The Victor Alexander Aramaic Bible

“The Passion “translation” inserts all kinds of concepts, words and ideas of which the original gives no hint whatsoever.” – Andrew Wilson ¹

Andrew Chapman embarked on his own translation project, investigating Brian Simmon’s use of the Aramaic, including Romans 1:11, Galatians 1:4a, Galatians 2:10, Galatians 3:1, Galatians 3:3, Galatians 3:19, Galatians 3:22, Galatians 4:3, Galatians 4:7, Galatians 5:25, Galatians 5:26, Ephesians 5:22. You might like to start simply with his introduction, summary and conclusion.

Andrew Chapman’s prevailing hypothesis is that the TPT contains words and phrases that are not translated directly from The Peshitta but are instead drawn from Victor Alexander’s Aramaic Bible – an English translation that Brian Simmons mentioned to Chapman. ² To further complicate the matter, Victor Alexander claims to be using an Aramaic text that is older than the Syriac Peshitta: “This translation has been made from the Leeshana Supprayah, the Sacred Scribal Language of the Scriptures. This is the only Bible that has been translated from scratch using this language as the source material.” ³ Steve Caruso disputes Victor Alexander’s claim and attempts to demonstrate that Alexander is simply using Syriac Aramaic texts, just like all the other English translations of The Peshitta. ⁴

Mmm… perhaps Victor Alexander can enlighten us?

I want everyone to understand why the Ancient Aramaic language must be treated as the sacred scribal language and not as a spoken language or literary language. I don’t need to prove that the manuscript I’m translating from is the oldest found; archeology is not the issue. I don’t need to prove that the manuscript I’m translating from has been sanctioned by any church; doctrine is not the issue. I don’t need to prove that the manuscript I’m translating from is in the proper dialect; nationalism is not the issue. The only thing I need to prove is whether or not the manuscript I’m translating from contains the fundamental belief system of the Apostles of Eashoa, the belief system which Eashoa taught. This I’ve done, even if you take just two words: Maryah and Milta. I have a lot more and they’ll be revealed in subsequent commentaries, as I said. If I were to present archeological proof, doctrinal ideas or a chain of authority, it would take me a thousand years and more books than the whole universe could hold. This is what John was talking about when he concluded his Gospel with the following words: John 21:25. ‘But there were also a great many things that Eashoa did, that if they were written of one by one, not even the whole universe, I expect, would hold them all.’ – Victor Alexander ⁵

What does this mean? I don’t know, but perhaps the following statement by Victor Alexander will clarify the situation:

My translations of the Scriptures are not just another version of the Bible; my translations are the only authentic translations of the original Scriptures. ⁶

It remains unclear what manuscripts Victor Alexander is using, but he clearly believes that his translation is superior to all other Bibles. If Brian Simmon’s “entirely new, fresh translation from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic documents” does borrow from Victor Alexander’s exclusively “authentic translations of the original Scriptures” which translation is the most authentic? The Victor Alexander Bible or the Brian Simmons Bible?

 

Related