spin

You didn't even know who Metzger was. (Sigh)


spin

judge

I don't think this kind of thing helps the discussion at all. Of course I knew of metzger.

But lets be serious , at least I have attempted to provide some references and support for the greek being translated from the peshitta. Both here and in other threads current at this time.

The main argument for a greek original seems to .."everyone knows it was written in greek"......or....."all scholarship is based uopn greek being the original...they can't possibly be wrong can they...all those people like Metzger that have devoted their careers to this....surely Metzger has examined whether the peshitta underlies the greek...hasn't he...I mean he must have ...he did didn't he?"

The fact is that as Aramaic speaking Christians have said for almost two thousnad years, the peshitta is the original.
Western scholars are just too arrogant to consider they may be wrong.

The tremendous irony is that even "infidels"

Are just following European protestant (fundamentalist) Christians all along. Actually to be fair ..at least the infidels ...can see the problems with the integrity of the variuous greek mss .

It's ironic don't you think?

spin

And I have dealt with this.

You're rambling here and misrepresenting the criticism you have received.

Yeah, yeah, and the Samaritans have been claiming that their Pentateuch is the original.

This is just ad hominem. Deal with what they say, get your sources to deal with them. You can't just say that you don't like the vast range of analysis. Try searching for other analyses on the web on the Peshitta. You'll find that most will say that the Peshitta is not the oldest for of Syriac translation.

What, that you actually have no arguments?


spin

Radcliffe Emerson

The Byzantines, that the corrupted King James is based on? The King James, that has a verse in it that does not exist anywhere prior to the 15th century? 1 John 5:7 I believe, about the Trinity. Doesn't exist prior to the 15th century.
Those byzantine scripts?
The Egyptian manuscripts are the oldest. I'm sorry, but logic trying to say newer copies are more original than the oldest copies found just doesn't wash.

spurly

As a follower of Yeshua, I like the New American Standard and the New Century version.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, spin,

This is what I wrote earlier in this thread,

Quote:

Young's Literal Translation was a translation from the Majority/Byzantine Greek text. For a serious student of the NT, I'll generally recommend the KJV/YLT as the best English versions. The Peshitta, James Murdock | The Syriac New Testament. http://www.peshitta.com/jamesmurdock/books/ is probably even better, but you'd need to be a bit more adventurous to get into this...

Please don't confuse my position with that of "judge". We have very different views on these matters. Myself, I'm not a blanket Aramaic prioritist. I accept that some parts of the NT were written in Greek. But as far as Mt goes, I'm pretty sure it was written originally in a Hebraic tongue.

I have done plenty of comparisons between all sorts of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, etc. versions over the years. It is my considered view that the Westcott & Hort Greek text was a major blunder -- of monumental proportions.

Please read some stuff on my webpage,

http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

See for example this,

The word "BEHOLD!" in Luke
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/idou.htm

The word "Behold!" in Matthew, according to the most ancient manuscripts
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/idhmt1t.htm

The above 2 webpage are new or updated, and most of the folks on this forum haven't seen them yet, probably.

Also read some other stuff that I posted on this forum about the textual matters. This discussion has a very long history on this forum.

Regards,

Yuri.

slaveofChrist

The English Standard Version is an excellent translation. It creates an excellent balance between literal translation and readability. It is new, and largely unknown, but is fast gaining popularity among many scholars.

The New King James and New American Standard are also excellent translations.

Amaleq13

Yuri,


I haven't had time to thoroughly explore your website but, after a quick browse, I didn't see anything relevant to some of the conclusions (order, authorship, dating) I currently accept.

For example, I tend to accept Markan priority with scholarship based on the Greek texts. Is that conclusion challeged if I take into consideration Aramaic originals?

I also accept the dating of Mark c.70CE. Is that challenged?

Lastly, I accept that the original manuscripts were anonymous and only later obtained their attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Is that challenged by Aramaic originals?

Clearly, I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate these things with you (its all Greek to me , sorry I couldn't help that) but I would be interested if these held the potential to challenge previously held conclusions.


Thanks in advance

Apikorus

Here's an outstanding English translation of the Hebrew Bible, just published by Oxford University Press: The Jewish Study Bible. The chief editors, Marc Brettler and Adele Berlin, are world-class scholars.

Each biblical book is introduced with a brief description (two to four pages) written by leading scholars: Jon Levenson, Jeffrey Tigay, Bernard Levinson, Carol Meyers, Ziony Zevit, Marvin Sweeney, Peter Machinist, Michael Fox, and others. There are also longer essays (5-10 pp.) introducing the major sections (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). The biblical text is the 1985 JPS edition. The text is annotated with marginal notes, which draw on diverse materials, ranging from rabbinic exegesis to modern source criticism. Finally, the volume concludes with 25 longer essays treating topics such as textual criticism, masoretic tradition, Jewish mystical tradition, midrash, classical rabbinic interpretation, etc. I just bought a copy and have not had time to develop an informed opinion, but it looks very good indeed. (I've long been a fan of the NJPS translation.)

Dialogian

Hey spin --or anyone else for that matter --

Can you recommend a book or article with regard to theories, evidence, and critique on the likeliest language(s) used in the earliest/original versions of NT texts? If the article is online, fabulous. If the book is available through Barnes and Noble, also great (as opposed to more difficult-to-access literature).

Thanks in advance.

--Dialogian