Aramaic Peshitta Text (English cover)
(This is a repost of an article on The Chronicles of Johanan Rakkav.)
Some time ago, I ordered this book, The New Covenant (Aramaic Peshitta Text) With Hebrew Translation, from The Bible Society (UK), aka the famous British and Foreign Bible Society. Evidently it has been reprinted in several editions, as the edition I received has a much more attractive cover than the one advertised by the Bible Society (you can see the updated edition on Amazom.com here and here).
The recent edition has a front cover (from our English perspective) in English; the back, in Aramaic and in Torah Scroll Hebrew. Now the Aramaic is transliterated into Hebrew characters and the same is true inside the book; the original Syriac (Eastern Christian Aramaic, as it were), vowels and all, is transliterated into Hebrew letters and vowel-points. One starts reading the Aramaic text from right to left, and across the page is a verse-by-verse Hebrew translation. Trying to understand the Aramaic (for me) is like trying to understand Italian when you only know French, even if I do have a little experience dealing with Biblical Aramaic. But the Hebrew translation is wonderfully readable and seems to be basically consonant with the Aramaic, even if it’s not quite as “classical” here and there as I might like or as Franz Delitzsch‘s famous translation has it.
The Peshitta itself is one of the oldest versions of the New Testament, along with the other Christian Aramaic versions. There is an Editor’s Note in the book (in English behind the English cover, in Modern Hebrew behind the Aramaic/Hebrew cover), giving valuable historical and linguistic background. I haven’t had the chance to review this in depth yet, but simply having the Peshitta in a format that one familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic can read is a tremendous help for someone like me. The Peshitta can be compared with various Greek manuscripts and texts and thus gives an important cross-check to them (and to how some people have tampered with both the Aramaic text and the Greek text for their own ends).
A point of interest: the order of the books in the Peshitta is the same as in the original Greek New Testament, with the General Epistles coming first, then the Epistles of Paul (ending with Hebrews), and finally the Book of Revelation. Thus Peter’s warning about how people misunderstand Paul’s writings comes before the cover-to-cover reader encounters Paul’s writings, not afterward:
(2 Peter 3:15 RSV) And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
(2 Peter 3:16 RSV) speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:17 RSV) You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
(2 Peter 3:18 RSV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
I look forward eagerly to exploring this volume for a long, long time.
Blessings in Messiah (ברכות במשיח),
John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
- Image via Wikipedia
This is how the Syriac for “peace” would appear in its own alphabet and in Hebrew characters. The Aramaic is shlama; the Hebrew equivalent is shalom (שלום).
Thank you for this keen information, John.
Comment by Margaret Walker — April 3, 2011 @ 6:26 PM |
John
Hi- thank you for sharing this exciting and long awaited endeavor for you. May you have the time and peace to pursue it effectively. The script below is so beautiful. I have always love how the Hebrew print is written. It is like a lovely song.
Please forgive but can you briefly tell me what Peshitta means?
Yisraela
Comment by 2embracethelight — April 3, 2011 @ 9:33 PM |
From “Peshitta” on Wikipedia: The Peshitta (Classical Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ for “simple, common, straight, vulgate”, Arabic:”بسيطة”) is the standard version of the Syriac Bible.
It’s too bad that the edition I have is only of the New Testament. I’d be very curious to see what the Peshitta does with the Old Testament.
Comment by rakkav — April 3, 2011 @ 10:53 PM |
Thank you for the explanation. It is more simple than I imagined. I learn so much from you. You are a good teacher.
Always
Yisraela
Comment by 2embracethelight — April 4, 2011 @ 12:11 AM
hi john, i just now read all your comments, nearly five months after you posted them. i am also interested in obtaining The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text With Hebrew Translation, but i am wondering if anyone knows when it was translated from Aramaic to Hebrew? that would be interesting to know before making the purchase i think.
Regards,
Larie Anne
Comment by Larie Anne — August 20, 2011 @ 1:37 PM |
Yes, this edition was translated from Aramaic (specifically Syriac) into Hebrew, as word-for-word as the differences in the two languages makes possible. This makes the Hebrew end up a little awkward at times in terms of its own idiom, but if one knows Hebrew well enough that isn’t really a problem. There is an English and a Modern Hebrew introduction which is very informative. I got my copy from the Bible Society in London, UK, although as I recall this printing and several other editions are also available via Amazon.com.
Comment by rakkav — August 21, 2011 @ 12:19 AM |
Hello again, John, and thank you for so kindly responding to my question. It is possible that I did not clearly phrase my question with my initial posting, so I hope it is okay if I pose it again? I understand that the The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text has an accompanying Hebrew translation, but I was wondering if you could tell me *when* this translation was completed? I understand that the book was published in 1986, but is that also the year the Aramaic-to-Hebrew translation was completed? Also, I was told that the Tetragrammaton is not found in the original Aramaic text of the Peshitta, but the title “marya” was translated “yod-heh-vav-heh” in Hebrew. Is this correct? If so, why was a title translated as a name? I hope you can help me and thank you again for taking the time to answer my questions.
Kind regards,
Larie Anne
Comment by Larie Anne — August 21, 2011 @ 2:22 AM |
This edition was printed in 2005. The Aramaic text is taken from the Mosul edition printed in 1887-1891 and reprinted in Beirut in 1951. As for the original Peshitta Syriac text itself (which includes both Testaments), the answer is not a simple one as it was not compiled into a single edition for some time and even then it left out some parts of the New Testament until modern printed editions were made. “According to Ephrem the Syrian, it had become an official text of the Christians in Edessa towards the end of the fifth century” (p. iv, English introduction to this edition). There were portions considerably older than this; one compliation of the Gospels into a single narrative dates from after 165 AD. But there seems little clear information as to how old the various portions are (cf. op. cit., p. iv).
I assume you mean “why was a name translated as a title?” There is a most regrettable misunderstanding – several, actually – behind that line of questioning. First, in the biblical languages there is no distinction between “name” and “title”. For example, “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”, even in English translation in Revelation 19, is called a name, not a title, as is “The Word of God”. So is every other appelation denoting personal attributes. Even in English, “title” is but a subset of “name”. Yehawweh (more on that pronunciation in a moment), Adonay and Elohim are the three holiest names (not titles) of God in Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament in Greek and in the versions (including Aramaic) reflects accurately how the Jews and early Christians respected those names.
In public reading outside the Second Temple (in time, on the Day of Atonement only), or in public discourse, Yehawweh was never pronounced aloud; Adonay, Elohim or sometimes ha-Shem (“the Name”) was substituted out of respect, following biblical precedent such as Moses, David and Daniel used. This broke no law of God; in fact the decision was meant to help the common people keep it. If Jesus had not respected this part of the “reading tradition”, not only would he not be allowed to read in the synagogue, but he would’ve been accused by the extremists among the scribes and Pharisees of blasphemy and likely they would’ve tried to stone him. But everybody then knew what was really meant by the circumlocutions and the pronunciation of Yehawweh was then known by all, so there was no problem.
To this day you will find in the Masoretic Text vowel-pointings that are meant to indicate how to reach YHWH in various contexts: either as Adonay or as Elohim. Had knowledge of the accentual tradition been maintained in practice it would’ve been easy to reconstruct the pronunciation of YHWH at any time. Now that it has been restored by Suzanne Haik-Vantoura (see my Web page http://www.rakkav.com/biblemusic/), that problem can be solved. It has to have three syllables, not two, and moreover a vowel pattern much like Adonay and Elohim (but not Adon or ha-Shem) which substitute for it. That means the correct pronunciation is not the Hif’il stem “Yahweh“, but the Pi’el stem “Yehawweh“. That is the one and only word in any language in which the sound perfectly represents the meaning (how is another wonderful and fascinating subject): Yehawweh is most emphatically the Eternal, but also, He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
Yehawweh is His proper name in Hebrew. Adonay is a name denoting His sovereignty. Adon does likewise, without the transcendent emphasis (plural of majesty) that Adonay has. Elohim is a name denoting kind of being, and in New Testament terms (translated as Theos) it is also a family name, as that Being has a Father-Son relationship. Yeshua (translated “Jesus”) denotes the Eternal as Savior. (“Yahshua” is a figment of some few linguists’ overactive imaginations; it has no historical support.) In Hebrew “ha-Adon Yeshua ha-Mashiach” equals “the Lord Jesus Christ” in English. One could go on.
In the Syriac Old Testament “Mara” translates “ha-Adon” or “Adon” and “Marya” translates “Adonay” either as such or else as a substitute for “Yehawweh“. In the Greek New Testament, as in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, “Kyrios” (“Lord”) translates “ha-Adon“, “Adon“, “Adonay” and “Yehawweh“. In the Syriac New Testament there is a finer distinction as two words, not one, are available. “Marya” translates “Yehawweh” (though still as the equivalent of “Adonay“) and “Mara” transates the other Hebrew names as concepts. There is a further complication as the Syriac translators sometimes put “Marya” (meaning “Adonay“) where the Greek “Kyrios” probably means simply the same as “ha-Adon“. And so in this edition of the Aramaic-Hebrew Peshitta, the Syriac text of Luke 2:11 has “Marya” while the Hebrew translation has “ha-Adon” rather than “Adonay“. So in some cases the Hebrew translation is tweaked to correct perceived misunderstandings of the original Greek text that are inherent in the later Syriac version. I hope this is clear.
Comment by rakkav — August 21, 2011 @ 9:42 AM |
Oh wow, that was quite an answer to my questions! Thank you soooo much! Oh my goodness! That was way more than I expected. Actually, the information I was told was that the title Marya (in Aramaic) was translated into the Name YHWH (in Hebrew), but apparently I was given wrong information. I still have so much to learn about these things. I also find it interesting that you present the Creator’s name as “Yehawweh.” I read somewhere that in Paleo-Hebrew, the symbol for the “heh” resembles a backwards “E,” which was subsequently introduced into the Greek language as the sound “eh.” If that is true, then it makes sense that in the Paleo-Hebrew, the Name was pronounced something like “Yehawweh.” Do you know if there are any ancient records, say in Greek, of anyone writing out the Name as “Ieue” (or something similar)? I went to the link that you provided in reference to Suzanne Haik-Vantoura, and I enjoyed that fascinating recording from 1986, but I didn’t see anything about the name “Yehawweh.” I would appreciate more information, but at the same time, you have already been more than gracious in your efforts to assist my studies, so please do not feel obligated.
All the best to you,
Larie Anne
Comment by Larie Anne — August 22, 2011 @ 10:09 PM |
The Greek-speaking Catholic commentator Theodotian (sp.?) characterized the Tetragrammaton in Greek as IAUE. In like mannner the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus characterized it for his Greek audience as “four vowels”, yet without naming them. But since going from Hebrew to Greek involves loss of information, this is insufficient to decide between Yahweh and Yehawweh in the original. Strangely there has been a bias toward Yahweh in the scholarly community, possibly because of the rejection of the antiquity of the accentuation, possibly because of the shorter Yah in Hebrew, the Aramaic Yahu, and so on. (Also Greek has no semi-consonants whereas YHWH is all semi-consonants, derived from a three-consonant root, and so vowels were as close as Greek could get.)
By 1000 BC the Phoenicians and other Semites (including no doubt the Hebrews) were using a sort of backwards E to represent the letter he. The Greeks adopted the form as such, calling it epsilon, and eventually reversed the form. This came in time via Latin into English as our E. Yes, this is the letter and the sound at the end of IAUE, but the Semitic he didn’t always mark an “e” vowel – it could represent one of the “a” vowels, for example. More: originally the root HWH ended in yod, not he, and so it was HWY and the Tetragrammaton taken from that would’ve been Yehawwey. No surprise then that the overtone chant “ieaouoaei”, the one that generates the whole overtone series, matches the word Yehawweh in later Hebrew. So the correspondence between H in YHWH and E in IAUE is a happy coincidence – not the direct result of transferring letters (he to epsilon), but of transferring sounds (-eh (once -ey) to -E).
Comment by rakkav — August 24, 2011 @ 5:10 PM |