11-04-2012, 11:20 PM
I would like to know where these "handful" of corrected errors are in the text. We can check them with the other manuscripts. Do you have a list you can provide us with Stephen?
It seems to me, that when a Manuscript had too many errors and missing parts, or wrong readings in them, they got shelved, buried, or scratched off, to make use of the sheets for something else. And so, being that there were just a few mistakes in the Khabouris, it was kept for spiritual use among the faithful, but corrected as needed.
Again, I'm not against Roth's version, even if it is from various sources, just that what I've seen in it needs to be fixed and washed clean of all error and bias before I can use it, or can truly recommend its use...same with Bauscher's, and Lamsa's versions to less and more degrees.
And, even with clean translation, no translation is going to be without its problems, when going from one language to the other, but it can be as close to the Aramaic Text as possible, without personal bias, if the readings are literal and not interpretive. But then again, too literal a reading, and you can hardly understand it at all. This is true of Jahn's version in many places I've seen...where you need a translation to understand his translation. But it's useful, in seeing some of the idioms not seen when translated in most versions.
Blessings,
Chuck
It seems to me, that when a Manuscript had too many errors and missing parts, or wrong readings in them, they got shelved, buried, or scratched off, to make use of the sheets for something else. And so, being that there were just a few mistakes in the Khabouris, it was kept for spiritual use among the faithful, but corrected as needed.
Again, I'm not against Roth's version, even if it is from various sources, just that what I've seen in it needs to be fixed and washed clean of all error and bias before I can use it, or can truly recommend its use...same with Bauscher's, and Lamsa's versions to less and more degrees.
And, even with clean translation, no translation is going to be without its problems, when going from one language to the other, but it can be as close to the Aramaic Text as possible, without personal bias, if the readings are literal and not interpretive. But then again, too literal a reading, and you can hardly understand it at all. This is true of Jahn's version in many places I've seen...where you need a translation to understand his translation. But it's useful, in seeing some of the idioms not seen when translated in most versions.
Blessings,
Chuck