Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
Which verse is that?
Reply
Sorry...it is Luke 1:35
Reply
ANET 4th Adition:
Luke 1:35 -
...He who is to be born of you...

It would seem to me that this translation is in line with the USB line of thought.
Reply
Roth just left what Murdock had translated. The Peshitta says "from you" while the UBS has "in you"
Reply
I found another variant in the texts tonight. Notice Mark 1:20. The Peshitta text does not have the clause "in the boat/ship", as does the UBS version. The Greek text has "in the boat/ship".

I don't have my books with me tonight to look over and state who has it in or out of their version. This is an interesting variant.
Reply
Hi Bro,
So, is the text added -everywhere- or is it accidentely not copied in the eastern variant?
Reply
(08-29-2015, 05:36 AM)distazo Wrote: Hi Bro,
So, is the text added -everywhere- or is it accidentely not copied in the eastern variant?

All the Eastern MSS, and Church of the East's printed texts do not have "in the boat" there, as does the Greek and the UBS edited version, which is known to be influenced by the Greek text.

It's interesting to see that with The Way International's "The Aramaic New Testament" it also lacks "in the boat", while its interlinear text of The Aramaic New Testament has "in the boat" present. Added into it during editing.

So, where did they get the reading from?

They say they used the same text they used for their NT, MSS 14453 (5th century), but didn't follow it here. Was it taken from the UBS version? If so, where did the UBS editors find the clause "in the boat" in any Aramaic NT manuscripts?

In the introduction to their Interlinear version, The Way International states that the Aramaic text "is not the original, but the text is similar to the Peshitta Version in use during the 5th century in the Eastern Church..."

So, they altered the text, and as you read further it seems they felt the Greek text was more accurate with the clause "in the boat", so added it into the Aramaic NT.

This may be what the UBS editors did as well. Not sure.

The Greek scribes are famous for interpolating the text, and since "in the boat" is found in Matthew's Gospel, in the parallel account, it could have been interpolated into Mark's Gospel, where it didn't originally appear.

If anyone knows of a real Aramaic Manuscript (not the UBS edited version), that has "in the boat" in Mark 1:20, please show it here.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Caruso's collation of Mark 1 is a good starting point. Codex Climaci Rescriptus has ܒܐܠܦܐ. The Sinaitic Palimpsest has ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ with a different word-order. A different word-order indicates that something has happened in the text so SyS gives a little bit of support to Peshitta.

On the other hand ܥܡ ܐܓܝܪܐ ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ ܒܬܪܗ ... provides a possibility of omission by homeoteleuton. Do we have a clue to what Diatessaron read?
Reply
(09-02-2015, 07:56 AM)sestir Wrote: Caruso's collation of Mark 1 is a good starting point. Codex Climaci Rescriptus has ܒܐܠܦܐ. The Sinaitic Palimpsest has ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ with a different word-order. A different word-order indicates that something has happened in the text so SyS gives a little bit of support to Peshitta.

On the other hand ܥܡ ܐܓܝܪܐ ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ ܘܐܙܠܘ ܒܬܪܗ ... provides a possibility of omission by homeoteleuton. Do we have a clue to what Diatessaron read?

The Arabic translation of the Diatessaron, given in an English translation I have here shows the reading given in Matthew 4:21, pretty much verbatim. Since the Diatessaron is a Gospel harmony, even if Tatian's Aramaic Mark copy contained "in the boat", he would most likely have just gone with what Matthew has, since it would have the same statement.

It's safe to say that the scribes who produced the CCR could have easily been influenced by the Greek text they were privy to, all things considered regarding it. Also note the use of the word there is as that found in Matthews Gospel, rather than the word used by the editors of the UBS version.

We can't consider the SP to be a true Peshitta manuscript as it isn't a copy of its text, but another sort of production, and obviously influenced by the Greek NT in many places. Perhaps this is where the UBS editors took the word from and placed it into their new text. Not sure.


Is there any other place where the Aramaic word ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ is fond in Mark 1:20, that they could have taken it from and placed it in their version?

Shlama
Reply
What about this?
Mark 10:6

In the Greek it says: "From the beginning of the creation", while the Peshitta has 'from the beginning'.

Obviously, the Greek has an inserted 'footnote', but the Peshitto (UBS), does not have that. So, if scribes harmonized the Peshitta using the Greek, they did a lousy job and I dont believe that the Peshitto (UBS) is a lousy job. Not anything of the Peshitta/o b.t.w.

Accidently omission, that is something I believe what could happen. So, if some source, misses a phrase, it could be an accident. There is not any 100 perfect text Smile But overall, the DNA of holy script has been kept and maintained.
Reply
(09-03-2015, 11:38 PM)distazo Wrote: What about this?
Mark 10:6

In the Greek it says: "From the beginning of the creation", while the Peshitta has 'from the beginning'.

Obviously, the Greek has an inserted 'footnote', but the Peshitto (UBS), does not have that. So, if scribes harmonized the Peshitta using the Greek, they did a lousy job and I dont believe that the Peshitto (UBS) is a lousy job. Not anything of the Peshitta/o b.t.w.

Accidently omission, that is something I believe what could happen. So, if some source, misses a phrase, it could be an accident. There is not any 100 perfect text Smile But overall, the DNA of holy script has been kept and maintained.

Again, I would want to know where the UBS editors found their reading in Mark 1:20. The SP? If not, then where...what Peshitta manuscript reads that way? Maybe they have a note there? I don't have the original publication, but I will look for a copy soon.

I don't say that the UBS version was harmonized with the Greek NT in all places, but, that it contains the Peshitta text as its base, with some variant spellings of certain words (because of East/West dialect), and that they edited the Peshitta text, where in some cases they add in certain parts from the Greek NT.

If you just go with an online UBS text, and translate from that, as with what Dukhrana has there, where there are no notes from the original publication, then you would be mislead to think that all that is given there in that edited version comes only from the Peshitta NT.

It certainly does not, and without the notes saying as much, where the Greek text is added to the Peshitta's NT text, you would be mislead to think it belongs in the Peshitta NT. But, not so.

It must be understood, that the UBS text is not an Aramaic New Testament manuscript, but rather, it is a Hybrid, Greek/Aramaic NT text. It isn't a straight and true Aramaic NT document, it is an edited version only, with some Greek NT parts translated in to have the edited text conform more to the Greek form of the NT. 

If you want The straight and true Aramaic NT Scriptures, then the UBS is not what you want.

I think this is a very important distinction to be made and told, because some will be very confused when they see these variants in the Aramaic text, and think that the Aramaic New Testament (The Peshitta) has these variants in it. 

The example of Mark 10:6, shows that the Aramaic text agrees with itself, against the Greek NT text, and the UBS retains the original Peshitta reading. Note that among the Greek versions, they don't even agree with themselves as to what the original reading should be.

In this case it could easily be a case of the Greek scribes putting in helper words, to make it more clear what "the beginning" refers to there. Sort of like a paraphrase does...

I don't know if there is a 100% perfect copy of the Aramaic NT (The Peshitta), but any copies you might read, will be much more accurate and faithful to the original autograph as penned by the Apostles, than any Greek version/translation.

While it could me an omission in the Peshitta at Mark 1:20, we can't say it is for sure. I would like to know more, so I will keep digging to see what I can find.

Thanks for the conversation. Smile

Shlama,
Chuck  

.
Reply
When we talk about harmonizations between the gospel accounts we may as well suspect influence from the Diatessaron.

Quote:We can't consider the SP to be a true Peshitta manuscript as it isn't a copy of its text, but another sort of production...

Usually when I see this discussed, people split the Aramaic witnesses into SyS (Sinaitic Palimpsest), SyC (Curetonian Gospels), SyP (Peshitta) and SyH (Harklean version). It has more value as an independent witness, like you illustrate with the Eastern Peshitta textual family which was protected from Roman and Alexandrine influence by its geographic location in Persia, outside the reach of the Roman empire. So too have Greek textual families (not "the Greek" but some Greek), individual manuscripts and families in other languages (Latin, Gothic, Armenian..) escaped recension in certain passages by being used or transmitted in remote areas.
Reply
(09-04-2015, 09:44 AM)sestir Wrote: When we talk about harmonizations between the gospel accounts we may as well suspect influence from the Diatessaron.

Quote:We can't consider the SP to be a true Peshitta manuscript as it isn't a copy of its text, but another sort of production...

Usually when I see this discussed, people split the Aramaic witnesses into SyS (Sinaitic Palimpsest), SyC (Curetonian Gospels), SyP (Peshitta) and SyH (Harklean version). It has more value as an independent witness, like you illustrate with the Eastern Peshitta textual family which was protected from Roman and Alexandrine influence by its geographic location in Persia, outside the reach of the Roman empire. So too have Greek textual families (not "the Greek" but some Greek), individual manuscripts and families in other languages (Latin, Gothic, Armenian..) escaped recension in certain passages by being used or transmitted in remote areas.

It is just how it is, when you have so many copies and scribes around, handling the text, and translating the text into different languages, like Greek for instance, there is bound to be many mistakes and mistranslations.

In this case less is more... as in better. Less handling of the text. After many years trying to figure out what is going on in the Greek versions, it is very refreshing to have a NT text which is so right on and so free of problems. Boring for the textual critics out there, but rewarding for those who truly love God's Word.

.
Reply
The apparatus in Tetraevangelium Sanctum is a mystery, but it looks like the Crawford Codex would have bspinta. According to this post it is no. 12 and 12 is listed in the margin so I assume it supports the text, but one never knows until one has downloaded the facsimile images. (and I haven't)

Codex Phillipps is supposed to be no. 41 and follows the Pusey-Williams text according to a collation by Andreas Juckel, because Mark 1:20 is left without comment. So it should have ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ too.
Reply
As far as I know, neither the Crawford or the Phillipps is considered to be a copy of an Eastern Peshitta NT. The Crawford is said to be produced by Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) monks, but I haven't heard who is said to have produced Phillips, but since it has many of the same readings as the SP and Curetonian versions, I think it safe to say that it was produced west of the Euphrates, not being a copy produced by monks of The Church of the East, such as produced the Khabouris Codex, and its exemplar.

Looking at Acts 20:28 in the Crawford Codex will tell us its origin easy enough.

If we could find a real Peshitta NT (Eastern Text), and it has ܒܣܦܝܢܬܐ there in Mark 1:20, then we would have a problem to deal with, concerning which reading was the more original.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)