01-02-2012, 05:48 AM
Hi everyone!
I was hoping someone could help me with a discussion I entered into on another forum about the different versions of John 16:23-24. I came across a reference in a book that referenced Douglas Klotz's translation of the 'ask and ye shall receive' part of the King James Bible.
The Peshitta and King James Version are very different and it seems the KJV leaves quite a bit out. I pointed this out on another board as an example of how the KJV of the Bible contains errors and omissions and had the following response from another poster there who said:
I'm no scholar. However, in the brief amount of time I've spent on this site, and in reading some of the forum posts, it seems like Peshitta is a serious scholarly pursuit with merit. This sounds like he's trying to say Peshitta is some sort of hippy dippy interpretation of the original biblical texts.
And really, he seems to also be intimating that any attempt to translate original biblical texts in Peshitta would contain errors...I guess in that, if what he is saying is true, that it's not possible to translate Greek to Aramaic with any accuracy.
Is there anyone who could help me to understand this problem?
I was hoping someone could help me with a discussion I entered into on another forum about the different versions of John 16:23-24. I came across a reference in a book that referenced Douglas Klotz's translation of the 'ask and ye shall receive' part of the King James Bible.
The Peshitta and King James Version are very different and it seems the KJV leaves quite a bit out. I pointed this out on another board as an example of how the KJV of the Bible contains errors and omissions and had the following response from another poster there who said:
Quote:"This is not, I repeat, NOT some long last "original version" of the text that was "left out" of the KJV (not that I'm married
to any specific translation, we can go back to the Greek, yes, the Greek, there's no "earlier Aramaic" extent for
any of the New Testament writings I'm afraid."
Quote:"Sure, several Church Fathers assert their belief that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic (or in Hebrew, or in "Hebrew letters," reports vary). Whether this was something true or merely a rumor, the fact remains that we have NO copies or even fragments of this "Hebrew Matthew" or any Aramaic text to prove this theory. Instead, what we have are Greek copies, and Aramaic and Hebrew copies or fragments which are MUCH LATER than the Greek ones, that were clearly translated FROM the Greek."
Quote:"The origin of the PESH-ITT-A [sorry, the word censor confuses that with a cuss word] according to the vast majority of scholars, is that it was an Aramaic translation OF THE GREEK."
Quote:"In other words, they're taking a Greek text, that is then translated into Aramaic and then re-translating it into English. They're then using this to create wiggle room to fit their own interpretations into the text."
I'm no scholar. However, in the brief amount of time I've spent on this site, and in reading some of the forum posts, it seems like Peshitta is a serious scholarly pursuit with merit. This sounds like he's trying to say Peshitta is some sort of hippy dippy interpretation of the original biblical texts.
And really, he seems to also be intimating that any attempt to translate original biblical texts in Peshitta would contain errors...I guess in that, if what he is saying is true, that it's not possible to translate Greek to Aramaic with any accuracy.
Is there anyone who could help me to understand this problem?