|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2013 1:01:25 GMT -5
If I understand it correctly, the Pesh-itta NT was a translation from the Greek back to Syriac/Aramaic. The value of it seems like it would be a bit dubious since it is a translation of a translation and translated again into English. The only interesting aspect I see in it is that Syriac was probably very close to what was spoken by the Galileans. However, it is not the original scriptures, but the NT went from Aramaic to Greek then back to Aramaic from the Greek. Some things are bound to get "lost in translation". The NT was not written in Aramaic first -- it was written in Greek. Granted, anything Jesus spoke was spoken in Aramaic, but the gospels in the NT were written first in Greek.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 7:00:23 GMT -5
If I understand it correctly, the Pesh-itta NT was a translation from the Greek back to Syriac/Aramaic. The value of it seems like it would be a bit dubious since it is a translation of a translation and translated again into English. The only interesting aspect I see in it is that Syriac was probably very close to what was spoken by the Galileans. However, it is not the original scriptures, but the NT went from Aramaic to Greek then back to Aramaic from the Greek. Some things are bound to get "lost in translation". The NT was not written in Aramaic first -- it was written in Greek. Granted, anything Jesus spoke was spoken in Aramaic, but the gospels in the NT were written first in Greek. Yes, I should have said the gospels were "first spoken in Aramaic", the language of Jesus and the disciples, then written in Greek. The translation from Aramaic to Greek and back again could be problematic. I just don't see how the translation back to Aramaic and then to English from there can be superior to a direct Greek-to-English translation.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 1, 2013 11:05:08 GMT -5
I think I'd love to learn Aramaic and then time travel back and see just what, if anything survived the scribes pen!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2013 15:03:32 GMT -5
The NT was not written in Aramaic first -- it was written in Greek. Granted, anything Jesus spoke was spoken in Aramaic, but the gospels in the NT were written first in Greek. Yes, I should have said the gospels were "first spoken in Aramaic", the language of Jesus and the disciples, then written in Greek. The translation from Aramaic to Greek and back again could be problematic. I just don't see how the translation back to Aramaic and then to English from there can be superior to a direct Greek-to-English translation. You will note that it's advertised as the "first Aramaic version" -- not "the first version.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 1, 2013 16:43:27 GMT -5
I think I'd love to learn Aramaic and then time travel back and see just what, if anything survived the scribes pen! I'd like to also see what escaped the scribe's pen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 17:22:01 GMT -5
I think I'd love to learn Aramaic and then time travel back and see just what, if anything survived the scribes pen! I'd like to also see what escaped the scribe's pen. Why not learn Greek and study for yourself as others have? I'm learning biblical Greek myself, but not to look for something that Luther, or Calvin, or any of the great Bible translating committees down through the ages have missed, misconstrued, or mistranslated. I just figure it's good for me ol' brain. And it keeps me stationary and the cat does so love a warm lap. And I can't afford time travel, so I'll never know what was 'left out'--if anything. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2013 19:13:05 GMT -5
The NT was not written in Aramaic first -- it was written in Greek. Granted, anything Jesus spoke was spoken in Aramaic, but the gospels in the NT were written first in Greek. Yes, I should have said the gospels were "first spoken in Aramaic", the language of Jesus and the disciples, then written in Greek. The translation from Aramaic to Greek and back again could be problematic. I just don't see how the translation back to Aramaic and then to English from there can be superior to a direct Greek-to-English translation. Clearday - your understanding is incorrect because you do not have the Bible in front of you to read the introduction pages. The Aramaic English New Testament (the P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A) Bible is translated from the Khabouris manuscript, the oldest known original Aramaic text available. It is not a translation of a translation. There are numerous proofs that The Aramaich version was translated into Greek and not the other way around. Here's just one example: 1 Peter 5:12-14 proclaims Peter had his First Epistle delivered to their door from Peter's assembly in Babylon, which boasted the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. Peter spoke Aramaic and states that he (Peter) wrote his Epistle/letter with the help of Silvanus... to the "strangers" (the disapora) or those scattered/dispersed to other countries from Jerusalem--who would also have spoken Aramaic.. 1 Peter 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ J
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 1, 2013 19:41:36 GMT -5
Just fine except for the part about us being figments of His imagination. What's wrong with being a figment of God's imagination. The Bible says god had an idea/thought/imagination/figment, and it was so. Kind of sounds like God intended it, don't you think? ... And it came to pass. We're real. We're not fantasy or illusion though both abound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 19:53:13 GMT -5
Yes, I should have said the gospels were "first spoken in Aramaic", the language of Jesus and the disciples, then written in Greek. The translation from Aramaic to Greek and back again could be problematic. I just don't see how the translation back to Aramaic and then to English from there can be superior to a direct Greek-to-English translation. Clearday - your understanding is incorrect because you do not have the Bible in front of you to read the introduction pages. The Aramaic English New Testament (the P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A) Bible is translated from the Khabouris manuscript, the oldest known original Aramaic text available. It is not a translation of a translation. There are numerous proofs that The Aramaich version was translated into Greek and not the other way around. Here's just one example: 1 Peter 5:12-14 proclaims Peter had his First Epistle delivered to their door from Peter's assembly in Babylon, which boasted the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. Peter spoke Aramaic and states that he (Peter) wrote his Epistle/letter with the help of Silvanus... to the "strangers" (the disapora) or those scattered/dispersed to other countries from Jerusalem--who would also have spoken Aramaic.. 1 Peter 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ J I am only passing on what I have read about it as follows: "General but not universal consensus is the Old Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and the New Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated from the Greek."It is based on that information that I find it difficult to understand what particular value the Pesh-tta has to anyone. As BobW points out, the NT was written in Greek originally. If anyone is going to study the NT from as close as possible to the original source, they would do best by studying the Greek, not the Pesh-tta. It really doesn't matter how old the Aramaic documents were, they still came from the original Greek. If you think I still don't understand, please try again. Perhaps you are suggesting that there were two originals and that the originals were written in both Greek and Aramaic?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 1, 2013 20:00:12 GMT -5
Or we're just figments of our imagination lol I've said this before and I'll say it again. When we say that God is paranormal or supernatural, we're assuming we know best what normal is. I disagree with that perception. As a believer in the greater being of God, it is God that is "most normal", and we are the peripheral or satellite ones in nature and perception. Calling us "supernatural" was my semantic sloppiness. Lee -- "paranormal" has nothing much to do with the word "normal" -- except that it is NOT our normal. Paranormal means outside the range of normal human experience and scientific explanation. Usually the word is associated with the phantasmagorical. As normal pertains to natures, ego for instance, I believe the Creator is the authority.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2013 20:06:36 GMT -5
Clearday - your understanding is incorrect because you do not have the Bible in front of you to read the introduction pages. The Aramaic English New Testament (the P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A) Bible is translated from the Khabouris manuscript, the oldest known original Aramaic text available. It is not a translation of a translation. There are numerous proofs that The Aramaich version was translated into Greek and not the other way around. Here's just one example: 1 Peter 5:12-14 proclaims Peter had his First Epistle delivered to their door from Peter's assembly in Babylon, which boasted the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. Peter spoke Aramaic and states that he (Peter) wrote his Epistle/letter with the help of Silvanus... to the "strangers" (the disapora) or those scattered/dispersed to other countries from Jerusalem--who would also have spoken Aramaic.. 1 Peter 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ J I am only passing on what I have read about it as follows: "General but not universal consensus is the Old Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and the New Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated from the Greek."It is based on that information that I find it difficult to understand what particular value the Pesh-tta has to anyone. As BobW points out, the NT was written in Greek originally. If anyone is going to study the NT from as close as possible to the original source, they would do best by studying the Greek, not the Pesh-tta. It really doesn't matter how old the Aramaic documents were, they still came from the original Greek. If you think I still don't understand, please try again. Perhaps you are suggesting that there were two originals and that the originals were written in both Greek and Aramaic? CD: Are you talking about the Aramaic Bible translation that I gave the link to in this post? professing.proboards.com/post/551541/thread
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 1, 2013 20:33:24 GMT -5
The historical data support a first century Aramaic NT original, as per Josephus, Antiquities XX,XI,2:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 1, 2013 20:54:09 GMT -5
I think I'd love to learn Aramaic and then time travel back and see just what, if anything survived the scribes pen! I'd like to also see what escaped the scribe's pen. That too fixit!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 1, 2013 21:09:47 GMT -5
Yes, I should have said the gospels were "first spoken in Aramaic", the language of Jesus and the disciples, then written in Greek. The translation from Aramaic to Greek and back again could be problematic. I just don't see how the translation back to Aramaic and then to English from there can be superior to a direct Greek-to-English translation. Clearday - your understanding is incorrect because you do not have the Bible in front of you to read the introduction pages. The Aramaic English New Testament (the P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A) Bible is translated from the Khabouris manuscript, the oldest known original Aramaic text available. It is not a translation of a translation. There are numerous proofs that The Aramaich version was translated into Greek and not the other way around. Here's just one example: 1 Peter 5:12-14 proclaims Peter had his First Epistle delivered to their door from Peter's assembly in Babylon, which boasted the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. Peter spoke Aramaic and states that he (Peter) wrote his Epistle/letter with the help of Silvanus... to the "strangers" (the disapora) or those scattered/dispersed to other countries from Jerusalem--who would also have spoken Aramaic.. 1 Peter 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ J Have you seen this website? www.thearamaicscriptures.com/index.htmlI found it interesting that God is called Alaha which sounds very much like the Islamic God Allah.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2013 23:21:56 GMT -5
I think I'd love to learn Aramaic and then time travel back and see just what, if anything survived the scribes pen! I'd like to also see what escaped the scribe's pen. You'd have to know both Hebrew and old Greek.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 1, 2013 23:40:09 GMT -5
The historical data support a first century Aramaic NT original, as per Josephus, Antiquities XX,XI,2:View Attachment This writing causes me some concerns -- one being that it mischaracterizes the religious scholars' understanding of the original Greek documents. Another, more important question is: What gospels are included in this NT? If they are the same gospels as the Western Christian NT I would throw out any notion that it was a 1st century NT, because even the Roman Christians at the time had nothing resembling a New Testament until centuries later. I need to have one of these versions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 2, 2013 0:06:22 GMT -5
Clearday - your understanding is incorrect because you do not have the Bible in front of you to read the introduction pages. The Aramaic English New Testament (the P-E-S-H-I-T-T-A) Bible is translated from the Khabouris manuscript, the oldest known original Aramaic text available. It is not a translation of a translation. There are numerous proofs that The Aramaich version was translated into Greek and not the other way around. Here's just one example: 1 Peter 5:12-14 proclaims Peter had his First Epistle delivered to their door from Peter's assembly in Babylon, which boasted the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel. Peter spoke Aramaic and states that he (Peter) wrote his Epistle/letter with the help of Silvanus... to the "strangers" (the disapora) or those scattered/dispersed to other countries from Jerusalem--who would also have spoken Aramaic.. 1 Peter 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ J Have you seen this website? www.thearamaicscriptures.com/index.htmlI found it interesting that God is called Alaha which sounds very much like the Islamic God Allah. The name "God" is of Germanic origin -- Dutch, German, Swedish are all in that family. The name "Allah" is of Semitic origin -- Aramaic and Hebrew and Arabic are in that family. The name "Dieu" (French) is of Latin origin -- resembles Spanish and Italian. "God" is not the god's name. He is called "God" in English because the word for a deity in English is "god". He actually does have a name, but no one uses it, so none of us know what his name is. It was so taboo in Hebrew to use the name of the god that they neglected to even inform Christians and Muslims what his name is. Hence the use of the common word for a deity in each of the languages. It's interesting that Christians can name everyone else's god(s) but their own!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 2, 2013 5:23:28 GMT -5
The name "God" is of Germanic origin -- Dutch, German, Swedish are all in that family. The name "Allah" is of Semitic origin -- Aramaic and Hebrew and Arabic are in that family. The name "Dieu" (French) is of Latin origin -- resembles Spanish and Italian. "God" is not the god's name. He is called "God" in English because the word for a deity in English is "god". He actually does have a name, but no one uses it, so none of us know what his name is. It was so taboo in Hebrew to use the name of the god that they neglected to even inform Christians and Muslims what his name is. Hence the use of the common word for a deity in each of the languages. It's interesting that Christians can name everyone else's god(s) but their own! I guess if my dog thought there were no other dogs but he, he'd be okay with my calling him 'Dog' rather than 'Fido.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 7:59:46 GMT -5
I am only passing on what I have read about it as follows: "General but not universal consensus is the Old Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and the New Testament of the Pesh-ta was translated from the Greek."It is based on that information that I find it difficult to understand what particular value the Pesh-tta has to anyone. As BobW points out, the NT was written in Greek originally. If anyone is going to study the NT from as close as possible to the original source, they would do best by studying the Greek, not the Pesh-tta. It really doesn't matter how old the Aramaic documents were, they still came from the original Greek. If you think I still don't understand, please try again. Perhaps you are suggesting that there were two originals and that the originals were written in both Greek and Aramaic? CD: Are you talking about the Aramaic Bible translation that I gave the link to in this post? professing.proboards.com/post/551541/threadI think so. I am presuming that there is only one Pesh_tta. My information came from several sites on it but the one claiming the Pesh_tta was developed from the original Greek into Aramaic is this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesh-taThis site claims that the NT Pesh_tta was handed down directly from the Apostles in the language of Aramaic. www.pesh-ta.org/initial/pesh-ta.html BobW disagrees with that but it does make some sense that at least some things were written down in Aramaic before being more formally written in Greek. " These are claims that are highly contested in Western Christianity. The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. Most scholars and theologians acknowledge that Eshoo Mshikha, the Apostles, and the Jews in general spoke Aramaic indeed many instances of Aramaic survive in the Greek New testament manuscripts. However, they still maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha. The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking." Here is the view of this scholar: "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Pesh-ta Primacy argues that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. It is the first of two books I wrote long before I had decided to become a bona fide scholar and commenced post-graduate Religious Studies. Some of my unjustified assumptions were that Christianity is the true faith, that Jesus’ speaking Aramaic would somehow mean that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that Jesus even existed as a historical figure (my scholarly work reveals that this may not be the case). I have all but disowned this work, but still allow others to view it, in the interests of transparency, as an example of how religious motives and beliefs can result in poor scholarship, because despite these assumptions there are still some interesting points and the conclusion could actually be correct, and for the interest of the few Aramaic primacists that remain. In fact, this book still serves some good purpose, in introducing the theory, in revealing the corrupt and contradictory nature of the Bible, in revealing the suspect methods and motives of many Biblical scholars, as well as clearing up the meaning of many confusing Biblical passages (Aramaic idioms are typically misunderstood by mainstream Church-goers)." aramaicpesh-ta.com/downloadbook.htm So, take your pick. Original Greek makes some sense if the premise is that the NT was written many decades after the events. Original Aramaic makes sense since it was spoken in Aramaic originally. I would have to think that the original codices were in Aramaic, or at least whatever language could be read by the traveling evangelists. Edit: This might be a good resource, the Pesh_tta Institute. www.hum.leiden.edu/religion/research/pesh-ta-institute/pesh-ta-institute.htmlThey claim that the Pesh_tta is a document which translated 2nd century Hebrew/Aramaic into Syriac. "The Pesh-ta is the Syriac translation of the Old Testament made on the basis of the Hebrew text during the second century CE. Much like the Greek translations of the Old Testament, this document is an important source for our knowledge of the text of the Old Testament. Its language is also of great interest to linguists. Moreover, as Bible of the Syriac Churches it is used in sermons, commentaries, poetry, prayers, and hymns. Many terms specific to the spirituality of the Syriac Churches have their origins in this ancient and reliable version of the Old Testament."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 2, 2013 21:55:57 GMT -5
" These are claims that are highly contested in Western Christianity. The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. Most scholars and theologians acknowledge that Eshoo Mshikha, the Apostles, and the Jews in general spoke Aramaic indeed many instances of Aramaic survive in the Greek New testament manuscripts. However, they still maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha. The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. Where, pray tell, does the eastern church get the notion that most scholars maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha? To my knowledge NO scholar has ever claimed that the NT was written by apostles and disciples -- and I have never heard of Mshikha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 14:04:06 GMT -5
" These are claims that are highly contested in Western Christianity. The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. Most scholars and theologians acknowledge that Eshoo Mshikha, the Apostles, and the Jews in general spoke Aramaic indeed many instances of Aramaic survive in the Greek New testament manuscripts. However, they still maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha. The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. Where, pray tell, does the eastern church get the notion that most scholars maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha? To my knowledge NO scholar has ever claimed that the NT was written by apostles and disciples -- and I have never heard of Mshikha. Check out their site. The TMB killed the links because of the spelling of Pesh_tta so you will have to add back the missing letters to use the link. Just add in the missing "i" and go to this link http://www.pesh_tta.org/
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2013 15:26:24 GMT -5
Where, pray tell, does the eastern church get the notion that most scholars maintain that the New Testament was penned in Greek by the Apostles and disciples of Mshikha? To my knowledge NO scholar has ever claimed that the NT was written by apostles and disciples -- and I have never heard of Mshikha. Check out their site. The TMB killed the links because of the spelling of Pesh_tta so you will have to add back the missing letters to use the link. Just add in the missing "i" and go to this link http://www.pesh_tta.org/ from wiki New Testament Pesh-ta "The Pesh-ta version of the New Testament is thought to show a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively 'Western' renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex 'Byzantine' readings of the 5th century. One unusual feature of the Pesh-ta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Modern Syriac Bibles add 6th or 7th century translations of these five books to a revised Pesh-ta text. "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals.
A minority viewpoint, variants of an Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis, is that the Aramaic New Testament of the Pesh-ta represents the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it. The type of text represented by Pesh-ta is the Byzantine. In a detailed examination of Matthew 1-14, Gwilliam found that the Pesh-ta agrees with the Textus Receptus only 108 times and with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, in 31 instances is stands alone.[12]"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 15:28:25 GMT -5
Check out their site. The TMB killed the links because of the spelling of Pesh_tta so you will have to add back the missing letters to use the link. Just add in the missing "i" and go to this link http://www.pesh_tta.org/ from wiki New Testament Pesh-ta "The Pesh-ta version of the New Testament is thought to show a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively 'Western' renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex 'Byzantine' readings of the 5th century. One unusual feature of the Pesh-ta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Modern Syriac Bibles add 6th or 7th century translations of these five books to a revised Pesh-ta text. "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals.
A minority viewpoint, variants of an Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis, is that the Aramaic New Testament of the Pesh-ta represents the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it. The type of text represented by Pesh-ta is the Byzantine. In a detailed examination of Matthew 1-14, Gwilliam found that the Pesh-ta agrees with the Textus Receptus only 108 times and with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, in 31 instances is stands alone.[12]" Glad you agree with me for a change. I thought you were in the mode of disagreeing with everything I wrote.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2013 15:46:03 GMT -5
from wiki New Testament Pesh-ta "The Pesh-ta version of the New Testament is thought to show a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively 'Western' renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex 'Byzantine' readings of the 5th century. One unusual feature of the Pesh-ta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Modern Syriac Bibles add 6th or 7th century translations of these five books to a revised Pesh-ta text. "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals.
A minority viewpoint, variants of an Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis, is that the Aramaic New Testament of the Pesh-ta represents the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it. The type of text represented by Pesh-ta is the Byzantine. In a detailed examination of Matthew 1-14, Gwilliam found that the Pesh-ta agrees with the Textus Receptus only 108 times and with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, in 31 instances is stands alone.[12]" Glad you agree with me for a change. I thought you were in the mode of disagreeing with everything I wrote. from wiki: "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. from you:
"The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. "
These two statements do not agree with one another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 16:00:05 GMT -5
Glad you agree with me for a change. I thought you were in the mode of disagreeing with everything I wrote. from wiki: "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. from you:
"The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. "
These two statements do not agree with one another.
I guess I was wrong. You do intend to disagree with everything I write and continue to misrepresent (or just not bother reading and comprehending) my views on a subject even if you unwittingly agree! I suggest starting at the top of this thread and reading it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom, starting with the top. Just to help you out, you will discover in this thread that my repeated view, first challenged by Cherie, is that the Pesh_tta was translated from Greek to Syriac and then to English, rendering the Pesh_tta in English today rather valueless because of the multiple renderings and possibilities of error. Now if you can't see that or don't understand that, please ask, I would be happy to explain it and go over it, line by line. As far as your last post goes, you are not quoting my words or my view. Please be more careful when attributing quotes and views to me. Now let's have some genuine discourse if it is at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2013 19:14:24 GMT -5
from wiki: "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. from you:
"The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. "
These two statements do not agree with one another.
I guess I was wrong. You do intend to disagree with everything I write and continue to misrepresent (or just not bother reading and comprehending) my views on a subject even if you unwittingly agree! I suggest starting at the top of this thread and reading it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom, starting with the top. Just to help you out, you will discover in this thread that my repeated view, first challenged by Cherie, is that the Pesh_tta was translated from Greek to Syriac and then to English, rendering the Pesh_tta in English today rather valueless because of the multiple renderings and possibilities of error. Now if you can't see that or don't understand that, please ask, I would be happy to explain it and go over it, line by line. As far as your last post goes, you are not quoting my words or my view. Please be more careful when attributing quotes and views to me. Now let's have some genuine discourse if it is at all possible. I believe that I did start at the top of this thread and read it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom.
If I misinterpreted what you stated I apologize, however, this was your statement.
Clearday
Post by Clearday on 28 Sep 2013 at 17:37
If I understand it correctly, the Pesh-itta NT was a translation from the Greek back to Syriac/Aramaic. The value of it seems like it would be a bit dubious since it is a translation of a translation and translated again into English. The only interesting aspect I see in it is that Syriac was probably very close to what was spoken by the Galileans. However, it is not the original scriptures, but the NT went from Aramaic to Greek then back to Aramaic from the Greek. Some things are bound to get "lost in translation".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 21:16:54 GMT -5
I guess I was wrong. You do intend to disagree with everything I write and continue to misrepresent (or just not bother reading and comprehending) my views on a subject even if you unwittingly agree! I suggest starting at the top of this thread and reading it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom, starting with the top. Just to help you out, you will discover in this thread that my repeated view, first challenged by Cherie, is that the Pesh_tta was translated from Greek to Syriac and then to English, rendering the Pesh_tta in English today rather valueless because of the multiple renderings and possibilities of error. Now if you can't see that or don't understand that, please ask, I would be happy to explain it and go over it, line by line. As far as your last post goes, you are not quoting my words or my view. Please be more careful when attributing quotes and views to me. Now let's have some genuine discourse if it is at all possible. I believe that I did start at the top of this thread and read it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom.
If I misinterpreted what you stated I apologize, however, this was your statement.
Clearday
Post by Clearday on 28 Sep 2013 at 17:37
If I understand it correctly, the Pesh-itta NT was a translation from the Greek back to Syriac/Aramaic. The value of it seems like it would be a bit dubious since it is a translation of a translation and translated again into English. The only interesting aspect I see in it is that Syriac was probably very close to what was spoken by the Galileans. However, it is not the original scriptures, but the NT went from Aramaic to Greek then back to Aramaic from the Greek. Some things are bound to get "lost in translation".
Obviously you didn't read the whole thread where I later clarified that the NT gospels were spoken in Aramaic, first written in Greek, then written in Aramaic from the Greek. Further clarification was that the Pesh_tta was not translated from the Greek, but from the oldest Aramaic manuscripts ( originally translated from the Greek documents) into Syriac, a form of Aramaic. Then that translation was translated into English......which is the subject of this thread in the first place. Then, you quoted a post where I offered the counter view from Pesh_tta.org and then claimed it was what I wrote and was my opinion. So that's two errors on your part. Apology accepted. Perhaps you would enjoy yourself more if you focused on actually contributing something useful to the topic under discussion rather than making it your mission in life to "catch" me in some irrelevant error. Stalking doesn't look good on anyone's resume.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 3, 2013 21:29:32 GMT -5
from wiki: "Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Pesh-ta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. from you:
"The common misconception that the New Testament was originally penned in Greek still persists today in a vast majority of Christian denominations. "
These two statements do not agree with one another.
I guess I was wrong. You do intend to disagree with everything I write and continue to misrepresent (or just not bother reading and comprehending) my views on a subject even if you unwittingly agree! I suggest starting at the top of this thread and reading it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom, starting with the top. Just to help you out, you will discover in this thread that my repeated view, first challenged by Cherie, is that the Pesh_tta was translated from Greek to Syriac and then to English, rendering the Pesh_tta in English today rather valueless because of the multiple renderings and possibilities of error. Now if you can't see that or don't understand that, please ask, I would be happy to explain it and go over it, line by line. As far as your last post goes, you are not quoting my words or my view. Please be more careful when attributing quotes and views to me. Now let's have some genuine discourse if it is at all possible. Okay - let's have some genuine discourse - and please read more carefully what I have written already. At this point, I don't have to read any reference you give me concerning who most scholars believe penned the NT. I said exactly what I meant (and I meant nothing more than what I said), I made not a word of it up, and I have adequate reference in my curriculum vitae to back it up.
|
|