Peshitta Forum

Hi, I noticed that David Bauscher has now translated the Torah into English, a interlinear. Has anyone brought a copy yet ?
This is good news, God willing I will buy a copy.

"The Written Law"

:

He sent me a free PDF copy, havent looked it over just yet. I read the intro to it though, and you can see right there his belief that the Eastern Peshitta NT is a corruption, and not the Western Peshitto version, which he thinks is the original God inspired New Testament.

He uses the CAL Peshitta OT text as his base, but mixes it with some other Aramaic MS texts where he feels has the right/best reading.
Not sure where as yet. If you read the intro, you can see that David likes to think that what he does in his translations is along the lines of restoring the Original Bible text, so he goes long on trying to prove that his version's source texts are the special ones, where others all fail the test in some way, so his translations are the good ones. I feel he needs to feel this way about it, in order to make it worth the trip. Just an observation, based on reading his statements and talking with him online.

But, it's good to see the text, in any fashion, seeing the light of day in English, since all we have had till now is Lamsa's version. I think Andrew Roth is at work on his POT version as well...and he better make sure he does it the right way too, or Dave will accuse him again of stealing and lying... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

One day it seems, Dukhrana.com will have the Peshitta OT up online, so we can check for our self. We can now though, at CAL, but it's a bit troublesome...


Blessings,
Chuck

.

Thirdwoe Wrote::

He sent me a free PDF copy, havent looked it over just yet. I read the intro to it though, and you can see right there his belief that the Eastern Peshitta NT is a corruption, and not the Western Peshitto version, which he thinks is the original God inspired New Testament.

He uses the CAL Peshitta OT text as his base, but mixes it with some other Aramaic MS texts where he feels has the right/best reading.
Not sure where as yet. If you read the intro, you can see that David likes to think that what he does in his translations is along the lines of restoring the Original Bible text, so he goes long on trying to prove that his version's source texts are the special ones, where others all fail the test in some way, so his translations are the good ones. I feel he needs to feel this way about it, in order to make it worth the trip. Just an observation, based on reading his statements and talking with him online.

But, it's good to see the text, in any fashion, seeing the light of day in English, since all we have had till now is Lamsa's version. I think Andrew Roth is at work on his POT version as well...and he better make sure he does it the right way too, or Dave will accuse him again of stealing and lying... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

One day it seems, Dukhrana.com will have the Peshitta OT up online, so we can check for our self. We can now though, at CAL, but it's a bit troublesome...


Blessings,
Chuck

.

Shlama,


both endeavors are HUGE and i hope they render fine end-products for the sake of all believers.

CAL does show variant readings for the Peshitta AN"K, so i'd be interested in knowing how the specific readings were chosen, etc.. for me personally, i will stick with the Hebrew Masoretic text foremost, and still compare with the DSS as available, the Peshitta AN"K, and the targums, where available.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Thirdwoe wrote:

Quote:his belief that the Eastern Peshitta NT is a corruption, and not the Western Peshitto version, which he thinks is the original God inspired New Testament.

Based on what is his statement? His numerical calculations??

:

Yes, because of his code research and his doctrinal bias, where he told me he believes that not only did Jesus die on the Cross, but also The Father and The Holy Spirit died as well, just before the physical body of Jesus died. It gets pretty out there, so I wont get into it here...

ScorpioSniper2 wrote:

Quote:"The Written Law"

The ONLY law as nothing can be added or subtracted
especially commandments of men.

Just stating how he translates "namusa" <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="" title="Cool" /><!-- s --> I can't remember exactly where it is, but Bauscher sometimes translates "namusa" as "Written Law" when the passage has nothing to do with the Mosaic Torah.

Philippians 3:6 for instance.

ScorpioSniper2 wrote:

Quote:but Bauscher sometimes translates "namusa" as "Written Law"

This is an example of a corruption.
Why to break head thinking why and who did Greek text corruptions?
Namusa is loan Greek word for "nomos" = "law".
In the original it does not says "kthiva namusa".
It is one more proof that we have to know Original text.
Philippians 3:6
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]tywh Ny4r fd 0swmnd Fwqydzbw Fd9d 0pwdr 0nn=b[/font]

I believe that Bauscher tries to help people understand better like
e.g Mark.1:2
Mark 1:2 - As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger before your face, that he may prepare your way,
In Official Greek Orthodox Church NT
it says "as it is written in the prophets"...
here probably a copyist added "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet"
to help people and he thought he was improving the text.

Hi IPOstapyuk,

To tell you the truth, Yishayahu / Eshaya the prophet is in the Aramaic NT.

"in the prophets" is probably a textual corruption.

~ DC

I bought a copy of the Torah interlinear, and it looks pretty good to me. Sure is interesting reading!

I notice Chuck claims that I say in the introduction that the Eastern text is corrupted. That is simply a lie. I have never said or written any such thing, nor would I. I have the utmost respect for the Eastern text. That I prefer the Western text does not mean I am an enemy of or opposed to the Eastern Peshitta. Both versions are extremely similar, in both Testaments. The vast majority of differences are spelling and minor Waw & Dalet proclitics, and some pronoun enclitics. Very few changes in meaning are involved between them.

If you want to slander me, Chuck, at least have the decency to quote your source correctly. But that is not what slanderers do, is it Chuck?

Bible codes and theology also had nothing to do with my statement about the Eastern Peshitta's uniform spelling of Israel in the NT, as opposed to 3 variations of its spelling in similar proportions in the critical edition of the Peshitta NT and in the Peshitta OT. Those are simply mathematical facts, having nothing to do with Bible codes or doctrine.

Shlama,

Dave Bauscher

Dave,

I take no offense from your words there...and it's not just what you said in your intro to your interlinear renderings of the Aramaic Torah, which shows what you believe about the Eastern Peshitta text...that in your mind it's not the Original Aramaic NT, but an altered/corrupted one, while the Western Peshitto version, which you use, is what you believe to be the inspired and un-altered/corrupted Aramaic NT.

Yes, It is, for the most part, the same as the Eastern Peshitta as to its textual content, but... IT IS (the Peshitto) the altered/corrupted version, no doubt about it. No matter what those flawed imaginary "codes" and wrong doctrinal biases might have caused you to believe.

In our conversations in the past, you have said that you believe that the Eastern Peshitta has been altered through doctrinal bias of those of The Church of the East...and not the Western Peshitto by it's editors. Do you now deny this?

I haven't read through your renderings of the Torah yet, Dave, but you seem to be more careful in your interlinear work, so it might be rather good. Looking forward to going through it.

And this is what I actually said, Dave.

Quote:I read the intro to it though, and you can see right there his belief that the Eastern Peshitta NT is a corruption

But you said:

Quote:Chuck claims that I say in the introduction that the Eastern text is corrupted. That is simply a lie. I have never said or written any such thing, nor would I.

But, as you can see, I didn't say that you said the Eastern Peshitta is a corruption in your Peshitta Torah intro, but that you "can see" your belief that it is so, by your statements there. Never said you said it outright, which would indeed be a lie....I know you are careful not to show your hand in this regard, but I have seen what you are holding, because you showed it to me before.

There are a few very important changes made in the Western Peshitto version, which does alter doctrine...

Shlama,
Chuck

IPOstapyuk Wrote:ScorpioSniper2 wrote:

Quote:but Bauscher sometimes translates "namusa" as "Written Law"

I believe that Bauscher tries to help people understand better like
e.g Mark.1:2
Mark 1:2 - As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger before your face, that he may prepare your way,
In Official Greek Orthodox Church NT
it says "as it is written in the prophets"...
here probably a copyist added "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet"
to help people and he thought he was improving the text.

You cannot know which one is exactly Original. I've been trying to read the evangelion di Mepharreshe. At some place, it literrally adds the Greek translation 'in Greek it is Petros', while no other Greek NT needs to add this, but the Aramaic scribe thought to clear this up by adding it.
An Aramaic name, cleared up in Aramaic text by adding the Greek translation? This is indication that the evangelion di Mepharreshe is a translation of the Greek.

In addition, I found some wordplays that the Peshitta has, but it also lacks a few! (
Maybe you can compare that, since you can read Syriac now.(And I don't)

So, it is very likely that the Mepharreshe is a translation of the Greek. Now wonder, if the wordplays automatically come in place, one could say: "Well, Jeshu spoke Aramaic, so translated from Greek to Syriac, it automatically starts having pun and wordplays."
But if that codex, lacks a lot of wordplays, which the Peshitta does have, can you say which document is _more_ original?

I did not read Mphareshe so know not what to say.

I am just curious when Peshitto/Peshitta originated.
I mean when the first differences were noticed.
As mush as I know schism in the COE was around 1500.
When 5 extra books started to be used?
Maybe somebody can explain an a nutshell?

David and Chuck, I believe you are both right.
I read yesterday David's books and I thought I was something but now I am almost nothing compared to the scholarship of David and his linguistic knowledge.
Chuck, please come up with your Peshitta/Peshitto variations in a different post.
People must know the truth.