also in one other ancient damaged copy called 'Jerusalem's'"

The edition I have is dated 1982, so it has been 26 years at least since such changes were made and approved by The COE. Who among us Westerners would have thought this possible?


Pastor Dave Bauscher
You know, 'The Little Red Book' was a political compromise at best.

The Church of the East has historically REJECTED the last 5 Books of the (Western) New Testament.

This is just as true today, as it ever was.

Even the language (Swadaya) was a compromise, because The Assyrian Church of the East writes in Estrangelo, the Monophysite's didn't like Estrangelo, but wanted their script used instead, and Swadaya was a compromise language, to appease BOTH sides.

Inclusion of the woman caught in adultery was also a compromise, and there are other places where THE WESTERN Monophysite text version was used INSTEAD of the Eastern text of the P'shitta.

The Eastern P'shitta text is (in my opinion) a much purer text, than is the Western PeshittO.

But I can see why you like this Westernized text of the PeshittO, because THAT'S the text that YOU TRANSLATED FROM.

The Monophysite's are NOT The Assyrian Church of the East. Period. Zero.

And the PeshittO is NOT the New Testament of The Assyrian Church of the East.

The Khabouris Codex is a great example of the Eastern P'shitta New Testament.

But the Khabouris Codex is NOT the Peshitto (either).

Shlama, Albion
Shlama Qashisha Dave,

Yes, they are in our printed copies and as I have stated previously these are considered "pious books" and the faithful are highly encouraged to read them at home for personal study and edification.

The weekly readings during service (the liturgical cycle) does not contain readings from the books that are outside of the canon of the Peshitta. So while they are not technically part of our liturgical worship service in church, they are a part of our daily walk with God.

That does not mean that the CoE considers these books to be apostolic or canonical (hence the "introductory notes" indicating that these are not part of the Peshitta), but she is not so rigid as to ignore the witness of the rest of the universal church or recognize that these books are a special part of Christian life.

Part of the reason these books are included in that printed copy from Lebanon is that they are used both by the CoE and the Chaldean Catholic Church (which does, obviously, hold to the canonicity of these books).

+Shamasha Paul

PS - the Swadaya (meaning "contemporary") script is purely an eastern evolution of Estrangelo, to make writing with vowel points easier. It is used by both the CoE and the Chaldean Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Uniates).

I think, Akhi Albion, you may be thinking of the "Serto" (meaning "scratch" or "cursive") when thinking about the SOC/Monophysites, although that script is also used by other groups like the Maronites (Catholic).

All scripts progress over the ages (look at English, Hebrew or Arabic) for various reasons, usually to simplify one aspect or another.

Sample text in Old English (Prologue from Beowulf)

[Image: smp_oldenglish.gif]

Here is an old manuscript of Beowulf:

[Image: Beowulf.firstpage.jpeg]

I would not consider these type of things "compromises", again, because all languages and scripts "evolve" over time.
Shlama Akhi Albion,

Quote:You know, 'The Little Red Book' was a political compromise at best.

I was not talking about that edition. I was talking about the Assyrian Peshitta NT which Paul recommended from the Assyrian book web site.



Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)