Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic or Hebrew N.T. INTERLINEAR
#1
Peace to you all. I am looking for a user-friendly Aramaic or Hebrew INTERLINEAR of the New Testament; something similar to this Greek one: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm">http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm</a><!-- m -->

I was hoping to find one here.

Thanks!
Reply
#2
The interlinear on here is very useful, but incomplete. Glenn David Bauscher, Janet Magiera, and The Way International have also published very useful interlinears with normal English translations.
Reply
#3
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.

.
Reply
#4
castingcare Wrote:Peace to you all. I am looking for a user-friendly Aramaic or Hebrew INTERLINEAR of the New Testament; something similar to this Greek one: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm">http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm</a><!-- m -->

I was hoping to find one here.

Thanks!
Perhaps like say:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblehub.com/aramaic-english/matthew/1.htm">http://biblehub.com/aramaic-english/matthew/1.htm</a><!-- m --> ?
<!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->

See also private message I sent you.
Reply
#5
Thirdwoe Wrote: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,

Indeed, there is only *one* historical example of Syriac-in-"Hebrew" garshuni and that happened in the middle ages as a translation and preservation project (found in the Cairo Genizah, it was a Syriac medical text that someone was apparently trying to translate into their own dialect of Aramaic, transcribing it and then translating it). Syriac in Jesus' era was never written in anything else but early Estrangela.
Reply
#6
That's good to know, Steve. Thanks for the info.
Reply
#7
The Estrangela font is beautiful. I wish people would utilize it more. I would like to see an Aramaic-English parallel version with Etheridge's translation.
Reply
#8
I would like to find copies of the manuscript or manuscripts that Etheridge had to translate from and check them against the other Eastern Peshitta manuscripts. Can you give the names of them again, please Dylan, as I don't have a copy of his original published translation. Or maybe point me to an online edition which will give his introduction. While he does a better job than most in his translation, it at times strays from the Eastern text that I have seen, as in a number of Eastern copies, so, I am curious if these are just his mistakes, or if they were worded that way in his Aramaic source text's.

Thanks,
Chuck
Reply
#9
To Brother Chuck:

Gospels:

Gutbir- 1664

G.F. Boderiani- 1584

Walton in the London Polyglot- 1909

Schaaf- 1709

Acts and Epistles:

Schaaf- 1709

Western Five:

Harklean Version- 616

I had to use "powers of deduction" to figure out what he used for the Western Five. I could be wrong though, because I made the conclusion from this statement:

Quote:"It is barely possible that the text now translated into English might be identitcal with that made by Polycarp, the co-adjutor of Philoxenus. (See Proleg. p. 33.) In this case it is evident that Thomas of Harkleia must have effected greater changes in the work which he professedly revised, than we have generally supposed..."- The Apostolical Acts and Epistles, From the Peschito, or Ancient Syriac: To Which Are Added, the Remaining Epistles, and the Book of Revelation After A Later Syrian Textby John Wesley Etheridge, pg. 342
Reply
#10
Ok...so he used printed editions looks like, not directly from a Manuscript copy. This might explain why he has a mix of Eastern and Western readings, where these printed editions tend to be critical editions and culls from various Manuscripts...like the UBS text does. I'll try to track those editions down if they are still in print, to see If something can be learned from them as to their source texts.

I just bought this printed edition at the link below, of the Eastern Peshitta text, which is most definitely a pure Eastern Peshitta text...and is the very 1st time (1840's) that the Eastern Peshitta text from the Manuscripts were printed in the classical Estrangela used by the Church of the East...a few of the letters are shaped differently, but, by and large is the same form of Estrangela as found in the oldest Manuscripts...with the Eastern vowel points as well. The price is good as well.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/american-mission-press/the-new-testament-of-our-lord-jesus-christ-part-i-the-four-gospels/paperback/product-3312154.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/american-missi ... 12154.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/american-mission-press/the-new-testament-of-our-lord-jesus-christ-part-ii-the-acts-epistles/paperback/product-3312310.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/american-missi ... 12310.html</a><!-- m -->

What is neat is that they also printed the ancient Peshitta Old Testament as well, and also translated into Aramaic the Hebrew Masoretic OT in a parallel column, which one can compare the two texts. I plan on getting these as well sometime later.

.
Reply
#11
Found Shcaaf's 1709 edition for sale...too much for me. Looks to be of Western origin, based on the script.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.prbm.com/interest/18c-bibles.php">https://www.prbm.com/interest/18c-bibles.php</a><!-- m -->

.
Reply
#12
Thanks for the links, friend. I am wanting to try to start doing summaries of the Pauline Epistles for my blog. For things like that, I find the Church of the East's lesson divisions superior. You don't get the full effect of the Epistles by reading them according to the common chapter and verse divisions. That is one thing I really like about Etheridge's translation.

The Eastern Peshitta text seems to have been best represented by his translation before the AENT was released
Reply
#13
castingcare Wrote:Peace to you all. I am looking for a user-friendly Aramaic or Hebrew INTERLINEAR of the New Testament; something similar to this Greek one: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm">http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/3-26.htm</a><!-- m -->

I was hoping to find one here.

Thanks!

Shalom,

Please check out <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m --> I think it is interlinear enough (and a great on-line resource), ... otherwise please define "interlinear", what would you need it to deliver for you (e.g. grammar codes) ?

For example, if by interlinear one means Aramaic lines of text intertwined with lines of English translation, then .. well, I actually prefer to have both texts on facing pages. It is WHAT you want out of the thing, not HOW it looks.

Hope it helps. Would be good to hear back from you.

Best wishes,
Jerzy

P.S. Obviously others who have commented in this thread have some "expectations" from the "interlinear", more of a critical, grammatical edition helping to understand the text (right?). Interesting. It would be good to formally state what type of Peshitta resource is useful and required.
Reply
#14
Obviously the original Paul Younan's interlinear translation is available in PDFs from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m --> (see the toc in the frame on left).

Wow ! I can now see the very original and now archived (read only) "Peshitta Interlinear Discussion Forum" starting topic at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1.html">http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1.html</a><!-- m --> , the cross links do not work but 2000+ threads from 2000 until 2003 are there. I thought that has been long lost ... amazing, It is a goldmine with things like those:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1565.html">http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1565.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1869.html">http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1869.html</a><!-- m -->
Thank you. For those who want to search in google search simply enter "wordplay site:http://www.peshitta.org/forums" (advanced search), or replace "wordplay" with the keyword you want to find.
Reply
#15
The best Hebrew-English edition of the Gospels I know of is a bilingual edition of the Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels. It isn't really an Interlinear, but it is definitely worth purchasing. It was translated by Vine of David/Firstfruits of Zion. You can buy it on their website: http://vineofdavid.org/. It goes very well with Paul's interlinear and the AENT. It's interesting to see the similarities between Hebrew and Aramaic.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)