The Gabriel Bible -Index

The Gabriel Bible’s Index To

“The Testimony of Yeshua”

(Mistakenly called “the New Testament”)

In the Original Peshitta (& Greek) Order

From the Aramaic, Harmonizing and Contrasting the Greek

Greek and Aramaic Bible Rewritten In the English Language

G.a.b.r.i.e.l. INTRODUCTION

(This acronym was coined by a long time brother)

“The world has never had a complete Bible of the Old and New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the Scriptural books. This is a fact! It is almost unbelievable that such a non-manuscript arrangement of the books of the Bible could exist, but all modern translations of the Holy Scriptures do not follow the early manuscripts. Publishers in their quest to print numerous versions of the Bible have been led to avoid the manuscript positioning of the Scriptural books in favor of an ecclesiastical order which has no justification from the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible.” —Restoring the Original Bible, Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D.

“Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgment of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382–429). All theories based on this order rest on human authority, and are thus without any true foundation.” —Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p.139

I do not use the term “New Testament” except to explain the error in using it. (Testament is not a synonym for covenant and the “New Covenant” is not a book.) Tertullian was the first to apply the term “New Testament” to the newer Messianic Scriptures, and “Old Testament” to the Hebrew Scriptures. This terminology implies that the newer Scriptures are superior to all previous Scriptures, rather than the completion of the whole. Yet the Messianic Scriptures are additional Scriptures, they complement all previous Scriptures. Yeshua’s message was the *aim and purpose* of the Law (Torah).

Romans 10:4 For the Messiah is the *aim and purpose* [See Strong’s 5056] of the Torah*, for righteousness, for everyone who believes in Him. GB

Prior to Tertullian’s new terminology, there was no concept a deep chasm separating the “New Books” (documents & letters) from the Torah (Hebrew Scriptures) nor were the newer documents thought to have anti Semitic overtones. I refer to the newer Messianic Scriptures as “The Testimony of Yeshua-Messiah” because the herald (apostle) John seemingly called it that. He was the last surviving herald*, and evidence indicates that he finished “canonizing” the “The Testimony of Yeshua”. (Overwhelming evidence for “Apostolic canonization”, rather than Catholic, can be read in Ernest Martin’s above mentioned book). John used the term “the Testimony of Yeshua Messiah” three times and “Testimony of Yeshua” twice, after he had established the term.

Revelation 12:17 The dragon was *provoked to anger* [3710] against the *wife-to-be* [1135]; and he went to war against her remnant* [3062] survivors* [4690], who keep the Commandments of Yehovah, and have the Testimony of Yeshua. GB

Revelation 19:10 I fell at his feet, to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you dont do that; for I *serve the same God* [4889]. I’m your brother* who also adheres to* [2192] the Testimony [3141 or “documentation”] of Yeshua. Worship Yehovah; for the Testimony of Yeshua is the *empowering spirit* [4151] of the *inspired declaration* [4394]” (also: Revelation 1:2; 1:9). GB

Revelation 6:9 When he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the bodies* [5594] of those who were slain because of the Word of Yehovah [1], and because of of the Testimony of the Lamb [2] that they held. GB

[1] John 10:35 “The Word of Yehovah” (God) refers to either the Hebrew Scriptures or God’s spoken word: the Torah (off site). Claims of people hearing God’s actual voice are quite overrated.

[2] The “Testimony of the Lamb” is apparently another descriptive reference to the collective inspired documentation that we have concerning Yeshua—the so-called “New Testament”.

As soon as I read the book Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? I came to believe that the New Scriptures were really translated from the Western Aramaic Peshitta into Greek, and not the other way around. But there is not a contemporary English version of the Peshitta available without copyright restrictions (unless there is a really obscure one, like this). To remedy this, I immediately decided to update Murdock’s 1851 public domain translation. My first task was to word process out most of the obsolete English wording and phraseology. That is virtually finished. Comparing it with other Aramaic and Greek versions, and upgrading the writing style is taking much longer. This version will always be available on line free, as noted below, as long as I am alive and able.

A TRANSLATION IN PROGRESS: When I first began reading the Aramaic to English translations, I thought that there would be many startling differences from the Greek texts, and many new insights. I have not found this to be the case. It is the similarities that are surprising—due to the Protestant influence of all of the common English translations, whether being translated from Aramaic or Greek texts. The most surprising thing is the number of nuances lost by English translators going from the Greek texts to their English translations. While the GB’s Testimony of Yeshua is based on Murdock’s Peshitta, I of necessity checked it against The Online Bible Greek Lexicon (and later made the Strong’s numbers into live links using searchgodsword because there are no comparably thoro Aramaic lexicons, and none yet without copyright restrictions, so far as I know. These lexicons are incredibly powerful tools. They use Strong’s numbers, now universally used, to locate definitions of Scriptural Greek (and Hebrew) words, but they are far more “exhaustive” than the original 19th century Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (now on line) that I used for decades. This accounts for all of the [bracketed] and linked Strong’s numbers in the Gabriel Bible text. These bracketed key words make a trail that is very easy to follow, to see why the nuances differ so much when you follow along in another version. Using these Strong’s numbers is somewhat like coloring by the numbers—it doesnt take a linguist to paint a word picture.

After spending a few thousand hours comparing various Aramaic and Greek translations, side by side, I can say with certainty that the objectivity of the translators has a far greater influence on a translation than whether or not they use Aramaic or Greek texts! Still, it is nice to eliminate some of the bugs lost in the translation from Aramaic to Greek. Virtually any difference of significance between the Gabriel Bible and the Murdock basis is marked with an *asterisk, a linked Strong’s number [1234], a footnote [1], a topical link, or to the GB Glossary. I will admit that James Murdock would not recognize this as having descended from his work.

There was a controversy among the Jews as to what to do when they found a copy of the Testimony of Yeshua. They were concerned because the tetragrammaton, YHVH (Yehovah) in Paleo Hebrew form, was inserted into all of the original “Minim” (Messianic/Nazarene/Christian) copies of the Testimony of Yeshua in the the Aramaic, Greek and even Latin copies. Some of the Jews wanted to burn them intact, while others insisted on removing each instance of the Tetragrammaton prior to burning the testimony. That the Divine Name of Yehovah was present in the original copies of the “Testimony of Yeshua” (the so-called “New Testament”) is apparent in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud. The Aramaic and the Old Syriac manuscripts also distinguish between Yehovah (Lord and occasionally God) and Aloha (= Eloah), but since Murdock made no distinction, I have simply used Yehovah for Lord, for the time being. The Etheridge version does distinguish between Aloha and Lord or God—Yehovah and the linked version has conventional verse numbers. I will restore the original distinction between Aloha and Yehovah as time permits.

“It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them,17 and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me 18 to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know [of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. 19 R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, 20 these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; 21 and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. 22 And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them.”

This is not a “Sacred Name” website—one that contends that pronunciation of names (phonics) is a salvational issue. I just happen to know the real names of the Father and the Son, and see no valid reason to change them. So the Gabriel Bible is the only version that honors Their actual names.

Have you ever read the copyright statement in your Bible? Some of them bind the Scriptures with heavier chains than others, but always to make a few shekels. Here is what one Aramaic “New Testament” copyright has to say:

“All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.”

This is a serious situation. Imagine what the ultimate penalty might be for putting a lock on the truths of God! While the following Scripture might not be an exact fit—perhaps it is!

Revelation 22:19 If anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, Yehovah [God] will take away his destiny* [Strong’s 3313] from the tree of life, and from the holy city that are described in this book. GB

In verse 10 there is another caution:

Revelation 22:10 Then he said to me, “Dont seal [or silence] the words of this document of prophecy, for the end time is near. GB

By contrast, the prophecy of Daniel was sealed because when it was given, it was not the end time:

Daniel 12:4 But Daniel, keep this message a secret* [05640 -Qal], and put a seal on the book until the time of the end, many will *travel around quickly* [07751 -Polel], and knowledge will *greatly increase* {Literally: shoot!} [07235 -Qal]. Gabriel Bible Tanak

If the penalty for “sealing” the book [document] of Revelation is this serious, then imagine how serious it is to seal the entire Testimony of Yeshua (everything His heralds recorded), particularly near the end time!

Matthew 10:8 ... Freely you have received; freely give.

So here I go with my little seal cutter.

This is my best shot, but refinements to this version will remain a work in progress.

I know that believing in what is called “Peshitta primacy” makes me an “extremist” and “unorthodox”, but every chapter in Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom would be classified as such by “orthodox” Christianity. I’m used to being painted with that brush, yet a Greek primacy adherent would have little excuse to complain because every significant difference that I found is noted. The Peshitta is in primary agreement with the Majority or Received text, such as the KJV and the Tyndale versions, unlike most modern versions.

Originally I only intended to update the Murdock Translation of the Testimony of Yeshua, and use the World English Bible for all of my quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on this site. I had been substituting the WEB’s use of the name “Yahweh” with Yehovah in brackets [ ], but this alone accounts for over 6000 changes to the text of the WEB. The WEB website requests that if any changes are made to their public domain text, that it not be called the WEB, so I will be replacing all of the bracketed WEB quotations on this site. The Gabriel Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures, the Tanak (abbreviated GBT), now under way, will be very heavily based on the WEB, and will remain, at least for now, just on my computer, except for the many quotations that are in the chapters of my book Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom. In fact any significant differences between the text of WEB and the Gabriel Bible will be indicated by *asterisks* just as is done with variations between the Murdock Translation of the “New Testament” and the Gabriel Bible Testimony of Yeshua. While I really like the WEB version, it still has a considerable KJV flavoring that is not what I would call “modern English”. So even words like “shall”, that hasnt been used since General MacArthur said, “I shall return”, will be changed to “will” and many other rewordings that do not affect the meaning.

Most people dont know that the KJV Bibles being printed today have been updated four times. In 1901 it was revised again and renamed the “American Standard Bible”. Updates of the American Standard include the copyrighted RSV, the NKJV, the NASB and the public domain WEB. I will over time remove all quotations from the NKJV as well, because I want to move away from versions that restrict quotations of the Holy Scriptures.

Consultation with various translational references will be ongoing, but only in the spare time I can devote to it. Again, for now, I am reasonably content that most of the old English is already removed and that it is free to use and download. A little bit of poor grammar is the result of replacing dozens of obsolete words with single key strokes. The poor grammar, tho quite comprehensible, will need to be edited, one line at a time.

A burning issue is the idea of paraphrasing. In essence all translating is paraphrasing—taking a foreign word or phrase and replacing it with what is, hopefully, the equivalent words or thoughts in another language. The major obvious difference is the flavor! Using obsolete words to flavor a translation adds credibility in the minds of many; but is that logical? Another flavor is using foreign sentence structuring; in essence the sequence of the words. Unusual word order, foreign to your language does not necessarily add anything that the Scriptures were intended to reveal. The Scriptures were written in the language of their day. So far as I know, there is not a bit of theological jargon in the Scriptures; so there really isnt any in the GB. Yet, when paraphrasing becomes liberal rather than literal, it becomes a sin! The best translation would answer the question, “What would Jesus (Yeshua) do”. A version can be very accurate, without being word-by-word “literal”. Word-by-word is actually a poor method of translating, if the objective is more than simply to convey isolated facts.

The Murdock version is arguably the most difficult English version of the last couple centuries to understand, but my objective is to make the Gabriel even more technically accurate than the New American Standard, as attested to by the Strong’s links, and more comprehensible than even some of the “comic book” paraphrases, as often as possible, tho hundreds of technical nuances are routinely sacrificed in those for the sake of easy reading. You certainly wouldnt want to use any of them as a roadmap into the Kingdom!

Reading the Scriptures should be so overwhelming that it is literally to die for! Being willing to both live and die for your beliefs requires emotional maturity. Do you feel multiple passions while reading God’s very words? If you are tripping over awkward phraseology, you lose much of the emotional impact that should be inseparable from the facts.

Scripture reading shouldt be like reading something from a stodgy academic linguistic puzzle, fitting together individual words retrieved from a cave, from a nearly dead language. The Scriptures are a living message, for all time, inspired and sent to you from heaven by the very living God! I see no reason to sprinkle the text with Hebrew or Aramaic words, except as references. What is the motive?

Understanding the Scriptures doesnt require understanding foreign language word structures, so long as the translation is HONEST! It is only by checking the more critical words in a lexicon that you can determine the honesty. Using a lexicon can be better than learning Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek as your second language. How many times do we use words in your own language correctly, knowing all of the possible nuances of our less often used words? Using proper English requires knowing your way around a dictionary.

There is an interesting website devoted to translation theory. While their perspective assumes the need for “church hierarchy” and Greek originality (supremacy), it is still interesting, at least for me, to consider the goals of the mainstream translators. The most literal translations are termed “formal equivalence”. Those appearing as loose paraphrases are termed “dynamic equivalence translations”, regardless of their accuracy. Note these comments from the site:

“Translations can be located on a spectrum, which would have, at one extreme, rigid adherence to the form of the original language (formal equivalence)...

At the other extreme:

“There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is “freer” from the grammatical forms of the original language he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong.”

Another commentator who prefers the term “Functional” over “Dynamic” says:

“the main flaw that people generally have with Functional [Dynamic] translation is that it looks suspiciously like paraphrase rather than translation. This is not a methodological criticism. As a method, Functional translation says, languages are different, but that they all have the potential for conveying the same meanings. What these meanings look like, whether they are at a word level, phrase level, clause level, or paragraph level depends on the grammar of the target language, not on the source language. And what people often don’t realize about this is that by no means are formal [literal] properties excluded from the application of functional methodology. That’s because as long as meaning isn’t violated and the language of the target translation is still natural, formal properties are allowed to be maintained.”

The Gabriel Bible strives for “Dynamic” accuracy, and ease of reading, but anywhere that a technical understanding is beneficial, I dont hesitate to jump into the technical mode, usually accompanied by a Strong’s number.

The Gabriel Bible is a version of the Holy “Bible”, but I usually use the term “Scriptures” because it is more accurate than “Bible”. The word “Bible” is a 4th century (possibly 3rd) Christian substitution for the complete “Scriptures”).

Any significant words that have been added for clarity are placed in italics. These are words that could theoretically be controversial. These added words are primarily used to help thoughts flow in English but that are not actually present in the Aramaic. This method is more conventional. The simpler connecting words are not so marked.

The more noteworthy differences in the wording—not merely synonyms—between the Murdock Translation and the Gabriel Bible are noted with a star* in this revised edition (yours may appear as an asterisk). Single words differing are followed by a star* and phrase changes are *surrounded by stars*. Minor rephrasing without even a nuance of change to the meaning are not noted.

While Matthew and Hebrews may have originally been written in Hebrew, no use of these late mediaeval texts, such as the Shem Tov Matthew, the DuTillet Matthew, and the Munster Matthew is used in the GB. These were all filled with anti Messiah rhetoric and used to teach against the Deity of the Messiah. I havent seen evidence of them being descended from original Hebrew copies.

These are the primary categories of changes that were incorporated, in order to update James Murdock’s Peshitta Translation into Yehovah’s Modern English Scriptures. Murdock deliberately used obsolete English because he thought that the King James style of wording somehow made the wording more sacred. Back then virtually every English reader was reading the KJV anyway, so Murdock didnt bring on change faster than he supposed it could be received. Today, obsolete English makes the*Good News*of God seem far less relevant to this end time generation—the very generation that needs the*Good News*the most! Modernization of words or expressions should have no bearing on the meaning. Many of the more important doctrinal points found in the GB are linked to Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom.) Very conservative guidelines were used to replace the obsolete and obscure English. More of the awkward but not obsolete phraseology will be replaced in the future but not without some careful study.

Below are most of the obsolete word forms (or obscure, or corrupted words) which have been updated with far more correct English words:

The most important and obvious word replacements are these 5:

Assembly (off site) replaces “church” (off site). tyndaleee was murdered by the “church” partly because “church” was not in his translation (except as a pagan temple)!

“Evangel” (off site) is the original English form of the Greek word “euaggelizo” [2097]. It is usually translated as “gospel”. Euaggelizo is a generic Greek term with various*Good News*applications in the Scriptures. “Good News”, in caps, is used in the Gabriel Bible to denote God’s Good News, rather than other types of good news, that are also “euaggelizo”.

“Yeshua” (off site) replaces “Jesus”. His friends, family and Disciples never knew anyone with a “J” in their name!

Master replaces “Lord” (kurios, 2962) when referring to Yeshua. Today’s English only uses “Lord” in a few things, like warlords, landlords & British lords.

Yehovah replaces “God” and “Lord” in each place where the tetragrammaton was likely inserted, in Paleo Hebrew form, into the oldest Aramaic, Greek and even Latin texts. This is explained on this offsite link. “God” is used where it is apparent that what He is, rather than who He is, was meant. (Some instances could have been a “what” rather than God’s actual name.) For clarity, “Yehovah” distinguishes “Lord” (the Father) from “Lord” (Yeshua), tho They actually share that name as well.

A word or phrase with a hyperlinked asterisk* leads to a source that explains the choice of wording

The rest of the word upgrades are alphabetical:

There are quite a few more obsolete word forms, but most are unique or nearly so. So I stopped listing them. The above were found between Matthew and Romans.

Words ending with “eth” such as “cometh” and “est” such as “doest” have simply been changed (as into “come” and “do”) without being listed due to the sheer number of them.

Redundant Aramaic idioms like “answered and said” is simply “said”; “replied and said” is simply “replied”, etc. This redundancy never has worked in English.

Murdock’s use of Latinized names of people and places remain intact, unless noted by on asterisk* so that you and I dont have to relearn everything. He did use Cephas instead of Peter.

Obsolete word forms, such as for example “hewed”, are now “hewn”.

Some words are simply spelled differently now but pronounced the same. Then there are the “ough” words like “through”, “though” and “although”. I side with “thru”, “tho” and “altho” as a reminder that our English is in much need of phonetic reform. Interestingly, “straitened” was retained with the gh not present. So I am a bit ahead of our time with some words and have adopted true English grammar as far as quotation marks go.

I’m much in favor of yet another reformation. Martin Luther posted his 95 theses against salable indulgences in 1517—almost half of a millennium ago—and he just scratched the surface of what needed to be reformed. But it isnt easy to to limit reformation to one realm. I passively want to encourage the elimination of apostrophes in all the “not” words. Apostrophes arent supposed to be permanent. They’re an evolutionary measure to indicate that too many letters are typically used and that a contraction is being created. They gradually disappear anyway. Logic would dictate that we should have bonafide words with these meanings without the crutches. I’ll be eliminating perhaps thousands of “not” apostrophes from my website. These few words account for the vast majority of the apostrophies in our language. My spell checker even rejects words with apostrophes but doesnt reject words such as “doesnt”. I actually cringe every time I see these “useless evolutionary appendages”. I dont worry about offending anyone who isnt in favor of change with this small measure. I’ll leave the offending to the numerous doctrinal challenges made on this site.

Most of the Roman Numerals have been changed to Arabic numerals as I progress thru the books. Also his strange numbering of verses: 01, 02, 03 is becoming 1,2,3.

Some simpler synonyms read much better now, without notation. Frequently more than one English word is necessary to replace an Aramaic word, as is true with translations of any language.

These are the changes that are still being made:

Awkward negatives, such as “resist not evil” becomes “dont resist evil”. Any contraction is also my doing. Contractions sometimes necessitate other slight rewording.

Extra words that wouldnt be found in contemporary sentence structures are omitted, such as: “Enter you in by” is now “Enter in by” And “seeking for you” is now simply “seeking you”. Also hundreds of sentences begin with “and” is odd for English. “And” used to be used to separate sentences before some grammar reformer invented periods! Most of these can simply vanish; others should be replaced with “So” or “Then” etc.

Obsolete word sequences (and poor synonyms) such as “answered some of the scribes” are becoming “some of the *Law professors* answered”. It makes no sense to me for a translation to look like a translation by retaining foreign sentence structures. So, for example, as a general rule in what was going to be named the New Murdock Translation, the subject precedes the predicate. Here is another example of Victorian English being “translated” into contemporary English:

“Against the Jews I have committed no offence, as thou also well knowest.”

“I have committed no offence against the Jews, as you know very well”.

Awkward wording is being changed. There is no reason for the Scriptures to be written in English unlike that of your daily newspaper (except for things like weights & measures etc, where we have no exact equivalents).

Sectarian vocabulary as well will be eliminated. Special jargon is not authentic. Translations actually should not have words for trinity, (totally bogus) or ordained (that replaces several other specific words), or sermons (that are from pagan Greek sophists) etc. Many of the words used only in churches, have better synonyms.

When a number appears in [brackets] it is a Greek Strong’s number (except for single digit footnotes). You can check word definitions in Greek free with The Online Bible Greek Lexicon. It is used extensively in Matthew thru 1 Corinthians, where I have done most of my comparisons so far. There is a concordance put out by the Way International, with similarities to the Strong’s, but it’s copyright forbids any printed usage without written permission and if they are selective about who uses it—well I am as “unorthadox” as they come! It appears to be pretty objective, despite some of the doctrinal positions of their recent past. Yet the online version (presumably the same as the printed version) only uses one word English synonyms that is woefully inadequate for such a nuanced language.

Despite being limited with regard to Aramaic reference works, I’m finding that there are many interesting things hiding in the Greek—nothing life changing, but things that should be rendered more accurately.

The above changes account for the vast majority of the changes but essentially, any simple word restructuring may be made that no one could reasonably claim was adding to or deleting from the intent of the Scriptures—as translated by Murdock.

Missing capitalizations at the beginning of sentences are being changed.

Hyphenated word that dont require hyphens, as well as merged words no longer separated, such as “for ever” are becoming “forever”.

Many more quotation marks are being added—at least in places that were previously indicated by a colon. For instance Murdock only used quotation marks four times in Matthew, but is riddled with them in contemporary English. Punctuation has changed considerably since 1851.

Pronouns for Yeshua and the Father are being capitalized, as a convenience.

Hundreds of colons were changed to semicolons.

My footnotes are in numbered brackets, like this: [1].

Murdock’s edited footnotes will be changed from asterisks to lettered brackets, like this [A].

Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom will be retrofitted with Gabriel Bible Scriptures.

Why would a house painter, with no orthodox credentials, create a new version of the Testimony? The idea came as a surprise to me too. Yet I have had a life long desire to understand many of the mysteries of the Scriptures. As a young man, maybe in my teens, my mother, a Sunday school teacher, once grabbed my Strong’s Concordance out of my hands and hurled it across the room. I was coming up with too many “strange ideas” in the Scriptures. My reception hasnt improved much since then. I dont suppose that quoting my own version of the Testimony of Yeshua (mistakenly known as the “New Covenant” or “New Testament”) in my book, Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom, will gain me many friends, but popularity is overrated.

PS: I have “finished” about 85% of the text of the Testimony, mostly in the originally inspired order, (and also Revelation, because of the interest people have in that book).

Aramaic to English versions (for sale)

Aramaic English New Testament —Andrew Gabriel Roth, I have not seen this yet. $65.

Lamsa Bible Online - English Peshitta Translation (NT) Original copyright in 1933. A very loose translation with considerable interpretation. Amazon.com $25.53, It’s online, but you are not legally permitted to print your own.