Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
#16
:

The facts are, The Hebrew Prophets and Hebrew Apostles wrote The Words of The Old and New Testaments, by the inspiration of The Holy Spirit...and they were certainly not Greeks...none of them, they thought like Hebrews, and they talked like Hebrews, and they wrote like Hebrews, and God has preserved every Holy Word He uttered through them, in the Language that He chose to have them write His Words in...In the language in which they were fluent in...Their native tongue.

Eshu told His Disciples that The Holy Spirit would bring back to their memory everything that He had said...and we can be quite certain that it wasn't the Greek language that they heard speaking in their mind's memory, as they wrote down the sacred Words...

And tell me, O' Greek primacist...which Manuscript do you claim contains all His inspired Words? They say that not one single Greek copy reads the same way in all places as the others...so which one would you chose? The Eastern Peshitta New Testament is the same in all places and has the correct form of The Holy Text. It stands in stark contrast to what's found among the many copies of the Greek versions...Glory to God, His Original Words have not been lost, added to, or corrupted by Men.

But, knowing this is true; I believe that His Message has gotten through, even in the defective copies...though a bit obscured in places.

I had spent over 25 years looking at the Greek texts and trying to figure out what English version best represented the Original New Testament Text...and had to give up on being certain which one was the right one...The Western, The Alexandrian, The Byzantine, The Textus Receptus, The Majority Text...you name it.

Then I found the lost coin, the hidden treasure!!!

The Eastern Peshitta doesn't come from any of those Greek textual families, as you can see, once you look through it closely. They all seem to come from it, with variants coming from translational decisions from Aramaic to Greek...as if they are all streams from one pure source.

What you can see happening with all these Greek copies, that don't agree with each other in thousands of places, is what you would expect with translations, rather than a static Original Text, such as is true of The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. Once you start to translate, or start to make changes, such as the Western Syriac scribes have done with their various "Peshitto" copies (which don't agree with themselves in many places), you get "families" that are particular to themselves...

There are no families among The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta Manuscript copies....they all agree with themselves!

But...do yourself a favor...check this out for yourself, and stop just going off what others have told you. Then you will truly know.


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#17
The problems I see with Aramaic primacy is the fact that most of the New Testament epistles (with the possible exception of Hebrews) were written to multi-lingual or Greek-speaking congregations (especially Paul). Why would Paul, bringing an important message to the churches to which he wrote, use a Eastern and Semitic language (for the whole letter) to write to a church that mainly consisted of Greek speakers? Paul, John, and Peter are all known to have spent time outside of Judea (Paul and John mostly) and would have most likely written their epistles in Greek. While I agree, some of the New Testament was probably written in Aramaic (likely Matthew and Hebrews), I find it hard to believe for the whole thing to have been written in Aramaic.
Reply
#18
:

Quote:Why would Paul, bringing an important message to the churches to which he wrote, use a Eastern and Semitic language (for the whole letter) to write to a church that mainly consisted of Greek speakers?

Dylan, take some time and go through the Book of Acts...and see to whom and to where The Apostle Paul speaks to and goes among, to build the Church outside of Israel...find out who the Berean's were for instance. In each city he went to, he sought out the Jews, in their places of worship and in their communities and schools...and he converted his future Church leaders from among these Jewish Men. Also, many of the Greeks, whom were converted, were regular members of these Jewish Synagouges and were part of the Communites...and most likely were Aramaic speakers to some degree. These were all Jewish communities that He lived, worked, and ministered among and these later would affect those around them. He was obeying, in each city, what Jesus had instructed His Apostles to do...go 1st to the Jews. These leaders who lead the Churches that he later wrote to, were the 1st Bishops/Pastors of the Churches...and for the 1st generation or so, most of these Men you see as leaders of the Churches, have Jewish names.
Reply
#19
:

Oh...and The Apostle James (Yakob), wrote his letter to the Greek 12 Tribes of Israel? And The Apostle Peter wrote to the scatered Jews in the diaspora, from Babylon, in Greek? Think about it.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#20
The issue is though, that so many of them spoke so many different languages (especially in Corinth) that it wouldn't make since for Paul to write in a language that not everyone could understand. He would have used a language more commonly spoken among the people. If there were Jews in the congregations (which I'm sure there were also) they probably would have been Hellenist Jews. If James was written to Jews in Israel, I wouldn't have much doubt of it being in Aramaic (but we aren't for sure if he is talking about the children of Israel in Israel or scattered among the Gentiles). When Alexander the Great conquered Palestine, the official language was Greek, even though it was probably spoken among the Middle-Eastern people. You then had the Romans take over sometime after Alexander and they spoke mainly Latin and Greek, so the more common language of the time in the known world would have been koine (common) Greek. Paul was born in Tarsus, where Greek would have been the common language. It's obvious from the Bible that Paul also spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew. With him going on so many missionary journeys throughout Europe, I don't see how he couldn't have been a Greek speaker.
Reply
#21
Quote:The issue is though, that so many of them spoke so many different languages (especially in Corinth) that it wouldn't make since for Paul to write in a language that not everyone could understand.

They also spoke Aramaic in Corinth, especially the Jewish people to whom Paul was sent 1st to preach the Gospel to, and it was far more popular in this part of the world that you might think. You should understand that Paul did not make 30 or 40 letters so each person could go home with a copy to read. It was sent to the leaders of the gatherings, and they would have read it aloud in Aramaic, which most of them could understand, being Jews and Gentile converts to the Messianic Jewish faith, and they would have made a translation of it in Greek, and perhaps Latin, for those who could not understand Aramaic. Church back then, was not like protestant church today...it was thourghly Jewish in nature and culture. It was set up much like the Jews were used to...liturgical.

Also....the fact that there are many variants in the various Greek copies, which variant words can both be translated from a single Aramaic word, that the translator had a choice to make, is compelling proof that these documents were written in Aramaic. There are many of these discussed here at Peshitta.org. But can you show us a few examples where the reverse is true? Show us where a variant exists in the Aramaic text, which can be shown to be a translation of a single Greek word, where both Aramaic word variants can be correct.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#22
Didn't Paul decide to go preach to the Gentiles instead of the Jews after a while (Acts 18:6)? I'm sure he still went among the Jews, but the congregations were nominally Gentile.
Reply
#23
:

In that particular town, yes, where he shook off the dust and gave up preaching to the Jews in that place...but then he moved away some distance and moved into the house of a Man who lived next door to the Synagogue, and converted the Synagogue President and his whole family!!! ...and later, after he moved to Ephesus, he's recorded to be seeking out Disciples of Jesus there, who he learns had previously been Baptized by John in Israel, Jews... he teaching them the fuller Truth and Way, and imparting the Holy Spirit unto them....then what does he do? He spends the next three months preaching the Gospel in the Synagogue in Ephesus, then he takes all the converts he led to the Messiah, and teaches them daily in a School for the next 2 years...and many Jews and Gentiles come to Christ in all Asia during that time...see 19:1-10
Reply
#24
:

I found another differance between the Peshitta & Peshitto. The Letter to Philemon is exactly the same, word for word, until you get to the end, where the next to the last word in the Peshitta for "Brothers" is present, but is not present in the Peshitto version. I've adjusted the list of English translations to show which ones go with the Eastern Peshitta reading, and which ones goes with the Western Peshitto reading.

This Eastern reading is found in another of Shlikha Paul's letters as well.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#25
It's odd that Etheridge, translating the Western Peshitto went with almost all of the Eastern readings lol
Reply
#26
:

Dylan, does your copy of Etheridge's translation state which source text/texts he used? I know it was something available before the UFBS/UBS 1905/1920 version, which has all the Western readings present, which Bauscher sticks to in every place. There were some printed Aramaic/Syriac NT's in the early 1800s, which is what Etheridge and Murdoch used as their base text...but they differ on their readings...which indicates that they used two different versions, or they had a few different source texts to consult.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#27
:

Just added John 16:27 to the list... Eastern Peshitta reads "from the Father"...Western Peshitto reads "from God"

Iv'e adjusted the translation stats as well...and Alexander, Murdoch, and Lamsa, have moved up, while Magiera has fallen below them.
Reply
#28
For the Gospels he states, "This translation of the Four Gospels has been made directly from the Syriac. The text chiefly followed is that of Gutbir, 1664, compared with the editions of Paris, G.F. Boderiani, 1584, Walton in the London Polygot, and Schaaf's of 1709."

In the preface of his Acts-Revelation volume, Etheridge states, "For the sake of rendering the work as complete as possible, there is added a translation of the Epistles and Book of Revelation, wanting in the Peschito Canon, from the more modern Syriac texts first edited by Dr. Pococke and Louis De Dieu, so as to comprise all the holy books which we receive as inspired New-Testament Scripture. With regard to the Acts and Epistles, the edition which the translator has followed has been that of Schaaf, on account of its having been a sort of textus receptus of the Syriac Testament throughout the theological world. This has been collated with others, as occasionally indicated in the margin."

So he used several editions of the Peshitto in his translation. I still find it interesting that he almost always went with the Peshitta reading instead of the Peshitto.
Reply
#29
Quote:So he used several editions of the Peshitto in his translation. I still find it interesting that he almost always went with the Peshitta reading instead of the Peshitto.

Well, its not that simple though. These several editions he consulted in making his translation, are not Manuscripts themselves, but edited versions from various Manuscipt sources...some Eastern, some Western it would seem...though I don't know which ones are which, unless I can look at them. It seems that if he knew about the differances, Etheridge believed that the Eastern readings were the more ancient and correct and so went with them.

If we have anyone here who may know about these various editions that Ehteridge consulted, it would be great to know about them more.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#30
The Etheridge New Testament is, for the most part, a Peshitta New Testament with only ONE of the previously listed Peshitto readings. If only someone would translate the Peshitta and only use it's readings. We already have completely Peshitto translations, now the Peshitta needs its turn!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)