07-04-2012, 10:29 AM
Thirdwoe Wrote:10: Mark 15:28 Omitted in the ESV & NIV text: -> ?And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."? ? It?s in The Eastern Aramaic ?Peshitta? Bible (1st century), Tatian?s ?Diatessaron? Gospel Harmony (160 A.D.) The verse is translated in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and even in the NIV.
Hey Chuck, the copy of the NIV I have does not have this saying, as you noted in the beginning of your quote, but then you turn a 180% and lay claim that it is in the NIV (?) <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->
Any way not to pick apart your work (as I see you are doing a good work) but to try and share advise to make it better, I would encourage you to instead of giving the ESV as the text that omitted the verse it would be better if you gave the ancient texts in which do not have it, alone, (such as Sinaticus, Vanaticus, Alexandrian, Western PeshittO, etc.....).
Also if the Eastern PeshittA does not have a verse but if Tatian?s ?Diatessaron? Gospel Harmony (160 A.D.), Archelaus? book ?Disputations with Manes? (277 A.D.), etc (in which you normally use, when ever possible, to show support for the PeshittA) had it it would be good to mention this as well.
The soul purpose should be to objectively show whether there is Ancient Textural support for the verses or not from ancient text alone (no matter which way the evidence slants), not whether an English translation/version decided to include or exclude the verses. As it really does not matter which English translations/versions have or do not have what. English is good for many today as they may only understand English (such as me) but again we can hunt through the English translations/versions to see which ones have or have not the verses, but if we do not have an objective veiw of the ancient text it still leaves the out come more so upon speculation, as compared to facts.
So again just because a source does not have a verse that the Eastern PeshittA has is not a good reason to not mention the source is lacking it, when you do so against the Alexandrian text type.
Be fully objective please as you keep up this good work, awmain. Once the evidence is fully established then one can wade through all the English translations/versions to decide which ones are best for studying the truth. But as I said before if the dissertation of evidence is slanted by way of incompleteness, one way or the other, then we will not be able to truly make any intelligent decision as to which of the English translations/versions we should hold dear and which ones we should discard. It is a given that the KJV is not the best it could be, but again without complete evidence on this particular subject of which verse should or should not be in a translation we will still be at a lost as to what is what if evidence is purposely left out (in one direction or another). So if you use an ancient source once to support or not support one verse from then on you should continue mentioning whether or not that source has or does not have the other verses as well. This is the only way help your students when criticing their English translations/versions to be fully objective in the long run. As this should be the goal. You have the knoledge and sources to to achieve that which many of us do not and or can not.
Sincerely, one student looking for the whole truth,
will
P.S. - Thank you for all you have done!
.