04-24-2012, 11:21 PM
Hi Rungold.
I wouldn't say that no one has a problem with it. I, for one, strongly feel that it is (at best) disingenuous and revisionary to include any of these things into a single work that incorporates the original twenty two books of the Aramaic new testament. I've voiced my opinion on this point in the past, starting with Lamsa's translation. (and Bauscher's). And yes, this includes Andrew's work as well.
As noble as the intent may be, which I think is to be sensitive to the tradition of most Christians today, and perhaps to appeal to them, I don't think it's right.
I would much rather these books be included in these translations in the original Greek, so as to alert the reader to their origin. There are no ancient manuscripts in Aramaic with any of these readings or books.
I wouldn't say that no one has a problem with it. I, for one, strongly feel that it is (at best) disingenuous and revisionary to include any of these things into a single work that incorporates the original twenty two books of the Aramaic new testament. I've voiced my opinion on this point in the past, starting with Lamsa's translation. (and Bauscher's). And yes, this includes Andrew's work as well.
As noble as the intent may be, which I think is to be sensitive to the tradition of most Christians today, and perhaps to appeal to them, I don't think it's right.
I would much rather these books be included in these translations in the original Greek, so as to alert the reader to their origin. There are no ancient manuscripts in Aramaic with any of these readings or books.