Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The New Testament Peshitta and Peshitto
#1
Shlama, akhay,
When I was going into Aramaic texts of the New Testament, I ran on one
important topic: Peshitta (22 books) and Peshitto (27 books). Until now I
was occupied by the Peshitta and knew almost nothing about Peshitto.
Well, there is very tiny difference between Peshitta and Peshitto texts.
Therefore, I think that the Peshitto is not translation from a Greek text but both
Peshitta and Peshitto originate from the same text. The question is Peshitta or Peshitto is closer to the original or maybe who is the original?
Next, what about 5 more books in the Peshitto. Are they the original, or translated from a Greek text or unknown? Are these 5 books deducted from Peshitta or
added to the Peshitto.
What about Crawford manuscript comparing to the Peshitto book of Revelation.
Which text is more credible?
And the question the those who abide in 22 books canon. What is Your relation
to the 27 books canon?do Your consider these 5 more books inspired Word of
God or something doubtful?
Maybe this topic was discussed before, then just redirect me.
Better if answers are supported by facts.
Thank You, brothers, for Your time and answers.
May Your answers be to many people.
God bless You.

by Ivan P. Ostapyuk.
Reply
#2
Ivan Ostapyuk Wrote:Therefore, I think that the Peshitto is not translation from a Greek text but both
Peshitta and Peshitto originate from the same text.

That is true only if you are talking about the original 22 books (minus the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8, by the way-it's not in the original Eastern Text either)

Quote:The question is Peshitta or Peshitto is closer to the original or maybe who is the original?

The 22-book Peshitta is definitely the original.

Quote:Next, what about 5 more books in the Peshitto. Are they the original, or translated from a Greek text or unknown?

Until we find some very early Aramaic texts that pre-date the Greek texts somewhere we'd do just as good for the most part to study these 5 books in Greek. I make exception here and there--for instance, comparing Jude 23 in the Peshitto and the Greek is rather interesting. Also Peshitto Revelation has Hebraic words such as 'menorah'-Aleph and Tau'-'Sheol'-'ephod'-etc.
In my opinion it would be a great occasion for celebration of scholars worldwide if a Semitic Apocalypse were found that pre-dated the Greek. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:Are these 5 books deducted from Peshitta or
added to the Peshitto?

I suppose you could look at it either way. The ancient Church of the East did not accept them and the Syrian Orthodox Church did.

Quote:What about Crawford manuscript comparing to the Peshitto book of Revelation.
Which text is more credible?

I can't remember why James Trimm, Steve Caruso and others find it so intriguing. You'll have to ask somebody that has really delved into Crawford heavily. I haven't.

Quote:And the question the those who abide in 22 books canon. What is Your relation to the 27 books canon? do Your consider these 5 more books inspired Word of
God or something doubtful?

I think we'll just have to let them stand by their own merit verse by verse. Many books show earmarks of inspiration here and there, but to just open the floodgates wide and let them all into a fixed canon would be crazy. There's no reason to discourage anyone from studying the 'Western 5' in any language I don't suppose. The COE doesn't discourage the reading of Revelation akhan Paul tells us.

Quote:Maybe this topic was discussed before, then just redirect me.
Better if answers are supported by facts.

I wish everyone in the entire world who seeks this kind of information would go to the Scholarly Reprints website and purchase William Norton's book. Here are some excerps that I've posted from it on the forum.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=522">viewtopic.php?t=522</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=524">viewtopic.php?t=524</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533">viewtopic.php?t=533</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=534">viewtopic.php?t=534</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=553">viewtopic.php?t=553</a><!-- l -->

Quote:Thank You, brothers, for Your time and answers
.

You're welcome. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:May Your answers be to many people.
God bless You.

by Ivan P. Ostapyuk
Reply
#3
Larry Kelsey Wrote:I wish everyone in the entire world who seeks this kind of information would go to the Scholarly Reprints website and purchase William Norton's book. Here are some excerps that I've posted from it on the forum.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=522">viewtopic.php?t=522</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=524">viewtopic.php?t=524</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=533">viewtopic.php?t=533</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=534">viewtopic.php?t=534</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=553">viewtopic.php?t=553</a><!-- l -->
.


Hi Larry,
Is Norton talking about the Peshitta or the Old Syriac when he says "the Syriac-Peshito Text"? (It seems like the Peshitta, but I wanted to be sure).

Can you post the link the to the Scholarly Reprints website?

Thanks,
Zechariah14
Reply
#4
Peshitto. Old Syriac is only of the 4 Gospels.
Reply
#5
drmlanc Wrote:Peshitto. Old Syriac is only of the 4 Gospels.

What is the 27 book Aramaic language canon called?

It is the Peshitto, right.....the one probably translated by Rabbula?
Reply
#6
Actually, according to my understanding, both the Peshitta and Peshitto "originals" lacked the Western 5 books. They were different in only a handful of places. Later revions of both the Peshitta and the Peshitto, included the Western 5. This was apparently done as the original Peshitta was sealed early. Given the time involved till Rabulla meddled stuff up, maybe the Peshitto has ALWAYS been a 27 book canon, while the older Peshitta has added the 5 after a while of only having 22. Paul can discuss that further when he's back.

But the original PeshittA had only the 22.
Reply
#7
drmlanc Wrote:Actually, according to my understanding, both the Peshitta and Peshitto "originals" lacked the Western 5 books. They were different in only a handful of places. Later revions of both the Peshitta and the Peshitto, included the Western 5. This was apparently done as the original Peshitta was sealed early. Given the time involved till Rabulla meddled stuff up, maybe the Peshitto has ALWAYS been a 27 book canon, while the older Peshitta has added the 5 after a while of only having 22. Paul can discuss that further when he's back.

But the original PeshittA had only the 22.

Thanks, Chris, and Shabbat Shalom <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Zechariah14
Reply
#8
Thanks and Shabbat Shlama to you to! I am enjoying my Sabbath writin about namusa <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply
#9
drmlanc Wrote:Thanks and Shabbat Shlama to you to! I am enjoying my Sabbath writin about namusa <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Sounds good!

I am going to be re-engaging on a paper I'm writing concerning Preterism, the view that all of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled by 70 CE (including the return -- in some form -- of the Messiah).
Reply
#10
Zechariah14 Wrote:
drmlanc Wrote:Peshitto. Old Syriac is only of the 4 Gospels.

What is the 27 book Aramaic language canon called?

It is the Peshitto, right.....the one probably translated by Rabbula?

Hi there!

Paul Younan makes a reasonable case here
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=416">viewtopic.php?t=416</a><!-- l -->

that the old syriac is in fact the version made by Rabulla.

The western peshitto is much the same as the eastern peshitta, save that the westeners added the other five books which were never accepted in the liturgy of the eastern churches.
The differences are dialectical ones and the peshitto changes two verses to make their copy more monophysitic.

They changes hebrew 2:9 . Only three (I think ) surviving greek mss agree with the peshitta version here , although Jerome quotes the peshitta wording at one point!

Additionally they changes Acts chapter 20 to read God rather than Christ!
Reply
#11
Yeah that sounds right
Reply
#12
Shalom everybody,
This is an interesting forum.
The <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.e-web-presence.com/aramaicbooks/product_info.php?products_id=28&osCsid=47c0fb04951999c5d4a30776706c5eab">http://www.e-web-presence.com/aramaicbo ... 76706c5eab</a><!-- m --> contains Peshitta Aramaic NT with Hebrew Translation. Does anyone familiar with this book? If yes, please tell if this text is Peshitta, or Peshitto or some other versions, and where the 5 books (if they are inside) are taken from.
Thank You.
Sam.
Reply
#13
I think it is supposed to be the Peshitta, but I think it has vowel markings in that version so is most likely not the Peshitta original. Also, Craig pointed out before (or Dave B I forget) that the Aramaic in the Hebrew translation of POT is different to the real POT.
Reply
#14
Shalom all--

In terms of Peshitto and Crawford Revelation, this is how I see it:

1) BOTH versions are translations from the Greek.

2) Crawford, in spite of heavy promotion to the contrary, has its own colophon and other evidence tag it as very late, like 12th century. Here is an excerpt on this topic from an essay I did a while back:

Evidence of the actual age and provenance of Crawford is not unknownTrimm begins his essay quite nicely, and does so in a style that seems open and honest. However, as with many things, it is what is not said that sometimes holds the key to true understanding. Take the statement "How this manuscript made its way to Europe in unknown" as an example. There is nothing untruthful in that fact at all. We don't know, as Trimm says, the exact year the manuscript found its way out of the Middle East. Nor do we know if it went to any intermediary countries before settling in Britain.

Although, my point is this: Trimm neglects to include any reference to known history about the environment that gave birth to Crawford. Instead, he simply leaves his statement hanging which, while being accurate on its face, nevertheless presents a false impression that Crawford is so mysterious that it could be close to an original autograph of Revelation, or at least an ancient copy of one. I mean, gee, we don't know how it got to Europe! Oh my! Why, it could have taken a steam ship in April (or was it October, since that could change our perspective of the facts)? The point then seems to be that, since it's a mystery, it must therefore be so ancient as to come from the pen of Yochanan himself!

Instead, why not focus on what we do know about the manuscript, not the itinerary it may have taken in the 19th century?

First of all, Revelation was one of five books never included in the Eastern Peshitta canon, and so the Aramaic copies that have come down to us are translations from Greek sources. In the year 508, Philoxenius of Madbug did the first translation of Revelation into Aramaic for his Syrian Orthodox Church, an ancient body that had just aligned itself with Rome and changed their canon to reflect their new allegiance. However, Philoxenius' work was hated and very quickly fell out of favor, resulting in the Harkalean revision of 616, which is the current accepted version of the Syrian Orthodox Church to this day. Also, due to the Syrian Orthodox Church's alteration of their Aramaic dialect, the name of their New Testament is "Peshitto", so as not to confuse it with the older "Peshitta" preserved in the East.

As a result, no Aramaic manuscript of Revelation existed before the sixth century, and this is according to the records of the Church that actually changed their canon to include it in the first place! We know why it was done, when it was done, and who did it.

Now Trimm will no doubt argue that Crawford is different, the "unique and little known version" as he says, tucked away like the seventh seal awaiting the Lamb to open it up. Well James, I've got news for you: Crawford is different, but not the way you want it to be. In fact, Crawford is later than the earliest copies of Peshitto Revelation.

This is what the John Rylands Library had to say about the manuscript:

Fol. 250b has a colophon also not all legible, in a Serto hand???

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, p. 119

Let's stop here for the moment so I can relate two key facts. First, the colophon is a kind of a bookmark that is kept with the manuscript, and it is used to tell us the author, age, and location of the document it is attached to. Now, while Rylands says it is not completely legible, what follows will be what they can clearly read from it.

However, a second key point is the notation that the colophon is in Serto script, a vowel-pointed system not developed until at least the fifth or sixth century. While this is also about the time of the split of the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox Church due to the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcidon (451), an older script, called Estrangela, was also used in colphons and special headings on religious documents. Therefore, the Syrian Orthodox Church still sometimes uses Estrangela, the script the Eastern Peshitta is preserved in. Although, the fact that even the colophon was then put in Serto shows it to come from a later time, when that script had more influence.

With this basic foundation established, we can now continue:

The scribe was Stephen, a monk of the monastery of Mar Jacob the recluse of Egypt and Mar Barshabba near Salah in Tur 'Abdin. He mentions the names of some of his relatives and his teachers???

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, p. 119

So, while we don't know exactly when the manuscript came to Europe, we sure as heck know a lot about where it came from and can check the history and circumstances of its production. These facts, along with internal evidence in the text itself, caused the Rylands Library to conclude:

On the date of the manuscript see Gwynn, Apocalypse, where it is argued to be the end of the 12th century.

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, p. 119


3) Many of the "original" readings that are alleged to be unique to Crawford are actually identical in the Peshitto version, which even Trimm admits was translated from the Greek.

Here are some examples:

Trimm:

2:22
Crawford: ???I will cast her onto a coffin (aore)???

Greek: ???I will cast her into the bed???

The Aramaic word aore is ambiguous. It can mean "bed" as the Greek translator mistakenly took it, or it can mean "coffin" (as in the Aramaic of Luke 7:14 and Targum Jonathan 2 Samuel 3:31). Here it actually means "coffin".

Truth:

Trimm is correct about the word in question. However, here is what he does not say:

Crawford:
Haw rama ana leh b'airsa

Peshitto Revelation:
Haw rama ana leh b'airsa

These are identical! As a result, it is clearly to his advantage that James does not include Peshitto Revelation. If he did, then the reader might think Crawford was also a translation from the Greek!

Trimm:

4:8
Crawford: ???six wings filled round about, and from within, with eyes???
(anye Nylm wnl Nmw tyanrdwh Nypg ats)

The Greek translator mistranslates the passage:
??????six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within??????

Truth:

Let's see what Peshitto Revelation says, and this time I will use Hebrew letters:

anye Nylm wnl Nmw tyanrdwh Nypg ats

Once again the two sources are identical. Also, the variance between the Greek and the Aramaic is so minor as to make it impossible to posit one as an original reading over the other. Instead, the variance more closely resembles the slightly different ways that two languages will express the same thought.


Trimm:

10:1
Crawford: ???and his legs like pillars of fire??? (yhwlgrw )
Greek: ??? his feet like pillars of fire???

The Aramaic lgr can mean ???foot??? but less often ???leg??? but in this case the context
demands ???legs??? (being like ???pillars???) The Greek translator was apparently unaware of
this less common meaning and took the phrase to refer to ???his feet???.

Truth:

Again, it is possible Trimm is correct. On the other hand, the other side also has a good argument. We could say, for example, that the base of these fiery pillars actually does look like feet, as opposed to looking up at the whole structure, which could resemble legs. The fact that the shape is outlined by fire would tend to support the Greek reading, with jets of flame resembling extremities in the feet.

Also, if the Greek were the original text, we could easily see how "feet" would get translated into yhwlgr, rather than the other way around, since the Aramaic word means both "feet" and "legs", as Trimm also stated.

Finally, Peshitto Revelation again has the same reading:

arwnd adwme Kya yhlgrw (Crawford)
arwnd adwmg Kya yhlgrw (Peshitto)

As the reader can see, the only difference is a scribal error in Crawford, which has adwme rather than adwmg. The Hebrew fonts I am using don't really showcase the confusion well. However in Aramaic script the difference between a gimel (g) and an ayin (9) is a lot subtler. Allowing for variations in individual scribes, it is easy to see how one might be mistaken for the other.

Now though let's move on to Trimm's favorite proof:

Trimm:

18:5

Crawford: Because her sins have reached (wqbdd) up to heaven???

Greek (literally): Because her sins have stuck (ekollhqhsan) (?!?!?!?!?) to heaven???

This may well be the plainest and most obvious evidence that the Greek Revelation is a translation from the Crawford Aramaic.

The Hebrew/Aramaic word qbd usually means "stick to" and is generally rendered in the LXX with Greek kollashai. However, the word wqbdd has a much broader meaning than its Greek counterpart, and can also mean "overtake" or "reach". Similarly we read in Zech. 14:5:

Hebrew: the valley of the mountains shall reach (qbd) to Azel

LXX Greek: the valley of the mountains shall stick (egkollhqhsetai) to Azel

Thus the translator of the LXX makes the same mistake by translating qbd with kollashai even though its meaning is not "stick" but "reach".

Truth:

Remember what Rylands said, Crawford is a thousand years younger than the Greek manuscripts that it is supposed to pre-date. The other consistent and vexing piece of evidence that Trimm continually ignores is this:

Mittil d'debaqaw khatehih aidma l'shmaya w'atdekar Alaha laiolih
(Peshitto Revelation 18:5)

Mittil d'debaqaw khatehih aidma l'shmaya w'atdekar Alaha laiolih
(Crawford Revelation 18:5)

So, once again we have identical readings in Peshitto and Crawford Revelation.

4) What I believe is that neither Crawford nor Peshitto Revelation is the long lost Aramaic original, or even close to it. Actually the Greek really is closest to what we probably lost. All three of these versions, I believe, hark back to the lost Nazarene Revelation. It gets murky when my favorite proof (COFFIN/BED) is actually in both versions, and also the famous 666 only works in Hebrew and Aramaic as a cipher for "Nero Caesar" and not in Greek.

That's how I see it.

Peace and blessings
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#15
"and also the famous 666 only works in Hebrew and Aramaic as a cipher for "Nero Caesar" and not in Greek.
"
Please explain!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)