Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic or Hebrew N.T. INTERLINEAR
Janet Magiera's and the Way International version are printed in the original estrangela script, while both Bauscher and now Roth have chosen to go with the modern Hebrew script instead, which they seem to think was the original form. I don't think so. I prefer the Estrangela script, as that is what all the Manuscripts are written in, and which I believe was the original form of the Aramaic NT, as given to the Church of the East...1st in Edessa in the 3rd half of the 1st century.

Janet's and the Way International's have a mixture of the original Eastern Peshitta text with some readings from the Western Peshitto version's text, which was influenced somewhat by the Greek text in use among some Christians in the 4th-5th century. David Bauscher's interlinear text is the UBS critical text, which has all the western variants in it, and is unlike the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts in many places, some big, and some small, of which I'm currently cataloging for each chapter and book of the New Testament when I find them, going word by word, verse by verse through the NT.

Andrew Roth also has the UBS text in his version of the Aramaic NT, it isn't the Khabouris text at all, and it isn't a true interlinear, but, the text on one page and the translation on the other. The two texts don't always match each other, as the translation he has wasn't translated from the same Aramaic text as he has on the facing page. It is the UBS text, with some Eastern readings from the Eastern Peshitta replacing the UBS western readings. But, not always, just for the major variants.

As far as I know there isn't a true Eastern Peshitta Interlinear NT, with the same words in every place as is found in the Eastern Peshitta Manuscripts, like the Khabouris MSS, the 1199 (Ashael Grant) MSS, the Mingana MSS, and the printed 1886 Mosul Peshitta. Even the Interlinear text which is seen here, doesn't always match the Eastern Peshitta MSS, but, it does in the important variants. I have seen a number of places in Acts which matches the UBS reading over the Khabouris, 1199, Mingana, and the 1886 Peshitta text. Mostly spelling and proclitic variations.


Messages In This Thread
Re: Aramaic or Hebrew N.T. INTERLINEAR - by Thirdwoe - 03-02-2014, 06:14 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)