Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the "Western Five" extra-Peshitta books
#1
Please give some time to download. Very interesting reading and very solid scholarship.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/western_five.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/western_five.pdf</a><!-- m -->

+Shamasha Paul
Reply
#2
Shlama Shamasha (Paul),

Thanks so much for posting this! Say, I know that this might sound strange being asked here, but something written on one of the first few pages caught my (personal) immediate attention. That would be C. D. Ginsburg's name! A while ago, I tried to track down and pinpoint available locations for obtaining every one of his works, however small or large. I've been nearly successful, I think. Of course, this one got missed. So, thank you again, for a variety of reasons <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> Now, to the really strange part.

Andrew, please feel free to butt in here, too. I am wondering, whether or not .......

-- and this is in the context of my having just gotten the latest Biblical Archaeology Review magazine, with a feature article on haKeter --

....... C. D. Ginsburg made use of the Aleppo Codex in his BFBS, thereby capturing the missing and/or destroyed remnants in his work, or was this Codex unavailable to him at the time of his compilations? And if it was unavailable, and I'll toss in Ben Chayyim here I suppose as well, would either of you historians be able to share with me why? At least with Ginsburg, with his squirrel-like ability to collect textual nuts from all over the place, how could this have slipped through his hands? Of course, that is, presuming that one cannot just pick up his works and mine out the now-lost Aleppo variants. And for now I'll assume this to be the case, since I'm sure the world would have mentioned it by now if otherwise. I'm very interested in this (lack of) relationship between Ginsburg and haKeter, and oh yeah, Ben Chayyim as well. The last of the great masoretes. It just doesn't make sense to me at the moment. I dunno, was Ginsburg just not into it, or did the Sephardic Synagogue hold him in contempt for either being Ashkenazi or perhaps a 'racial traitor' (a Christian)? I'm all ears.

Thank you and blessings,

Ryan
Reply
#3
I think that this at least begins to answer my own question:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://bible.zoxt.net/ginz/_0295.htm">http://bible.zoxt.net/ginz/_0295.htm</a><!-- m -->

Ryan <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#4
Amatsyah Wrote:I think that this at least begins to answer my own question:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://bible.zoxt.net/ginz/_0295.htm">http://bible.zoxt.net/ginz/_0295.htm</a><!-- m -->

Ryan <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama Akhi Ryan:
That's a great site for free books. Not just any books but excellent Jewish-Christian reference material. I'm glad you shared this with the forum.

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#5
Shlama all--

I just wanted to say I love this book. Gwynn did a tremendous job all across the board, and I think he may be right, for whatever that's worth. He very well could have identified the Philoxenian Recension of 508; and he certainly has found the best possibility for this version if it in fact still exists. This book is totally precious to me and utterly essential for any library on the subject. I think it is even superior to his better known work on Revelation, but that's just me.

Now some have asked me what version of the W5 I have used in Mari/PEACE. The answer is (sort of) BOTH. For Revelation, the main text is most certainly Harkalean. I just prefer it to Crawford, and some of that might have to do with a certain thief and liar's advocacy of Crawford that I debunked in 2002. Most of the so-called Crawford variances that "The Liar" tried to prove as original were identical to phrases in the Harkalean. A few of them were the same thought with different words, but nothing major to my mind. Still, Mari was not so much as being about MY OPINION as it was about playing fair with my readers. I therefore decided to make sure that major variants were footnoted and explained in Rev and in the other W5 books, but yes, I am using the Mosul text for the W5.

In general though I really try to show variances between the groups to let the reader decide, so for the 22 I compare Khabouris and 1905 and with their variants, especially places like Rev 1:10 and 22:14.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhay,

I don't think there can be any question, for Gywnn didn't merely offer his opinion but based it on the actual subscriptions to the manuscripts:

Quote:"Which were translated from the Greek into the Syriac for the holy Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbug. (927th year of Alexander)"

Can there be any doubt about the subject of where the Aramaic translation of the W5 came from, and why the CoE rejected them? (keep in mind that Philoxenus was a Monophysite, and bitter foe of the CoE)

+Shamasha
Reply
#7
The Western Five according to Dave Bauscher as written in his The Original Aramaic New Testament In Plain English:

"The Epistle of 2nd Peter is not included in The Peshitta ; neither is 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude or Revelation. Those books are supplied in John Gwynn???s edition of the General Epistles from The Crawford Aramaic manuscript and others of these books.

These books have been included in the Western Canon of The Syrian Orthodox Church, The Maronite Church and others which use the Aramaic NT, however, the General Epistles in those churches have been based on The Harklean Syriac Version, which is a translation from the Greek NT into Aramaic done in AD 616.

The text used by John Gwynn is not The Harklean Version. The texts of the two editions are quite diverse in many places, & Gwynn characterizes the Crawford & Palestinian Aramaic texts used as very Peshitta-like ??????as idiomatic as The Peshitta???- and of a high quality, unlike the Harklean???s Aramaic, which is quite crude and stilted, -???has systematically done violence to the Syriac??? - very obviously a literal translation of Greek. (See John Gwynn???s introductions to Remnants of The Later Syriac Versions of The Bible & The Apocalypse of St John. Gwynn was not a Peshitta primacist, however; he believed the Syriac NT was entirely translated from Greek.)"

Is Dave correct about this issue? He apparently rejects entirely the Harklean Revelation.

Otto
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Otto:
The Crawford Codex is the Peshitta New Testament with only one western change (Hebrews 2:9). Now I understand that the Crawford W-5 is the Philoxenian Recension, not the Harklean Version. I have noted the differences between the Crawford Codex and the Mosul text (Harklean) in the 4 Western Epistles. The book Remnants, does a thorough study on all of the known variants.

I have read the intro to Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible which Paul Younan graciously posted. This is the difinitive work. Check out some of the names on this work, John Gwynn, Prof. F.C. Burkitt and Dr. Christian D. Ginsburg. This is a definitive work of 19th Century scholarship.

Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/western_five.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/western_five.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Many on this forum have wondered what became of the Philoxinian Recension and it's been under our noses and in use as the Crawford Codex. The Crawford, Book of Revelation was available on the internet with John Gwynn's transcription of the original text. There are some slight differences between the Crawford (Philoxinian) and the Harklean (1891 Mosul text). However, as Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions clearly points out, the Harklean is a revision to conform to the western Greek oriented churches. Moreover one can easily study the entire W-5 at this time by downloading the PDF of Remnants.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#9
Dear Stephen

Thanks for your clear statements and recommendations. My understanding is growing. I need to do a lot more reading.

Am I correct then, that the Aramaic W-5 that we have are all translations from some Greek versions and no Aramaic originals are known to exist today?

Sincerely,

Otto
Reply
#10
ograabe Wrote:Dear Stephen

Thanks for your clear statements and recommendations. My understanding is growing. I need to do a lot more reading.

Am I correct then, that the Aramaic W-5 that we have are all translations from some Greek versions and no Aramaic originals are known to exist today?

Sincerely,

Otto

Shlama Akhi Otto,

That is absolutely correct - the Aramaic W-5 are all translations from the Greek made by the SOC (Syrian Orthodox Church), the part of the Aramaic-speaking Church that lived in the Roman/Byzantine empire.

+Shamasha
Reply
#11
Shlama Mishpacha,

You fine folks realize already that I???m not an Aramaic scholar (though I wish it were otherwise), but for some reason I feel compelled to let not the final word end here; that is, with Gwynn & Co.???s outstanding work.

I really desire the presence of Dave Bauscher???s own voice on this matter, and not for contention, but for unity???s sake (not that he???s at fault for every contention we???ve ever had on this forum ??? and besides, he???s also been right about innumerable things). But, in his absence, I feel a longing to not let his true scholarship sink to the bottom of the sea.

I cannot judge with trained eyes as Paul and Andrew and Dave can, nor of our titanic vicars of Syriac scholarship from days gone by, but I can in the present do what I???m most trained to do, and that is to ask questions.

So, all this prelude for this singular reason:

I intend to share some things from Dave???s magnum opus, ???The Peshitta Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament???, from ???The Revelation of The Apostle John??? ??????. and I cannot possibly type as fast as I???d hope, so it may be coming out in sections; bear with me, please.

Not intending to start war here, I really want the voice of some ??? at least ??? of his pages to be heard. In fact, what might make this easier is:

Paul and Andrew, do you have copies of his work; and if so, are you thoroughly familiar with it already? I ask, because perhaps it???d save me some of the burden of trying to quote some things, and I surely can???t post everything as they are laid out. Also a note of importance:

I have no intention whatsoever of bringing up ???the codes issue???. I???d simply like for Dave???s scholarly evidences / opinions to stand alongside yours (also in tempo with Otto???s inquisitiveness), and mete this thing out just a little deeper. You know ??? to see if Dave???s analyses on Crawford might not add anything potentially paradigm-shifting to this matter, before moving on with a said and done.
Reply
#12
Quote:The Revelation of The Apostle John

p.724

The Nature of The Crawford Manuscript

John Gwynn has written at length concerning this unusual manuscript in his The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown. Gwynn believed the manuscript to be a copy of an early 7th century translation from Greek, yet significantly and radically different from The Harklean Syriac Version translated in A.D. 616. He notes that the book contains more Hebraisms than any other NT book and that it is idiomatic-Aramaic used throughout, unlike The Harklean Version which is Graecianized (conformed to Greek language). He also is of the opinion that the writer was thoroughly familiar with the Peshitta O.T. and used its vocabulary and style extensively, listing dozens of words peculiar to that version found only in Crawford Revelation and not in The Peshitta N.T.

I have a different view of the nature of this text which Gwynn???s findings support; for instance, Hebraisms (or Aramaisms) would not come from Greek, they would come from Hebrew or Aramaic. Aramaic idioms, of which Gwynn lists a considerable number specifically, are evidence of original Aramaic, not Greek. The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek. Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed.

Now, I myself can be critical of these ideas from differing perspectives, and I???ll try to let Dave???s upcoming examples speak for themselves. What I might firstly notice, for instance, is that
Quote:The Peshitta O.T. vocabulary is Aramaic, not Greek, so the abundant usage of its style and vocabulary strongly indicates that The Crawford is an Aramaic original, not a translation from Greek.

could be put on trial against the Greek N.T.???s prolific use of the Greek LXX???s vocabulary/grammar (translational), which Greek Primacists just so happen to use in their polemic. Of course, this is silly, considering that the LXX is known by all to be a TRANSLATION of the HEBREW. To my mind, this should be a dead giveaway when it comes to N.T. originality, but nonetheless, moving on, I also don???t think that this does any necessary disqualifying to the Crawford Ms. as to being a non-Greek-first rendition. The 22 speak for this, I think.

However, what Dave points out most strongly is the ensuing truth that:
Quote:Greek primacy has ruled Western Biblical scholarship for so long that even the suggestion of an Aramaic original New Testament has been laughed out of the court of scholarship every time it has been proposed.

This IMMEDIATELY brings to mind Gwynn & Co.???s beloved scholarship, and its obvious BIAS from the start. So, for all fairness??? sake, moving on to examples ??????....
Reply
#13
The Western 5 is living up to its Name, its taking me 5 days to download it lol , never the less , its worth the time & effort. Many thanks Paul <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


In Respect and humility, I will have to respect the Forum's Rules and stay Clear of any debates or arguments which sometimes does more harm than reconciliation.


As my First Post on this Forum, I would like to thank & congratulate Shamasha Paul & all his Crew for the amazing & great work that they have done, especially in underlining the variations and errors of Modern Translations & at the same time, giving us ( Westernized Christians lol), a real opportunity to explore the Peshitta in all of its contents.
Reply
#14
Shlama Akhan Eddie,

Eddie Yousif Wrote:As my First Post on this Forum, I would like to thank & congratulate Shamasha Paul & all his Crew for the amazing & great work that they have done, especially in underlining the variations and errors of Modern Translations & at the same time, giving us ( Westernized Christians lol), a real opportunity to explore the Peshitta in all of its contents.

Welcome to the forum! I knew an Eddie Yousif - are you an Assyrian from Chicago?

+Shamasha
Reply
#15
Quote:Welcome to the forum! I knew an Eddie Yousif - are you an Assyrian from Chicago?

+Shamasha


Pshena Aziza Paul, Apparently there is an Eddie Yousif from Chicago but No that is not me. I am an Assyrian from Australia. You will find me often on the ACOE forums and also on AVN ( Assyrian voice Network), preaching & Proclaiming our Beautiful Faith. I am an Evangelist, I take a passionate walk in life to bring Assyrians to Christ, but I also Love the ACOE and appreciate some of our rich Traditions <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The Idea of translating the Pseshitta bible into English can only help and encourage the Young Generation of Assyrian Youth to take interest and more involvement in the Church.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)