Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Determination of the Peshitta(o)
#1
Shlama,
When I was browsing the forum archives, I read an explanation of Paul Younan
about the Peshitta(o). He states that the Peshitto is modification of the
Peshitta plus addition of 5 more books by an Edessa bishop Rabulla.
A long time ago, You, Paul wrote that the book of Revelation was originally
penned in Greek and then translated into Aramaic Peshitto. John Marucci proposed some new version of
the determination of the Peshitta.
In his <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/library.html#FAQs">http://www.peshitta.org/beth-sapra/library.html#FAQs</a><!-- m --> he says "The Peshito is the spelling
sometimes given to the Peshitta that was handed down by the ???Western??? Syriac Tradition.
It is spelled this way because Syriac in this tradition has undergone a vowel shift, and
the vowel rendered ???a??? in the word Peshitta is now pronounced like an ???o.???
So, according to his theory the Peshitta and Peshitto is the same???????!!!!!!!!
When I look at (semi)split words editions, they tell that these five more books
were originally penned in Aramaic. Paul takes active participation in these subject.
Then, what You, Paul, say now about the original language of the Revelation book?
I not intend to lift or lower somebody but just to know the truth.
As for me, I love the Peshitta most of all among the NT editions.
Sam.
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Sam,

The PeshittO is the western textual tradition, while the PeshittA is the eastern textual tradition. Both come from the same basic tradition, but they diverged after 431 A.D.

The PeshittA is by all accounts more archaic....without the addition of the 5 books translated from Greek, and certain other readings that were changed later in the west.

I'm aware that most people (including Mr. Marucci) believe it is simply a matter of a vowel shift.

The bottom line is that the difference between the two is not merely a vowel shift. One belongs to one church community and the other belongs to a different church community. There are different readings among the two different traditions.

I used to believe that Rabbula was responsible for the creation of the PeshittO - I have since discovered new facts which lead me to believe that he was, in fact, responsible for Old Scratch, instead. I believe that, shortly after his death, his own church abandoned the Old Scratch that he shoved down their throat and reverted back to the PeshittA....although a revised version with the additional books (translated from the Greek by Philoxenus) as well as certain different readings.

Again, some may feel that this is only a matter of a vowel shift and that we are talking about the same version....in reality, they are very wrong. We are talking about two different textual traditions with variations when compared against each other.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Quote:without the addition of the 5 books translated from Greek
20 Denarii says you're wrong about Revelation <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#4
Ah, Reveletion. Everyone's favorite. Nobody seems to care about poor little Jude.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Revelation may very well have been an authentic apostolic work and may have well been written in Aramaic originally. The copy in the PeshittO, however, is not it.

If it was Aramaic, we don't have it anymore.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Quote:Nobody seems to care about poor little Jude....
Jude...that's somewhere between Nahum and Habakukk right?
<!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->
Reply
#6
Heheh. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Paul Younan Wrote:Ah, Reveletion. Everyone's favorite. Nobody seems to care about poor little Jude.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Revelation may very well have been an authentic apostolic work and may have well been written in Aramaic originally. The copy in the PeshittO, however, is not it.

If it was Aramaic, we don't have it anymore.


AND IT SURE AS HECK ISN'T CRAWFORD EITHER!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#8
Shlama,
Paul You write "I used to believe that Rabbula was responsible for the creation of the PeshittO - I have since discovered new facts which lead me to believe that he was, in fact, responsible for Old Scratch, instead. "
Please, share with us the facts.
Thank You for the reply above.
Sam.
Reply
#9
Shlama Akhi Sam,

See the post titled "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" in the "Aramaic Primacy 101" section for a thorough discussion and please let me know your thoughts......
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
Shlama Paul,
I read about "Evangelion de Mepharreshe". It is good proof (with facts and witnessings) that
this text is not identical to the Peshitta. As I see, Rabulla was a dictator
and luckily it was temporary. His translatin of a Greek verson into an Aramaic Old Scratch
means to me that there was no Aramaic original available to him, or he did not
know about it or he did not pay much atention to the originality.
Well, the question still stands as who created the 3 differences between Peshitta and Peshitto.
If You could explain the question and support it with facts and/or witnessings, that
would be great!
Personally, I believe that internal evidences about the texts are the strongest.
Thank You.
Shlama.
Sam.
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Sam,

HoffmanS Wrote:As I see, Rabulla was a dictator and luckily it was temporary. His translatin of a Greek verson into an Aramaic Old Scratch means to me that there was no Aramaic original available to him, or he did not know about it or he did not pay much atention to the originality.

Ah - but that's the beauty of it. The Peshitta and Old Scratch, 90% of the time, read identically word-for-word.

Rabbula didn't translate from the Greek Bezan text by itself. He used the Peshitta as the base. When the Peshitta disagreed with the Bezan Greek text (and when he preferred the Bezan reading for theological purposes), he translated the Bezan Greek into Aramaic.

Old Scratch is the result of his revision of the Peshitta....of his "combining" of Peshitta and Bezan Greek.

HoffmanS Wrote:Well, the question still stands as who created the 3 differences between Peshitta and Peshitto. If You could explain the question and support it with facts and/or witnessings, that would be great!

There are a lot more than just 3 differences between the Peshitta and Peshitto. There are 3 major differences, and a whole lot of minor ones.

The major additions to it (like the story of the woman caught in adultery, the extra 5 books, etc.) are attributed to the translation from Greek of Philoxenus of Mabbug (later revised by Thomas of Harkel.)

The important thing to remember is that these are three different versions. All are related to each other - but not in the way that Greek Primacists would like us to think they are.

The Old Scratch is the result of the revising work of Rabbula. The Peshitto is the result of the revising work of both Philoxenus of Mabbug and Thomas of Harkel.

As for the differences between Peshitto and Peshitta - I can't demonstrate with any degree of certaintly who changed what in the Peshitto. I can only point you to the revisionary history the text underwent in the western (Byzantine) realm.....and the lack of in the eastern (Persian) realm.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
shlomo oh Sami,

Paul Younan Wrote:The Old Scratch is the result of the revising work of Rabbula. The Peshitto is the result of the revising work of both Philoxenus of Mabbug and Thomas of Harkel.

As for the differences between Peshitto and Peshitta - I can't demonstrate with any degree of certaintly who changed what in the Peshitto. I can only point you to the revisionary history the text underwent in the western (Byzantine) realm.....and the lack of in the eastern (Persian) realm.

As I mentionned before the additions to Peshitto came later, but the work of Philoxenus, and Harkel are different than the Peshitto.

At the end when no Greek translation into Syriac was accepted, what they did in the West is take the few sentences and and books not found in the original Peshitto, and added them to the Peshitto from the work of Harklean (which was revision of Philoxenus, which it self is a new translation from the Greek). So Philoxenus and Harkel didn't revise the Peshitto, later generation took their work and added them to the Peshitto. These added sentences and books are not read in Church, and they're not considered to be part of the Peshitto, but are only considered ad-ons.

As to why would anyone modify an original work, when you're under the control of a people forcing their will on you, as what had happend to the SOC, this will be the eventual result (just review historical accounts of forced Hellenization).

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#13
Shlama Akhi Keefa,

I don't think people realize how hard it must have been for an Aramaic Christian to be living in Byzantium after Constantine made the Greek creed the official "Church" of the empire.

It was easy for us in Persia. We had fire-worshippers as emperors (or, "Shahs" as they liked to be called.) They could care less what our scriptures said or how we conducted our religious business. We never had a Persian "Constantine."

What was the "official" version in Persia that we had to standardize the Peshitta to? The "Sanscrit NT ?"

It must have been extemely hard in Byzantium to retain the original Peshitta the way it was without any outside interference. It's a credit to the Western Aramaic Churches that they preserved it as best they could given the circumstances they found themselves in.

I don't mean to be harsh when I point out the revisionary textual history in the western Aramaic churches....I just don't want people to think that the same thing happened in Persia, and I don't want people to confuse the eastern text with the western text.

People tend to lump the two manuscript traditions together (like Mr. Juckel in his flawed study) - but that's the worst thing you can do. There are differences and good reasons sometimes for those differences.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
bshayna wbashlama habr Paul,

Hopefully one day people will understand the difference between the two traditions' transmittion, and learn why there is these differences, may be then people will start to understand the situation of the Semitic people.

moryo mbarkokh,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#15
Shlama, Paul,
On my question
You wrote the answer "There are a lot more than just 3 differences between the Peshitta and Peshitto. There are 3 major differences, and a whole lot of minor ones"
Well, John Marucci has different opinion "While it is true that the Western Tradition added the five disputed books to its canon (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation), and agrees with the Byzantine and Latin readings in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, the rest of the text is virtually identical with the Eastern text."

Paul, what do You mean by "and a whole lot of minor ones"?
If there is more differences than John Marucci says, then for example which ones are they and this is serious!!!
Sam.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)