TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Thirdly, We add, that the whole Scripture, entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals yet remaining; what varieties there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared
Note: in the bold text above it is clear that Owen is not referring to a compiliation, like Beza's, but to the extant copies within the Byzantine tradition. Owen continues:
Robert, you're throwing me! When I read the quotes of Owen, it's clear as day he's read either read those quotes from Erasmus and Augustine I posted earlier on this thread. But where did Owen speak about the Byzantine texts? My reading of all three men is such that none of them would advocate a TR only position.
I'd appreciate something from Owen where he spoke about the Byzantine tradition being superior to others. In the mean time, do you think Owen, when confronted with all the Byzantine texts available today would have preferred tree over book in Rev 22? Why or why not, based on his writings.
-----Added 12/10/2008 at 10:51:45 EST-----
You are arguing thatTim, you say, "The only confusion is that you still don't understand what you are arguing". Interesting. What is it I'm arguing?
which is necessary when building the complex alternative history that the AVonly position relies on, at least in the extreme form you and Thomas and evidently some others here cling to. You have to believe that, other wise your rhetorical argument "why would Christ speak to a Jewish people in a foreign language" when it comes to Him quoting the Septuagint would fall flat on it's face.you focused on Edersheim's use of the word "dialect" (where he meant Aramaic as a distinct and separate language partially derived from Hebrew -- even as it can be said French is a "dialect" of Latin: a distinct language descended from it)
But it is not true. Aramaic didn't descend from Hebrew. You are dead wrong. I've posted from both resources on line, then an expert on the Targum, and now today will post a email I got yesterday from one of the worlds foremost scholars in Aramaic.
Aramaic and Hebrew are two different, though closely related, languages (say, like English and Frisian). Amoraic Hebrew was a literary type of Hebrew written by native speakers of Palestinian Aramaic. Naturally, Pal.Aram. influenced Amoraic Hebrew, and to some degree vicas versa, but Hebrew and Aramaic were not and are not the same language.
Best wishes,
Hezy Mutzafi
Palestinian Aramaic was like Yiddish. The language of the Jews of East and Central Europe. It came down from German, and it totally, without question, mutually unintelligible to speakers of Hebrew.
You can use dialect if you want. You can claim anything if you want. You can claim that Palestinian Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. You can claim that Yiddish is a dialect of Hebrew. But you will be wrong.
No, Edersheim was being sloppy, and was wrong. What he said in a moment of sloppiness that you've latched on to because if fits into your alternative history goes against all orthodox scholarship.But Edersheim was right in his differing usage of the word.
Again, it will have to wait until you are convinced that Christ spoke to His people in a language that was not even a dialect of Hebrew.If you don't want to answer my question about what you meant re Christ quoting the LXX, fine.