12-02-2012, 02:42 AM
:
Hey Brothers...
One major thing that I don't like with the new editions of the AENT, (I have the 1st Edition) errors fixed or not, is that Andrew has stopped using The Aramaic Script and replaced it with a Hebrew script. And while there are some who believe that's how the original Aramaic Scriptures looked like, that were 1st used in the Aramaic speaking/writing Church of the East... based on the evidence seen from as early as 6 A.D. I don't believe so.
The Aramaic letters back then look closer to the letters seen in the Khabouris and other older eastern Aramaic NT's like The Yonan Codex, than the modern Hebrew script does. Also, The Gospels that were seen in the Church of the East in Baghdad, was said to be written in "Edessian" letters, and which was dated 78 A.D. Edessian script is not Hebrew script, as far as I know.
David Bauscher has done the same thing, which to me, makes it less than The Peshitta NT...if not in content, in the way it looks and feels. I say, long live the Estrangela script and long live the Eastern Peshitta, as it is, and always has been. No need to change a thing about it, to make it more "Hebrew".
Speaking of this awesome Estangela Script...I have just ordered The Way International's 3 volume Interlinear (thanks Otto for the tip) as well as their Aramaic New Testament in un-pointed Estrangela script, their Aramaic NT concordance, English Dictionary supplement...and Jennings Aramaic/English Lexicon, all which are numbered with the Interlinear's, which ties them all together. I bought these study materials from Janet Magiera, and the Interlinear's directly from The Way International.
Janet told me that the source text used by TWI, is not the UBS critical text, but from other Aramaic source texts, which I am curios to learn about and compare their readings to The Khabouris and the UBS text. It seems certain that Janet used The Way International's three volume Interlinear NT edition and helps, as the model for her three volume interlinear NT and helps, but hers being from the UBS critical text, which are also all numbered like them (Strong?s like) as well. The Way International's editions came out in the mid-1980s and have not been revised as far as I know.
It doesn't look like either TWI or Magiera, are interested in producing a future Aramaic/English OT, so looks like we will have to wait for Bauscher?s, and Roth's editions in the coming years...as well as The Official Church of the East's Aramaic Bible, which I assume will be both NT & OT. ...and until then we have the Lamsa version to study.
Another thing that bugs me about the AENT, is that Andrew seems to want to make The Real Aramaic Peshitta NT, be as "Hebrew" as he can make it. Not just with the script, but with many of the text's words, like "Elohim" rather than "Alaha", and "Y'shua haMashiyach" rather than "Eshu M'shikha", and "The Ruach haKodesh" rather than "The Rukha d'Qudsha"...and "Master YHWH" rather than "MarYa", or "MarYah". Now, I wouldn't be bothered by these terms if they were in an English version of a Hebrew NT, but there is no Hebrew NT...Not originally, like The Aramaic NT.
So, to me, Roth's version is truly in his own image, which is what he wants it to read and look like, but what it really doesn?t read or look like. It's weird to me, and is like he just wants things to be as "Hebrew" looking and sounding as he can make it.
It is what it is, and for those who feel that this is "better"? then enjoy it I guess...But to me, it?s NOT The Peshitta really, but rather The Hebreshitta.
Shlama,
Chuck
..
Hey Brothers...
One major thing that I don't like with the new editions of the AENT, (I have the 1st Edition) errors fixed or not, is that Andrew has stopped using The Aramaic Script and replaced it with a Hebrew script. And while there are some who believe that's how the original Aramaic Scriptures looked like, that were 1st used in the Aramaic speaking/writing Church of the East... based on the evidence seen from as early as 6 A.D. I don't believe so.
The Aramaic letters back then look closer to the letters seen in the Khabouris and other older eastern Aramaic NT's like The Yonan Codex, than the modern Hebrew script does. Also, The Gospels that were seen in the Church of the East in Baghdad, was said to be written in "Edessian" letters, and which was dated 78 A.D. Edessian script is not Hebrew script, as far as I know.
David Bauscher has done the same thing, which to me, makes it less than The Peshitta NT...if not in content, in the way it looks and feels. I say, long live the Estrangela script and long live the Eastern Peshitta, as it is, and always has been. No need to change a thing about it, to make it more "Hebrew".
Speaking of this awesome Estangela Script...I have just ordered The Way International's 3 volume Interlinear (thanks Otto for the tip) as well as their Aramaic New Testament in un-pointed Estrangela script, their Aramaic NT concordance, English Dictionary supplement...and Jennings Aramaic/English Lexicon, all which are numbered with the Interlinear's, which ties them all together. I bought these study materials from Janet Magiera, and the Interlinear's directly from The Way International.
Janet told me that the source text used by TWI, is not the UBS critical text, but from other Aramaic source texts, which I am curios to learn about and compare their readings to The Khabouris and the UBS text. It seems certain that Janet used The Way International's three volume Interlinear NT edition and helps, as the model for her three volume interlinear NT and helps, but hers being from the UBS critical text, which are also all numbered like them (Strong?s like) as well. The Way International's editions came out in the mid-1980s and have not been revised as far as I know.
It doesn't look like either TWI or Magiera, are interested in producing a future Aramaic/English OT, so looks like we will have to wait for Bauscher?s, and Roth's editions in the coming years...as well as The Official Church of the East's Aramaic Bible, which I assume will be both NT & OT. ...and until then we have the Lamsa version to study.
Another thing that bugs me about the AENT, is that Andrew seems to want to make The Real Aramaic Peshitta NT, be as "Hebrew" as he can make it. Not just with the script, but with many of the text's words, like "Elohim" rather than "Alaha", and "Y'shua haMashiyach" rather than "Eshu M'shikha", and "The Ruach haKodesh" rather than "The Rukha d'Qudsha"...and "Master YHWH" rather than "MarYa", or "MarYah". Now, I wouldn't be bothered by these terms if they were in an English version of a Hebrew NT, but there is no Hebrew NT...Not originally, like The Aramaic NT.
So, to me, Roth's version is truly in his own image, which is what he wants it to read and look like, but what it really doesn?t read or look like. It's weird to me, and is like he just wants things to be as "Hebrew" looking and sounding as he can make it.
It is what it is, and for those who feel that this is "better"? then enjoy it I guess...But to me, it?s NOT The Peshitta really, but rather The Hebreshitta.
Shlama,
Chuck
..