Spring Cooley Lecture - Dr. Daniel Wallace - Part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- 1st Cooley Lecture: “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”
The text of every handwritten copy of the New Testament differs from the others. How major are these differences? Are any cardinal doctrines at stake? Is it possible to recover the wording of the originals? These questions and many more will be addressed in this lecture.
Thank you Dr Wallace, God bless you. Gosh, Mill found 30k variants, wow that is astonishing. We have the incredible power of computers available to us today, yet he was able to do that manually
AMEN
Thanks!! Can I upload this video on my account ?? Let me knew!!
Brooke Foss Westcott, hero of Greek NT textual criticism, puts use of an Aramaic/Syriac NT (cf Khabouris Codex) before the Greek NT:
"Moreover it is known that books were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, and while such an intercourse existed it is scarcely possible to believe that the Scriptures themselves remained untranslated. The same conclusion follows from the controversial writings of Bardesanes (dead in the year 222 CE, Catholic Encyclopedia-- AGR) which necessarily imply the existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible. Tertullian's example may show that he could hardly have refuted Marcion without the constant use of Scripture. And more than this, Eusebius tells us that Hegisippius 'made quotations from the Gospel according the Hebrews and the Syriac and especially from [writings in?] the Hebrew language, showing thereby that he was a Christian of Hebrew descent. This testimony is valuable coming from the only early Greek writer likely to have been familar with Syriac literature...
"Ephraem Syrus (dead 373, Catholic Encyclopedia--AGR), a deacon of Edessa, treats the Version in such a manner as to prove that it was already old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it 'Our Version'; he speaks of the Translator one whose words were familar; and though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, his explanations show that its language even in his time had become partially obsolete.
"Another circumstance serves to eshibit the venerable age of this Version. It was universally received by the different sects into which the Syrian church was divided in the fourth century, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians, whether belonging to the Nestorian (Church of the East--AGR), Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church--AGR) or Roman communion, conspire to hold the Peshitto authoriative and to use it in their public services. It must consequently have been established by familar use before the first heresies arose or it could not have remained without a rival. Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament were indeed made afterwards, for Syriac literature is peculiarly rich in this branch of theological crticism; but no one ever supplanted the Peshitto for ecclesiastical purposes...
"But meanwhile there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion that has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation should be fixed to the first half of the second century. The text, even in its present revised form, exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek Manuscripts and the earliest quotations from, The very obscurity that hangs over its origin is a proof of its venerable age, because it shows it grew up spontaneously in Christian congregations, and it was not the result of any public labour. Had it been a work of late date, of the third or fourth century, it is scarecly possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is."
Brooke Foss Westcott, "A General Survey of the History and Canon of the New Testament" (Seventh Edition, 1896), p. 244-8.
books.google.com/books?id=sjYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA244&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Original post: peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2254&highlight=metzger
@AllOtherNamesUsed Says,
(1) "Brooke Foss Westcott, hero of Greek NT textual criticism, puts use of an Aramaic/Syriac NT (cf Khabouris Codex) before the Greek NT." And quotes BF Wescott:
(2) " 'But meanwhile there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion that has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation should be fixed to the first half of the second century.' "
According to my reading of this section of text from BF Wescott (per the link provided in your post), he says nothing about the Greek NT as being merely a translation from an Aramaic/Syriac original. His point is only to discuss the current state of scholarship---at the time of writing---with respect to the dating of the Peshitta. He concludes, per the quote, that it was formed in the 2nd century. How one can conclude that BF Wescott argues the Greek texts were mere translations from Aramaic originals escapes me. He neither says, nor intimates, any such thing.
Bart Ehrman’s insane laugh.
While we can use the NA28 as an excellent critical edition of the NT, what is the best critical edition of the OT? I currently have Alfred Rahlfs Seuptuaginta, but I keep hearing people tell me that it isn't reliable.. HELP!!!
Have you found an answer to that question? I am currently in search of the same. Thanks!
The scriptures teach that it is the spirit of the message that is important, not necessarily the letter of the word. We have the Aramaic paraphrases called the Targums (Targumim) witnessing to this early tradition beginning after the Babylonian exile and it is attested to in the old testament itself:
_They read from the book, from the law of God, _*_translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading._* (Neh 8:8 NAU)
This tradition continued in the synagogues and is why we find the NT authors/speakers were allowed some flexibility when they quoted or paraphrased scriptures, which in some cases closely follows the LXX and/or Targum readings against the MT.
The Aramaic Eastern Peshitta OT (Codex Ambrosianus) also shows internal evidence of following closer to the DSS thus predating the MT despite the standard talking points of Western Academic biases from those who display next to no deep knowledge of this fruitful area. The Aramaic NT ms families are also much more stable than the Greek families (a tell-tell sign one would expect if the Greek families are in fact the translations, not the other way around), which even on the surface in several places betray an Aramaic original in view of abundant polysemy, missed Hebraicisms, out right glosses, etc, with the Byzantine closer to the Aramaic text then the Alexandrian. This is a contentious area rife with disinfo and Western biases (ie, wikileaks, various websites, even Greek-meister Metzger got caught boldly lying to a group ("Highlights from the Sermon on the Mount", 1992) saying there was no Aramaic manuscript evidence for the gospels in Aramaic!!! (cf Peshitta, Peshitto and Old Syriac gospels). That's pretty desperate.
But the main point is it's the idea/concept/meaning/spirit of the word that is important, not the rigid letter of the word, otherwise you severely limit the reach of the message against foreign speakers. Paul also used standard Pharisaical hermeneutics (Hillel's seven rules) in his epistles and wrote primarily to the Jew first.
I suppose there are people who study Harry Potter too.😅
I wish Dan would stop mentioning that other guy.
Is anyone else tired of scholars who just have to mention Bart Erhman, oh my goodness, they all refer to this guy like he is someone who speaks truth or something, the guy knows how to sell books, he is very dishonest as scholars go, he is little more then a charlatan. Some new testament scholars legitimize the gut by constantly referring to him.
He is popular and strong so normal to mention.
@@pekde And he is wrong and sneaky and a charlatan, he knows that things that are not crystal clear can be construded to make them seem false, and he knows this , sells books.
@@ericday4505 correct. Should repent and change way and undo errors.