Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
With the help of Akhi Ivan, I have included the Mingana Ms. witness to the 21 verse/passage variants I have found so far between the Eastern Peshitta NT and the Western Peshitto version. Kahbouris=Eastern, UBS=Western in their readings. The Mingana info will be at the end of each of the verse/passage information.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Chuck,
what to do then with Khaboris/Mingana 148 variation:
Khaboris has "nations of the world"
Mingana 148 has "nations"...
?
Matthew 6:32
Hopefully I checked it correctly.
I do not have 3rd CoE text to check to except unversed Amshel(?)
OK, got it at 44443013-1-341
CoE text
at page 12 of the pdf, right lower corner and it
says "nations ".
This is a blow at CoE text, lets count it as possibly copyist mistake.
Reply
The Khabouris text of Matthew 6:32 is from a later scribe, not original Estrangela like the rest. Not sure what the original reading was for that verse.

Did you say that both Asahel Grant's Ms. and the 1886 COE printed text just has "the Nations" in their respective texts?
Reply
Thirdwoe wrote:
Quote:Did you say that both Asahel Grant's Ms. and the 1886 COE printed text just has "the Nations" in their respective texts?
Yes.
Asahel(1199 year) = Mingana 148 (1613 year) = "nations" in Matth. 6:32
Khaboris (around 1000 year) = "nations of the world", I believe the scribe did just mechanical mistake
since not all people are perfect.
Apostle Paul said that on witness 2 or 3 men every miltha would be established.
Reply
How about the Printed 1886 COE text you found the other day online, I can't read that script...I'll have to work on getting use to it.
Reply
I have edited the 1st entry to now read this way. It's a quandary for sure, this verse. Is it Eastern or Western in Origin?

1: Matthew 6:32
Khabouris Peshitta: The Khabouris, in it's secondary script (East Adiabene), which is a later scribal replacement page, has ?the Nations of the World.? as does Younan's Interlinear, Etheridge, Murdoch, Roth, Magiera, Alexander, Pashka, and Lamsa. The Curetonian text reads as The Khabouris Peshitta text does here. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. text in its extant 10th century Arabic translation from an 8th century Aramaic Ms. has the Khabouris Peshitta reading. Neither the Latin or any of the Greek versions have "of the World".

UBS Peshitto: has ?the Nations", as does Bauscher, Jahn, and A. Frances Werner. Lon Martin has "the heathen" and The Way International's ANT & MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) doesn't have "d'Alma" (of the World) in that Aramaic MS. The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the UBS text and the 1199 A.D. "Asahel Grant" Ms. does too, both being clearly Eastern Peshitta Ms....which begs the question...is the reading "of the World" actually an Eastern Peshitta reading?

.
Reply
As much as I know Younan Interlinear is from Khaboris, so no wonder, same copy.

Would be good if somebody would translate the introductory words of the Aramaic (Syriac) Bible at
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/syriacbible00lond#page/n983/mode/2up">http://www.archive.org/stream/syriacbib ... 3/mode/2up</a><!-- m -->
its on pdf too
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ia600401.us.archive.org/3/items/syriacbible00lond/syriacbible00lond.pdf">http://ia600401.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... 00lond.pdf</a><!-- m -->
and we can compare to it too.
Looks like it is in modern Aramaic?Strange looking...
And what these footnotes mean?
Reply
I don't think Shamasha Paul used the Khabouris as his text...pretty sure not.
Reply
And I believe that is the Swadaya ("contemporary") script. It is the modern eastern script, used in printed COE Bibles.
Reply
IPOstapyuk Wrote:As much as I know Younan Interlinear is from Khaboris, so no wonder, same copy.

Would be good if somebody would translate the introductory words of the Aramaic (Syriac) Bible at
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/syriacbible00lond#page/n983/mode/2up">http://www.archive.org/stream/syriacbib ... 3/mode/2up</a><!-- m -->
its on pdf too
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ia600401.us.archive.org/3/items/syriacbible00lond/syriacbible00lond.pdf">http://ia600401.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... 00lond.pdf</a><!-- m -->
and we can compare to it too.
Looks like it is in modern Aramaic?Strange looking...
And what these footnotes mean?

This is in one of the modern North Eastern Neo Aramaic (NENA) dialects.
Reply
:

In the coming months, I hope to compare the 1199 A.D. Asahel Grant Aramaic NT Ms, with all these variants.

.
Reply
For those who would like to know...As I am slowly going verse by verse through the Peshitta text, I just found another variant East/West reading, for a total of 22 now.

In the Eastern Manuscripts, The Khabouris, The Grant, and The Mingana, for 1 Corinthians 16:24, at the end of the verse...they all have "Amen". But the UBS and MS ADD. 14475, doesn't have it. I have updated the list at the top, and the running stats of the English translations that I can view, which has either the Eastern reading or the Western reading. This time, most have the Eastern reading, except for Bauscher, Magiera, Werner, Jhan, and the Way International, which all go with the Western reading, which lacks the "Amen" at the end of the Apostle Paul's Letter.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
I believe what you are doing is a very important scholarly endeavor. I can't wait to learn Aramaic and get to do stuff like this myself.
Reply
Found another variant...

So far, these variants have been few and far between in the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta NT and the Western version of its text, as I have been going line by line from Hebrews back to Matthew, comparing the Khabouris with the UBS, and checking some other Eastern MSS, I have found another in Acts 3:6 and added it to the list and updated the stats in the 1st two posts of this thread, showing how they each read, and which English translations goes with either one.

Some surprises this time.

The Eastern text as found in the Khabouris, Grant, and Mingana Codex, have "...d'Maran Eshu' M'Shikha..." (of our Lord Jesus Christ) and the Western version, as represented by the UBS critical text, has "d'Eshu' M'Shikha" (of Jesus Christ) which matches the Greek reading.

Lamsa goes against the KJV translation reading from the Greek this time, and sticks with the Eastern Peshitta reading, and it's strange that Roth, in his 1st edition anyway, chose to go against the reading of the Eastern Peshitta, against the Khabouris and the Murdoch translation...and even his Aramaic text to the right shows the UBS reading, rather than the Khabouris reading, which he says he translated from. This may have been a slip up on his part, if not done knowingly, because, unless I'm wrong, I think he used the UBS text, and edited it to read like the Khabouris text, but, in this case may have missed the variant. Not sure the reason.

Though I didn't add Joseph Pashka's translation in the stats, he goes with the Eastern Text, while showing the Western reading in brackets. Etheridge, Murdoch, Martin, and Alexander all have the Eastern Peshitta reading "of our Lord Eshu' M'Shikha"

ADD MSS 14473, which is a Jocobite produced manuscript has the Western reading in it's text, thus found it's way into The Way International's translation, and Magiera's translation as a result. Bauscher, Jahn, and Werner, as ussual stick with the UBS text, which has the Western reading.

Also the 1886 Peshitta NT on this site has the Eastern reading, as does the Church of the East produced manuscripts. I'm not sure where Paul got his version though, which has the western reading for some reason, and may have been missed when putting that text together? I've sent him a message about it, but haven't heard back yet.

.
Reply
Matthew 4:21 has been added to the list at the 1st two posts of this thread. Eastern reads: "...and Eshu' called them." Western reads: "and He called them."

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)