07-08-2008, 03:47 AM
Dawid Wrote:I know this will put me in the minority, but I really appreciate Etheridge and Murdock because they are not Peshitta primacists. Thus they are more unbiased. While this does cause them to miss things, they also catch things that other translators are more likely to mistranslate because of a theological bias.
Please don't take this as an accusation, Mr. Younan, or Mr. Bauscher, or Mr. Roth. I love the translations of the former two and am very much looking forward to the latter's translation. However, I readily admit that when I have translated portions of the TN"K (with my limited skills in Hebrew) I know my theological bias gets in. It's something I think the honest scholar admits about himself. But these two translators had nothing at stake theological and philosophically. So they could be extremely honest in their translations.
Shlama Akhan Dawid,
Did I read you correctly? If so, I fail to understand how theology plays into Peshitta primacy.
The people who hold to Peshitta primacy do so because of the internal evidences, and not because of theology. There is a plethora of creeds amongst Peshitta primacists.
Lamsa was a "Unitarian", I am a "Nestorian", Andrew is a "Jew", Dave is something I'm not sure has a label. =)
Honest translators admit they make mistakes. Even the scribes who copied the manuscripts begged for our forgiveness and prayers for their errors. And they didn't even translate.
Mistakes are one thing: bias, is another thing altogether. I don't see how being a Peshitta primacist affects translating anymore than being a Greek primacist affects translating.
+Shamasha