Order of the Complete Syrian Orthodox Antiochian Peshitta:

Akhi Khulkhun:
Katiba D'D'tqa Atqtha(Old Testament);
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Job
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Ruth
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesistes
Song of Songs
The Twelve Minor Prophets
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Sipra D'Apokrapa
Tobith
Judith
Apokrapa Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirakh
Barukh
Letter of Jeremy
Apokrapa Daniel
2 Esdras
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
D'D'tqa Khrtha:
Mathew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corithians
2 Corithians
Galations
Ephesians
Philippians
Colassians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
Yaqub
1 Shimun Keepa
2 Shimun Keepa
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
COE,NT:
Mathew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Yaqub
1 Peter
1 John
Romans
1 Corithians
2 Corithians
Galations
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colassians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
Five Disputed Books added later , but not accepted by all in COE:
2 Shimun Keepa
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
Is the Apokrapa and the Old Testament the same in the COE or different from the Syrian Orthodox Bible which I have in the Serta Script, while the COE uses either the original Estrangela Script or Swadya Script. yet the letter and alphjabet order are identical in all three forms.I have the stamp of approval on the book from the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch and all the East Damascus-Syria along with his emblem picture in a circlar form. this is how I know this Bible is in the Peshitta Aramaic and not a Catholic or Protestant Modern Aramaic version in Aramic as they have a tendency to often do so. It is printed by the United Bible Societies 1979
Shlama W'Berkhata, Sam

In reply to message #0
 
Shlama Akhi Shmuel!

I hope you will not mind if I interject here for just a moment, because I fear a critical point has not been communicated effectively enough. You wrote:

>Five Disputed Books added later ,
>but not accepted by all
>in COE: 2 Shimun Keepa
>2 John
>3 John
>Jude
>Revelation

It is not that "all of the COE" did not accept these works, it is that NONE of the COE did. The COE has never, for one moment, endorsed these books as canonical.

The SOC however, is a different story. They aligned with the Roman Catholic Church and translated these 5 books FROM GREEK, into Aramaic for their canon. Now I believe that some of these diputed works may have still existed in Aramaic, but that is another issue, and the fact is that those original Aramaic witnesses were not picked up the SOC if in fact they did exist.

The original Aramaic witnesses are PESHITTA. The revisions and additions done by the SOC are PESHITTO, and there are very tangible differences between the two.

The United Bible Society has published the PESHITTO in the western Aramaic Serto script, and as of this writing NO AUTHORITATIVE TRANSLATION OF THE PESHITTA CURRENTLY EXISTS. Then you write:

>Is the Apokrapa and the Old
>Testament the same in the
>COE or different from the
>Syrian Orthodox Bible which I
>have in the Serta Script,
>while the COE uses either
>the original Estrangela Script or
>Swadya Script. yet the letter
>and alphjabet order are identical
>in all three forms.I have
>the stamp of approval on
>the book from the Syrian
>Patriarch of Antioch and all
>the East Damascus-Syria along with
>his emblem picture in a
>circlar form. this is how
>I know this Bible is
>in the Peshitta Aramaic and
>not a Catholic or Protestant
>Modern Aramaic version in Aramic
>as they have a tendency
>to often do so. It
>is printed by the United
>Bible Societies 1979
>Shlama W'Berkhata, Sam

The Apocrypha in the SOC version is the SAME as that of the RCC because they are aligned with RCC and have adopted their canon. Ironically, in at least one case (Tobit) the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that it originally existed in Hebrew, and yet the SOC uses an Aramaic translation FROM THE GREEK VERSION. That's because Hebrew Tobit was lost for 2000 years!

Finally, Tobit's reversal from Greek to Hebrew originality also gives me hope that the final proof of Aramaic NT primacy is but one turn of a spade away. The same can be said for Josephus who, although he clearly says his work is a translation from Aramaic into Greek, has only had the latter copies survive into modern times.

Hope this helps!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #1
 
Akhi Andrew:
Then why is it the Peshitta Old Testament ends with Daniel and has the twelve minor prophets before Isaiah ,following the same order as the Septuagaint Greek Bible except for having Job after Deuteronomy and in the Eastern Othodox Canon the following Books are included:
Law: Genesis ,Exodus,Leviticus, Numebers, Deuteronmy.
Historical Books:
Joshua,Judges, Ruth,1Kings,2Kings, 3 Kings,4 Kings,1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles,Apocraphaal Ezra,2 Esdras(Ezra-Nehemiah),Esther with Apocraphal material included,Judith,Tobiot,1Maccabees,2Maccabees,3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees.
Poetry:
Psalms including #151,Odes9including the Prayer of Manassseh),Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,Song of Songs,Job,Wisdom of Solomon,Sirach,Psalms of Solomon(18 in number).
Prophecy: Hosea,Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah,Jonah, Nahum,Habakkuk,Zephaniah, Haggai,Zechariah,Malachi,Isaiah, Jeremiah,Baruch, Lamentations,Letter of jeremiah,Ezekiel, Daniel (including the three additions the Prayer of Azariah and trhe Song of the Three Children,Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.
Dr. G.M. Lamsa says the Apocrapha of the Peshitta is identical withthe Greek Septuagiant which it was copied from and added at a latter time, since the Original Peshitta included none of the Apocraphal writings therefore he did not translate them in his AV. order of the OT Peshitta. If that is true then how do you know for sure that in COE the Apocrapha are not considered part of the original Scriptures? Also Dr.G.M.Lamsa stated that the Peshitta OT. is the original Bible not the hebrew which he claims was translated incorectly from the Peshitta ,Victor agrees with him, however I and Paul don not agree with Lamsa being the other way around that the Peshitta is a translation of the original hebrew and Aramaic as to the OT Scriptures.
I do not know COE offical postion on the Apocraphal writings or which ones are used for sure. Tobit has been found in Aramaic in part by the Dead Sea Scrolls and Sirach in Hebrew also.The Catholic Church says that the Peshitta contains the original of Tobit and translated Sirach from the original Hebrew and Aramaic not the Greek of the LXX. They also claim that Jerome translated into Latin from the Peshitta of Tobit and not the LXX and that Mathew may have been compared with either a Hebrew or Aramaic copy of the original in to the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek in its entirity. here we have a possable reference to Mathew being origninally writen in Aramaic or hebrew and translated early into Greek, by Jerome himnself. Note Hebrew and Aramaic are into changeable to the Greek and Latin Church Fathers , when they claim Hebrew they could have ment Aramaic like the Peshitta which was known to Jerome and even Eusebius before to exist already in the third and fourth century. Shalam W'Berkhata, Sam