페쉬타 필사본을 밀고있는 사람들입니다. 이 사람들은 KJV주의자들이 아니고 오히려
LAMSA BIBLE 이라는 페쉬타를 번역한 성경을 밀고 있습니다.
홈페이지에 가면 PDF로 왜 페쉬타가 제일 오래됐는지에 대해 쓴 책이 있는데
공개되어있습니다. 관심있는 분은 읽어보시길 바랍니다.
실제로 소수사본을 번역한 성경역본들과 큰차이가 있을뿐만 아니라 KJV와도 다릅니다.
의도적으로 삭제된 구절이 있는지 체크해봤는데 요일5:7 이 KJV와 다르다는 점을 빼면 삭제된것처럼 보이는 부분을 아직 발견하지 못했습니다. 이 부분은 TR반대자들로 부터 공격의 대상이 되어왔기에 일단 저도 여기에대해 아는것이 없는관계로 할말이 없습니다.
그리고 어제 반론으로 올린 로마서 11:6은 KJV와 동일합니다.
제가 신기한건 한결같이 소수사본을 번역한 성경들만 잔뜩봐와서 그런지 삭제된 구절이 있지 않을까? 생각했는데 삭제되지 않았네요.
이들의 책 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? 이라는 책을 읽어보면 KJV와 페쉬타를 많이 비교해 놓은것을 볼수 있습니다.
한가지 예를들어보면 다수사본 소수사본을 번역한 성경들 모두 로마서 3:15에서 그 발은 피 흘리는데 빠른지라 인 반면에
페쉬타는 아람어로 reghlaihoon 인데 이 단어의 뜻에는 foot 도 있지만 foot soldier 도 있다고 합니다. 그래서 발이 피흘리는게 빠른것이 아니고
보병이 피흘리는데 빠르다라고 번역하는것이 맞다고 주장하네요.
하여튼, 페쉬타가 오래되었다는 주장은 근거없이 나온말이 아니라는 것이 이들의 주장입니다.
소수사본지지자들도 페쉬타만큼은 적어도 3-4세기 정도에 기록됐을거라고 추측합니다.
하지만 페쉬타지지자들은 1세기 중반에서 2세기 정도에 기록됐을거라고 추측합니다.
뭐가 맞는지는 모르지만 일방적으로 한쪽의 주장만을 옳다고 할수는 없다고 봅니다.
그 이유는 여러분들께서도 잘 아실거라고 생각합니다.
소수사본이 인기를 끌게된것은 그 역사가 그리 오래되지 않았습니다. 과학이론이라는것은
인간의 발견에 의한것으로 시대에따라 계속 변하게 되는것입니다. 왜냐면 인간은 계속
새로운 것을 발견하기 때문이지요.
사본학이라는 것도 마찬가지라고 생각합니다. 비주류가 주류가 되는것은 늘 있는 일이기때문에 놀랄것도 없습니다.
하지만 이 분야는 가장 영적인 전쟁이 치열한 분야이기때문에 그 결과를 쉽게 예측하기 힘듭니다. 중요한것은 박창환님의 말씀처럼, 다수의 선택이 옳은 것은 아니라는 것입니다.
그 다수에는 무신론자, 자유주의 신학자, 뉴에이저, 특정 종교인 등 순수하지 못한 사람들이 너무 많이 때문이지요. 뿐만 아니라 이런사람들은 계속해서 증가해 왔습니다.
판단은 여러분께 맡깁니다.
Are the Peshitta Manuscripts Older?
As has been shown in other articles of this series, the Greek New Testament is full of errors, contradictions, variants and bad grammar, while lacking the numerous wordplays, true meanings of idioms and poetry of the Peshitta. The Greek NT dilutes the original message, just as the Septuagint did, and is a main reason why the Judeans mourned it. In fact, the Greek NT reads much like the Septuagint, what with its bad grammar and “Koine Greek”. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of a Semitic original. Put two and two together…
Can one prove that the Greek is the original? Nobody actually can. It’s just taken for granted. Since all the Greek versions have corruptions, contradictions etc, it is clear that they are not the originals. Many will shout “Manuscript evidence” at the top of their lungs, as supporting evidence of Greek primacy. “Manuscript evidence” – the favourite term of the Greek primacist and it means nothing. There are 5000 Greek mss and fragments of mss. So what? There are millions of English Bibles worldwide, was the Bible then written in English? There is plenty of “publishing evidence” that the New Testament was written in English!
What about age? Obviously, the original must also be the oldest. Well, this we cannot determine either. It is acknowledged on both camps that the originals are long gone and that we are left with copies of copies. So, dating the various mss does not help anyone much. It is interesting to note however, that as of the year 2003 CE, the oldest dated Biblical manuscript is the Peshitta Old Testament Ms. 14,425 held in the British museum. It is believed to have been written in 464 CE. It is also notable that many Semites revered their Scripture so much that they would not let it disintegrate. Rather they would copy them precisely, and do away with the originals or older copies.
It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of Greek mss and fragments postdate the 9th century – they were written nearly 1000 years after the originals were written, or later. Here are some of the primary Greek mss and the approximate ages that have been assigned to them:
• Codex Sinaiticus (Codex a) (350 CE) Contains almost all of the NT and over half of the LXX.
• Codex Alexandrinus (Codex A) (c. 400 CE) Almost the entire Bible (LXX and NT).
• Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) (325-350 CE) Contains most of the Bible (LXX and NT).
• Codex Ephraemi (Codex C) (400’s CE) Represents most of the NT except 2Thes. and 2John.
• Codex Bezae (Codex D) (450 CE) Contains the Four Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin.
• Codex Washingtonensis (Codex W) (450 CE) sometimes called Codex Freerianus. Contains the Four Gospels.
• Codex Claromontanus (Codex D(p)) (500’s) Contains the Pauline Epistles.
These ages are hardly impressive, when Aramaic (that “Hebrew dialect”) originals are quoted and being talked about as early as the second century, by ancient Eastern scholars!
These dates are especially unimpressive when looking over these quotes from modern scholars:
The SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in it various forms: the “Peshitto” [Peshitta, the names are often confused – Raphael] (cent. 2) and the “Curetonian Syriac” (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses [the last 12 verses of Mark’s Gospel – Raphael]. So with the “Philoxenian” (cent.5) and the “Jerusalem” (cent. 5)… Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the most import!ant, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170. Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West. "yet they all exhibit a text in every import!ant respect the same." Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses. Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those “various readings” with which the Syriac agrees. – Dr. E. W. Bullinger, “The Companion Bible”
Dr. Scrivener on the Peshitta:
…the oldest and one of the most excellent of the versions whereby God’s providence has blessed and edified the Church. – Dr. Frederick HA Scrivener, “Introduction”
Even Dr. Westcott (of Alexandrian-text fame) saw…:
no reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that the formation of the Peshitto Syriac was to be fixed within the first half of the second century. The very obscurity which hangs over its origin is proof of its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up spontaneously among Christian congregations...Had it been a work of later date, of the 3rd or 4th century it is scarcely possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is. – Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott, “The New Testament Canon”, 1855
Note: Westcott later changed his mind about the Peshitta, seeing how it often agreed with the Byzantine texts, against his beloved Alexandrian texts. He then concluded that the Peshitta must have been a revision of the Old Syriac (“Introduction to the NT Greek”, 1882).
댓글