Peshitta Forum
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? (/showthread.php?tid=2927)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-03-2013

Hi Chuck,
my question is why replaced the Peshitta the 4 gospel version so late (5th century) in the Syriac/Aramaic churches?
By the way for me is the Peshitta very useful to understand the teachings of Yeshua better and solves a lot of contradictions in the many different Greek versions, that is the important point for me, not if the NT was first written in Aramaic ( it looks like that, for me as well for good reasons) or not!
Chuck what do you say to this:
From an exhaustive study of the quotations in the earliest Syriac Fathers, and, in particular, of the works of Ephraem Syrus, Professor Burkitt concludes that the Peshitta did not exist in the 4th century. He finds that Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation, although "his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them.Such quotations as are found in other extant remains of Syriac literature before the 5th century bear a greater resemblance to the readings of the Curetonian and the Sinaitic than to the readings of the Peshitta. Internal and external evidence alike point to the later and revised character of the Peshitta.


Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 02-03-2013

Mic,

It was the western Syriac speaking churches, which were influenced by the Greeks and Latins, who changed their copies, not the Eastern Aramaic Church of the East, which has never changed their copies to conform to the Greek or Latin versions.

The Syrian Orthodox Bishop, Rabbula of Edessa, decided to replace the Diatessaron, which they had used for a long time, instead of The Peshitta, which (the Diatessaron) was edited from. What they did then, was to take the Peshitta text, and edit it to more conform to what was in the Greek text they were influenced by and in doing so, helped to make them more acceptable to the leaders of the Greek and Latin churches they were close to.

The Church of the East was not so inclined, and had never had Tatian's Diatessaron version as a replacement of the Peshitta's four separate Gospels in their Parishes.

Burkitt was very mistaken, if he thought that The Aramaic text as found in the Eastern Peshitta didn?t exist before the 4th century. What did all the Parishes of the Church of the East, East of the Euphrates River, use as their Bible then? The Greek version? What did the Aramaic speaking Church of the East in India use as their Bible? The Greek version?

As to what Mr. Burkitt says here: "Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation, although "his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them."

Ok...yes. And these were Aramaic Scriptures, not Greek or Latin versions. So he admits that The Aramaic NT was existing in the mid-4th century about 350 A.D. the same time that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was produced... and Jerome knew of their existence?and did he (Burkitt) think that it (the Aramaic Text) just appeared at that time? The Diatessaron was made from the Aramaic Gospel's about 160 A.D. and there has always been the separate Aramaic Gospels since at least 78 A.D.

But, he says there, that what is found in The Peshitta is not what St. Ephraem quotes from, but rather, what?s found in the Curetonian and the Sinaitic Palmipsest (old scratch) versions. Really? ...show me some verses...and I'll check them out. I have copies of the Manuscripts all here to verify. But, I have found that the readings of the Diatessaron and The Peshitta...are most always the same. I've looked at them closely.

And please know...ALL versions of the Aramaic Scriptures, mistakes or not, say the very same thing, as to the overall Message of the NT. But the Eastern Peshitta Text, when all things are considered, is indeed the Original form of the Aramaic NT. And I believe that it was given to The Christians of The Church of the East by the Apostles, as they have always maintained, even the Syrian Orthodox says this.

Was it a translation of the 1st century Greek version though? It doesn?t seem so to me, as we can't find any Greek textual family that lines up with it, but many of their peculiar readings can be found in The Peshitta, and not the other way around, indicating that The Aramaic was the Original source of all of the various Greek versions, and the original Greek scribes who made the various 1st translations of the Aramaic, had their various renderings and peculiar readings?and mistakes crept in over the centuries that followed with the many thousands of copies that were made.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-04-2013

Hi Chuck,
i am always wondering about you, because if a 4 gospel version was existing, it does not mean that the Peshitta did already exist!
You said:
"As to what Mr. Burkitt says here: "Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation, although "his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems occasionally to have quoted from them."

For me it looks like this: in an early stage there was a 4 gospel version in use, the Diatessaron was made from them and not from the Peshitta!
As you wrote by your self: " The Diatessaron was made from the Aramaic Gospel's about 160 A.D. and there has always been the separate Aramaic Gospels since at least 78 A.D. " Again this is not the Peshitta right? The Peshitta is a complete NT canon of 22 books, not only 4 gospels!

My question was: why did the Peshitta replaced so late the 4 gospel version? Do you have any idea about that?
If you say that Burkitt was wrong, so you have to explain why and must give facts for your position, not what you believe....
I have Burkitt's book and he quotes a lot of examples, you must deal with this examples to proof if he is right or wrong!

Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 02-05-2013

Mic,

I'm not going to write you a book...

It's very easy to know what the truth is about this...you don't need me or Mr. Burkitt to convince you. Just use your common sense.

There is and was a CHURCH in the East...and they all spoke/speak Aramaic. And they had The Aramaic Old and Aramaic New Testament Bible. Easy to understand right? This Church...The Church of the East was not without God's Holy Word, including all the Letters of the Apostles for 300+years years!!! They had them my friend.

Do you think that they were without it, while all other Christians had it all that time? Do you think that they were forced to listen to the Greek version, which they did not understand for 300+years? No sir. Go ask any of these Christians who are part of this ancient Church and they will tell you the truth.

The reason the four Gospels are only mentioned, is that the Aramaic Church, always keeps the Gospels in a separate volume, and the Letters of the Apostles in another volume...even to this day. The Four Gospels are considered to be in a special place in the cannon and they are set out as such in the Parishes.

Mr. Burkitt thinks (wrongly) that "The Peshitta" was created by Bishop Rabbula in the mid-4th century!!!...but that is insane, because the Church or the East had these same books (22) all that time, from the 1st century on. But they did not call it "The Peshitta"....that word "Peshitta" didn't come into existence until around the 10th century. Before that time, it was just The Aramaic Scriptures...Old and New Testaments.

Why are you having a hard time believing this truth? Does it bother you that the Greek version was not the only thing around? The Latin version was around too you know...for those who spoke only in Latin. Irenaeus quotes from the old Latin NT in about 180 A.D.

Go get yourself a copy of the Diatessaron and compare it with the readings of The Peshitta...and you will see where the Diatessaron came from. I have done that work...and you can too...it?s not too hard, takes about a month.

The Four Gospels in a separate volume on the Church altar with the date of 78 A.D. was part of The Aramaic NT, which has been passed down from the Apostles till today, as found in The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta New Testament. It hasn't been changed all these years.

If you don't want to believe this...then that's your choice. Why do you find it so hard to? Or, is it that you don't want to believe it?

Shlama,
Chuck

.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Burning one - 02-05-2013

Shlama,

It should probably be clarified here that when Chuck says Burkitt is WRONG, he's asserting something that is understood also amongst scholars of the Greek texts, such as Arthur Voobus, whose work utterly disproved Burkitt's proposals about the provenance of the Eastern Peshitta text. You can this info in books, online, and likely elsewhere on this site using the search option. This has all been discussed before on this very site. Just a suggestion for those who might want to save some time.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 02-05-2013

Mic,

"Ephrem, who lived about the year of Christ 370, quotes the New Testament according to the Syriac version now extant. See his Syriac works, published at Rome, Vol. 1, pages 18, 37, 137, 189, 221, 313, 318, 357, 395, where we find the following passages quoted from our literal Syriac version: John 1:3, John 13:16, Col. 3:5, Gal. 1:1, Mt. 22:40, Eph. 2:19, I Tim. 6:6, I Pet. 1:11, Mt. 3:17, Lk. 1:78, and Gal. 3:13. It is true that some examples in his quotations are somewhat different, where he either quoted from memory, or found in his copy a reading different from our own, but it is certain that he used the Peshitta. The foregoing observation was first made by my father, in his Remarks on Bengel?s Treatise de Sinceritate N. T. Tuenda. Ridley, in his Dissertation De Versionibus Syriacis N. T., Section 7, carried the investigation still further; but the most complete and most accurate treatise on this subject is Storr?s Observationes Super N. T. Versionibus Syriacis. Ephrem, in his exposition of the Old Testament, refers constantly to the Syriac version; and as every Christian would begin his translation of the Bible with the part which is the most important, the version of the New Testament must have been made long before the time of Ephrem."

Source of qoute:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx21631/textual-criticism-general-discussion-f18/the-peshitta--michaelis-introduction-t265.html">http://tcg.iphpbb3.com/forum/64774768nx ... -t265.html</a><!-- m -->

.


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-09-2013

Hi Chuck,
followring your link i found this in context:

The subscription of a Syriac manuscript of the four Gospels, mentioned in the second volume of Assemani, page 486, goes so far as to determine the name of the translator. The words are as follows: ?At Edessa was a written Gospel, ancient but still legible. Not a single iota was erased, and it could more easily be read than many modern books, but by reason of its great age the first ten leaves had been lost. At the end was the following subscription: ?This sacred book was finished on Wednesday the eighteenth day of the first month Conun (December), in the year 389 (of the Greeks, i.e., in the year of Christ 78), by
the hand of the Apostle Achaeus, a fellow-laborer of Mar Maris, and a disciple of the Apostle Mar Adaeus, whom we entreat to pray for us. Amen.??
But Ridley, in his dissertation De Syriacis Versionibus Novi Testamenti, page 20, has made very weighty objections: (1) If Achaeus be the same person whose name is sometimes written Aghaeus, who is described as the successor of Thaddaeus, and predecessor of Mar Maris at Edessa, it cannot possibly have been written in 78, because Achaeus died in 48. (2) At least three of the Gospels, and the epistles, were not written before his death. To these objections it may be added that even in the year 78, the several books of the New Testament could hardly have been collected into a volume, an event which undoubtedly took place before the Syriac version was made.....

You quoted only a part and forgot the look at the next section in context!

About Ephrem, he quoted the Peshitta in the 4th century, we know that it did exist in that time already from the colophon in the KHABOURIS CODEX, the colophon says that the copy of the Peshitta (Khabouris Codex) was made from an original in the time of the great persecution in the Persian Empire called "radptha rabba", which was in the 4th century under Shapur II (310-379 AD)! That fits very well together!

So we have here a proof only, that the Peshitta did exist in the 4th century and we know that the Peshitta replaced the four gospel version in the 5th century in the Syria/Aramaic speaking churches (you never answered my question, why so late)!

Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-09-2013

Burning one Wrote:Shlama,

It should probably be clarified here that when Chuck says Burkitt is WRONG, he's asserting something that is understood also amongst scholars of the Greek texts, such as Arthur Voobus, whose work utterly disproved Burkitt's proposals about the provenance of the Eastern Peshitta text. You can this info in books, online, and likely elsewhere on this site using the search option. This has all been discussed before on this very site. Just a suggestion for those who might want to save some time.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
i never said that Burkitt was right, i only asked Chuck what he is thinking about Burkitt and that is why i quoted him!

Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 02-09-2013

:

Mic,

No conspiracy Mic...lol. I didn't even read all of that article, and gave the link so you and others could read the whole thing in context if desired...and just because something is said in an article, doesn't make it true. Most of what is said is opinions and guesses.

I have said all along that what was seen on the altar with a date of 78 A.D. was the Gospels, as that has always been the way The Church of the East was had it...in a separate volume. To this day. But that doesn't mean that the Apostolic Letters were not also given to The Church of the East as well during that time.

The Aramaic Scriptures are not "late", Mic...they didn't just appear one day in the 4th or 5th century. They were used by The Aramaic speaking Church of the East all along, and they existed since the 1st century. Even the Syrian Orthodox Church says this...Maybe you think that all they had was a Greek Bible to read?

Listen Mic, you are free to continue to believe what you like, it won't bug me if you don't think or believe like I do. And you are free to read and study any version of the Bible you like. I read and study from the Aramaic, Greek and Latin versions all the time.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-09-2013

Hi Chuck,
we really have a problem, you are talking about "believe", believe is a very personal thing which i always will respect!
What i am looking for is historical or other real facts and they are rare if it comes to the Peshitta!

It looks like no Aramaic church father is quoting the Peshitta before the 4th century, why if it exist much earlier?
Why replaced the Peshitta so late other gospel versions (5th century)?


It looks like you cannot or want not to answer this questions! So can please answer someone else them?

Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Burning one - 02-09-2013

mickoy Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,

It should probably be clarified here that when Chuck says Burkitt is WRONG, he's asserting something that is understood also amongst scholars of the Greek texts, such as Arthur Voobus, whose work utterly disproved Burkitt's proposals about the provenance of the Eastern Peshitta text. You can this info in books, online, and likely elsewhere on this site using the search option. This has all been discussed before on this very site. Just a suggestion for those who might want to save some time.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
i never said that Burkitt was right, i only asked Chuck what he is thinking about Burkitt and that is why i quoted him!

Kind regards
Michael


Shlama akhi,


and i never said that you said Burkitt was right - i offered further information collaborating the repuditation of Burkitt's assumptions concerning the Peshitta. for those interested, i suggested digging around on this site, as it has scattered discussions about the man's fallacious arguments.

to me, when both sides of an argument reject a person's proposal on the grounds of solid extant textul evidence, that individual's proposal becomes seen to be a waste of worthy time in a discussion that can be fruitful otherwise.

one thing i am curious about, tho: to what extent have you read the actual Peshitta in Aramaic? have you performed any depth of comparison textually to other versions? if so, how do you reconcile the vast amount of variant issues that plague other manuscripts, and yet disappear with surprising ease when one returns to the Peshitta's textual landscape, wherein they do not exist, or wherein they are explained as different definition possibilities of a single Aramaic word, or the fact that the Peshitta text is crowded with word-plays and puns and poetry that mirror astoundingly those found in the inspired Hebrew text of the Tanakh? what are your thoughts on all these "watermarks of authenticity" that point to the Peshitta as a source-document to some of the other Aramaic and many of the Greek manuscripts?

people's opinions vary, even in ancient times. but opinons are not worth all that much, as we all have them. but the text should prove or disprove anyone's theories about what came first, about what is inspired. i say, the opinions of so many church fathers are helpful at times, but the authority is not in their own words - the authority is in THE WORD. stop wasting so much time arguing over who said what and when they said it -- if you want answers that carry weight, look to the Spirit who wrote these Words, and look to the texts themselves and see which ones glow with the marks of divine inspiration.

that is just my opinion and advice. but nobody has to take my advice on here. i'm just one electronic voice amongst the myriad millions in cyberland!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Burning one - 02-09-2013

mickoy Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,

It should probably be clarified here that when Chuck says Burkitt is WRONG, he's asserting something that is understood also amongst scholars of the Greek texts, such as Arthur Voobus, whose work utterly disproved Burkitt's proposals about the provenance of the Eastern Peshitta text. You can this info in books, online, and likely elsewhere on this site using the search option. This has all been discussed before on this very site. Just a suggestion for those who might want to save some time.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
i never said that Burkitt was right, i only asked Chuck what he is thinking about Burkitt and that is why i quoted him!

Kind regards
Michael


Shlama akhi,


and i never said that you said Burkitt was right - i offered further information collaborating the repuditation of Burkitt's assumptions concerning the Peshitta. for those interested, i suggested digging around on this site, as it has scattered discussions about the man's fallacious arguments.

to me, when both sides of an argument reject a person's proposal on the grounds of solid extant textul evidence, that individual's proposal becomes seen to be a waste of worthy time in a discussion that can be fruitful otherwise.

one thing i am curious about, tho: to what extent have you read the actual Peshitta in Aramaic? have you performed any depth of comparison textually to other versions? if so, how do you reconcile the vast amount of variant issues that plague other manuscripts, and yet disappear with surprising ease when one returns to the Peshitta's textual landscape, wherein they do not exist, or wherein they are explained as different definition possibilities of a single Aramaic word, or the fact that the Peshitta text is crowded with word-plays and puns and poetry that mirror astoundingly those found in the inspired Hebrew text of the Tanakh? what are your thoughts on all these "watermarks of authenticity" that point to the Peshitta as a source-document to some of the other Aramaic and many of the Greek manuscripts?

people's opinions vary, even in ancient times. but opinons are not worth all that much, as we all have them. but the text should prove or disprove anyone's theories about what came first, about what is inspired. i say, the opinions of so many church fathers are helpful at times, but the authority is not in their own words - the authority is in THE WORD. stop wasting so much time arguing over who said what and when they said it -- if you want answers that carry weight, look to the Spirit who wrote these Words, and look to the texts themselves and see which ones glow with the marks of divine inspiration.

that is just my opinion and advice. but nobody has to take my advice on here. i'm just one electronic voice amongst the myriad millions in cyberland!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Burning one - 02-09-2013

Shlama Michael,


also, just to be clear -- i was not trying to interrupt your discussion with Chuck --- by all means continue as you desire.

if you do wish to reply further to my questions, you don't have to bog down this topic with them. it could be done elsewhere. but no pressure either way. just food for thought!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - mickoy - 02-09-2013

Hi Jeremy,
yes i compared a lot the Peshitta with other bibles and for me the result is that it is the best source to understand the teachings of Yeshua and it clears a lot of contradictions in the translations from the Greek versions!
But i have further interest in the History of the Peshitta and the bible in general!
I came a cross with the "other" church History,the History of the church of the East, widely ignored and unknown in the west!
Another point of interest of mine is: what did the first Christians (Nazarens/Ebionites) really believed, compared with what churches today are teaching?

You see a lot of questions which i try to answer!

Kind regards
Michael


Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - Thirdwoe - 02-09-2013

Mic,

No problem with me...I believe many things that are True, even though I can't totally give proof that it is true. But with The Aramaic Bible...there are a lot of things which point to it being from the 1st century and most likely the original form of the NT.

But, the facts seems to be, that there is little evidence to prove for certain it either way...as to when, by whom, and where the Aramaic Scriptures, OT & NT 1st came to be in this world. I wish you Godspeed in trying to discover the answers to those questions. Let us know what you find, so we can examine the evidence.

For me, like Jeremy has said, The Text speaks for itself and it is a wonderful text to behold, as you seem to agree. To me, it's like this. Aramaic Bible=Gold, Greek Bible=Silver, Latin Bible=Bronze. They all have their worth.

I haven't studied the Aramaic speaking Church Father's, so I can't say if those before the 4th century quotes from the Aramaic Bible or not...have you? Can you show me examples where this can be proven? If so, please do, as I would like to know what is really there or not in the record.

And remember, Tatian lived in 150 A.D. and he knew about the Aramaic Scriptures, he being an Assyrian. He edited The Aramaic NT and made the 1st Harmony of the four Gospel's readings. If you compare the Diatessaron's readings with those found in the current Peshitta Gospels, you will know how old the Aramaic of the Peshitta is. I have done this and am convinced.

Shlama,
Chuck