10-04-2011, 04:33 AM
:
And Dave, It is a double standard (of sorts) that you have with Acts 20:28 and Acts 8:37.
Why?...because you include the verse of Acts 8:37 in your translation, when there is no Aramaic manuscript evidence (we know of) that has it, yet you have alowed it in your translation, because, as you said, it is found in the 1905 text you used to translate from, while the reading of the Eastern Peshitta of Acts 20:28, is said by you to not be an original Aramaic reading, because it has no Greek or other ancient language textual witness (that we know of), with the "Church of Christ" reading.
So you say that the Acts 8:37 is an authentic Aramaic verse, when its not in any Aramaic text, yet you say that the Acts 20:28 verse in the Eastern Peshitta texts is not authentic when it IS in Aramaic Texts, and ones that are even older than the Western texts are...
True as you say, its not exactly the same thing...but it is trying to have it both ways seems to me....and it also seems to me, that if you did find that the reading of "Church of Christ" in some ancient source other than The Eastern Aramaic Texts, you would still keep what you have in your translation anyway...because, like you said....yours is not a critical translation of the Texts, but only a verbatim translation of the 1905 Text.
And thats fine with me Dave... Then why not call or refer your translation to something like "The English Translation of the 1905 Critical Western Aramaic Text? But you call it "The Original Aramaic New Testament" as if no other Aramaic textual variant is or could be.
As we know, the Eastern & Western Texts are very close to each other, but for a few instances, such as in the case of Acts, 20:28 and the other places that the Eastern Texts differ from the Western Texts, where you imply must be un-inspired words/passages, because of your belief of discovering that the 1905 Critical Text of the Western Peshitto manuscripts is an exact clone of The Original Autograph.
Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but that is what I am hearing from what you have written and said about your translation, thus far.
Blessings,
Chuck
And Dave, It is a double standard (of sorts) that you have with Acts 20:28 and Acts 8:37.
Why?...because you include the verse of Acts 8:37 in your translation, when there is no Aramaic manuscript evidence (we know of) that has it, yet you have alowed it in your translation, because, as you said, it is found in the 1905 text you used to translate from, while the reading of the Eastern Peshitta of Acts 20:28, is said by you to not be an original Aramaic reading, because it has no Greek or other ancient language textual witness (that we know of), with the "Church of Christ" reading.
So you say that the Acts 8:37 is an authentic Aramaic verse, when its not in any Aramaic text, yet you say that the Acts 20:28 verse in the Eastern Peshitta texts is not authentic when it IS in Aramaic Texts, and ones that are even older than the Western texts are...
True as you say, its not exactly the same thing...but it is trying to have it both ways seems to me....and it also seems to me, that if you did find that the reading of "Church of Christ" in some ancient source other than The Eastern Aramaic Texts, you would still keep what you have in your translation anyway...because, like you said....yours is not a critical translation of the Texts, but only a verbatim translation of the 1905 Text.
And thats fine with me Dave... Then why not call or refer your translation to something like "The English Translation of the 1905 Critical Western Aramaic Text? But you call it "The Original Aramaic New Testament" as if no other Aramaic textual variant is or could be.
As we know, the Eastern & Western Texts are very close to each other, but for a few instances, such as in the case of Acts, 20:28 and the other places that the Eastern Texts differ from the Western Texts, where you imply must be un-inspired words/passages, because of your belief of discovering that the 1905 Critical Text of the Western Peshitto manuscripts is an exact clone of The Original Autograph.
Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but that is what I am hearing from what you have written and said about your translation, thus far.
Blessings,
Chuck