12-10-2012, 03:44 AM
:
This is very recent, but Andrew is still saying that the Khabouris was scribed in the year 165 A.D. Shamasha Paul, please help set the record straight, as this is a needless mistake that is still being perpetuated. Have you looked over the digital copy of the Colophon? And if you have Andrew's ears...please speak into them about this matter.
Andrew is telling us here that he used the 1920 UBS critical text as his base text, which most others do these days, which is what's printed in his 1st and 2nd editions in Aramaic letters, but is now changed into Hebrew letters...and I assume the wording is the same as before. Then, he took what is said different in the Khabouris text and edited those parts into the text of the UBS version.
But, remember that both Younan's Interlinear and Murdoch's source texts, are/were not the UBS text of 1920...and their English renderings are the base English text of the AENT...so, there is no way that the AENT English text, which is greatly edited from these two sources and which now read in a more "Hebrew" sounding way, is going to match up with the edited 1920 UBS text, with Khabouris readings in a handful of places.
If you ever want these English and Aramaic texts to match up...and have a truly Eastern Peshitta for the 22 books...it would be much much better and wiser just to start over and translate The Khabouris text itself!!! And why is Andrew still calling this an "interlinear", does he not know what that means?
If he had made this into a true interlinear edition, with a literal text on the left page, it would be true to the actual version of the Aramaic text he edited. But, that is in a perfect world right? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
..
This is very recent, but Andrew is still saying that the Khabouris was scribed in the year 165 A.D. Shamasha Paul, please help set the record straight, as this is a needless mistake that is still being perpetuated. Have you looked over the digital copy of the Colophon? And if you have Andrew's ears...please speak into them about this matter.
Andrew is telling us here that he used the 1920 UBS critical text as his base text, which most others do these days, which is what's printed in his 1st and 2nd editions in Aramaic letters, but is now changed into Hebrew letters...and I assume the wording is the same as before. Then, he took what is said different in the Khabouris text and edited those parts into the text of the UBS version.
But, remember that both Younan's Interlinear and Murdoch's source texts, are/were not the UBS text of 1920...and their English renderings are the base English text of the AENT...so, there is no way that the AENT English text, which is greatly edited from these two sources and which now read in a more "Hebrew" sounding way, is going to match up with the edited 1920 UBS text, with Khabouris readings in a handful of places.
If you ever want these English and Aramaic texts to match up...and have a truly Eastern Peshitta for the 22 books...it would be much much better and wiser just to start over and translate The Khabouris text itself!!! And why is Andrew still calling this an "interlinear", does he not know what that means?
If he had made this into a true interlinear edition, with a literal text on the left page, it would be true to the actual version of the Aramaic text he edited. But, that is in a perfect world right? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->..