07-12-2005, 04:36 AM
Now Dave, that didn't answer anything.
Of course, I trumpet this information, as I had not known that there were these interpolation's within the text. I want originality. You guys claimed originality, I found a non-original area.
Split words and the such found in the syriac, can be attributed to corrections in the text from the scribes who were translated it from the greek.
I think that would be the best and most reasonable explanation for their inclusion, given the age evidence or lack thereof. Many times the NT text points towards a semitic area of scripture, it could be viewed as coming from an aramaic, or most likely, a hebrew source in those particular areas, especially in the OT quotes. How hard is it to make a correction in that regards?
Prime example, the Pangs of death or cords of death scenario. One word in hebrew or aramaic can mean both. Syriac is a dialect of aramaic and this word has the same definitions.
Now, if the scribe used that word(which they would have to it seems), are we to make our conclusions that the text was original from this small bit of evidence? That would be quite presumptious.
Does that sort of explanation make sense? Is that a reasonable explanation for everyone giving the circumstances and the evidence available? I think so. It shouldn't be hard to look at this with reasonable eyes.
Of course, I trumpet this information, as I had not known that there were these interpolation's within the text. I want originality. You guys claimed originality, I found a non-original area.
Split words and the such found in the syriac, can be attributed to corrections in the text from the scribes who were translated it from the greek.
I think that would be the best and most reasonable explanation for their inclusion, given the age evidence or lack thereof. Many times the NT text points towards a semitic area of scripture, it could be viewed as coming from an aramaic, or most likely, a hebrew source in those particular areas, especially in the OT quotes. How hard is it to make a correction in that regards?
Prime example, the Pangs of death or cords of death scenario. One word in hebrew or aramaic can mean both. Syriac is a dialect of aramaic and this word has the same definitions.
Now, if the scribe used that word(which they would have to it seems), are we to make our conclusions that the text was original from this small bit of evidence? That would be quite presumptious.
Does that sort of explanation make sense? Is that a reasonable explanation for everyone giving the circumstances and the evidence available? I think so. It shouldn't be hard to look at this with reasonable eyes.