Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Peshitta Interlinear and Plain English modules for E-Sword
#16
(02-21-2016, 02:18 AM)gregglaser Wrote: 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."
 ----- snip ------

It's a general accusation because I don't want to get in to a useless argument.  I wanted to point out that Dave is not open to being corrected on a VERY CLEAR case of mistranslation.
Reply
#17
I won't argue with you Jedi, but will discuss it in a mature manner if you like. What mistranslation might that be? I showed Dave a correction that needed to be made in his 1st edition years ago, and he fixed it without any problems. Perhaps it was the way it was done? But, that is between you and him, and perhaps God. ; )

Shlama



Ronen, what text are your translating from?

ܡܫܘܝܢ

That word there above is what I am wondering about in the sentence. Read the sentence, and see if it works right with the gender and context. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

.
Reply
#18
After many years of reading articles here at Peshitta.org and other research ThirdWoe is 100% spot on in that there are Western texts and an Eastern text of the Aramaic Peshitta (and all others are either mistaken or defiantly ignoring the truth). The Western texts were/are simply the Eastern Peshitta revised with Greek readings, of which some definitely change a theological stance.

And I agree that if one wants to use the Western Aramaic Peshitto to translate from there is nothing wrong with doing such so long as they do not call it a translation of the Greek texts or for that matter the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text.

And if one uses the Western Aramaic texts to translate from I would not expect them to delete parts of it that are not in the Eastern Aramaic texts, but neither would I expect for one claiming to translate from the Eastern Aramaic texts to add the Western Aramaic Peshitto reading into it.

Last but not least if one is claiming to make a literal translation then by all means they should keep the translation as literal as possible and leave out as much biases as literally possible. Or if they want to make more lose translation then they should clearly stae that that is what they did and not claim other wise.

All in all, I do appreciate the work that Bauscher, Magiria, and Roth have done, and I use their works for studying, but I also know where and when the Western texts variate from the Eastern one (thanks to ThirdWoe and many others here at Peshitta.org) and I take all that into account when using Bauscher's, Magiria's, and Roth's works. Shame that these make a claim of having translated the eastern Peshitta when they in reality translated from the Western Peshitto though. Again it is not honest to make such false claims. And as for Bauscher claiming that he knows of no Eastern Aramaic text either shows that he is not such the Aramaic scholar that he claims to be or that he deliberately made such a false statement just to try and back up other false statements that he had already made. Roth does this too, and one has to wonder if it is to pump their ego of being a scholar, or if it is done to further fool ignorant people into buying their works. Either way it is not honest and needs to be policed within the Eastern Aramaic community, when it rares it's head, because if we do not the people searching into the Eastern Peshitta that see this descrepacy will hold us all as deceivers if we do not side against such, where by discrediting the whole Eastern Peshitta stance to many as just a bunch of lying hood winks.

I commend ThidWoe for pointing out such discrepancies in order to save the integrity of the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta community as a whole, in that there is truly an Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text an that it is uniquely different than it's Grecianized (Western Aramaic Peshitto) rendition.


1Th 5:21 (Etheridge)
Prove every thing, and what is good retain.

Eph 5:11 (Lamsa)
Have no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather condemn them.
May,
YHWH bless thee and keep thee;
YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee;
YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom.


Your brother in Yehoshua The Anointed One.

will
Reply
#19
The more I get to know THE REAL PESHITTA (Eastern Text of course), for, there is only one PESHITTA, the more I love its purity and uniqueness. Sometimes it is the little things, like below. Wink

Just know this, that when you have an English translation from an Aramaic NT text, which claims to be "The Peshitta", or, it says it is from "the Eastern text", like Lamsa's version, it will really be a hybrid version of the actual REAL PESHITTA NT, with some later readings added to it from the Greek versions and variants of the editors who produced the version.

The Western versions of THE PESHITTA also have a number of Western spellings of certain names and places, based on dialect and other reasons, and a number of added words here and there from the Greek version that give it away.

Once you get to know THE REAL PESHITTA, the edited copies, and various versions of it, pale in comparison.

You know you are looking at un-changed, and un-altered REAL PESHITTA, when you come across this brothers name, and notice the difference in spelling.
 
ܐܢܣܝܦܪܘܣ
(Anisyphrus)

The two places in 2nd Timothy where this brothers name occurs, is 1:16, and 4:19, and I need to let Lars at Dukhrana know that the instance in 4:19 is not correct on the site, where the actual Khabouris Codex pages has the same spelling in both 1:16, and 4:19.

I checked the Peshitta NT's available to me here at my office, such as the Mingana Codex (1613 A.D.), the Asahel Grant (1199 A.D.), and they both have the same reading/spelling of his name as the Khabouris Codex has.

The Greek and the Western version of the Peshitta has it as 

Ὀνησίφορος  (Onesiphoros)
ܐܢܣܝܦܘܪܘܣ (Anisyphurus)

The Peshitta NT manuscripts listed above have it spelled the different way, and so do the Church of the East's printed editions of The Peshitta of 1886 and 2012. I need to check the 1846 printed Peshitta {Urmia edition}, which is the very 1st printed Peshitta edition made, but, I wont be able to until this weekend.

If anyone has a copy of The Yonan Codex and the Crawford Codex, I would be interested to hear how it is spelled in those two manuscript copies.

Shlama
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)