No doubt another attempt at "gloss work." What I mean in that term is there are quite a few NT versions out there that replace the "English" names derived from the Greek to Hebrew/Jewish names and places. Dr. Stern did such with the Complete Jewish Bible.
The shocking truth of the matter are the manuscripts used for these "Hebrew/Jewish" approaches...They use Greek manuscripts, or the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB-http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/) or just change the names from the English! So the claim of use of "the oldest Aramaic text available today" really tells us whatever that is, it is later, not earlier than the Greek manuscripts.
For some reason the link you provided to the Hebrew NT won't come up at my current location. Perhaps paste here the manuscript references used to translate this version.
After reviewing a few of the sample pages, I do find Michael Rood's work *The Chronological Gospels* is much more accurate. Wish he would work on creating his own version of a Hebrew New Testament but probably hasn't the years left, knowing just how meticulous he is.
For some reason the link you provided to the Hebrew NT won't come up at my current location. Perhaps paste here the manuscript references used to translate this version.
Are you online from a .mil address or something? You know God isn't allowed on base right? ;)
>> “No doubt another attempt at “gloss work.” What I mean in that term is there are quite a few NT versions out there that replace the “English” names derived from the Greek to Hebrew/Jewish names and places. Dr. Stern did such with the Complete Jewish Bible.” <<
.
Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that all of these supposed Aramaic, Hebrew, or “Hebrew Roots” bibles are produces solely to raise funds.
None of them offer anything over the KJV, in terms of useful information. I see them in the same class as all the various NIV Bibles. Just crass commercialism.
.