Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Remarks in the Khabouris manuscript margin
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Hi Steve, I've looked over your whole site, and I have seen nothing of The Aramaic New Testament text there.

I see the WEB English translation of a particular Greek version of the NT, I see your interpolations of its text translated from it, or perhaps translated from the western version of The Peshitta text, not sure which yet, as it's not clear from your website...so, unless you specify which text you are translating from there, your website does not have the answer, I'm asking you. You only refereed me to the about page one time, not a dozen times...so that wasn't true at all. And the only reason I am asking you again, is because you keep not answering. It is easy to stop me from asking, just answer the question. Simple.

So, if you could tell me, here, where is "The Aramaic New Testament" to be found on your website which has the title "The Aramaic New Testament."

No need to make this so hard, Steve, I have asked you on Facebook many weeks ago now, then you said to privet message you there about it...which I did... but you never responded back, so now, I ask you again here, and you still don't give an answer.

Please give an answer, Steve.

Thanks,
Chuck
Charley,

I did report back. It went on for over 150 messages that anyone can read in the Aramaic Bible group. It went on to the point that Keith told us to cut it out and several members of the group confided in me that they thought you were being an [REDACTED]. So, if you've looked over the "whole site," did you read:

Quote:I call {it} ?The Aramaic Words Translation.? Wherever Jesus or his followers are speaking, I try to provide a simple transliteration of their words in a reconstruction of their original language so that a reader unfamiliar with them may be able to pronounce a reasonable approximation for themselves.
http://aramaicnt.org/about/

Is this unclear?

How about:

Quote:We have taken a public domain version of the Canonical Gospels and have interpolated wherever Jesus or his followers are speaking in a simple transliteration of their words in a reconstruction of their original language. This way you may intone those very words for yourself and get an idea of how they were originally spoken.

The following texts were used as a foundation for the reconstructions have been consulted and aligned in the apparatus under each Galilean Aramaic reconstruction where they are available. The Greek New Testament served as the structural base for each reconstruction, where the Syriac and Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) served as examples for proper rendition of tenses. Galilean vocabulary and grammatical structures were then utilized when those in Syriac and CPA deviated from accepted forms {...}
http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/

And this is followed by a list of sigla to indicate each manuscript source consulted in the reconstruction.

Is this unclear?

And here's a link to Chapter 1 of Mark:

http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/

Click on any of the links labeled "Apparatus" to see the textual alignment I've used for consultation. You can also read the footnotes.

Can anyone else say this isn't clear as crystal? I have answered each of these questions for the 50th time.

"What is this project about and what texts do you use?" "Here it is." "That's nice, but what text do you use?" "Here it is." "Ok, but what is this project about and what texts do you use?"

Am I the only one who feels that Charley is being purposefully obtuse and disingenuous?

Charley, I will not discuss this further in this thread, nor until you actually read and acknowledge what I've given you. The scope of my project is beyond clear and it is not accountable to you.

Peace,
-Steve
I have to admit that I think most of the Peshitta primacy group is pretty hard on ya, Stevie <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->

I think The Aramaic Words Translation will be fascinating once completed. Comparing what's there to the Peshitta will be very fun! Currently though, I have a hard time completely figuring how to pronounce the transliteration in some spots in the chapter of Mark you have, and in your Conversational Galilean course.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Currently though, I have a hard time completely figuring how to pronounce the transliteration in some spots in the chapter of Mark you have, and in your Conversational Galilean course.

I actually need to update it all to the system I'm presently using for the grammar I'm writing. It's much more visually intuitive and consistent, but slightly less web-friendly. The web-friendliness right now is the biggest challenge.

Peace,
-Steve
Yeah, that's understandable. I've remembered some of the greetings but that's about it so far <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
Thanks Steve for making it crystal clear there.

And you are grossly misrepresenting our previous discussion, which was on another subject, as you recall. I had asked about this matter near the end of that discussion, and you said if I were interested, to message you about in privet. I did so, and you never answered back, as you said you would.

So, it is as I had thought then, Steve.

---> There is no "Aramaic New Testament" present on your site, or a part of your project. Yet, you call your website "http://aramaicnt.org/ and the main page reads in big letters "The Aramaic New Testament", yet, what you have there for your project isn't the Aramaic New Testament at all.

At least David Bauscher, whose website called aramaicnt.com, (nearly identical in name as yours), has a certain hybrid version of the actual Aramaic New Testament, albeit a heavily influenced one by the Greek NT text. His isn't The Aramaic New Testament i.e. The Peshitta either, but a version of it, with added books, and interpolated verses translated from the Greek text.

Steve, what you have there is The Greek New Testament text, given in an English translation (WEB), with your interpolated transliterations taken from The Greek NT (Alexandrian version).

As you say there: "We have taken a public domain version of the Canonical Gospels..." i.e. The Greek Gospels of the Alexandrian variety, given in a public domain English translation (WEB) of its text.

---> Which is NOT The Aramaic New Testament, but only a certain Greek NT.

As you say there: "The Greek New Testament served as the structural base for each reconstruction,..."

Which is NOT The Aramaic New Testament, but the Greek NT.

So, the whole text there is just a certain Greek text version, translated in English, and the transliterated interpolations from you, given in what you think might have been a dialect Jesus and His Apostles may have used, which is also from the Greek NT text (Alexandrian version).

So, why have you called your website, "The Aramaic New Testament"???

Steve, your "Aramaic Words Translation" is The Greek New Testament (of the Alexandrian text type), with some transliterated Aramaic words taken from that Greek text.

Again, I don't see any Aramaic New Testament at your site, which is called AramaicNT.org, and has "The Aramaic New Testament" as the main page title. Which I think is very disingenuous.

Dylan said:
Quote:I think The Aramaic Words Translation will be fascinating once completed. Comparing what's there to the Peshitta will be very fun!

Hi Dylan, what would be "fun" about comparing The Peshitta's text, with The Alexandrian Greek text?

We can do that, without needing to read a "reconstructed" hypothetical dialect, transliterated from the Greek text.

I don't call that having any fun at all, but a total waste of time. Have you spent any money on this yet? I hope not.

.
What I meant is comparing the Galilean reconstruction to the Aramaic of the Peshitta. I really don't think that Steve is pulling this Galilean reconstruction from his butt though, either. He does seem to be doing his research, utilizing the Peshitta and other sources
Thanks Thirdwoe, you may have saved me a lot of time from seeking an Aramaic Text on such a sight.
You can read the Aramaic Words Translation for free.
Charley, you're just being a persistent fribble at this point and you're the one who's misrepresenting things. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

QED: For someone who claims to have read my "whole site" did you also somehow miss my methodology? Which, by the way, is available on the page named "Methodology." http://aramaicnt.org/about/methodology/ You're not describing it. Please read it again. Carefully. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Bauscher registered his domain name in 2005 where I registered AramaicNT.org in 2002. It was quite different back then. I have an old archive of it somewhere.

The name "Aramaic New Testament" is not synonymous with the Eastern Peshitta as you seem to be insisting (correct me if I'm wrong). There are a number of Aramaic New Testaments from antiquity: the Old Syriac, the Peshitta, the Harklean, the Philoxenan, the Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament (Lectionaries and Fragments), etc.. My project focuses upon the New Testament from a Galilean Aramaic perspective and deals with reconstructing Jesus' sayings in the New Testament into Aramaic, hence "The Aramaic New Testament" is appropriate regardless of your immaterial quibbles. As such, don't use words like "disingenuous" unless you plan to use them properly. You're not. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The same with "transliterated." You're using that word wrong, in this context, too. These are retro-translations into Aramaic that are then transliterated for reading. I'm not providing transliterations of the Greek text.

And no, Dylan hasn't given me a cent. As he mentioned my translation is up for free and I also gave him full access to the supporter sections when he expressed interest. It's a gift I don't give to many people.

So, shall we get back to talking about the Khabouris manuscript? Or this this thread yet another, doomed to be hijacked by someone who can't stand but to have the last repeated word? If you must, you may have it. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Peace,
-Steve
Yes, you can read the Greek NT for free, in all kinds of translations and transliterations. But, when one wants to know what is in The Aramaic New Testament, and how it says it...they don't go to the Greek versions, but to The Aramaic New Testament i.e. The Peshitta.

One day, we will see a real Aramaic New Testament in the English language, and be glad.

Paul Younan has said here, that what Steve is doing is merely "reconstructing an imaginary dialect", and as we see here now, he is doing so not from The Aramaic New Testament, at all, but from the Greek version. He is imagining what he thinks might have been how Jesus and the Apostles could have said things...and he uses the Greek text to show his opinions, and then has the gall to use the name "The Aramaic New Testament", as if his version is somehow to be considered "The Aramaic New Testament." It is not.

The world does not need any further confusion as to what The Aramaic New Testament is. It needs to know what it actually is, and what it actually says, and how it actually says it.
Quote:the Old Syriac, the Harklean, the Philoxenan, the Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament

None of the above are The Aramaic New Testament, 'i.e. The Peshitta, as has always been used by The Church of the East. They never used those versions, because the text found in them wasn't given to them by the Apostles. They are from later hands, and other origins. We know what they are, and from what sources the are derived from.

Quote:Charley, I will not discuss this further in this thread,

Really... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Discuss this, Steve. Is The Khabouris Codex The Aramaic New Testament? If you don't think so, what do you say it is then?

.
They are Aramaic New Testaments though <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

I am an Aramaic Peshitta Primacist to the bone, but I still find Akh Steve's work fascinating.
Those are versions of the New Testament in Aramaic, Dylan. A big difference from being The Aramaic New Testament.

Why? Because they are not the same as it is. They are translations of a particular Greek text, and a hybrid text, mixing some from this source, and some from that source.

Dylan, if we ever find an Aramaic Peshitta manuscript from the 1st century, or even the 2nd century, or the 3rd, which contain the words and text, as Steve has given there, then it may be worth it to have a copy around. Otherwise, it is just his hobby horse, and for some reason, he likes to think of it as "The Aramaic New Testament". It's not.
Quote:Really... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Yep. It would give me dyspepsia. So back to the topic of the Khabouris:

Quote:Is The Khabouris Codex The Aramaic New Testament? If you don't think so, what do you say it is then?

The Khabouris Codex is an exemplary copy of the Eastern Peshitta, no more and no less. The Peshitta is an Aramaic New Testament tradition -- along with the others I have mentioned. It doesn't have any sort of monopoly on this title, as it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

It's a New Testament. It's in Syriac Aramaic. It's an Aramaic New Testament. Fairly straightforward. Opining over it otherwise is to don the kilt. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The fact that it's now in Hobby Lobby's hands is lamentable. I'd more like to discuss those implications.

Peace,
-Steve
Pages: 1 2 3 4