07-13-2016, 05:24 PM
I was reading Luke just for the enjoyment recently. I came across Luke's listing of Disciples in Chapter 6, and the last two of verse 16 caught my attention. My KJB had the first "Judas" listed as [I]brother of[I] (James), which the KJB uses to indicate no manuscript words, these words are implied. Okay, then the margin notes referred readers to Jude 1. Jude 1 carries the same words, which virtually yanked at my attention! Does this lead to an understanding that the half-brother of our Lord was also one of His 12?
Fortunately AGR came to my rescue, as usual. He pointed out that the Aramaic clearly annunciated the proper relationship, which was "Son of" (James). Moreover, a check of the Greek text confirms that Greek does in fact fail to establish that relationship, forcing all translators from Greek to speculate. My brother read me his NASB with a correct rendering. However since the NASB is a "modern translation" from revised Greek Texts, it gives me problems. One is its rendering of Luke 2:33 which specifies Yacob (Joseph) as father of our Lord. The KJB says "Joseph and His mother......".
Dr. Luke gives clear purpose to his Gospel in in his preamble in the first four verses. He sets out to confirm all the stories conveyed to listeners from the eye-witnesses. Luke would not have allowed this relationship to remain unspecified. The Aramaic is precise, and true to Dr. Luke's writing.
But another point is one I am making on a website under construction. We Christians of the 21st Century have tools others who came before us did not have. We have the work of Younan in setting up this site, free to use, and having transliteration of the Aramaic into English. Although this is a somewhat trivial case, it easily emphasizes a tool for Christians. When we find issues with our translations, we can easily track them down by returning to the original authentic writings, which all profess to be the Word of GOD. I am thankful for this magnificent gift. TB
Fortunately AGR came to my rescue, as usual. He pointed out that the Aramaic clearly annunciated the proper relationship, which was "Son of" (James). Moreover, a check of the Greek text confirms that Greek does in fact fail to establish that relationship, forcing all translators from Greek to speculate. My brother read me his NASB with a correct rendering. However since the NASB is a "modern translation" from revised Greek Texts, it gives me problems. One is its rendering of Luke 2:33 which specifies Yacob (Joseph) as father of our Lord. The KJB says "Joseph and His mother......".
Dr. Luke gives clear purpose to his Gospel in in his preamble in the first four verses. He sets out to confirm all the stories conveyed to listeners from the eye-witnesses. Luke would not have allowed this relationship to remain unspecified. The Aramaic is precise, and true to Dr. Luke's writing.
But another point is one I am making on a website under construction. We Christians of the 21st Century have tools others who came before us did not have. We have the work of Younan in setting up this site, free to use, and having transliteration of the Aramaic into English. Although this is a somewhat trivial case, it easily emphasizes a tool for Christians. When we find issues with our translations, we can easily track them down by returning to the original authentic writings, which all profess to be the Word of GOD. I am thankful for this magnificent gift. TB