Fabian Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) Ot and NT http://www.lulu.com/shop/david-bauscher/the-holy-peshitta-bible-translated/ebook/product-24217271.html Ebook 2019 NT http://www.lightofword.org/links/aramaic-links 2014 Edited February 5, 2020 by Fabian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 +1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlm Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Can anyone speak to the quality of David Bauscher's translation? Since it's self-published on Lulu, there's no publisher vouching for it, though a publisher is not always much of a guarantee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) Can anyone speak to the quality of David Bauscher's translation? Yes, both of the translations that Fabian referenced above--Dave Bauscher's, and Janet Magiera's (Light of the word)--are top-notch Peshitta translations from a Christian standpoint. I always prefer Jewish translations, but essentially all of the modern English translators have been Christians, and that theological lens aside, I would actually recommend Bauscher and Magiera's translations above any others. It's not that Etheridge or Murdock's were bad. They are just from the 1800's, and have more of a KJV feel to them. Etheridge also transliterates some words in an unfamiliar way to most Christians. (I actually appreciate that), but it may just be an unfamiliar feel. At any rate, in terms of modern English, I recommend both Bauscher and Magiera's (again, from a Christian standpoint, which is my duty to exclaim, as I zealously guard the Peshitta as a Jew). I wish I could recommend a Jewish version, but there isn't one with high enough quality at this time. G-d willing, there will be eventually. Edited February 5, 2020 by TYA 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabian Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 Yes, both of the translations that Fabian referenced above--Dave Bauscher's, and Janet Magiera's (Light of the word)--are top-notch Peshitta translations from a Christian standpoint. I always prefer Jewish translations, but essentially all of the modern English translators have been Christians, and that theological lens aside, I would actually recommend Bauscher and Magiera's translations above any others. It's not that Etheridge or Murdock's were bad. They are just from the 1800's, and have more of a KJV feel to them. Etheridge also transliterates some words in an unfamiliar way to most Christians. (I actually appreciate that), but it may just be an unfamiliar feel. At any rate, in terms of modern English, I recommend both Bauscher and Magiera's (again, from a Christian standpoint, which is my duty to exclaim, as I zealously guard the Peshitta as a Jew). I wish I could recommend a Jewish version, but there isn't one with high enough quality at this time. G-d willing, there will be eventually. Thanks I saw he has also an Interlinear. http://aramaicnt.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketisdell Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Thanks I saw he has also an Interlinear. http://aramaicnt.com I have seen a couple of really bad Peshitta translations (almost always from those pushing a Peshitta primacy view) and this one look like it may be one of those. From the website: Assyrian Christians have always maintained that the original New Testament is preserved in the Peshitta NT, as they call it, meticulously copied since the days of the Apostles. They claim that the Greek manuscripts were translated from the Peshitta NT. Our research of the actual words themselves has proven scientifically that they are right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) It is true that Dave Bauscher holds to a Peshitta primacy view, but that has nothing to do with the quality and accuracy of his translation. The two issues need to be kept separate. I have 7 Peshitta translations, and I can generally speak to the thoroughness of Dave's translation. If you get his modules for e-Sword (worth the money), then you get a notes module and simple Aramaic lexicon (based on SEDRA). Also, just on a side note, Bauscher is producing a translation of the Peshitta Tanakh ("OT"), and has done the Torah, Psalms, and Proverbs already (also available in e-Sword). This is the only translation beside George Lamsa's which is widely available--at least that I'm currently aware of. I'm not pushing anything here, but I simply was surprised that Fabian would mention two of the best among the Christian translations. Janet Magiera has also done a super thorough job. She actually produced an Aramaic lexicon and did the tagging for the Peshitta in BibleWorks (contrastly to George Kiraz' tagging in Accordance). Again, Fabian picked two worthy translations in his post. Edited February 6, 2020 by TYA 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 There has been a fair amount of research in the Aramaic background of the NT and I think that even if we may not agree with the views of others in this realm, we should recognize that there are many suggesting this. I would argue that even translations that ARE known to be influenced by different traditions should be encouraged. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketisdell Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) There has been a fair amount of research in the Aramaic background of the NT and I think that even if we may not agree with the views of others in this realm, we should recognize that there are many suggesting this. I would argue that even translations that ARE known to be influenced by different traditions should be encouraged. Matt and TYA, In general I agree. My concern is not the tradition but one of scholarship. And while it is true that a lot of study has surrounded the Peshitta, the idea that the Peshitta has primacy over the Greek text is an extremely minority view, even among scholars who support the premise of an Aramaic Q. And I have seen two recent "translations" that are based on Peshitta primacy, one is the Passion translation and I don't remember the publisher of the other that both significantly bend the text to fit their agendas; that is something that should be rejected no matter what positions the translator hold. Because I have seen more misinformation about Peshitta primacy than good information, it does raise some yellow flags when I see this claim. That being said, if the translation provided is based on good Syriac scholarship then the views on primacy would not impact my decision to use or not use he translation. Edited February 6, 2020 by miketisdell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TYA Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) All good thoughts. There is, of course, no substitute for going to the original; but with regards to translations, it would be good to have multiple to compare. Edited February 6, 2020 by TYA 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 Matt and TYA, In general I agree. My concern is not the tradition but one of scholarship. And while it is true that a lot of study has surrounded the Peshitta, the idea that the Peshitta has primacy over the Greek text is an extremely minority view, even among scholars who support the premise of an Aramaic Q. And I have seen two recent "translations" that are based on Peshitta primacy, one is the Passion translation and I don't remember the publisher of the other that both significantly bend the text to fit their agendas; that is something that should be rejected no matter what positions the translator hold. Because I have seen more misinformation about Peshitta primacy than good information, it does raise some yellow flags when I see this claim. That being said, if the translation provided is based on good Syriac scholarship then the views on primacy would not impact my decision to use or not use he translation. I think the Message translation lacks complete scholarship but it is still distributed and widely used. A good mix of scholarly and "other" is healthy and promotes ideas and new perspectives. It seems these two have a good grasp of the language and have put forth effort beyond what is normal. These are religious documents and not isolated to the realm of scholarship. This is history of interpretation at its best in modern times. Just MHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketisdell Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) I think the Message translation lacks complete scholarship but it is still distributed and widely used. A good mix of scholarly and "other" is healthy and promotes ideas and new perspectives. It seems these two have a good grasp of the language and have put forth effort beyond what is normal. These are religious documents and not isolated to the realm of scholarship. This is history of interpretation at its best in modern times. Just MHO As I have not had the time to investigate these particular translations and I am not familiar with the translators' work, I cannot comment on the quality of these translations. I was simply noting a statement made by one of the translators that raised a flag. And for the record, I do not recommend the Message to anyone because it is such a poor translation; while it is distributed widely, the question we should be asking is should it be distributed widely? The NWT is also distributed widely. Edited February 6, 2020 by miketisdell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattChristianOT Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 As I have not had the time to investigate these particular translations and I am not familiar with the translators' work, I cannot comment on the quality of these translations. I was simply noting a statement made by one of the translators that raised a flag. And for the record, I do not recommend the Message to anyone because it is such a poor translation; while it is distributed widely, the question we should be asking is should it be distributed widely? The NWT is also distributed widely. All subjective. I don't think The Message should be used at all, but the fact that it exists and is used should allow us to understand that there are do's and don'ts. Same scenario with Wescott and Hort's GNT. It was flawed from the start. Jerome's Vulgate. All scholarly texts that have major problems. We still distribute, study, and use them though, even though we know of underlying problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now