10-30-2012, 01:42 PM
Okay, I went back and checked last night, and the Aramaic text is the 1905 critical edition, but edited to line up with the more ancient eastern readings in some places (like Acts 20:28). But in other palces where it's merely a variation in spelling or vowel pointing, he left it alone. So you're right, it's a patchwork rather than a manuscript, same as all the Greek texts that everyone translates from for the "major league bibles" out there (NA-27, etc.). But unlike the Greek, the varience isn't much with Aramaic, right? And so having the translation come from different sources for Younan, Murdock and then his Galatians shouldn't be much of a problem. Plus, even fi we look at a manuscript like Khabouris, well, a later scribe amde corections to it anyway, so it is also (to an extent) a "patchwork" sort of job. But the patchwork nonetheless makes it more accurate. The other thing I should mention as well is that most of the errors I've seen are things carried over from Younan or Murdock and have nothing to do with Roth or his supposed agenda that some criticize him for. And since I'm well beyond the years of trying to find the perfect manuscript or translation but rather just enjoy using different translations and studying the original languages, for me it'll be a fun project doing some comparisons. I'll post my findings for the latest edition here (I'll start a new thread) and then forward them on to Roth as well for a future edition improvement.