I agree. The field of textual criticism just isn't for monolingual people.
If two manuscripts have two different but synonymous words, that's a
significant variant, but it won't come through in translation to English.
Grammatical differences don't always translate. Sentence structure
differences won't come through. There's just so much that would get missed
you can only scratch the surface describing why. Anything completely in
English shouldn't be taken seriously. I realize that translating into
English can help explain a few things or reach a wider audience, but that
needs to be IN ADDITION TO providing the original text. Any serious study
of textual criticism should include the original language wording.
----- Original Message -----
From: George F Somsel
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Peshitta confluence with the
I see nothing particulary designed to impugn you in what Jeffrey wrote. It
was a simple, logical question in view of the fact that you have admitted to
not reading Greek. I don't recall that you stated that you didn't read
Syriac, but I would doubt that you do so that much would be a conclusion
which may be unwarranted. I find your statement that "The nice thing is
that for the most part the study is 100% solid working with the
translations in English (Your emphasis)" totally amazing. No text-critical
work on the NT can be done solely in English unless there is a complete
absence of a passage in which case the conclusion is obvious. I simply
would not trust such a study.
Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus