Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where is Roth?
#31
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I wish Roth wasn't so obsessed with trying to tell us to keep the Mosaic Torah (which is clearly contradicted by Scripture, even in his own translation).
I disagree, but that aside, we have to remember that this is first and foremost a Netzari study bible and secondly it is a Peshitta translation.
Reply
#32
:

It is the "Peshitta" where it translates the Peshitta correctly...but it is the Peshitto, where it translates its text. It's both.

And we as Christians, are not commanded by God to keep ALL of the Mosaic Law, which was added because of sin. Mr. Roth nor Mr. Lefebvre keeps the Torah in every place, if they say so, they lie....and if the Former Covenant were still in effect today, they would be guilty of breaking the entire Law for breaking one single point of it.

But, we are not under the Mosaic Covenant today, but rather under The New and Better Covenant, as the book of Hebrews clearly teaches us. Which does not allow us to walk in sin, but rather helps us to walk in The Spirit, and fullfill the will of God for our lives.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#33
Again, I disagree (to a point; some of it is interpretative differences which would take a while to explain) but in any case this is not the place to discuss theology. If anyone is interested though, both Tim hegg and Promise Theology (Walter C. Kaiser) are good places to start.

Back to the discussion of Peshitta/Peshitto, it's interesting to note that Matthew 21:4 in your list as taken from the Younan interlinear (for Roth) is listed as Western when Paul was translating from the Eastern, right? Although Khabouris disagrees, but still. What was your basis for listing the difference here between east and west?

And yes, Murdock was translated from the Peshitto, and while Roth restored the eastern readings, the rest of the differences between east and west make no difference in translation, right? Nonetheless, I do see what you mean, but how much of a difference do you thinkwould we notice in translation?
Reply
#34
:

People say they "keep Torah", as if they keep it all....or try to at least...when they really just observe those parts which they believe applies to them today...but a broad statement like "I am Torah observant" is misleading. They keep what they can today, and break what they don't believe is applicable to them today. And this is the same with "Messianic" Christians and Christians in general, where they all keep ONLY those parts which they believe apply to them.

The Khabouris is an Eastern NT, the UBS is a critical text of a number of Western "Peshitto" versions, which in its text varies in those 17 places I've shown, that I have seen. There are most likely more, and I ll show them there when/if I find them.

Roth's version has 1 western reading and perhaps more, I haven?t looked over the whole NT yet, but plan to, plus he has the Western 5 which are of the Peshitto version. I don't really have a problem with that 1 reading or the W5, but they are not and were never part of the Eastern Aramaic NT.

And the term "Peshitta" came into use in the 900s A.D. by the western Churches....and really applied to the text that they were using...later the term "Peshitto" was used to differentiate the two versions...the Peshitto applying to the Western and Peshitta applying to the Eastern...But really, The Eastern Text is simply The Aramaic New Testament Scriptures, as passed down from the Apostles, while the other is an edited version of it, to bring it's text closer in line with what was found in the Greek copies in use by the Wester Syiac groups, who used the original Aramaic NT. They brought in various versions, whereas the Eastern NT Text, as witnessed by Khabouris has stayed the same.

I'll get to the Matt 21:4 question later today, Luc.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#35
Thirdwoe Wrote::
The Khabouris is an Eastern NT, the UBS is a critical text of a number of Western "Peshitto" versions, which in its text varies in those 17 places I've shown, that I have seen. There are most likely more, and I ll show them there when/if I find them.

Roth's version has 1 western reading and perhaps more, I haven?t looked over the whole NT yet, but plan to, plus he has the Western 5 which are of the Peshitto version. I don't really have a problem with that 1 reading or the W5, but they are not and were never part of the Eastern Aramaic NT.

And the term "Peshitta" came into use in the 900s A.D. by the western Churches....and really applied to the text that they were using...later the term "Peshitto" was used to differentiate the two versions...the Peshitto applying to the Western and Peshitta applying to the Eastern...But really, The Eastern Text is simply The Aramaic New Testament Scriptures, as passed down from the Apostles, while the other is an edited version of it, to bring it's text closer in line with what was found in the Greek copies in use by the Wester Syiac groups, who used the original Aramaic NT. They brought in various versions, whereas the Eastern NT Text, as witnessed by Khabouris has stayed the same.
I think we both know this very well, but other than the vowel pointing, spelling variations, and the big 17 places you have in the other thread, I don't think there is much difference (and less so in English since spelling variations and vowel pointing don't come though).

Anyway, I'll have to check it myself when I get home, but the Matthew 21:4 passage is interesting because I thought Paul was translating from the Peshitta, not the UBS.
Reply
#36
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:... but the Matthew 21:4 passage is interesting because I thought Paul was translating from the Peshitta, not the UBS.

Akhay,

A bit of clarification (those who've been around since the old forum days might already know this.)

When I create an Interlinear chapter, the steps I follow are:

(a) In the Tools -> Word Docs link in the menu, you will find the Word documents for all of the 22 books according to the canon. The reason for this is, quite frankly, they were available online and easily converted to English letters using an automated program I wrote. The Word documents reflect the UBS text, because the Society created the underlying data. This saved me the massive task of starting from scratch and typing each Aramaic word individually.

(b) I copy an entire chapter and convert the font to Estrangelo using another special program I wrote, to have as the basis of the Aramaic text.

© I go word-by-word and compare it to the printed "little red book" that is the standard text used by the Church of the East, based on the eastern readings. Any differences in the UBS text are (if I don't miss something) corrected to conform to the eastern reading.

(d) I translate each Aramaic word into the English.

The "little red book" does indeed contain the eastern reading, and this was a miss on my part. The fact that it's also in Andrew's version reflects that he used this interlinear as a source.

I've said this before, but please keep in mind this is a work-in-progress and this isn't the first mistake or last mistake. One of the pitfalls of having only one set of eyes on this project. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#37
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification Paul! Is the text in the "little red book" the same as the "red book" by the Bible Society in Israel with the Hebrew translation? That's the one I have but it doesn't seem to indicate where the text came from other than it being the Eastern Peshitta.
Reply
#38
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification Paul! Is the text in the "little red book" the same as the "red book" by the Bible Society in Israel with the Hebrew translation? That's the one I have but it doesn't seem to indicate where the text came from other than it being the Eastern Peshitta.

No, it's one of either two printings published in New York and Beirut.

Here's the 1886 New York edition:

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/peshitta.pdf

This is the eastern version, in Swadaya (contemporary) script complete with vowel markings. It also contains the "Western Five" with the standard verbiage that they're not part of the Peshitta manuscript history. The Psalms are there as well. Start from the bottom - Google Books scanned it in "western" order. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

+Shamasha
Reply
#39
Paul Younan Wrote:No, it's one of either two printings published in New York and Beirut.
Right. Do you know if they share the same source text though? I should e-mail the Bible Society in Israel and ask.
Reply
#40
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:No, it's one of either two printings published in New York and Beirut.
Right. Do you know if they share the same source text though? I should e-mail the Bible Society in Israel and ask.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of their source text. I'm hoping it would be the Beirut edition.
Reply
#41
Paul Younan Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:No, it's one of either two printings published in New York and Beirut.
Right. Do you know if they share the same source text though? I should e-mail the Bible Society in Israel and ask.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of their source text. I'm hoping it would be the Beirut edition.
It's from the Mosul edition.
Reply
#42
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:It's from the Mosul edition.

Good news, that is from the Chaldean Catholic printing which would represent the eastern text for the 22 books, and the western text for the 5.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)