Aramaic Peshitta Bible of the East Question

[spiridon]

Im re-typeing
Im in search of a good Bible , and have seen the Aramaic Peshitta Bible edition in many stores, has anyone dealt with this version before and what was the outcome- Im a knucklehead when it comes to this, and quite frankly its all new to me, But with Gods Grace I seek the Truth....you know I dont know where,but I had heard that the Catholic Douay-Rheims would be the best english translation as it was taken from the original Vulgate which i believe was taken from the Hebrew Text .........I know commentary from a Catholic Edition would get a little off course, but Im honestly seeking a close as possible translation into the English.......................

[DavidHawthorne]

Niphon-
For what it's worth, here is my (short) opinion on which translation is best....
I like the Douay very much and it does have much to recommend it. My own copy is published by TAN though there is a newer version in a much nicer binding that is about to be published by Baronius Press. Its good points are that the books are named in the traditional manner (1 Samuel= 1 Kings, etc.), the psalms are numbered according to the Church's usage (and, I believe, mostly translated from the Septuagint, although the rest of the OT is from the Hebrew), the "Apocrypha" is not seperated from the other Biblical books, and the notes- although Roman Catholic- are mostly very solid and edifying. It's demerits are that its OT is mostly from the Hebrew, and its NT is from a local Italic version rather than the Majority text used universally and from the beginning by the Eastern Church as reflected in the Constantinopolitan text. Also, it lacks a few books considered canonical by the Orthodox. Also in its favor is a literal word for word translation of the originals rather than the more interpretive thought-for-thought translation principles that most modern translations follow.
If you want a Bible that includes all the books (except the Odes and Psalms of Solomon) then the New Revised Standard Version is unmatched for beauty of expression. Its demerits are that it is a though-for-thought translation, and from the Hebrew in the OT and the Critical Text in the NT.
By the Fall of 2006 there is supposed to be a new translation from Conciliar Press using the Septuagint for the OT and the Textus Receptus (which is very close to the historic Orthodox text) for the NT. The notes will probably leave something to be desired from a traditionalist Orthodox perspective but this will then be the best single volume book of Scripture when it comes out.
Until then, the best selction of Scriptures from a historic Orthodox standpoint would probably be:
The OT of Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.
The "Apocrypha" of the King James Version (included in Brenton's translation).
The NT of the King James or New King James Version (which includes textual notes that show the variant readings of the Majority text).
The exception to the NT would be the Apocalypse which is more accurate in a literal translation from the Critical Text such as the New American Standard Bible which is closer to the Constantinopolitan text than the Textus Receptus from which the King James is derived.
Of course, for an extremely accurate literal translation of the NT from the Church's recieved text, the translation from Dormition Skete is incredible with tons of patristic quotes. Its only demerit is that it is sometimes difficult to read which is a direct result of its chief merit: its literalness.
Back to the Douay-Rheims: if you find that translation edifying then, despite the defects above, it was (in its Vulgate form) the Bible of the western Orthodox Church for some 5-6 centuries BEFORE the schism and formed the spiritual life of such lights of the Church as St. Gregory Dialogos and so I don't think you can go wrong by choosing it if you like.
As for the Syriac Peshitta, it is available in English in the Lamsa translation and is very good as well. Its OT follows the Hebrew mostly but has many readings more in line with the Septuagint than the Masoretic text. I don't know which NT textual family it is closest to but, like the Vulgate forming St. Gregory Dialogos, the Peshitta formed St. Ephrem the Syrian so it too is a reliable path to a holy Orthodox life.
In the end, I think we should value the words of the Lord in Scripture so much that we search diligently for the most accurate translation while realizing that if we would piously and fervently follow even the worst translation with our whole hearts we would be walking in the footsteps of the saints.........
In Christ,
Rd. David

[Pensees]

If you are looking for a complete translation of the Aramaic Peshitta, the Old Testament and New, George Lamsa's is currently the only one available:

But if you are looking for just the New Testament, and one that is more faithful to the Peshitta text than Lamsa's, then James Murdock's is worthy of consideration:

The Old Testament of the Peshitta is based on the pre-Masoretic, and is the oldest Christian translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint and the Peshitta OT are most likely based on the same ancient Hebrew text, and are good witnesses against the Masoretic.
The Peshitta NT is most likely a "Vulgate" of the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types. It provides an early witness to the longer ending of Mark, and other portions of the New Testament that are disputed by secular scholars.

As for a translation of the Greek text, nothing I've seen is better than the NKJV. The NRSV has been rejected by most Orthodox jurisdictions for its modernist understanding of Scripture, while the NKJV is a faithful, readable translation of the Byzantine text.

I hope that this is helpful.

Peace.

[Pensees]

On a related note, I found this free interview with George Lamsa: www.noohra.com/Index.pl%3fmm/Lamsa_intro_10mins

It's interesting to hear the man speak.