Hi Folks,
While the conversation is a bit heated, and would be nice to be toned down, there are two factual tweakings I'd like to make.
It is common to call the language of the OT Aramaic (sections in Daniel and Ezra) and the NT texts Syriac (eg. Peshitta and Old Syriac MSS). Even the OT Peshitta I think is called Aramaic while the NT Peshitta is called Syriac. With Aramaic possibly being a subset of Syriac in language theory, the terms do have a lot of overlap.
I'm not saying this necessarily is sensible, but it is scholarly language consensus and has nothing to do with e.g. recognizing the usage of Hebraisti == Hebrew in the NT. I can't see anything wrong with referring to "sections of Daniel and Ezra being in Aramaic" since that is what their Chaldee dialect is often called. Since Aramaic is used today, culturally in some lands as the main language, and by Orthodox Jews in studies and by Eastern Christians in their Bible text, there is no warrant to insist on banishing the word.
As for Scrivener's Greek text being an exact representation of the King James Bible, "exact" is a bit too strong. The Johannine Comma is not a counter-example, as Scrivener's italics was only in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a different work. However I have seen a couple of cases where English King James Bible information may not be in the Greek text. "Almost exact" - fine. The word "exact" is rarely applicable across languages.
Shalom,
Steven
|