Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Peshitta Interlinear and Plain English modules for E-Sword
#1
Finally! We have just released our Original Aramaic New Testament electronic Bible reading / search and study modules for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone and Android! 
 
Hi Brothers and Sisters,
 
You are receiving this e-mail because you have all expressed interest in the Aramaic New Testament in the past.  I hope that you will be happy to hear that we have finally completed the electronic Bible modules with dictionary and commentary for the eSword and MySword Bible search / study programs! They include several all new publications which will probably never make it into print because of the sheer size of the publications.  
 
These modules work on iPad and iPhone, Android, Mac (os 10.10 and above) and PC.  We are offering all of these modules as a set, for all your computers and devices, for only $15.  With free updates!  
 
To Purchase the module set please go to our website AramaicNT.com (Please note that you will require e-Sword or MySword in order to use these modules. MySword and the e-Sword PC version are free programs, the other e-Sword programs are sold for a very small fee.
 
 
These Modules Include:
 
 
A Numbered Aramaic Dictionary:
This dictionary has word numbers for each Aramaic word that occurs in the New Testament, with word usage, pronunciation, root word, part of speech, equivalent Greek Strong’s numbers, etc, and links to many web based Aramaic Lexicons.  This is a very powerful tool for word studies. It is based in part on the SEDRA 3 database by George Kiraz.
 
Aramaic- English Interlinear New Testament
(now with word numbers for each Aramaic word)
 
This is a literal word for word translation and this module comes with additional versions that give the vocalization of each Aramaic word, and for the it even has the Aramaic words in Estrangela font as an option.
 
The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English
This is our clear and literal translation of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament in everyday English which is based on our literal Interlinear translation.
 
The Peshitta Companion Notes Edition:
This module has all the notes and commentary for both our plain English and Interlinear translations, showing the evidence which supports the premise that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic.  
 
The Complete Vocalized Peshitta New Testament:
Which is the most phonetically accurate Eastern Aramaic pronunciation New Testament known to the translator, who personally tweaked and greatly improved a very rough version available on the internet. It is a variant of our interlinear translation.
 
 
 
As with all new releases, there will be occasional tweaking that is required. Any known issues with any modules will be put up on the module purchase page and free updates will be sent out as soon as the modules are tweaked.
 
 
Other News:
 
The translation of the Peshitta Old Testament is powering on, and Dave Bauscher is doing a stunning job, making many discoveries along the way.  It is over 3/4s translated at this stage, with three volumes in print and a fourth volume to be released soon. 
 
Please go to our website to check out these volumes under our Interlinear purchase page.  We expect the Interlinear translation of the Old Testament Peshitta to be finished and available this year, but due to the size it will always be in several volumes.  Currently we have "The Torah" which contains the first five books of the Old Testament, "The Major Prophets" and the "Poetry" edition which are all now in print.  "The Minor Prophets" will soon be published and available on our website.
 
If you enjoy our publications please tell your pastors and friends about them.
 
 
We look forward to hearing of your experiences with Dave Bauscher's translations and pray that they bless and inspire you as much as they do us. 
 
 
Blessings and Peace,
Tim Mitchell,
Editor, Peshitta Inc.
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#2
Tim,

You are speaking of a Peshitto version of The Original Peshitta New Testament.

What David has made, is not The Original Peshitta New Testament, but rather, a western version of The Original Text, with some added content moved in from the Greek NT version.

For instance, David's version, translated strictly from the hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT text known as the UBS text, has a few Greek only passages, verses, and words, not found in any Peshitta New Testament.

Plus, he decided to add in the western 5 books, and with all these additions to the Original Text, he makes it a version, and yet, he has the gall to call it "The Original Aramaic New Testament".

Not so.

There is nothing "Original" about David's translation of the western Peshitto hybrid version.

I haven't seen his latest edition, but I wonder if he still chooses to translate "Ena Na" as "I Am The Living God". 

I was once exited about David's work, but later, when I learned what it was, and what it wasn't, I was disappointed, and when I learned that he teaches that God the Father, and God The Holy Spirit died a few moments before Jesus did... and a few other strange teachings he tried to prove were true, I decided it best to stay away from his teaching books altogether.

I hope he has got some things straight since we last spoke, and I hope one day he will be honest about what his version really is... A translation of a western hybrid text version of The Original Peshitta and not the original form of The Peshitta New Testament.

The truth must be told.



.
Reply
#3
1905 Syriac Peshitta NT, Chuck. This is distributed by The Online Bible in Hebrew letters. Most online editions of the Peshitta are the same edition. I added nothing to it, nor did I delete a word from it. I simply translated every word in it. This edition is the only edition I know of on the internet which is based on dozens of collated Peshitta mss. instead of just one, and it can be found in printed form in the UBS 1979 Syriac Bible as well.

Show me a complete translation of the Peshitta NT which has only 22 books. In fact, show me a Peshitta edition in Aramaic only which has only 22 books, and you will show me what I have not yet seen, and I have been searching the internet for Peshitta editions for 16 years. Even Eastern editions have all 27 books in them. That should tell you something.
As far as I can tell, the Crawford ms. is a Western Peshitta- but it has Eastern readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9.

Tell me, Chuck, do you believe that the Western Five books (2nd Peter,2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) are inspired, or not? If they are, why would we not have the Aramaic originals? Would God not preserve them as well as the rest of the canon? Or do you think he would have inspired 22 books in Aramaic and five in Greek? Just what are you saying about these five books?

As far as the phrase "Ena na" is concerned, I agree with Paul Younan's notation at John 8:13 (in Paul Younan's interlinear)- "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim."
I have translated the phrase to express this divine utterance and claim as "I am The Living God", as Lamsa expressed God's name in Exodus 3:14 as translated from "Ahiah esher High" (I AM WHAT I AM). Lamsa has "I am THE LIVING GOD".
So I have at least expressed the significance of this phrase as Yeshua's claim to Deity in my translation.
Pretty crazy, no? What else could he have meant in that verse which says: "If you do not believe that "Ena na", you shall die in your sins?"
Was he saying that we must believe that he exists, or that he is the Living God? You decide. Your soul and mine hangs on the answer we give and the belief we hold.

I am not going to get into more theology than that. Anyone who wants to can read my books to find out what I have said on the death of God and the scriptural support for my position. I do think we can all agree that the death of Maryah ( Lord Yahweh) The Messiah Yeshua was the most stupendous, significant and cataclysmic event that ever was or ever shall be. I will leave it at that.

Taybutha w'Shlama
Grace and Peace,

Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#4
Hi Dave, may there be Grace and Peace for you as well.

Before I respond below, please know that I am happy you are translating the Old Testament books, and look forward to reading your version of them. I don't trust Lamsa's version, too much of interpreting his ideas going on there. I think that for the most part you try to stick close to what you find in the source text you use to translate. I appreciate that about your work, though the UBS text you chose to use is not the Original form of The Peshitta. I think you need to acknowledge that to help undo the confusion as to what is, and what isn't THE PESHITTA.

You said: "1905 Syriac Peshitta NT, Chuck."

Dave, that is the 1905/1920 UBS text you used. And it isn't the unadulterated Peshitta New Testament text, but rather, a hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT text, incorporating a number of Greek only passages, verses, and words, translated into it. I would have thought you knew this long ago. Maybe you didn't?

You said: "This is distributed by The Online Bible in Hebrew letters. Most online editions of the Peshitta are the same edition."

Did you change texts? I have your Estrangela 1st edition here. Same text in Estrangela and in Hebrew letters, correct? If it is the same text, that all your editions are translated from, then it is the UBS text, and that is not a true Peshitta document. It is a mixture, a hybrid text.

They are distributing a western hybrid, an Aramaic/Greek text source version of The Peshitta...Not The Peshitta as it is. Again, I would have thought you had known this long ago. Maybe not, if not, I am shocked to learn it.

You said: "I added nothing to it, nor did I delete a word from it. I simply translated every word in it.

I know that, but, it is not The Original Peshitta NT, but rather, a production from the 20th century. A patchwork text and not only from Aramaic NT sources, sort of like what Westcott and Hort did with their Greek text production in the late 19th century, thinking they were improving the Greek NT. Not.

You said: "This edition is the only edition I know of on the internet which is based on dozens of collated Peshitta mss. instead of just one, and it can be found in printed form in the UBS 1979 Syriac Bible as well.

It is the UBS text, as I have said. Same text, different name. It was produced in the early 20th century, a patchwork of a number of mostly western versions of The Peshitta's Original text. Sadly, it incorporates later additions from Greek only sources, which are not present in The Peshitta manuscripts, plus, it adds in the western 5 books, which were later translated from Greek copies, to make the western version of The Peshitta be more like the western cannon of the NT.

Much like what you have done, Dave. Neither the UBS text, nor your translation of it can truthfully be called The Original Aramaic New Testament, or The Peshitta, because it is not The Original form of its text.

It is a hybrid Aramaic/Greek, NT. To think otherwise, is being ignorant of the facts of the matter.

You said: "Show me a complete translation of the Peshitta NT which has only 22 books. In fact, show me a Peshitta edition in Aramaic only which has only 22 books, and you will show me what I have not yet seen, and I have been searching the internet for Peshitta editions for 16 years."

I have seen a few Peshitta manuscripts online which are 22 book Peshitta's which is the Original form. About a 22 book true Peshitta translation, give it some more time, Dave. I have spoken with a few translators the last few years, who are working hard to that end. The world has yet to see a true Peshitta New Testament in English translation. But, they are coming, and they are not going to be hybrid texts either, such as the UBS version, which most modern translations have used as their base.

You said: "Even Eastern editions have all 27 books in them. That should tell you something."

You mean in the modern printed versions, not the Eastern manuscripts themselves. The Peshitta has on 22 books in it. If you find a manuscript with 27 books, then it is a later production of western origins. The pressure is great to bring the western 5 books into modern versions, so they have the same books as the Greek version of the NT has. But, The Original Aramaic New Testament text, that was given to the leaders of The Church of the East in the 1st century by the Apostles had only 22 books, and that has remained their official Cannon since that time.

You said "As far as I can tell, the Crawford ms. is a Western Peshitta- but it has Eastern readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9."

Could you send me an electronic copy to look over? I have a copy of a true Peshitta here to compare it with. If it is a western version of The Peshitta, and it has The Peshitta's readings in those two places, then it is a East/West mixed text. I see this all the time these days in many of these English versions, which sometimes will go with a Peshitta text reading, then sometimes will go with a western version of The Peshitta text, when it lines up more with the Greek version of the NT. Janet's version comes to mind, and Roth's version also has a few of these instances in it. I know you have stuck with the UBS exclusively, but as I have said. It has Greek additions in its text, which were never part of The Peshitta New Testament. Like the P.A. for instance.

To date, there hasn't been a true and original Peshitta New Testament made available for the public to read in English. Not a complete NT, anyway. But, this will soon change, as I have said, with a few translators working to that end. I say its long over due, and I am glad to hear the news.

You asked: "Tell me, Chuck, do you believe that the Western Five books (2nd Peter,2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) are inspired, or not? If they are, why would we not have the Aramaic originals?

These books, as you might know, if you are a student of Church history, and the history of the western canon of the NT, were much disputed in the western branches of The Church. They finally were settled upon in the West. The Peshitta New Testament never contained them, for the simple fact that when The Aramaic New Testament books where given to The Church of the East in the 1st century, they were not present. And they may have not even been written at that time, as those 5 books are said to be of a later date than the other books. The Peshitta is the oldest form of The New Testament, and is as it existed in the 1st century. I don't reject those 5 later books, nor does The Church of the East. Paul Younan can tell you more about it.

You asked: "Would God not preserve them as well as the rest of the canon? Or do you think he would have inspired 22 books in Aramaic and five in Greek? Just what are you saying about these five books?"

I say that they were of later origin, and all indications are, is that they come from a Greek source. I know some have said that the Crawford version of the Book of Revelation seems to show it to be an Aramaic original text. Maybe it is, but it still was not given to The Church of the East with the other 22 books they received from the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century, it was added into western copies when the book was finally accepted as canonical in the 4th century in the West.

You said: "As far as the phrase "Ena na" is concerned, I agree with Paul Younan's notation at John 8:13 (in Paul Younan's interlinear)- "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim." I have translated the phrase to express this divine utterance and claim as "I am The Living God", as Lamsa expressed God's name in Exodus 3:14 as translated from "Ahiah esher High" (I AM WHAT I AM). Lamsa has "I am THE LIVING GOD".

Lamsa interpreted the text, rather than translated it, which he often does in his version. I say translate what is said, how it is said. And if you want to give your opinion as to what it means, i.e. an interpretation, then give that in a note. That way, a person who looks at your translation, which is stated to be a literal translation, wont think that Jesus literally said "I AM The Living God." He may indeed have meant that when He uttered those words, but He didn't actually say it that way. You are putting words into Jesus' mouth. I agree that in a few instances Maran likely meant to convey that meaning a few times He used the phrase Ena Na, but, in John 6:35 when He says "I am the bread of life;" You have it as, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Bread of Life;". If you are going to have a literal translation, then you need to have it read something like this "I AM (THE LIVING GOD), The Bread of Life;" Or put a note saying your opinion is that is what He meant when He used the phrase there, and in the other places in the passage.

Again, it may or may not mean that, but in any case, Jesus did not say the words I am the living God after He said "I Am" as you have Him appear to say.

The phrase itself does not mean that by itself. Such as in Luke 1:19 where you have it translated "I am Gabriel who am standing before God". You quoted Paul Younan's statement in his interlinear, "In Semitic thought, the phrase "Ena-na" (I am) conveys a thought of eternal existence reserved only for Elohim."

Not as we see used by Gabriel in Luke 1:19.

"You said: "So I have at least expressed the significance of this phrase as Yeshua's claim to Deity in my translation."

Yes, you have expressed the opinion in your translation, but as I said, opinions and interpretations should either be bracketed or noted in the margin when one is making a literal translation. You stick very literal for the most part in your version, but in this case, you choose to paraphrase a meaning into the text. It may be true enough, but the words translated are not what He actually said. Some of your editions come with no notes, so, if someone reads that edition, they might think Jesus literally said the words "I AM THE LIVING GOD" a number of times. Again, I say at least put your added words into brackets.

You said: "Pretty crazy, no? What else could he have meant in that verse which says: "If you do not believe that "Ena na", you shall die in your sins?" Was he saying that we must believe that he exists, or that he is the Living God? You decide. Your soul and mine hangs on the answer we give and the belief we hold."

I believe our Lord meant to convey that He was/is The I AM, who spoke with Abraham and Moses, The Word made flesh, who is The Messiah and Lamb of God, but what you have written is not what He actually said. Again, brackets or a note can be used there, Dave.

You said: "I am not going to get into more theology than that. Anyone who wants to can read my books to find out what I have said on the death of God and the scriptural support for my position. I do think we can all agree that the death of Maryah ( Lord Yahweh) The Messiah Yeshua was the most stupendous, significant and cataclysmic event that ever was or ever shall be. I will leave it at that."

You stated "the death of God".

MarYa (The Lord-YHWH) died on the Cross in His humanity, but, in His divinity, He was, is, and always will be impassible, and incapable of death.

If I have understood your past statements about your belief in "the death of The Trinity", then, you seem to be confused with the monophysite heresy that denies the separate natures (Human/Divine) present in The Messiah, and think (wrongly) that The Father and The Holy Spirit died while the body of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, was dying on the Cross. If so, this may be why you go with the western version of the Peshitta, because of the few later Monophysite changes it has in it, relative to the subject.


.
Reply
#5
Thanks for the update Dave. Will there be, in the future, a linking of the Aramaic words that can be traced to the Strong's Hebrew numbers in the Aramaic Dictionary? Under the "Strong's Greek or Hebrew Word" portion, so far all I am seeing are Greek numbers, but no Hebrew or Chaldean one's.

Ronen
Reply
#6
I will guess not, unless my question is not being understood.
Reply
#7
Unfortunately, David's version has some very serious translation errors in it that deny the very words of Jesus Christ. When pointed out in an email to him, he does not accept this correction.
Reply
#8
(02-20-2016, 06:43 PM)cgjedi Wrote: Unfortunately, David's version has some very serious translation errors in it that deny the very words of Jesus Christ.  When pointed out in an email to him, he does not accept this correction.

What's with the randomly general accusation? Imagine if your words were simply turned on you generally, "Unfortunately, cgjedi's version has some very serious translation errors in it that deny [sic] the very words of Jesus Christ. When pointed out in an email to him, he does not accept this correction."

Translation is inherently flawed.  It will never capture the literal text.  The translator, the scribe, is plagued by this situation.  In David's favor, he trusts the Father.  Just like Chuck (ThirdWoe), I have no doubt he would jump off a cliff to save the Khabouri's codex. (And as these two are both falling, with smiles on their faces, I imagine they would quickly reconcile their differences).

Do you know anyone else other than David who has reached the entire world with the Peshitto?  For example, you can find David's work on BibleHub.   For countless centuries people (like me) didn't even know the Aramaic was a thing to consider, but because of David's efforts in this generation, whenever you type a bible verse into google, etc, you find the Aramaic right there before your eyes.  And all you need to do is click 'interlinear' and the Peshitto text is brought right to you.  Is this nothing to the Father in heaven?

So before you point the finger at a scribe, remember that 'fire' and 'mirror' are the same word in Aramaic, and so much more -- the translator's job is hopeless in the sense that there will never be any translation good enough to match the original.  But if you forgive the translator as you would like to be forgiven, then you will find something golden.
Reply
#9
(02-21-2016, 02:18 AM)gregglaser Wrote:
(02-20-2016, 06:43 PM)cgjedi Wrote: Unfortunately, David's version has some very serious translation errors in it that deny the very words of Jesus Christ.  When pointed out in an email to him, he does not accept this correction.

What's with the randomly general accusation? Imagine if your words were simply turned on you generally, "Unfortunately, cgjedi's version has some very serious translation errors in it that deny [sic] the very words of Jesus Christ. When pointed out in an email to him, he does not accept this correction."

Translation is inherently flawed.  It will never capture the literal text.  The translator, the scribe, is plagued by this situation.  In David's favor, he trusts the Father.  Just like Chuck (ThirdWoe), I have no doubt he would jump off a cliff to save the Khabouri's codex.  (And as these two are both falling, with smiles on their faces, I imagine they would quickly reconcile their differences).

Do you know anyone else other than David who has reached the entire world with the Peshitto?  For example, you can find David's work on BibleHub.   For countless centuries people (like me) didn't even know the Aramaic was a thing to consider, but because of David's efforts in this generation, whenever you type a bible verse into google, etc, you find the Aramaic right there before your eyes.  And all you need to do is click 'interlinear' and the Peshitto text is brought right to you.  Is this nothing to the Father in heaven?

So before you point the finger at a scribe, remember that 'fire' and 'mirror' are the same word in Aramaic, and so much more -- the translator's job is hopeless in the sense that there will never be any translation good enough to match the original.  But if you forgive the translator as you would like to be forgiven, then you will find something golden.

It’s hard to translate ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ, because it’s a Semitic idiom.  Indeed, when a word is repeated in Aramaic back-to-back, it is usually an expression in its primary meaning. See e.g., Mark 6:7; John 13:29; Deuteronomy 16:20.  But consider also Matthew 27:46; Mathew 5:37.

In John 9:9, ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ is used by a blind man to say “I am who I am”.  Obviously, no one assumes that he stuttered “I I”.  And importantly, the Jewish people also did not stone him or even accuse him of blasphemy, because it was obvious that the blind man was not claiming to be God.  That is, the context of ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ made it clear that he was simply claiming ‘it is I’, the same blind man you knew before I could see.  Like most idioms, ܐܢܐ ܐܢܐ is completely and totally ambiguous outside context.  And consequently, context gives it meaning.

So it’s hard to fault a translator of an idiom for desiring to convey the greater meaning of the phrase as they read it in context

With that said, there is one phrase that absolutely boils my blood when I read it mistranslated out of context by non-literalists to imply infinite time and space:  ܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ.  The expression is completely finite and fixed in worlds/ages, and routinely qualified in context, yet non-literalists routinely claim it to be infinite in all contexts and all directions.  And that makes me so hot-tempered, I can't contain myself from writing my objections.  Theoretical physicists do the same thing today – they manually insert infinities into their equations (simply because calculus can not handle very large finite numbers, even with computers, so mathematicians manually insert an infinity operator to simplify the equation for processability), and then voila, they find infinity in their results, and then misleadingly claim that everything is infinite.  So the infinities are not based on actual experimental data, but rather upon raw theory and mathematical convenience in the current state of calculus. That’s how they are currently convincing the world to abandon God and morality in favor of what they call ‘the multiverse’ -- where every conceivable universe simultaneously exists, including universes with unspeakable depravity (remind anyone of infinite hell?). Meanwhile, countless physicists (like Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt) are admonishing them about their infinite multiverse nonsense, “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.”

But these multiverse physicists preach their non-literal data confidently, and do not caveat their work as non-experimental, and so the public just eats it up because they don't know any better.  And it boils my blood.

So there is indeed a heavy price to pay when literal words and finite numbers are simply abandoned in man’s quest for glory in religion & science. 

I think it’s proper that we have passion for the literal text, and I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s passion here, including you cgjedi, and you too Chuck, and you Dave. And me too, because I'm passionate and I can't f+%^ing help it.  It’s good to hold translators accountable to the literal text.  For if nobody stands for literal accountability, then we might as well just infinitely infinite whatever.
Reply
#10
(02-12-2016, 10:23 AM)Thirdwoe Wrote: Hi Dave, may there be Grace and Peace for you as well.


Did you change texts? I have your Estrangela 1st edition here. Same text in Estrangela and in Hebrew letters, correct? If it is the same text, that all your editions are translated from, then it is the UBS text, and that is not a true Peshitta document. It is a mixture, a hybrid text.


Shlomo Akhi,

I have not yet seen convincing arguments that the khabouris (eastern version copy) is the only, unaltered, perfect version In which we should leave out even the 5 books or John 8 etc.
I do agree that a fine translation can be made from the UBS, since that is a critical text. The text assemblers, are and were not conspiring to alter the text to be 'western' and 'Greek-minded' again, I have not seen a conspiracy or mindset for that in the UBS. In the UBS there is enough difference with -any- Greek text to see it is a unique text.
Also, in the past at this forum, I have asked to 'khabouris-purists' what differences exactly there are between the UBS and the khabouris, there are just a few 10 or 20 remarkable but no theology changed differences (except for 2 verses) and some hundred minor differences? If that is all? What are we talking about? That God only protected HIS word in Nineve, in Mosul and say, Babel where the Eastern Church historically resided? I don't buy that....

Yours
Reply
#11
(02-21-2016, 02:55 PM)distazo Wrote: I have not yet seen convincing arguments that the khabouris (eastern version copy) is the only, unaltered, perfect version In which we should leave out even the 5 books or John 8 etc.
I do agree that a fine translation can be made from the UBS, since that is a critical text.

It is possible to make a critical edition of the Eastern textual tradition and translate from it. It could be called "Peshitta", couldn't it?
To me, your appreciation of the Western 5 looks similar to Thirdwoe's appreciation of the Eastern text, except that 2 Peter and Revelation are in almost all bible editions while the Eastern Peshitta text is featured in very few if any. 

In a study edition such as a module for bible software, it is common to leave decisions over canonicity to the user, so even disputed books and the pericope de adultera are included. But when bibles are published on paper, it is unreasonable to rely on religious people to bring scissors to their holy scriptures.
Reply
#12
"You are speaking of a Peshitto version of The Original Peshitta New Testament. What David has made, is not The Original Peshitta New Testament, but rather, a western version of The Original Text, with some added content moved in from the Greek NT version."

Chuck, you have made some terrific lists of Eastern vs. Western variants in the past, and I appreciate those. You are fond of pointing out that the 1905 has some "Greek readings." Do you happen to have those instances catalogued? Thank you.

Dave, thank you for this tremendous work and contribution to the community.

Thomas
Reply
#13
Hi Thomas,

Most of the variants found in the UBS version, agree with what is found in the Greek NT, rather than what is in The Peshitta NT. You will find the Greek version readings, when you see that those readings, verses, passages, and books, are not present in The Peshitta NT, but present in the versions of its text.

Are you able to read the Aramaic text? If so, all you have to do is go to Dukhrana.com and compare what you find in the Khabouris and UBS texts featured there.

Then look those differences up in your Greek NT version and see what it reads.

Some have been confused as to what is, and what isn't The Peshitta NT. I hope to help un-cloud the waters.

There is only one Peshitta NT, all other Aramaic language NTs are versions of it. The Church of the East has had The Peshitta NT from the times of the Apostles, who gave it to them, and its content has remained the same in content.

If you find the story of the Woman caught in adultery in an Aramaic version of the NT, then you know it isn't The Peshitta NT, but rather, a version of it, with added material.

If you find an Aramaic NT version which has the Western 5 books in it, then you know it isn't The Peshitta NT, but rather, a version of it, with added material.

If you find an Aramaic NT version that reads "Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" rather than "Church of Christ, which He purchased with His own blood", then you know it isn't The Peshitta NT, but rather, a version of it, with added material. "God" rather than "Christ".

Distazo,

If you want to read a Western version of The Peshitta, with material that has been added to it from the Greek version, then go right ahead. But, it will never be The Peshitta NT. You could call it that, but it wouldn't be true. The Peshitta NT does not have 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation in it. Period.

It also does not have the story of the Women caught in adultery in it, nor does it have a number of other words and verses in it, which is found in the Greek versions.

The UBS text was patched together from Western manuscripts which have been influenced with what is found in the Greek version. Plus, the online version does not show where the bracketed material and various notes fond in the printed UBS publication, which shows and states that the W5 and the story of the Woman caught in adultery is not original to The Peshitta, but was added to the UBS text from the Greek NT version.

The traditional (Original form of) the New Testament of the Peshitta has 22 books, lacking 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. The text of Gospels also lacks the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) and Luke 22:17–18, among other material. The missing 5 books were reconstructed by the Syriacist John Gwynn in the late 1800s from alternative non-Peshitta manuscripts, and these were included in the United Bible Societies edition of 1905. The 1997 modern Aramaic New Testament has 27 books, and is not the original form of The Aramaic New Testament, i.e. The Peshitta.

And so, people will continue to be confused as to what really is The Peshitta NT, and what is not The Peshitta NT.

.


.
Reply
#14
Those of you who can read this, please tell me if you see an error in the statement.

ܘܩܡܬ ܒܣܬܪܗ ܠܘܬ ܪܓܠܘܗܝ ܘܒܟܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܘܫܪܝܬ ܒܕܡܥܝܗ ܡܨܒܥܐ ܪܓܠܘܗܝ ܘܒܣܥܪܐ ܕܪܫܗ ܡܫܘܝܢ ܠܗܝܢ ܘܡܢܫܩܐ ܗܘܬ ܪܓܠܘܗܝ ܘܡܫܚܐ ܒܣܡܐ
Reply
#15
The only thing I can see in comparing this to the text I am using to translate from at home is ܘܒܣܥܪܐ, (and in [with] her hair), which my text reads as ܘܡܣܥܪܐ (and from her hair).

Ronen
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)