Fun with transliteration (for judge): a reality check

[spin]

In the past I have listed a number of transliterations showing that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek in which a number of Greek and even Latin words made it directly into the Syriac of the Peshitta. As judge has recently reasserted his belief in the priority of the Peshitta over the Greek gospels, ie that the gospels were originally written in Syriac then translated into Greek, I thought I might provide some more interesting examples of words taken directly from the Greek into the Peshitta translation, in order to show judge the error of his ways.

Pentecost

I have already pointed out that the Greek word for "gospel", ie evaggelion, was transliterated into Syriac 'wnglywn, whereas in other cases the Syriac sbrt' is used. Just as interesting is the fact that the first day of the festival of Weeks, ie seven weeks after the Passover = 50 days, that we know by the Greek Pentecost, is transliterated into the Peshitta as pn+kws+', Ac 2:1, despite the fact that there is no dearth of words in Aramaic available for the term. Incredible that they should choose to transliterate the term Pentacost rather than use a Semitic word!

Paraclete

John's special word for the holy spirit, "paraclete", is transliterated into Syriac! In Jn 14, eg, 14:16 we find prqlt'. Such central religious terms as "gospel", "pentecost" and "paraclete" don't have homegrown Syriac terms? One is expected to believe that an Aramaic community which is supposed to have invented christianity didn't use Aramaic terms for such central ideas?

Law

The word for law, in Greek nomos, is transliterated in the Peshitta as nmws', though you wouldn't think there was a lack of words in Aramaic, as Daniel and Ezra indicate when they use both TWRH and DT. Pretty astounding use of Greek here.

Face

There is a wonderful Semitic expression, "to fall on one's face", found throughout the Hebrew bible. When in the Aramaic part of Daniel Nebuchadnezzar fell on his, the word used was 'NP, yet, when the Peshitta uses the expression, it invariably uses the Greek word for face, proswpon (made up of two Greek parts pros "near, towards" and ops -- from which our "optical" is derived), in the form prcwp'. Why transliterate the Greek for such a well-worn Semitic expression?

Place names

Why do Greek versions of placenames such as Azotus and Saron, which have nice Semitic versions (Ashdod and Sharon), end up in Aramaic transliterated from Greek 'zwtws and srwn'?

soudarion

The cloth that is placed over a dead person's head when the body is wrapped, called in Greek soudarion (originally from Latin and only used in Greek in the NT), is transliterated into Syriac swdr', Jn 11:44, good old Lazarus (but also Jesus, Jn 20:17). If they really did use soudaria in that part of the world, why not use the local term? As the word was not in common circulation in Greek, but available in the Greek gospel of John, this seems the most likely source for the Syriac word. (And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this notion of soudarion along with the body of Jesus being wrapped in bandages oQonia functionally kills the Turin shroud as being authentic.)

Here is a grab bag of other words rendered in Syriac in their Greek forms.

robe /xlamus -- klmys Mt 27:28
governor / 'hgemonos -- hgmwn' Mt 28:14
writing tablet / pinakidion -- pnqyt' Lk 1:63
coats / xitonia (Hdt Hom Hes) -- kwtynyn Lk 3:11
wages / opswniois -- 'pswnyt Lk 3:14
dish / pinakos -- pynk' Lk 11:39
key / kleida (kleis) -- qlyd' Lk 11:52
(coins) / assarion -- 'sryn Lk 12:6
robe / stolh -- 's+l' Lk 15:22
ruler / arxon -- 'rkwn' Jn 3:1 (ie Nicodemus)
porticos / stoas -- 's+wyn Jn 5:2
portico / stoa -- 's+w' Jn 10:23
baskets / kofinous -- qwpynyn Jn 6:13 Lk 9:17
furlongs / stadiwn -- 's+dwt' Jn 11:18
box, bag / glwssokomon -- glwsqm' Jn 12:6 13:29
lamps / lampadwn -- lmpyd' Jn 18:3
captain / xiliarxos -- klyrk' Jn 18:12
pounds / litras -- ly+ryn Jn 19:39
uninstructed / idiotai -- hdyw+' Ac 4:13
basket / spurida = 'spryd' Ac 9:25
tanner / bursei = bwrsy' Ac 9:43
Though this information is given in order to show judge the error of his ways, judge has proven in the past that he is quite resilient to evidence, as was the case with all the Latin words which made it into Syriac through Greek. His only response was to list a some Semitic words found in the Greek NT -- such as rabbi and abba --, which is a little like pointing out Italian words -- such as pizza, pasta and piazza -- in an English travelogue about Italy and assuming the programme was originally done in Italian. When the words are common or central ones in the language, then one should start to worry.

To recap, there is a sufficient load of words derived from the Greek NT to be found in the Peshitta to indicate that the Greek NT was the source of the Peshitta NT.


spin

[judge]

In the past I have listed a number of transliterations showing that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek in which a number of Greek and even Latin words made it directly into the Syriac of the Peshitta. As judge has recently reasserted his belief in the priority of the Peshitta over the Greek gospels, ie that the gospels were originally written in Syriac then translated into Greek, I thought I might provide some more interesting examples of words taken directly from the Greek into the Peshitta translation, in order to show judge the error of his ways.

As with your "explanations in the texts" you only apply this logic one way. many Aramaic words exist in the greek texts as well.


The evidence for an Aramaic original NT is far more comprehensive. We have words that have been mistranslated.
Romans 5:7 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=61612&highlight=Romans) is an example


This seems pretty clearly a mistake from Aramaic into greek and not the other way around. The greek translator confused two aramaic words and as a result the greek makes no sense.

here are the two Aramaic words.

http://www.xsorbit1.com/users/mdread/Attachment/Rashey-oReshyono.png


There are more examples of this but none the other way. Unless spin has some?

Believers in the western world have for centuries believed that only their tradition could possibly be the correct one. Only Roman Catholicism or Protestantism could be the chosen church. Only the church councils they champion could possibly be the "right" ones.



Aramaic speaking belivers took the gospel east and believers within the Roman Empire took it west.
The greek translations went west. Aramaic speaking believers took Aramaic versions east.

An entirely seperate group of christians took the gospel to the east as I said.
The Church within the Roman empire did not. This group held their own councils where they declared their independence from those inside the empire.


:

An interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Those groups inside the empire which tended to use greek translations did not go on missionary activity to india or china. this was done by Aramaic speaking believers.


This group was probably the largest on earth 1000 years ago, but of course the "winners" write the history. ;-). Under Tamerlane their numbers were greatly reduced.


:

Whole peoples with their rulers had become Christians and it seems certain that there were few places in the whole Asia that were not reached at some time or other as the outcome of the marvelous activity of that wonderful church which extended from China to Jerusalem and Cyprus, and in the eleventh century is said to have outnumbered the Greek and Roman churches combined.


Stewart, John. Nestorian Missionary Enterprise: The Story of a Church on Fire. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928.

This group is an extremely ancient branch of christianity. Their liturgy is very ancient. It does not contain the words of the institution "...this is my body" , which appears in all liturgies by late 2nd cent.

Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East., New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141

What did they use from earliest times? Greek NT?

[judge]

To recap, there is a sufficient load of words derived from the Greek NT to be found in the Peshitta to indicate that the Greek NT was the source of the Peshitta NT.


spin

But how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?

Is there a way to test your theory?

[judge]

In the past I have listed a number of transliterations showing that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek in which a number of Greek and even Latin words made it directly into the Syriac of the Peshitta.

Although we have been over this before I might as well give a couple of examples

The greek of Luke 1:15 contains the aramaic word sakira, meaning "strong drink". Did the greeks not have word for strong drink?

Matthew 2:11 has Lebonthah or frankincense.

So this kind of thing works both ways. Languages and cultures borrow words. Some words come into popularity at different times.

But spin do you have any example of words being mistranslated?
I have given the example of Romans 5:7

[S.C.Carlson]

here are the two Aramaic words.

http://www.xsorbit1.com/users/mdread/Attachment/Rashey-oReshyono.png

There are more examples of this but none the other way. Unless spin has some?

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.

In the second century, the relevant time-frame for this supposed translation error, Syriac was written in the Palmyrene cursive script (Estrangelo's predecessor) or in the Aramaic square script. In both scripts, however, the two letters are quite distinct. (A table of Palmyrene is found here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A&pid=11).)

Furthermore, no Greek or Latin witness preserves the Peshitta reading, and Greek and Latin reading is harder reading. The fact that the easier variant is limited to one tradition and the late script it was written in makes it a very straightforward case that the variant is an error in the Peshitta.

Stephen

[spin]

You still haven't got over trying to argue pizza and pasta in an English travelogue about Italy.

There sheer weight of examples of Greek and Italian words in the Peshitta must make your mind boggle, considering the text according to you is based on an Aramaic original written in Palestine.

You failed dismally to deal with the fact that there a number of explanations in the Greek text rendered necessary because they regard place-names. Thomas (t'wm') called Twin (t'm') is the most obvious and hilarious that comes to mind in the Peshitta.

I have been collecting these examples through casual examination of the texts. I have only reached Acts. I expect many more if I continue.

Why would the Palestinian Aramaic community recognise evangelion in Mk? Why would they need a Greek word for Pentecost? Why would the most Semitic of gospels, John, use the Greek paraclete?

Your failure to respond to these sorts of questions, shifting the argument onto anything you can think of, indicates that you have no reply, while the easiest explanation for Greek versions of Semitic place-names being transliterated into Syriac is because that's how the translator found the names and didn't recognise them. The easiest explanation for finding Greek terms for everyday items in the gospels in the Peshitta rather than Aramaic terms is because the translator found them in the text and didn't or couldn't do anything better than transliterate them. Going in the other direction, it's only obvious that we should find a few token Semitic words in the NT, afterall, the stories are set in Palestine. They were developed by people with some knowledge of Palestine and many probably had a Semitic background. While the few paltry examples you give can easily fit this scenario, you haven't got empty hands in response to the vastly greater body of Greek and Latin words, and some of those important to the religion. And I was quite shocked to see "face/proswpon" transliterated into Syriac. This is unthinkable.

Try again judge. You've got to do better than your reruns like

Matthew 2:11 has Lebonthah or frankincense.

And I have pulled apart so many of your supposed mistranslations from Aramaic. Remember "gowra", for example. That was downright silly, if not creative. You throw up these "mistranslations" as though you understood them, but you don't, so why do you expect me to do the work that you haven't done?

I find your faith in Peshitta priority without basis.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

Spin,

Thanks for the work you have done.

best,
Peter Kirby

[judge]

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.

In the second century, the relevant time-frame for this supposed translation error, Syriac was written in the Palmyrene cursive script (Estrangelo's predecessor) or in the Aramaic square script. In both scripts, however, the two letters are quite distinct. (A table of Palmyrene is found here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A&pid=11).)



Stephen

Thank you for this Stephen.

I wonder do you know which script the 6 a.d. Syriac inscription (http://www.bethmardutho.org/aboutsyriac/) os the 3rd century parchment is in?

The earliest dated Syriac inscription is from AD 6, and the earliest parchment, a deed of sale, is from 243.

If this were the only example of mistranslation your case would be quite strong. But as there are many examples of mistranslations from Aramaic to Greek and apprently none the other way, I think more consideration is due.

You will note that spin is unable to produce any (and I'm sure he would love to) ;-)

Acts for example, which spin has been going over, contains mistranslations from Aramaic into greek, and not the other way..

See Acts 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:24&version=31) for example.

24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

The Aramaic word here can mean either pain or rope/cord.

Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entries:



xblyn N xbly)
1 JLA,Syr pl. labor pains
LS2 210
LS2 V: xeb:le)

xbl N xbl)
1 JLATg destroyer

xbl#2 N xbl)
1 Palestinian,CPA,Syr rope
2 Syr snare
3 Syr measuring line
4 Syr space
5 Syr line
6 JLAGal,Syr region
7 Syr %xbel@yamA)% seashore
8 Syr flame
LS2 210
LS2 V: xablA)

The greek translator wrongly inserted agony/pain.

It should read cords of death!!



2 Samuel 22:6 - Where the verse reads - "The cords of sheol surrounded me ; the snares of death confronted me"

Psalms 18:5 - "The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me."

Psalms 116:3 - "The cords of death encompassed me, And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow."

There are many more examples.

this can only be exaplained if the aramaic came first.

[judge]

You still haven't got over trying to argue pizza and pasta in an English travelogue about Italy.

There sheer weight of examples of Greek and Italian words in the Peshitta must make your mind boggle, considering the text according to you is based on an Aramaic original written in Palestine.

Putting words in my mouth? ;-)

I have made no such claim that they were written in palestine. I am not aware of any evidence for this.



I will restate my question to you.

But how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?

Is there a way to test your theory?

If we cannot test your theory then how can it be a good theory?

What good is a theory that can't be falsified?

[judge]

I find your faith in Peshitta priority without basis.


spin

Well that's Ok. :-)

If it is true that the NT was written in Aramaic then it is only natural that those holding "establishment" points of view will resist.

Eventually the 'old guard" dies off. :)

Wishing you all the best though as I do get a lot out of your posts here. And not just the ones I am involved in.

[Chris Weimer]

Hey spin and judge,

I also have been working with the names found in Matthew, and declared the same thing. For example, verse two of chapter one in the Peshitta has Isaac as the father of Jacob, the same in the Greek. But if you look at the Hebrew 1st Chronicles, Isaac is the father of Israel. The Septuagint (written in Greek) differs with the Hebrew in that Isaac is the father of Jacob (even though later it has "the sons of Israel" and not Jacob). Why would Matthew not use Israel but instead of Jacob? Obviously because that is what the LXX has.

The other examples are more convincing, with the Peshitta agreeing with the Greek against Hebrew on Aram (should be Ram in Hebrew), Salmon (Salma), and that Salathiel was the father of Zorobabel (a mistake made in the LXX; the real father of Zorobabel was Padaiah.

[Chris Weimer]

Hey Judge, while comparing apples and oranges, you're logic is strangly off. Let me explain: if I write a story about Greece, I'm expected to use Greek at least certain Greek words, am I not? No one thinks that Cicero wrote in Greek because he uses Greek words since they are appropriately used. However, if someone came across a Greek translation of Cicero (is there such a thing?) and saw Latin words that were merely transliterated but could have been properly translated, would they still think that Cicero wrote in Greek? Of course not! The same is the exact parallel to the New Testament - written in Greek containing purposefully Aramaic words (such as small phrases of Christ) but when translated into Aramaic took on its own many more Greek words as well as certain peculiarities to the Greek text (such as explaining Aramaic terms).

Now, about the confusion of variants due to Aramaic - please provide, if you are capable, the manuscripts and their dates of the variants in question. The dates are especially important, since there would have been a lot of back-translations. Take for example the Septuagint. The LXX was written in Greek translated from the Egyptian textual tradition of the Hebrew. However, years later certain people decided to revise the LXX to give it a more "literal translation" of the Hebrew, unaware that they were using the Babylonian Hebrew texts to revise the originally Egyptian-based text. The result is a loss of original Septuagintal readings replaced with Babylonian ones. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls have yielded fragments of Hebrew of the Egyptian tradition containing Septuagintal readings against the current Masoretic text.

[Chris Weimer]

Hey Judge, here's another one! Mt Gk - Ozias; LXX - Ochozias; Hebrew - )KhZY)HW; Syriac - (WZY). Let's see if you can figure out who borrowed from whom on this one ;)

[judge]

Hey spin and judge,

I also have been working with the names found in Matthew, and declared the same thing. For example, verse two of chapter one in the Peshitta has Isaac as the father of Jacob, the same in the Greek. But if you look at the Hebrew 1st Chronicles, Isaac is the father of Israel. The Septuagint (written in Greek) differs with the Hebrew in that Isaac is the father of Jacob (even though later it has "the sons of Israel" and not Jacob). Why would Matthew not use Israel but instead of Jacob? Obviously because that is what the LXX has.

If matthew used the LXX then he would quote the LXX. But Matthew does not quote the LXX.
On occaisions he quotes a version that agrees with the LXX and on other occaisions he quotes a version that does not agree.

[judge]

The other examples are more convincing, with the Peshitta agreeing with the Greek against Hebrew on Aram (should be Ram in Hebrew), Salmon (Salma), and that Salathiel was the father of Zorobabel (a mistake made in the LXX; the real father of Zorobabel was Padaiah.

But here is the problem with your analysis here. You assume that the hebrew you quote contains the reading used in the first century.

As we know there were multiple variants of texts avaliable in the first century you cannot be sure which reading is the "best".

So, in view of the uncertainty, do you have any idea how acts 2:24 could have agreek original?

[Chris Weimer]

If matthew used the LXX then he would quote the LXX. But Matthew does not quote the LXX.
On occaisions he quotes a version that agrees with the LXX and on other occaisions he quotes a version that does not agree.
I'm sorry, but if Matthew read a Greek translation, which he did, then he read the LXX. You forget that the LXX was more varied than the Hebrew ever was and went through countless revisions by many different translators.

[Chris Weimer]

But here is the problem with your analysis here. You assume that the hebrew you quote contains the reading used in the first century.

As we know there were multiple variants of texts avaliable in the first century you cannot be sure which reading is the "best".

So, in view of the uncertainty, do you have any idea how acts 2:24 could have agreek original?
I don't need too. The Peshitta Old Testament agrees with the Hebrew versions ;)

1st Chronicles 1.34 has Israel, not Jacob. 1st Chronicles 2.9-10 has Ram, not Aram. 2.11 has Salma, not Salmon. 3.11 goes into a debate so long we haven't the time here, however I will mention that the Peshitta OT does not agree with the Peshitta NT, unless they are different people, but then that assumes a major error on Matthew's part (which is conceivable). It is something to be debated elsewhere. And finally, believe it or not, 3.19 has Padaiah and not Salathiel as the father of Zerubbabel. If not anything else, you must concede that Matthew's genealogy was written in Greek.

[judge]

I don't need too. The Peshitta Old Testament agrees with the Hebrew versions ;)

So?
The Peshitta OT comes for the same textual tradition in this instance as the henrew you quote.
This does not change the fact that there was more than one textual tradition.



And finally, believe it or not, 3.19 has Padaiah and not Salathiel as the father of Zerubbabel. If not anything else, you must concede that Matthew's genealogy was written in Greek.

No this is not sound reasoning. All we can safely conclude is that that the PNT and the LXX come from the same textual tradition as far as this geneology is concerned, not that the Matthews geneology comes from the LXX.

I notice you are still silent on acts 2:24 though.

[S.C.Carlson]

I wonder do you know which script the 6 a.d. Syriac inscription (http://www.bethmardutho.org/aboutsyriac/) os the 3rd century parchment is in?

It is my understanding that they are written in the Palmyrene cursive.

If this were the only example of mistranslation your case would be quite strong. But as there are many examples of mistranslations from Aramaic to Greek and apprently none the other way, I think more consideration is due.

You will note that spin is unable to produce any (and I'm sure he would love to) ;-)

I must have joined the conversation late. I've only seen one example and it didn't hold up. That didn't exactly give me warm fuzzy feelings about the examples I haven't seen.

Acts for example, which spin has been going over, contains mistranslations from Aramaic into greek, and not the other way.

See Acts 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:24&version=31) for example. The Aramaic word here can mean either pain or rope/cord. The greek translator wrongly inserted agony/pain. It should read cords of death!!

Since you admit that the Aramaic word can mean either "pain" or "cord," what makes chosing "pain" a mistranslation? I'm not sure I follow the logic. (The logic of the Estrangelo example was clearer, once the anachronism is put aside.)

Psalms 116:3 - "The cords of death encompassed me, And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow."[/url]

The LXX for this verse agrees with the Greek of Luke, so, even if it was a mistranslation (which has yet to be shown), it does not make it a mistranslation of the Peshitta rather than some other Semitic source.

There are many more examples. this can only be exaplained if the aramaic came first.

Better evidence would be a mistranslation specific to the eastern Syriac dialect the Peshitta was written in.

Stephen

[judge]

Since you admit that the Aramaic word can mean either "pain" or "cord," what makes chosing "pain" a mistranslation? I'm not sure I follow the logic. (The logic of the Estrangelo example was clearer, once the anachronism is put aside.)



We have common Hebraism which occurs on numerous occaisions in the HB.

2 Samuel 22:6 - Where the verse reads - "The cords of sheol surrounded me ; the snares of death confronted me"

Psalms 18:5 - "The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me."

Psalms 116:3 - "The cords of death encompassed me, And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow."

We have an Aramaic copy of Acts which could read either pain or cords.

The greek translator either thinks the word can only mean pain, or he decides to follow the error in the LXX.

Either way by looking to the HB we can see it should be cords.

But Stephen, think about it.
What are the chances of the greek original reading "pain"....which is not a hebraism.

And then by sheer co-incidence the Aramaic word can mean either pain or cords?

What are the chances?


BTW this sort of thing happens again and again. We have an Aramaic word that is ambiguos or has more than one meaning and the greek translators at times got it wrong.


Better evidence would be a mistranslation specific to the eastern Syriac dialect the Peshitta was written in

But the peshitta has the correct hebraism!
The peshitta is not the mistranslation. The figure of speech is "cords" of death.

[Chris Weimer]

So?
The Peshitta OT comes for the same textual tradition in this instance as the henrew you quote.
This does not change the fact that there was more than one textual tradition.

No this is not sound reasoning. All we can safely conclude is that that the PNT and the LXX come from the same textual tradition as far as this geneology is concerned, not that the Matthews geneology comes from the LXX.
You have any evidence that the Egyptian tradition was used in Palestine/Syria around 80-90 CE? Against thinking I'm assuming that, I defer to Streeter's The Four Gospels on dating and location of the gospels. You have a better suggestion?

[Chris Weimer]

As for Acts 2.24, it's still better to assume it came from the LXX then from the Hebrew since the overwhelming evidence is in favor of Luke-Acts being written in Greek. You say you have many more examples, where are they?

[Chris Weimer]

Furthermore, judge, you're explicitly denying Occam's Razor by trying to claim that both the standard Aramaic Old Testament was not used by Matthew who wrote in Aramaic, but a different tradition? If Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he most likely would have read from the Aramaic OT, no? Thus that's two hurdles you have to jump instead of just one. Burden's on you buddy.

[S.C.Carlson]

But Stephen, think about it. What are the chances of the greek original reading "pain"....which is not a hebraism.

Since the reading "pain" was already in the LXX, the chances that a Greek original would follow the LXX are pretty good.

Stephen

[judge]

Furthermore, judge, you're explicitly denying Occam's Razor by trying to claim that both the standard Aramaic Old Testament was not used by Matthew who wrote in Aramaic, but a different tradition? If Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he most likely would have read from the Aramaic OT, no? Thus that's two hurdles you have to jump instead of just one. Burden's on you buddy.

Chris re: the Peshitta OT. Scholars are not sure when the various books in it were translated or when they came together. IOW we don't even know if the current books we have were around then or not.

It is more likely Matthew used Aramaic targums.

[judge]

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.



Stephen

I think we can admit that estrangelo wasn't fully developed until this time.

The oldest of the Syriac scripts, known as Estrangelo 'rounded', was fully developed by the 5th century.

from here (http://www.bethmardutho.org/aboutsyriac/) . So I'm not sure how much was in use before that.

But this makes little difference as all the other letters are the same.

The two words are still easily mistaken.
The mistranslation still goes from Aramaic into greek.

The greek makes no sense.

[judge]

Yoo hoo!...Spin. :-)



To recap, there is a sufficient load of words derived from the Greek NT to be found in the Peshitta to indicate that the Greek NT was the source of the Peshitta NT.


spin



But how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?

Is there a way to test your theory?

How can you possibly know that all these words entered Aramaic via the greek NT?

robe /xlamus -- klmys Mt 27:28
governor / 'hgemonos -- hgmwn' Mt 28:14
writing tablet / pinakidion -- pnqyt' Lk 1:63
coats / xitonia (Hdt Hom Hes) -- kwtynyn Lk 3:11
wages / opswniois -- 'pswnyt Lk 3:14
dish / pinakos -- pynk' Lk 11:39
key / kleida (kleis) -- qlyd' Lk 11:52
(coins) / assarion -- 'sryn Lk 12:6
robe / stolh -- 's+l' Lk 15:22
ruler / arxon -- 'rkwn' Jn 3:1 (ie Nicodemus)
porticos / stoas -- 's+wyn Jn 5:2
portico / stoa -- 's+w' Jn 10:23
baskets / kofinous -- qwpynyn Jn 6:13 Lk 9:17
furlongs / stadiwn -- 's+dwt' Jn 11:18
box, bag / glwssokomon -- glwsqm' Jn 12:6 13:29
lamps / lampadwn -- lmpyd' Jn 18:3
captain / xiliarxos -- klyrk' Jn 18:12
pounds / litras -- ly+ryn Jn 19:39
uninstructed / idiotai -- hdyw+' Ac 4:13
basket / spurida = 'spryd' Ac 9:25
tanner / bursei = bwrsy' Ac 9:43

How can you say that no Aramaic speaker ever used these words apart from in the peshitta?

Don't you think you need to rethink your assertion and withdraw it or modify it?

[judge]

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.



As I previously mentioned Estrangelo wasn't fully developed until that time, however I think you will find that the 6 a.d. inscription is much the same as estrangelo.

here (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:cd5GamapV64J:www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1367.html+&hl=en) is a previous discussion on this, I am not sure if the graphics will work but the refererence is there.

Added in edit:

Steven Ring also seesm to think this inscription is in estrangela.

Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke. Syriac was spoken in south western Mesopotamia in the small kingdom of Osrhoene with its capital at Edessa. The earliest dated Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (see [12] pp. 1-2, Maricq 1962, and Pirenne 1963) and another inscription at Serrin dated AD 73 (see [12] pp. 2-3). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and the Estrangela Syriac script existed just before and just after Jesus' ministry.

from

Aramaic linguistics (http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html)

[S.C.Carlson]

As I previously mentioned Estrangelo wasn't fully developed until that time, however I think you will find that the 6 a.d. inscription is much the same as estrangelo.

Your link could not display an images for the inscription, unfortunately. :( But all is not lost.

The earliest Syriac inscription usually cited is the Queen Helena of Adiabene inscription, a picture of which is shown here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?pid=5&artid=1308&letter=A).

It does not look like Estrangelo but rather the Palmyrene Ornamental script (see here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A&pid=11)).

Stephen

[judge]

Your link could not display an images for the inscription, unfortunately. :( But all is not lost.

The earliest Syriac inscription usually cited is the Queen Helena of Adiabene inscription, a picture of which is shown here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?pid=5&artid=1308&letter=A).


Not from what I can see. the earliest one generally referred to is the 6 .a.d. inscription.
This is not the Queen Helena inscription is it?



It does not look like Estrangelo but rather the Palmyrene Ornamental script (see here (http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A&pid=11)).

Stephen

Yes, but apparently the 6 a.d. inscription does look like estrangela according to the reference/s I cited.

[S.C.Carlson]

Not from what I can see. the earliest one generally referred to is the 6 .a.d. inscription.
This is not the Queen Helena inscription is it?

No, the Queen Helena inscription dates to the 40s and had been the earliest Syriac inscription for several decades since its discovery in the 1800s until the inscriptions around Edessa had been discovered.

If Paul did write his letter from Corinth to the Romans in Syriac is more likely that he would the employ the script used to write it that was current in Jerusalem, he Paul had lived, not a local script from a place like Edessa, where he had never been.

Nevertheless, a certain combination of factors, including the period and place in which it was found, its close connections to the Bible, and the exotic language and script of the inscription for its location and time, gives me pause. I cannot avoid the sinking feeling that the Queen Helena inscription could be a fake, so let's look at the Edessene inscriptions in more detail.

Yes, but apparently the 6 a.d. inscription does look like estrangela according to the reference/s I cited.

I managed to find a site (in Spanish) giving the letters of the archaic Syriac inscriptions found near Edessa, including from the AD 6 inscription (link here (http://www.proel.org/alfabetos/siriaco.html)). Though their script is clearly the precursor to Estrangelo, these inscriptions still have yet to reflect the features of the fully developed Estrangelo, including the very feature that your example from Rom 5:7 relies upon: the similarity of nun and ayin. These two letters are still distinct in the pre-Estrangelo inscriptions.

Another problem with this example is that the Syriac words have been misspelled. For some reason the yod and the ayin are transposed in the word for "wicked"!

As for the other word, a big problem is that r$ny) does not mean a "just man," it means "accusation" or "blame." To get something like "blameless," one needs a phrase, dl) r$yn "without blame" as in 1 Cor 1:8, but there's no alap at the end of the word, and the supposed translation error would not only have to mistake a letter but omit a word.

This example is incompetent and just doesn't work. For the theory of Aramaic priority to be correct, I hope it is not representative of your other examples that have not been presented (so far).

Stephen

[spin]

how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?
They are all foreign words to Syriac, judge. But the linguistics is easy. Speech communities use terminology which is most familiar to them. The community which used "pentecost" and "paraclete" used them because they were the most familiar to use. This is certainly not the case with the hypothesized Aramaic community which some claim wrote the original gospels. There are nice words in Aramaic for these terms. The translator didn't find them, probably because the tradition came to him with these terms well ingrained, so they were simply transliterated.

Is there a way to test your theory?
Sure, compare the ratio of Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta NT with that in other non-religious Syriac texts. This will deal with the common words.

How can you possibly know that all these words entered Aramaic via the greek NT?
How many would be sufficient?

How can you say that no Aramaic speaker ever used these words apart from in the peshitta?
I never made that claim. I said that the Syriac translator of the Greek NT didn't use Aramaic terms at times but transliterated Greek ones.

Don't you think you need to rethink your assertion and withdraw it or modify it?
You given me no cause. You have no argument whatsoever. Now all you're doing is trying to shift the onus off yourself.

It's interesting that the community didn't have words for baskets, had to use the Greek word for "tanner", couldn't use local terms for political positions (why is Nicodemus an "archon"??), preferred Greek words for clothing, used numerous foreign coins, and bandied about Greek theological terms.

I find it amusing that you muse on my rethinking when you have no defence for your own position.


spin

[S.C.Carlson]

It's interesting that the community didn't have words for baskets, had to use the Greek word for "tanner", couldn't use local terms for political positions (why is Nicodemus an "archon"??), preferred Greek words for clothing, used numerous foreign coins, and bandied about Greek theological terms.

It's also interesting that the name of the script Estrangelo comes from a Greek word.

[Chris Weimer]

Indeed judge, the burden of proof is upon you, since you're arguing for a new theory. And the one example you cited was already demolished, so, what else have you got?

[judge]

I managed to find a site (in Spanish) giving the letters of the archaic Syriac inscriptions found near Edessa, including from the AD 6 inscription (link here (http://www.proel.org/alfabetos/siriaco.html)). Though their script is clearly the precursor to Estrangelo, these inscriptions still have yet to reflect the features of the fully developed Estrangelo, including the very feature that your example from Rom 5:7 relies upon: the similarity of nun and ayin. These two letters are still distinct in the pre-Estrangelo inscriptions.

OK, but that still leaves the fact that it is only the one letter difference. The argument is till there though a little weakened.

This till leaves no explanation as to why the greek version makes no sense.

The most reasonable explanation is a mistranslation.




Another problem with this example is that the Syriac words have been misspelled. For some reason the yod and the ayin are transposed in the word for "wicked"!

Where exactly?


As for the other word, a big problem is that r$ny) does not mean a "just man," it means "accusation" or "blame." To get something like "blameless," one needs a phrase, dl) r$yn "without blame" as in 1 Cor 1:8, but there's no alap at the end of the word, and the supposed translation error would not only have to mistake a letter but omit a word.

Can you explain your reading of the peshitta text then?


How do you think the peshitta reads in Romans 5:7?

]

[judge]

Is there a way to test your theory?

.


Sure, compare the ratio of Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta NT with that in other non-religious Syriac texts. This will deal with the common words.



Can you be a bit more specific? And give yourself less "wriggle room". I mean lets really test your theory.

What ratio do you suggest. Be specific and give reasons.

[judge]

You given me no cause. You have no argument whatsoever. Now all you're doing is trying to shift the onus off yourself.


spin

You made the original claim, it is up to you to justify it.

[S.C.Carlson]

OK, but that still leaves the fact that it is only the one letter difference. The argument is (s)till there though a little weakened.

But the supposed one-letter difference is between letters that looked distinct at that time. But that's a minor problem considering that both words have to be misspelled to get to that one-letter difference!

This till leaves no explanation as to why the greek version makes no sense.

Rom 5:7 "Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die." (NRSV)

Makes sense to me. In English it is tempting to give the word "good" a primarily moral sense, but in Rom 5:7, agathos, "good," has a pragmatic sense, as in "kind," "benevolent," or "helpful." Paul is referring to the very human tendency of overlooking the moral faults of those who are on our side.

The most reasonable explanation is a mistranslation.

Nope.

Where exactly?

As I said, the two letters are transposed.

Can you explain your reading of the peshitta text then?

How do you think the peshitta reads in Romans 5:7?

Huh? The Peshitta lacks the dubious form r$ny).

Stephen

[judge]

Thanks for your replies. But I'm still not sure about a couple of points. So if you can indulge me a little more I would be grateful :-)


Just to make it perfectly clear. I am claiming the following.

In Aramaic, the word for "wicked" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? Rasheya (#20309) - but the word for "blameless/innocent" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü?("Reshyana") (#20289)

Just one letter is different.

This letter is in the same place in the word.


The peshitta reads.

For one would hardly die for a wicked ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? man;(09y4r Rasheya ) though perhaps for a good ܛܒÜ? man someone would dare even to die


What part of this do you disagree with?





As I said, the two letters are transposed.

Where are the two letters transposed?



Huh? The Peshitta lacks the dubious form r$ny).

Stephen

Yes, so how dos the peshitta of this verse read to you? How does the whole verse read ?

[spin]

You made the original claim, it is up to you to justify it.
Rubbish.

You claimed that the texts were originally written in Aramaic. I've shown you a great deal of evidence that repudiates your claim. You now conveniently forget you claimed Aramaic priority, ignore the evidence to the contrary, and are back peddling your secondhand examples of Aramaic priority based on a knowledge of a language you don't understand even the linguistics of.

Your position is extremely vulnerable, despite the fact that you've never clearly stated the details of how it works according to you.

If as you claim Aramaic priority is true, how do you explain the Greek theological terms in Aramaic? How do you explain the Semitic idiom "fall on one's face" using a Greek word for "face" transliterated into Aramaic?? These things apparently indicate that Aramaic was not the original language for the ideas.

Please explain. Stop shifting responsibility.

Can you be a bit more specific? And give yourself less "wriggle room". I mean lets really test your theory.
You need linguistics 101.


spin

[judge]

Rubbish.

spin


If it is true that the NT was written in Aramaic then it is only natural that those holding "establishment" points of view will resist.

Eventually the 'old guard" dies off. :)

[Chris Weimer]

I will retract my statement about Ochozias, Ozias, etc... It appears I was wrong.

[judge]

Originally Posted by judge
Is there a way to test your theory?


Sure, compare the ratio of Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta NT with that in other non-religious Syriac texts. This will deal with the common words.


So...er...have you done this?

Or have you decided you are correct before you tested your theory?

I repeat my question so it is clear.
Have you done this?

[spin]

So...er...have you done this?

Or have you decided you are correct before you tested your theory?

I repeat my question so it is clear.
Have you done this?

judge, you've missed the boat. I don't have to do it. I just need to have a way of showing that it can be tested.

You, unfortunately, are the one who is bucking the status quo with the outlandish proposal that Aramaic had priority.

The status quo exists because all the earliest documents are in Greek, none of the earliest fathers favour the Peshitta, and as I have shown the Peshitta is strongly influenced by the sorts of Greek one finds in the NT. It appears to be a translation of the NT.

The onus is fairly on your shoulders to show your case for Peshitta priority rather than play the shifting responsibility game.

You may repeat your cop outs as much as you like. Aramaic is a poor candidate and you haven't done the leg work to improve that situation. Until you do, I'll just assume you can't.


spin

[judge]

judge, you've missed the boat. I don't have to do it. I just need to have a way of showing that it can be tested.

Well i'm not even sure you have done this though. Will any ration do?

What about equal ratios...does that still prove your case. Obviously not I would say. IOW you still haven't provided a test.


You, unfortunately, are the one who is bucking the status quo with the outlandish proposal that Aramaic had priority.

Outlandish..god forbid.


The status quo exists because all the earliest documents are in Greek,

This argument is easily refuted. There are NO fragmentary copies of the peshitta, NO damaged copies.

Why? Their textual tradition did not keep damaged copies of their bible. They copied them and destroyed the old ones.

Only an outlandish person would expect this kind of tradition to have the oldest texts.


none of the earliest fathers favour the Peshitta,


Again, this is a bit vague. Which fathers? Greek speakers who spoke greek?

The earliest Aramaic speaking fathers favor the peshitta. Ahprahat quotes it word for word but never anything else word for word.



and as I have shown the Peshitta is strongly influenced by the sorts of Greek one finds in the NT. It appears to be a translation of the NT.

You have shown nothing. You can't adjudicate on your own theories.


If it is true that the NT was written in Aramaic then it is only natural that those holding "establishment" points of view will resist.

Eventually the 'old guard" dies off. :)

[gregor]

Please quit making up "just so" stories. If you think spin is wrong, prove it by doing what he asks.

[judge]

Please quit making up "just so" stories. If you think spin is wrong, prove it by doing what he asks.

Spin opened with this claim.
In the past I have listed a number of transliterations showing that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek in which a number of Greek and even Latin words made it directly into the Syriac of the Peshitta.[/quote]


I asked (twice)

[quote=judge]But how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?

Is there a way to test your theory?


Spin replied (eventually)

Sure, compare the ratio of Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta NT with that in other non-religious Syriac texts. This will deal with the common words.

Spin admits he has not done this.

Sounds like creation science, doesn't it?

First work out the right answer and then check. If wrong answer ...move goalposts.

* * *

I will also repeat my question for stephen.

In Aramaic, the word for "wicked" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? Rasheya - but the word for "blameless/innocent" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü? ("Reshyana")

Just one letter is different.

This letter is in the same place in the word.


The peshitta reads.



For one would hardly die for a wicked ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? man;(09y4r Rasheya ) though perhaps for a good ܛܒÜ? man someone would dare even to die




What part of this do you disagree with?

[gregor]

So I take it that you will continue to ignore the challenge.

[judge]

So I take it that you will continue to ignore the challenge.

Spin made the following request.

The onus is fairly on your shoulders to show your case for Peshitta priority

I have provided Romans 5:7

The ball is in spins court. :-)

[spin]

I have provided Romans 5:7
Another judge crock. You're getting worse than the supporters of Velikovsky and von Daniken. How many of these quibbles have I already pulled apart?

Try something substantial, or give yourself a general rethink of an apparently unsupportable conjecture.


spin

[judge]

Another judge crock. You're getting worse than the supporters of Velikovsky and von Daniken. How many of these quibbles have I already pulled apart?




spin

Is putting your fingers in your ears and singing..La La la..la la...la la the same as pulling things apart?
:p

[Peter Kirby]

Judge: All your peshitta are belong to us. Resistance is futile.

[Rick Sumner]

Judge: All your peshitta are belong to us. Resistance is futile.

Everytime you think "All your base. . ." is dead. . . :p

Regards,
Rick Sumner

[judge]

Judge: All your peshitta are belong to us. Resistance is futile.

Ok Ok I surrender!
You guys win..... :rolling:

[spin]

Is putting your fingers in your ears and singing..La La la..la la...la la the same as pulling things apart?
:p
Thrill us, judge. Try your hardest to make a coherent proposal for your crazy little fancy. Don't just pour other people's used conjectures about their linguistic inadequacies down the forum's throat. Start with a well-defined proposal, giving background historical information and then argue your case putting evidence and counter evidence which you deal with in a persuasive manner. That's your task. Trivial rhetoric doesn't help you a jot. Good luck. And please don't expect me to hold my breath.


spin

[spin]

Spin made the following request.


The onus is fairly on your shoulders to show your case for Peshitta priority

I have provided Romans 5:7

The ball is in spins court. :-)
Well, that certainly didn't need much of a response (see here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2643273#post2643273) ).

judge, you simply can't just rehash other people's poor scholarship. One puny example to support your (only partially stated) case is nothing in itself, even if it were correct. You need a substantial argument backed by a solid array of evidence. You haven't gone down this path and have shown no intention of doing so.

So, we've scratched the abysmal gbr) example, along with the salt example, now along with the Rom 5:7 example and numerous others whose particulars I have now long forgotten, though they can be found in the archives. I have often said that the major problem is that you are in no position to analyse the material you use, so you are not an informed proponent of your case. In fact I don't see why you even entertain the idea. If you can't do what I suggested in a previous post, I don't see why you still put the Aramaic primacy crock forward any more.

Thrill us, judge. Try your hardest to make a coherent proposal for your crazy little fancy. Don't just pour other people's used conjectures about their linguistic inadequacies down the forum's throat. Start with a well-defined proposal, giving background historical information and then argue your case putting evidence and counter evidence which you deal with in a persuasive manner. That's your task. Trivial rhetoric doesn't help you a jot. Good luck. And please don't expect me to hold my breath.


spin