12-16-2013, 02:16 PM
Shlama Akhi
They aren't really absurd at all. What they call "internal translations" likely started out as textual glosses. Glosses often start out at the margin of a text, and make their way into the main body after subsequent copies. We see this type of thing all the time.
In modern English versions we call them footnotes. Or they are placed in paranthesis.
Other times, a passage that could read multiple ways is often clarified, with a "that is..."
These people really don't have any substantial evidence of grammatical mistakes from the Greek into the Aramaic, do they? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
+Shamasha
They aren't really absurd at all. What they call "internal translations" likely started out as textual glosses. Glosses often start out at the margin of a text, and make their way into the main body after subsequent copies. We see this type of thing all the time.
In modern English versions we call them footnotes. Or they are placed in paranthesis.
Other times, a passage that could read multiple ways is often clarified, with a "that is..."
These people really don't have any substantial evidence of grammatical mistakes from the Greek into the Aramaic, do they? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->+Shamasha