Peshitta Forum
Couple of questions - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Couple of questions (/showthread.php?tid=2384)

Pages: 1 2


Re: Couple of questions - Andrej - 09-07-2010

Thank you once more for your answer. i will ask you one more time for patience, as i will, again, clarify myself:
Reading 1 John 5:7-8, i see some disagreement not only in arrangement.

Let me demonstrate by quoting the entire two verses from the three translations:
Etheridge:
And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are in one.

Murdock:
(For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.) And there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.

Lamsa:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

though Etheridge's vs.7-8 has the same text as Lamsa's v.8 and it was split up in two verses, Etheridge does not, however, have the v.7 found in Lamsa's. Murdock, however, simply put v.7 in brackets, being in the middle of the two.

Looking at the Syriac, it seems that the BFBS/UBS has the long form, whereas the Khabouris has the short form. i am uncertain if this is the proper way to include Syriac text here, but i will just copy/paste (Edit: didn't work, i will try thisSmile:

BFBS/UBS:
wrwh mshd dhy rwh ytyh srr . wytyhwn tlt shdyn rwh wmy wdm wtltyhwn bhd nwn .

Khabouris:
. Jwn0 dxb Jwhytltw . 0mdw 0ymw 0xwr Nydhs Flt Jwhyty0w

Even if the formatting will mess up, you can clearly see there are more words in the BFBS/UBS, right?

So, maybe you were saying that there is no theological difference here, or maybe you do not approve of one of the Syriac versions, of i misunderstood you else-how, but please have patience and explain, as i have already learned so many valuable things from you and you seem to be the most pleasant person around here.


Re: Couple of questions - Burning one - 09-08-2010

Andrej Wrote:Thank you once more for your answer. i will ask you one more time for patience, as i will, again, clarify myself:
Reading 1 John 5:7-8, i see some disagreement not only in arrangement.

Let me demonstrate by quoting the entire two verses from the three translations:
Etheridge:
And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are in one.

Murdock:
(For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.) And there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.

Lamsa:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

though Etheridge's vs.7-8 has the same text as Lamsa's v.8 and it was split up in two verses, Etheridge does not, however, have the v.7 found in Lamsa's. Murdock, however, simply put v.7 in brackets, being in the middle of the two.

Looking at the Syriac, it seems that the BFBS/UBS has the long form, whereas the Khabouris has the short form. i am uncertain if this is the proper way to include Syriac text here, but i will just copy/paste (Edit: didn't work, i will try thisSmile:

BFBS/UBS:
wrwh mshd dhy rwh ytyh srr . wytyhwn tlt shdyn rwh wmy wdm wtltyhwn bhd nwn .

Khabouris:
. Jwn0 dxb Jwhytltw . 0mdw 0ymw 0xwr Nydhs Flt Jwhyty0w

Even if the formatting will mess up, you can clearly see there are more words in the BFBS/UBS, right?

So, maybe you were saying that there is no theological difference here, or maybe you do not approve of one of the Syriac versions, of i misunderstood you else-how, but please have patience and explain, as i have already learned so many valuable things from you and you seem to be the most pleasant person around here.


Shlama, Andrewj,


no problem with questions, so let's try explaining it this way: i'm going to post the English versions available at Dukhrana, and then what is ACTUALLY in those specific verses in the two Aramaic texts also available at Dukhrana, and you can see for yourself what is actually in the text, and what is implied by the translators.

5:6 (Etheridge) This is he who came by water and blood, Jeshu the Meshiha: it was not by water only, but by water and blood; and the Spirit testifieth, because the Spirit himself is truth.

5:6 (Murdock) This is he who came by the water and the blood. Jesus the Messiah; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit testifieth; because the Spirit is truth.

5:6 (Lamsa) This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth.

5:6 (KJV) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

The text as contained in the UBS for verse 6:
This is he who came by water and blood, Jeshu the Meshiha: it was not by water only, but by water and blood;

The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 6:
This is he who came by water and blood, Jeshu the Meshiha: it was not by water only, but by water and blood; and the Spirit testifieth, because the Spirit himself is truth.

5:7 (Etheridge) And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood;

5:7 (Murdock) [For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.]

5:7 (Lamsa) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one

5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The text as contained in the UBS for verse 7:
and the Spirit testifieth, because the Spirit himself is truth.

The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 7:
And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood;

5:8 (Etheridge) and these three are in one.

5:8 (Murdock) And there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.

5:8 (Lamsa) And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

5:8 (KJV) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The text as contained in the UBS for verse 8:
And there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.

The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 8:
and these three are in one.


okay, now that we have the list, check them out verse-by-verse to see uncontestedly what is actually in the two Aramaic versions:

The text as contained in the UBS for verse 6:
This is he who came by water and blood, Jeshu the Meshiha: it was not by water only, but by water and blood;
The text as contained in the UBS for verse 7:
and the Spirit testifieth, because the Spirit himself is truth.
The text as contained in the UBS for verse 8:
And there are three witnesses, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.

The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 6:
This is he who came by water and blood, Jeshu the Meshiha: it was not by water only, but by water and blood; and the Spirit testifieth, because the Spirit himself is truth.
The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 7:
And there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood;
The text as contained in the Khabouris for verse 8:
and these three are in one.

you have to disregard the "variant" in the English versions of Murdock and Lamsa, because they make you think there is content in the Peshitta that is not actually there. what i have listed in the two above verse-by-verse passages is what is actually found in the text of the Peshitta. the passage "[For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.]" is not in the Peshitta.

this goes along with what i mentioned in an email to you about how some English translations of the Peshitta are "liberal" in their approach. so there is no Aramaic variant in 1st John -- only the insertion of a Greek variant into the English translation -- which makes absolutely no sense.

well, i hope that helps to clarify the issue with these verses. if not, please keep asking, and maybe we can go another route for explanation.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Couple of questions - Andrej - 09-08-2010

Thank you very much for taking so much time for my questions. Now i understand, i did not realize the misalignment starts in verse 6. You are truly doing something great for me.


Re: Couple of questions - Andrej - 09-12-2010

Okay, hoping someone will read this, i will ask a few of the questions again:

1) What is the best way to approach Aramaic/Syriac studying for non-Syriac speaking people like me? i made use of the Peshitta at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta</a><!-- m -->. It is quite helpful and organized. Looking at the analysis (e.g. this one), i noticed a kind of number reference system (simply called "ID", like Strong's). Is that system widely established/accepted? Does anyone have a list of extensive dictionaries? Is there any software (i have the module for e-Sword, but that's kind of a very little start, considering i have access to so many resources on the Greek in programs like Libronix)?

2) Is there any kind of complete reference for differences between the Greek and the Syriac texts? Or a Greek-Syriac-English interlinear?

3) Which Greek Manuscript comes closest to the Syriac text? Or which Family? Or is this undiscernable?

4) Can anyone provide me with a list of (preferably published) books pro Aramaic Primacy / con Aramaic Primacy? The more books on the list, the better. Interestingly, it is quite hard to find more than a handful of books on this topic, and i guess this could be a FAQ topic.


Re: Couple of questions - IPOstapyuk - 12-18-2011

Andrey,
I see you visited the forum more then 1 month ago.
I was just recently registered but I have wish to help you in these questions.
The discussion was pretty long ago but the questions are actual.

Quote:1) What is the best way to approach Aramaic/Syriac studying for non-Syriac speaking people like me? i made use of the Peshitta at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta</a><!-- m -->. It is quite helpful and organized. Looking at the analysis (e.g. this one), i noticed a kind of number reference system (simply called "ID", like Strong's). Is that system widely established/accepted? Does anyone have a list of extensive dictionaries? Is there any software (i have the module for e-Sword, but that's kind of a very little start, considering i have access to so many resources on the Greek in programs like Libronix)?

I stay with dukhrana.com, usually I like to edit the 3 english translations with the Greek and Latin and read the Peshitta comparing to the translations which are as targums for me.
Forget about different dictionaries, commercial books etc. Words go though evolution thus changing their meanings/adding/subtracting. Study word meaning by the context to what it belongs.

Quote:2) Is there any kind of complete reference for differences between the Greek and the Syriac texts? Or a Greek-Syriac-English interlinear?

Why do you need it, why to overload your head? The life is to short.
Find something more useful.

Quote:3) Which Greek Manuscript comes closest to the Syriac text? Or which Family? Or is this undiscernable?

I admit that it is NT text of the Greek Orthodox church.

Quote:4) Can anyone provide me with a list of (preferably published) books pro Aramaic Primacy / con Aramaic Primacy? The more books on the list, the better. Interestingly, it is quite hard to find more than a handful of books on this topic, and i guess this could be a FAQ topic.

1. Very good book in pdf format is "Was the new testament really written in greek?" by Rafael Lancaster.
2. Download "wesite downloader" from the Internet and download all this forum for offline browsing.

Ivan.