Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
The short answer is that the Peshitta is a fine early translation from the Greek, that generally supports the pure Bible text. However, it does have some major corruptions, like at 1 Timothy 3:16, where it has "which" was manifest in the flesh.
Lamsa's translation is ok. He actually used some Authorized Version excellence in the process. Lamsa was hanging out with some new agey people (especially Rocco A. Errico) for awhile, who were part of his support network, but afaik that was after the edition, and the version itself does not have new age junk like The Message. It is not anywhere near as good as the Authorized Version, but it is far, far better than the Westcott-Hort corruption versions. (NIV, NAS, etc.)
The problem addressed in the article above is the Aramaic Primacy theory, that tries to claim that the New Testament was (with some possible exceptions in the five books not in the original Peshitta) written in Aramaic. Many of the Aramaic Primacy people are quite sincere, they are looking for a pure Bible, and they have been misled a bit. |
Thank you. I will look further into the subject. One thing that has confused me sometimes is the conflation that occurs between "Aramaic" and "Hebrew", I think what some people call "Hebrew" was actually Aramaic or something like that?
I also intend to flesh out my understanding of the connections between the Aramaic and the Syriac versions, so any good reads on the subject you might recommend would be appreciated.
Threaded Mode
