yummyfur

I think I figured that part out, so I can use the NCR's now


Thanks
I thought marks were used, but it seemed like a lot of the online texts, used only single case Greek with no accents, breathing marks or sometimes even punctuation. I thought this might be because the original text does not really provide these and they were trying to be closer to this. It seems this is somewhat correct, and the breathing marks could be someones later interpretation of where they go.

I think that my "through" was an attempt to capture a better concept of "into God" or "towards God" or even "inside God", you could probably even say "with God". I think "none good except one, God" is strangely written, why not just say "none good except God".

Thanks for pointing out the Mathew 23, I think I'll read that whole section, as it seems to have the same stilted language.

Yes, I agree. The main problem I had initially with this line, was because I first read the Westcott-Hort version for 16 and 17 and when Yuri mentioned the Byzantine text, I then looked and read it. Unfortunatly I only glossed over 16, as I thought they were the same. They were not, and I failed to see that Jesus is addressed as "Good Teacher" in Byzantine instead of "Teacher" like in Westcott-Hort. Now Jesus's response doesn't seem like it is out of the blue, like he was drinking way too much coffee or something.


Thanks very much, I do appreciate it

Patrick Schoeb

Mathetes

If you want to say something like "into God", you have to use the accusative: "eis ton Theon". As far as I know, "eis" is normally employed for physical directions. It can also indicate purpose.

The only suitable translation, in my opinion, for "(h)eis ho Theos" with God in the nominative is as it is traditionally translated, "one, that is, God".

And, as Haran said, the best translation for "ti me legeis agathon;" seems to be "why do you (2nd person singular) call me good?". Not "what do I describe as good?" (that would be something like "tina legw agathon;" or "tina erw agathon;"?).

Toto

Feel free to start a new thread in this forum or GRD, depending on the emphasis. You can reference or copy text from this one.

{I don't like to try to split threads when the forum is busy, so if I do it I will not get around to it until much later.}

PM me with any questions or concerns.

Soul Invictus

My concern was that my second subtopic to Magus55 might derail the thread, which isn't a favorable thing to do.

If it doesn't appear to be a problem, then okay.

Regards,

Soul Invictus

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks, Haran, these are useful.

Of course these webpages are written from the Hortian perspective, so in this sense they are helping to perpetuate a fraud. But at least these folks are trying to provide some useful info.

I especially like the Willker effort... He carefully compared his own results with Nestle/Aland's results, and he confirmed that Nestle/Aland was right! But was he ever trying to disconfirm Nestle/Aland's results, one may wonder? I don't think so...

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Soul,

Basically, I'm a proponent of the Semitic textual tradition of the gospels, and of what is known as "Western text" (I prefer to describe it as Western/Peripheral text). You can find a lot more info about all this on my webpage here,

NT Scandals and Controversies (2002)
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/cvers.htm

So KJV/Majority/Byzantine text is only a side issue for me. It just happens to be the case, as I've found out, that there are many hundreds of agreements between the ancient Aramaic gospels and Byzantine text against Westcott & Hort! So, naturally, I now see Byzantine text as far superior to Westcott & Hort.

In fact, I see Westcott & Hort as a terrible perversion of scholarship. They took a perfectly adequate text (KJV/Byzantine) and replaced it with a real dud (Westcott & Hort)!

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Haran,

So then, in a nutshell, this is what's wrong with "modern" textual criticism! "The more difficult reading" rule of TC is one of the most abused IMHO... If applied indiscriminately, what we'll get as a result is a text that's all nonsensical!

Quote:

In other words, why would someone change the text such that it becomes less clear? Most people would change a text to help clarify it...

In my opinion, the later Alexandrian/Egyptian editors quite often tried to obscure the more original passages in the gospels, that were quite simple and easy to understand. There are _many_ examples of this...

Quote:

Here is Metzger's take on why they chose the reading they chose for the text of the UBS: "Many of the witnesses...modify ver. 17 by substituting for Matthew's distinctive account the words from the parallel accounts, τι με λεγεις αγαθον; ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," (Mk 10.18; Lk 18.19). If the latter reading were original in Matthew, it is hard to imagine why copyists would have altered it to a more obscure one, whereas scribal assimilation to Synoptic parallels occurs frequently."

But, for my own part, I find it quite easy to imagine why some later editors/copyists would have altered some passages in the gospels to the more obscure ones...

Quote:

They rank the same text that underlies the NIV's translation with the highest "A" rating, meaning they were pretty confident that this text must be very close to the original. Their reasons make good sense to me, so I prefer the NIV's reading.

Well, I feel rather hesitant to get involved into a detailed analysis of this particular passage, mainly because the sorts of problems we encounter here are extremely complex. We have the 3 differing Synoptic versions, plus the dozens of variants in all sorts of Greek MSS for each of them... And then we get the Aramaic, the Diatessaronic, and various other versions... Before you know it, you'll get a whole hundred renderings of this passage to play with! (Plus the English translations for each of them...)

But, basically, I believe that the earliest version of this passage was very simple and short. Like this, for example.

The Latin version of Origen's Commentary on Matthew (now called Pseudo-Origen) [Commentaria in Matthaeum XV, 14].

"It is written in a certain Gospel which is called 'According to the Hebrews' (if at least any one care to accept it, not as authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us), as follows,

'The second of the rich men said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets. ...'"

[the above quote thanks to Kirby's webpage]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-mrjames.html

So here, we have a version that doesn't yet have the dialogue about who is good (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19), or what is good (Mt 19:17). The main focus is on what needs to be done in order to obtain salvation. The answer? The rich folks should give up some of their dough -- simple enough.

Thus, the various elements of that original simple and short passage are preserved variously in each of the 3 Synoptics.

I'll try to expand on this analysis later, as time permits.

And keep in mind, we're only talking so far about the _introduction_ to this pericope. This whole pericope would be really a complex matter to analyse. I'm sure someone already wrote a whole Ph.D. thesis on it, or maybe even more than one...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

And here I've found yet another version of Matt 19:16-17 that is quite similar to the above!

This is from the ancient Syriac commentator Aphrahat. I've translated this myself from the Aramaic (I'm not even sure as yet if the English translation of this part of Aphrahat's DEMONSTRATIONS exists, but it's not on the Net, AFAIK. And yet I have access to the French translation that I can check later.)

This is how Aphrahat cites this text,

"And also regarding the one who came before the Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. The Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery, etc.'"

So this seems to support my idea that the earliest version of this pericope was a lot shorter and more concise.

Best,

Yuri.

Haran

Ah! Finally proof positive! Note the use of "et cetera"! Jesus acutally spoke Latin!

Just kidding.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean though. What do you mean more concise (since I'm sure there wasn't an etc there)?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Remember, Haran, we are discussing _Matt 19:16-17_ here... Where I say etc. goes beyond Matt 19:16-17.

Cheers,

Yuri.