12-04-2012, 08:03 PM
:
Luc, as far as I can tell, Andrew uses the 1920 UBS text in his 1st edition and changed out some readings to match what is found in The Khabouris text. But not always, where he misses a number of things. Also, the Khabouris has many lesser variants, than the big ones, which are not present in Andrew?s edited Aramaic text...It is in no way representative of The Khabouris as a whole, but much more so the UBS text, which contains all the western variants, both small and large. So this is a Roth critical text, which can't be said to be either the UBS text, or The Khabouris text.
He did with the Aramaic text, what he did with the English text of Younan and Murdoch, making a new version of it. I don't see a translator here, but an editor...which is too bad, because he could have taken his time and done it right. Perhaps he was rushed by others, who wanted to supply a demand? It may take many years to get his edition right, and I think you are doing the right thing in bringing these many things to his attention...hopefully one day it will really be a real translation of The Aramaic/English New Testament: The Eastern Peshitta. It's not that yet, but closer than most others out there today.
I don't mean to be too critical, just want to be very honest, and want an honest translation.
Shlama,
Chuck
.
Quote:Isn't it the UBS Critical text? Changed to update (most) major variants between east and west?
Luc, as far as I can tell, Andrew uses the 1920 UBS text in his 1st edition and changed out some readings to match what is found in The Khabouris text. But not always, where he misses a number of things. Also, the Khabouris has many lesser variants, than the big ones, which are not present in Andrew?s edited Aramaic text...It is in no way representative of The Khabouris as a whole, but much more so the UBS text, which contains all the western variants, both small and large. So this is a Roth critical text, which can't be said to be either the UBS text, or The Khabouris text.
He did with the Aramaic text, what he did with the English text of Younan and Murdoch, making a new version of it. I don't see a translator here, but an editor...which is too bad, because he could have taken his time and done it right. Perhaps he was rushed by others, who wanted to supply a demand? It may take many years to get his edition right, and I think you are doing the right thing in bringing these many things to his attention...hopefully one day it will really be a real translation of The Aramaic/English New Testament: The Eastern Peshitta. It's not that yet, but closer than most others out there today.
I don't mean to be too critical, just want to be very honest, and want an honest translation.
Shlama,
Chuck
.