Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
source documents for Alexander's Aramaic New Testament
Dear family in our Mari Yashua,Berek Alaha! I was wondering if anyone knows what original Aramaic Peshitta source-sources-Victor Alexander utilised in translating his Aramaic New Testament.That is the title of his latest version of his disciples New Testament as the new one,the Aramaic New Testament, has restored the proper name for Yashua from Jesus to Eashoa and God to Alaha.He has written in his notes and essays that when he started many years ago he got out and brushed off the old family Aramaic Peshitta text and began translating at his wifes insistance at first.Out side of a small handful of examples,I really enjoy and appreciate the translation work he has done as his command of the English language is as exstensive as his command of Aramaic.As he is only one from a small prestigeous group who is a native Aramaic speaker,this certainly gives creedance to his compatancy as a translator.There are a handful of passages that seem at odds with other translations,but over all I find myself returning to it.What do you surmise to have been the old family Aramaic bible he referred to.The 1905? The 1987 Church of the East Swadiya script version? In Yashua,D.Michael.
I have the same question. Allaha, is the same word as Elohim, is just a small difference between the two languages. About the name of our Messiah, I don't really know. Y'shua for me is the most accepted.
"Eloah" is the Hebrew singular form of the Hebrew plural form "Elohim"...Alaha is the singular form in Aramaic of the singular form of the Hebrew Eloah. As for the name of Messiah (M'Shikha in Aramaic) would be Eshu in Aramaic, but their are other spellings and other forms of it, such as Esho. I don't know how Victor comes up with Eashoa, but it seems he adds the "a" "o" as vowels to Esho for some reason.

Also, his translation below of John 1:1 is rather odd, and I am not sure how he justifies this translation, as somethings are not there in the text. "Manifestation" is possible as a meaning of "Miltha", but "of creation" is just adding his interpretation in the verse as I see it, as well as his adding "the embodiment of".

In the beginning of creation, there was the Manifestation,
that Manifestation was with God,
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God.
Everything was within his power;
otherwise, nothing would ever exist.
Through him, there was Life,
and Life became the spark of humanity,
and that ensuing fire lights the darkness,
and darkness does not overshadow it.

In the latest edition, he changed "Manifestation" in John 1:1 to "Milta".

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)