|
|
Post by librarylarry on Oct 9, 2017 20:30:14 GMT -8
Shalom, After finding the unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia online, I decided to look up information on the Peshitta TaNaKh. To know that Abgar, King of Edessa is one and the same with Izates, King of Adiabene, filled in a missing blank in my understanding of Early Church history. To know that Josephus mentions him was very gratifying. jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12061-peshitta# |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 10, 2017 3:41:22 GMT -8
What I got from this was the different source texts and corrections that went into making up the Peshita. I especially see the influence of the Septuagint in interpreting the TNK as problematic. We have the texts in the original Hebrew language, so why make an interpretation based on another interpretation and then give it primacy? There may be some things we can learn from details thought too common to write about in the original text, but placed in the later interpretations as men saw this knowledge slipping. But in this context the Peshita and other interpretations can only be used to enhance understanding, not as absolute scripture any more than the King James Bible (or any other English interpretation). In order to truly understand the original text we must go back as close as we can get to the original text. In the TNK, that means the Hebrew. The B'rith Chadashah is different. It was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Some say it was translated into Aramaic first, but really we cannot know for sure. Some books may have went from Aramaic to Greek, while others may have went from Greek to Aramaic. (Those who say it was originally written in either Greek or Aramaic I dismiss out of hand, for reasons discussed in several places on this forum elsewhere.) When I got my Peshita (Lamsa's) I was surprised how it agreed almost entirely with the translations from Greek in both form and content. It had the flowery Greek style introductions and the same mistranslations as my NASB. I was a bit disappointed, to tell the truth. But the  fact is that we do not have the original letters in Hebrew. So we must make do comparing the translations from the well over 5000 differing Greek source documents and those from the Aramaic, then placing it all in a first century Hebrew cultural and linguistic perspective and digging out the truth the best we can. The truth is there, but it requires we look at the whole of the Besorah of Yeshua (the Gospels and Hazon/Revelation) and the Kethuvai Shaliachim (Apostolic Writings) as a whole and in a Hebraic mindset. Dan C |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
fact is that we do not have the original letters in Hebrew. So we must make do comparing the translations from the well over 5000 differing Greek source documents and those from the Aramaic, then placing it all in a first century Hebrew cultural and linguistic perspective and digging out the truth the best we can. The truth is there, but it requires we look at the whole of the Besorah of Yeshua (the Gospels and Hazon/Revelation) and the Kethuvai Shaliachim (Apostolic Writings) as a whole and in a Hebraic mindset.
