Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Acts of the Apostles 2:1
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hello Everyone,
I have a question about Acts Chapter 2:1 in Paul Younan's Interlinear Translation of Peshitta. I thought the verse looks slightly different from English Translations. In Paul Younan's Interlinear Translation, Acts 2:1 says like this "And after the days of Pentecost were fulfilled, all were assembled as one." In NIV, the verse is like this "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place."

In King James Version, the verse is like this "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." After reading Paul Younan's Interlinear Translation, I am a little confused. Did Disciples and others assembled as one after 50 days or Did they assemble as one on 50th day?
All together at one place seems to me a tautology in the phrase.

If you are all together, you cannot be at different places right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

So I think the NIV rendering is wrong.
I think you are right about NIV rendering. Very interesting, distazo. But do you think Disciples and others assembled as one after 50 days or Did they assemble as one on 50th day? I think they assembled as one after 50 days. But you know far more than I do. What do you think about it?
They assembled in the temple on the 50th day to observe Shau'oth: this is why there were 3000+ Yisra'elites from the nations who heard the message.
Thanks for clearing my doubts, Aaron S.
"AND when the day of Pentecost was fulfilled, while they were assembled together,"
....Lamsa Translation."

It was the day of the Pentecost celebration.....

Please don't waste your time and brain power reading the NIV translation or any of the many other popular modern English versions based on the seriously faulty Alexandrian Greek text. There are many numerous missing versus and hundreds of butchered verses, and thousands of serious outright errors. The Alexandrian text is based primarily on the fourth Century Vaticanus Greek text that was "lost" in the Vatican for over 1400 years! Wow, that why the pages are in such good condition. Besides being the oldest complete New Testament in existence, it is also the worst!

The New King James translation is based on the Majority Greek text. It and and Peshitta are usually in close agreement!

I thought New King James Version has lots of mistranslations in it.

For Example, take Luke Chapter 24:21 - "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened."

Let me take Luke 24:21 (From Peshitta) - "And we were hoping that he was about to save Israel. And behold, three days [have passed] since all these things happened."
There is no doubt that the Peshitta is superior to all Greek texts. However, my point is that the New King James Version based on the Majority Greek Text is FAR SUPERIOR to the many modern English versions based on the Catholic (Alexandrian) Greek Text, which is truly an abomination!

If you read Aramaic, you will always find some issues with any translation.

As for the Peshitta translations: If I recommend Lamsa, I get negative feedback. If I recommend Buauscher, or Roth, or the Way translation from the Peshitta, I get negative feedback.

I stand by my opinion, that the average Christian is very much better off with the New King James Version than with any of the many modern English versions that are all based on the Alexandrian Greek text.

As for Luke 24:21 from the Peshitta: Literally "...three days since these all happened."
Lamsa has " is three days since all these things happened"
Bauscher has " " is the third day now since all these things occurred."
Roth has " ...three days have passed since all these things happened."


I like Paul Younan's Interlinear Translation. Unfortunately, I haven't read Roth's translation. But I did hear lots of great things about Roth's Translation.

"I stand by my opinion, that the average Christian is very much better off with the New King James Version than with any of the many modern English versions that are all based on the Alexandrian Greek text."

I will look into New King James Version. Thanks for recommending this version.
hi, if you want to read the king james or compare, jay green has a few interlinear bibles , that put the king james into modern english. Jay has some good bibles.e.g. interlinear greek english new testament.
Of course the peshitta is the best, which reminds me is anyone working on the old covenant of the peshitta at the moment?
The NRSV of the New Testament is totally based on the seriously faulty Alexandrian Greek text. It has thousands of serious errors!

the Eastern Orthodox Church is actually working on their own translation based on the Patriarchal Text (the text the Eastern Orthodox Church uses). They have the "NT" available for download on PDF already. They are in the midst of working on translating the LXX.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Dear brother Rafa in Yashua,Berek Alaha! I saw your post in regards to the OSB-the Orthodox Study Bible and that you were going to get a copy.I have had a copy of the OSB New Testament and the Psalms when it first came out many many years ago and aquired several copies of the complete Orthodox Study Bible containing both the Old and New Testament with the Old containing all of the books of the Apocrypha held as canonical by the Orthodox churches therefore having 11 more books than the Protestant.I have given away 3 or 4 copies to non-Orthodox Christians who are interested in the faith. I study and read primarilly from the many good Peshitta English translations daily as I own and study them all and have learned and continue to learn from all.I pray Deacon Younan will complete his wonderful translation and have it published.As far as the Old Testament is concerned,we only have Lamsa's translation thus far although Victor Alexander has published and released Genesis and Exodus so far and is almost done with the Old testament which can be read on his website.Of course we also have the Old Testament Aramaic Targumns from Deacon Paul Younan also.I really only use the OSB for the commentary and articles which most of are quite good.In the introduction to Matthew we even have the editors pointing to the ancient tradition from Papias and several other Fathers the fact that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.There headed in the right direction with this and must realise the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.The Old Testament is a fresh translation of the Greek Septuagint from the St.Athanatius academy who used multiple sources.The New Testament is from the NKJV.Overall it is very good but the Peshitta,exspecially in the better translation,being the true original Holy Gospels and New Testament,is so far superior as it is as it came straight from our Mari's Holy lips and the quills of the Evangelists penning the Gospels and the venerable epistle writers.A great source of the ancient Fathers and Saints commentary of the scriptures is the recently released Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture that is amazing.Every verse and chapter is given commentary following a whos who of the greatest of the Fathers and saints.St.John Crystostom,Theodore of Mopsuestia,Diodore,Oriegen,Cyrill of alexandria,ect,ect. I highly recommend this multi-volume work.I have all of the Gospels books of commentary which numbers 6 volumes as Matthew and Luke both require 2 volumes a piece.In Yashua,D.Michael.