Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Lord's Prayer: A WORSE "Translation" Then Neil
#1
I CANNOT BELIEVE that I found a "translation" of the Lord's Prayer that is WORSE than the one done by Neil Douglas-Klotz, but here it is:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/prayer.htm">http://whyagain.com/prayer.htm</a><!-- m -->

And these are the people who have the Kharbouris MSS scans!

<!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> What is this world comming to?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply
#2
I want to interject here. It's common knowledge that this person running the site is a fraud with far-out beliefs.

But,.....

What i wanted to know, is if the khabouris that is pictured on that site is the same as the well known Peshitta. You guys are able to read it ( or for the most part that you can see), so you tell me.

Is there any difference???????


This has been surround in a bit of secrecy for a long time. So, look at it you aramaic gurus, and tell me if you see any difference.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php">http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Thadman (Computer Lab) Wrote:I CANNOT BELIEVE that I found a "translation" of the Lord's Prayer that is WORSE than the one done by Neil Douglas-Klotz, but here it is:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/prayer.htm">http://whyagain.com/prayer.htm</a><!-- m -->

And these are the people who have the Kharbouris MSS scans!

<!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> What is this world comming to?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

That translation brought to mind the 70s when the hippies stood outside naked and read poetry to the moon.

Sheesh.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Dave Wrote:I want to interject here. It's common knowledge that this person running the site is a fraud with far-out beliefs.

But,.....

What i wanted to know, is if the khabouris that is pictured on that site is the same as the well known Peshitta. You guys are able to read it ( or for the most part that you can see), so you tell me.

Is there any difference???????


This has been surround in a bit of secrecy for a long time. So, look at it you aramaic gurus, and tell me if you see any difference.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php">http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php</a><!-- m -->

Shlama Akhi,

The Khabouris came from a church in the mountains of Turkey from which my Grandparents came. The manuscript was in the possession of the Church of the East until they had to flee from the genocide against the Christians commited by the Turks during 1915-1918.

The manuscript is the same as any other Peshitta manuscript - and they are the basis for the modern printed version.

As I replied to your post on the other forum, we've been comparing the Khabouris and the printed version during the translation of the Interlinear here and they are identical (except for some very small scribal errors/misspellings).

There's nothing special about the Khabouris - it's just another Peshitta manuscript that's the same as all the others. It's not even the oldest one - the Khabouris has been dated to the 12th century by carbon-dating (I spoke with its owners, the MacDougald's).

The oldest Peshitta manuscripts are about 800 years older than the Khabouris. (the Mortimer-Mcawley collection, Sinai Syriac 3, etc.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Dave Wrote:I want to interject here. It's common knowledge that this person running the site is a fraud with far-out beliefs.

But,.....

What i wanted to know, is if the khabouris that is pictured on that site is the same as the well known Peshitta. You guys are able to read it ( or for the most part that you can see), so you tell me.

Is there any difference???????


This has been surround in a bit of secrecy for a long time. So, look at it you aramaic gurus, and tell me if you see any difference.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php">http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php</a><!-- m -->

Shalom Dave!,

I was checking into scan #14 a little bit. It was quite a challenge but I found a spot where "emma" (Gentiles, nations, people) and "d'Elma" (of {the}age, of eternity, of {the}world) were separated by the pronoun "ho" which akhan Paul translated as "those" in his Peshitta Aramaic-English Interlinear. At first I thought the scan was a quote from Luqa 12:30, but then I was able to figure out that it was Matti 6:32. Anglicizing akhan Paul's work you'd have "For all these things the peoples of the world require, and your Father who is in heaven knows that you also require all these things." For the cut-and-dry stuff, take a look and you'll see some of the nightmares involved in making an ultra-literal translation.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich6.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich6.pdf</a><!-- m -->

I noticed something really strange about this scan of the Khabouris manuscript. The scribe on occasion uses a letter 'taw' that looks like an overly slanted Estrangelo letter---[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]t[/font]
This wouldn't look so bad if the rest of the text were in Estrangelo, but it looks really out of place when the rest of the script is Swadaya, which means 'contemporary,' and is also called Neo-Assyrian. It's also called Nestorian "Assyrian" or Chaldean script. To see how the Estrangelo 'taw' and the Swadaya / Nestorian 'taw' differ, go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/">http://www.assyrianlanguage.com/</a><!-- m --> and Lesson 22 of Level 1 has that information. You might get with akhan Paul on this but to see Estrangelo "taw's" mixed with Nestorian "taw's" looks very, very weird in my opinion.
In the following verse in the Khabouris manuscript, Matti 6:33, not only is the 'taw' in "zadiqotheh" an Estrangeo 'taw' totally surrounded by Nestorian characters, BUT ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT PROCLITIC IS MISSING. IT'S CALLED THE 'WAW' PROCLITIC AND MEANS 'AND'. This should read "w'Zadiqotheh" for this to make sense!!! "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness..."
I'm just an amateur and I've found a couple of things that turn me off already. Akhan Paul could probably proofread any of these scans for five minutes and come up with all kinds of blunders. I'm lousy with vowel points! Maybe he'll tell us how he did on those! <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Reply
#6
Hmmm Larry,

sounds like the text was thrown together. Interesting.

Don't want to get you guys distracted with your projects you have at hand, just wanted to get some opinions from the experts here.

Thanks Larry <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#7
Hey Steve,

You can bet that what ever translation is produced from that organization will be totally biased towards their beliefs (whatever they are). It would most likely turn out to be like the Lord's prayer that you seen on that websight.
Reply
#8
Dave Wrote:Hmmm Larry,

sounds like the text was thrown together. Interesting.

Don't want to get you guys distracted with your projects you have at hand, just wanted to get some opinions from the experts here.

Thanks Larry <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama Akhay,

Some leaves on the manuscript became worn out over time. They were replaced by a later hand in the Contemporary script (see pic#14). The vast majority of the original leaves in the Estrangelo script are still intact.

Akhi Larry - I don't know what to make of the alternating Estrangelo/Swadaya Taws. Both are legit - but it is weird to see them mixed like that. Maybe the scribe replacing the worn-out leaves knew both scripts and didn't realize that he was alternating between the two forms. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Akhi Paul,

Didn't you tell me once that the colophon at one time might have read "dated to the time of the Great Persecution" which would put Khabborris around the year 310, and that the COE patriarch read that himself? Khabboris also has a few serto pages in it, so perhaps the oldest pages could still be 4th century, and they dated the later ones??

Also, the Macdougals were subjecting the mss to digital imaging tests to confirm that--and I take it these are the results--12th century?

Finally, if the Khabboris is that old what is the oldest Eastern Peshitta NT mss--Syriac Siniaticus 2--5th century?

Maybe I am confused, but that's how I remember things, and my memory is usually okay.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#10
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Didn't you tell me once that the colophon at one time might have read "dated to the time of the Great Persecution" which would put Khabborris around the year 310, and that the COE patriarch read that himself? .

Sblama Andrew,

I think at least of some of your questions were already addressed in <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198">viewtopic.php?t=198</a><!-- l -->

Blessings in Y'shu Meshikha , Craig
Reply
#11
Yes Akhi Craig, that thread is somewhat helpful.

Although, what I don't get is this still: If Khabborris is a copy of a 4th century original, then why wouldn't another colophon been made with the later date, name of the new scribe and location, and other details on it? Why would the old colophon, which corresponds to a mss that has fallen apart, be retained for the new mss? And, if that is the case, how do we know that the colophons for the older mss relate specifically to the ones they are now attached to?

I understand how wars, oppressions and upheavals have contributed to the relative paucity and later dates of the Peshitta mss. I write about a lot of these in my books, but a 310 Khabborris was an idea near and dear to my heart, because it clearly predates Old Scratch.

And so, I still need a little help here.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi Andrew,

The colophon on the Khabouris is not from the old manuscript - it belongs to the Khabouris. It just states that the current manuscript was comissioned to replace the one made during the "Great Persecution", presumably because it was falling apart after 800+ years of being in circulation.

Probably after it was copied, the old one was destroyed according to the Semitic fashion.

So what you have in the Khabouris is a 12th-century copy of a 4th-century manuscript. Almost as good as a 4th-century manuscript - and the scribe did an excellent job with very little errors, if any, because so far that I've checked it matches every other Peshitta manuscript (including Sinai Syriac2 and the Mortimer-Mcawley manuscript, both from the 5th centuries - and the modern printed version in Swadaya.)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)