Peshitta Forum

Full Version: The Antioch Bible
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Gorgias Press, <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gorgiaspress.com/">http://www.gorgiaspress.com/</a><!-- m -->, has just started releasing "The Antioch Bible" which is the first English translation of the Peshitta. The books are beautifully done showing Syriac on the right side pages and English on the left. They are expensive and cost $150 per book but you can be put on a subscriber list receiving one book per month for $75.

I realize this forum is not a scholars forum but wonder the difference between Lamsa's Peshitta differs that much to justify the cost of The Antioch Bible. I do not read Syriac. Any takers?
Don't waste all that money!!!

Contrary to the claim there, it isn't a real The Peshitta if they have translated from a version of it which adds a number of verses and passages along with a few books taken from the Greek version to the original Aramaic New Testament text.

The Greek-shitta, hybrid text is NOT to be confused with The Aramaic New Testament: The Peshitta.
Lamsa's work is far outdated and despite Charley's (Thirdwoe's) doomsaying, the Antioch Bible is probably going to be one of the most comprehensive translations of the Peshitta to date. It is being translated and edited by a team that includes some of the foremost Syriac scholars of our era, and it's of very high quality.

However, I agree that $75-$150 per volume (even in nice leather binding) is a bit too rich for my blood. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Peace,
-Steve
It is taken from a West Syrian version of the 1887-91 Peshitta Mosul text. I would have thought they would have taken it from an Eastern Syrian version thereby keeping out any Western influence.

Not sure what you mean by Greek-shitta and Aramaic New Testament Peshitta Charley so if you can elaborate.

thanks

TF

Thirdwoe Wrote:Don't waste all that money!!!

Contrary to their claim there, it isn't The Peshitta they have translated from, but rather, a version of it which adds to its original text, a number of verses and passages along with a few books taken from the Greek version.

The Greek-shitta, hybrid text is NOT to be confused with The Aramaic New Testament: The Peshitta.
I don't know if having this Bible would benefit me since I do not know Syriac and if there are many "changes" from the MT or any other translation. What do you think? Also I agree as far as the pricing. It would cost someone at least $2000 to complete the books in entirety.

Thanks

TF

SteveCaruso Wrote:Lamsa's work is far outdated and despite Charley's (Thirdwoe's) doomsaying, the Antioch Bible is probably going to be one of the most comprehensive translations of the Peshitta to date. It is being translated and edited by a team that includes some of the foremost Syriac scholars of our era, and it's of very high quality.

However, I agree that $75-$150 per volume (even in nice leather binding) is a bit too rich for my blood. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Peace,
-Steve
Quote:It is taken from a West Syrian version of the 1887-91 Peshitta Mosul text. I would have thought they would have taken it from an Eastern Syrian version thereby keeping out any Western influence.

The Greek-shitta, hybrid text is an altered version of The Original form of The True Aramaic New Testament Text. These later versions of its original Text add in various verses from the Greek version, which were never part of the Original Aramaic New Testament Text... Plus they add the Western Five books, and still call it "The Peshitta".

One can keep adding things to an original 57 Chevy, and changing things out that they want it to have, but it alters the original 57 Chevy and renders it something else. When a guy wants to have a real original 57 Chevy, he looks for one that has not been altered or revised.

I haven't looked it over yet, but I would guess that their text is not what we find in the real Aramaic New Testament. but rather an altered version of its Text, and if so, then their translations will follow that altered text.

.
There's still a lot of good to be gleaned from the Western Peshitta text, bud. I'm excited for the Antioch Bible and look forward to getting it at some point! $75 a volume for thirty volumes is staggering for me though. lol
Quote:There's still a lot of good to be gleaned from the Western Peshitta text, bud.

Like what, bud?
So what do you recommend one read both Old and New Testament English?

TF

Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:It is taken from a West Syrian version of the 1887-91 Peshitta Mosul text. I would have thought they would have taken it from an Eastern Syrian version thereby keeping out any Western influence.

The Greek-shitta, hybrid text is an altered version of The Original form of The True Aramaic New Testament Text. These later versions of its original Text add in various verses from the Greek version, which were never part of the Original Aramaic New Testament Text... Plus they add the Western Five books, and still call it "The Peshitta".

One can keep adding things to an original 57 Chevy, and changing things out that they want it to have, but it alters the original 57 Chevy and renders it something else. When a guy wants to have a real original 57 Chevy, he looks for one that has not been altered or revised.

I haven't looked it over yet, but I would guess that their text is not what we find in the real Aramaic New Testament. but rather an altered version of its Text, and if so, then their translations will follow that altered text.

.
The main thing is that it's only majorly different from the Eastern text in two places.
What may they be?

TF

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:The main thing is that it's only majorly different from the Eastern text in two places.
So does the Original form of the True Aramaic New Testament text exist today?
If so under what name is it and where can it be had?

TF

Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:It is taken from a West Syrian version of the 1887-91 Peshitta Mosul text. I would have thought they would have taken it from an Eastern Syrian version thereby keeping out any Western influence.

The Greek-shitta, hybrid text is an altered version of The Original form of The True Aramaic New Testament Text. These later versions of its original Text add in various verses from the Greek version, which were never part of the Original Aramaic New Testament Text... Plus they add the Western Five books, and still call it "The Peshitta".

One can keep adding things to an original 57 Chevy, and changing things out that they want it to have, but it alters the original 57 Chevy and renders it something else. When a guy wants to have a real original 57 Chevy, he looks for one that has not been altered or revised.

I haven't looked it over yet, but I would guess that their text is not what we find in the real Aramaic New Testament. but rather an altered version of its Text, and if so, then their translations will follow that altered text.

.
The differences between the Eastern and Western texts also demonstrate that a very large number of Aramaic Christians -- the vast majority even -- were not Aramaic Primacists, but Greek Primacists. They saw the missing books as an incomplete Bible and that the Eastern tradition was far too textually conservative with its inclusions, opting to be more inclusive. This is also evidenced in subsequent Syriac translations of the New Testament, such as the Philoxenian and Harklean (and a few others that didn't even get names).

There is quite a lot to learn. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The major differences are threefold:

1) The Eastern tradition doesn't have the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11) where some (but not all) Western texts do. This pericope is a funny one, though, as it doesn't always appear in John in the same place in different manuscript traditions in any language, either, nor even in John in some cases (a half dozen manuscripts place it in Luke). As such it is believed to be a late addition, but one that was almost universally accepted as indicative of Jesus' character and teaching.

2) The Eastern tradition does not have 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation. Various denominations were chewing upon whether these books were canon or not for a long while.

3) In Hebrews 2:9 there is a difference due to a theological and/or translational dispute over the nature of Jesus vis-a-vis God. The Eastern reading is "for he, apart from God, tasted death" where the Western reading is "for God himself, by his grace, tasted death."

All other differences are mere trifles.


Sadly, we do not have the original of any Biblical documents, today. Only copies of copies.

Peace,
-Steve
The primary differences are in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, which seem to be different due to theological differences among Eastern and Western Assyrian Christians.

Acts 20:28 (Eastern)- "...feed the church of Meshikha, which He purchased with his own blood..."

Acts 20:28 (Western)- "...feed the church of Alaha, which He purchased with his own blood..."

Hebrews 2:9 (Eastern)- "...He, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man..."

Hebrews 2:9 (Western)- "...God, in His grace, tasted death for every man..."
Thanks Steve and Scorpio. That surely is not much to fret over knowing only 2 verses were in dispute.

TF
Pages: 1 2