Debate challenge for Dr X

[judge]

In this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78328) Dr X made the following claim.

"The various Syriac versions are well-known, as well as their variants, and are used in textual criticism. It is a myth perpetuated that the texts(Nt Texts that is) were written in Aramaic. It was the assumption over a century ago, that evidence overturned."

I challenge DR X to a debate where he will argue in favor of the evidence he mentions here. He must specifically explain the exact nature of this evidence and why it means the NT was not penned in Aramaic, with specific reference to the peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html) .

I will respond and counter his case. (if he is game to provide one)

;)

[judge]

Delete..for some reason this recalcitrant post would not be deleted.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi judge,

You may want to ask the BC&H mods to move this thread to FD(CS) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=75) (assuming you want a formal debate on the issue). :)

Jason

[gregor]

I think Dr. X's point has been (for some time now) that YOU are asserting Aramaic primacy. He has asked YOU to present arguments in the affirmative.

That seems like the better debate

[judge]

Originally posted by gregor
I think Dr. X's point has been (for some time now)

Hmmm..lets have a look at one occaision when DR X actually did respond , it can be found on
this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61612) .

I argued that Pauls letter to the Romans contained a translating error.

Dr X responded by suggesting that because the greek version of Romans contained a greek word the original must have been in greek!!

Can you believe it? Are you impressed by this?
Here is the post



Whilst wondering about a book on child sacrifice--with the screaming brats in the café about me wishing to "bring back that ol' time religion!"--I stumbl'd upon this:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term for "propitiation" (hilastêrion) in v 22 [4 Macc 17:20-22; "a profound work of Jewish philosophy in narrative form, of uncertain provenance and a likely date of composition between 18 and 55 C.E."--Ed.], for example is the word that the Septuagint uses for the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrew, kappõret), on which the high priest sprinkles the blood of the bull as a sin of offering (Lev 16:14). It is worthy of note that it is also the term Paul was to use when he wrote that "God set [Jesus] forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood" (Rom 3:25).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny that Paul should use a Greek term rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic.

FYI

[Doctor X]

On the many, many replies I have given, I have encourage the individual to defend his claim with a formal statement.

I even offered to help him have his paper reviewed.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

He has, apparently, forgotten that little matter about metaphor. How convenient.

--J.D.

He does not sell his secrets cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.

[Edited for the codes . . . the codes.--Ed.]

[Vorkosigan]

Judge, this debate was settled 200 years ago. It would be great if you wanted to publish a rebuttal of the last couple of centuries of biblical scholarship. You could really make a name for yourself and do something very exciting. But until you do, the best evidence and methodology demonstrates that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written originally in Greek, and it is unlikely that you will be able to demonstrate otherwise (why would Paul have written a letter in Aramaic to the Romans????).

If you wish to seriously outline your case here, go ahead. There are many who might give you helpful suggestions.

Vorkosigan

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Judge, this debate was settled 200 years ago.

Vorkosigan
It's very funny. Everyone knows that the deabte was settled You say 200 years ago. DR X says over a centry ago. But neither of you know any details of this debate.
Or at least are unwilling to present any arguments of this debate.

I'm calling your bluff .

Lets hear the specific details of the arguments used 200 years ago against the peshitta.
If you beleive but you don't know why you believe it then isn't that "blind faith".
If you do know why you beleive it then what are you afraid of. Lets have a look at the specific reason you believe it. Is that too much to ask?

All the best

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by judge
[B]It's very funny. Everyone knows that the deabte was settled You say 200 years ago. DR X says over a centry ago. But neither of you know any details of this debate.

Sure don't. Don't care either. Every single book I have, conservative, liberal, atheist, Christian, says the same thing: the docs were written in Greek. Since scholars possess sound methodologies for determining this, I see no reason that they are not right...


...whereas I suspect you are arguing from religious faith, and thus, arguing with you would be both unenlightening and unprofitable.

So, again, publish your earthshattering theory somewhere.

Vorkosigan

[Toto]

judge - a common argument for the gospels being written in Greek is that "as in Isaiah 7:14, wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX." [LXX = the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures in common use among diaspora Jews who spoke Greek] See
here (http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/9203.htm)

[judge]

Originally posted by Toto
judge - a common argument for the gospels being written in Greek is that "as in Isaiah 7:14, wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX." [LXX = the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures in common use among diaspora Jews who spoke Greek] See
here (http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/9203.htm)

Thanks Toto.
I don't know if you recall but we did touch on this once before post 8 here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45854) .

Additionally in the same thread I posted this quote from, Craig A. Evans, professor of biblical studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Canada.

He writes (http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/apr26/9t5098.html) ...."evidence for this can be seen in the fact that when Jesus alludes to Scriptures in the Gospels, he usually does so in a manner that agrees with the Aramaic Targum, not the Greek or Hebrew versions. Some examples: In Mark 9:42 ?50, Jesus warns of judgment by speaking of Gehenna and alluding to Isaiah 66:24, "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The word Gehenna does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek, but only in the Aramaic. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus commands his disciple to put away his sword, "for all those who take the sword, by the sword they will perish." These words, which aren't in our Hebrew-based Isaiah, probably allude to the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah 50:11: "all you who take a sword?go fall?on the sword which you have taken!" Jesus' well-known saying "Be merciful as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36) reflects the Aramaic expansion of Leviticus 22:28: "My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth." And Jesus' very proclamation of the gospel, namely, that the kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:14?15), probably reflects the Aramaic paraphrasing of passages such as Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7. In these Aramaic paraphrases we find the distinctive words "The kingdom of your God is revealed!"

Additionally in Ephesians chapter 4 Paul quotes psalm 68 but his quote does not agree with the LXX or the hebrew but does agree with the Aramaic targum of this psalm.

So it seems that the NT writers used a version of the HB that no longer exists exactly anyway.

Thanks for the link, I am just running out the door but will have a look later tonight.

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Sure don't. Don't care either. Every single book I have, conservative, liberal, atheist, Christian, says the same thing: the docs were written in Greek.

Vorkosigan

Yes protestant fundamentalists believe it as a matter of faith. Because the need to have the inerrant bible. The infidels just follow them.:D

You could try Signs of the Cross (http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=11636) if you want to read a book discussing some arguments for the primacy of the peshitta.

All the best

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by judge
Yes protestant fundamentalists believe it as a matter of faith. Because the need to have the inerrant bible. The infidels just follow them.:D
All the best

The arguments look interesting. However, the fact that the sayings are derived from the Aramaic targums is not relevant to what language the texts were originally written in. It does show that the writers were aware of Aramaic sources, or that their sayings sources had Aramaic origins. What you would have to demonstrate is that the narrative sections were written in Aramaic.

How does your theory of Aramaic origin account for the Latinisms in Mark?

Vorkosigan

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
The arguments look interesting. However, the fact that the sayings are derived from the Aramaic targums is not relevant to what language the texts were originally written in. It does show that the writers were aware of Aramaic sources, or that their sayings sources had Aramaic origins.
What you would have to demonstrate is that the narrative sections were written in Aramaic.

I posted the quote you refer to not to demonstrate what language the texts were written in. I posted this in response to Toto's suggestion that the NT relied on or quoted the LXX


How does your theory of Aramaic origin account for the Latinisms in Mark?

Vorkosigan

I will ask you the same thing I asked Spin IIRC.
Can you outline clearly the exact argument you make in relation to "Latinisms". If you can make your argument clearand point out the precise nature of the "problem" I will do my best to address it.
If the argument remains vague it is difficult to address.

All the best.

[Vorkosigan]

4:27: modios = Lat. modius (a measure)

5:9, 15: legiôn = Lat. legio (legion)

6:27: spekoulator = Lat. speculator (guard)

6:37: dênariôn = Lat. denarius (a Roman coin)

7:4: xestês = Lat. sextarius (container)

12:14: kênsos = Lat. census (tribute money)

15:15: hikanon poieô = satis facere (to satisfy)

15:15: phragelloô = Lat. fragellare (to whip)

15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn = Lat. centurio (centurion)

Twice Mark goes from Latin to Greek.

A. 12:42: lepta duo, which is said to be the equivalent of a kordrantês = Lat. quadrans (the smallest Roman coin)

B. 15:16: aulês, which is said to be the praitôrion = Lat. praetorium

Also, Mark never uses the word "law" which does not really strike me as a possibility for a gospel whose original language was that of Jews. he speaks several times of the "lawfulness" of things, but never of the Law.

Note that I am not offering these as proof of the gospel's being written in Greek. Rather, I am asking how the Aramaic hypothesis handles this particular issue.

Vorkosigan

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
The arguments look interesting. However, the fact that the sayings are derived from the Aramaic targums is not relevant to what language the texts were originally written in. It does show that the writers were aware of Aramaic sources, or that their sayings sources had Aramaic origins. What you would have to demonstrate is that the narrative sections were written in Aramaic.


Vorkosigan

I have found a fuller explanation of Craig A Evans views here (http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm) where he points out examples where the NT (presuambly he looks at a greek version) agrees at times with the LXX, at times with the Proto Masoretic text, and at times with the Aramaic targums.
Which may be further evidence that whatever version he alluded to (if it even was only one version) is not extant today.

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
4:27: modios = Lat. modius (a measure)

5:9, 15: legiôn = Lat. legio (legion)

6:27: spekoulator = Lat. speculator (guard)

6:37: dênariôn = Lat. denarius (a Roman coin)

7:4: xestês = Lat. sextarius (container)

12:14: kênsos = Lat. census (tribute money)

15:15: hikanon poieô = satis facere (to satisfy)

15:15: phragelloô = Lat. fragellare (to whip)

15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn = Lat. centurio (centurion)

Twice Mark goes from Latin to Greek.

A. 12:42: lepta duo, which is said to be the equivalent of a kordrantês = Lat. quadrans (the smallest Roman coin)

B. 15:16: aulês, which is said to be the praitôrion = Lat. praetorium

Also, Mark never uses the word "law" which does not really strike me as a possibility for a gospel whose original language was that of Jews. he speaks several times of the "lawfulness" of things, but never of the Law.

Note that I am not offering these as proof of the gospel's being written in Greek. Rather, I am asking how the Aramaic hypothesis handles this particular issue.

Vorkosigan

These words are from the greek version of Mark, however I think at least some of them (probably all of them I imagine) are transliterrated in the peshitta as well so it does not matter too much.
But so what if the peshitta transliterates spekoulator for example. This was the term for a guard for goodness sake. Were the jews going to make up their own word?
There is an article in the paper here today which mentions a sauna!! Does this mean the entire article was translated from Swedish?
These are loan words and they occur in every culture. We should be surprised if there weren't at least some loan words in the NT.

[judge]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan


How does your theory of Aramaic origin account for the Latinisms in Mark?

Vorkosigan

Hi again,
I realise here that you may be indirectly referring to spin's recent post on this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78328&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) .
Be aware that it appears Spin has made a blunder here due to the fact he does not undertand aramaic.
For example Spin claims..."When Jesus is whipped the word in Greek fragellow borrowed from the Latin flagellare. In the Peshitta Mk 15:15 one doesn't find a transliteration (but a translation NGD), but in Mt 27:26, which also uses fragellow, the Peshitta supplies, not a transliteration of the Latin flagellare (with the letter L), but of the Greek fragellow -- noting that the F becomes a P in the Aramaic (which has no F), BPRGL'. The Aramaic form has come from the Greek, not the Latin directly."


This all seems quite reasonable on the surface (so much so DR X wants to send spin a cheque).
But the peshitta does not contain a transliterated word but rather the Aramaic word PRAGELA, listed in the comprehensive aramaic lexion as..

prgl N prgl)
1 CPA,Syr whip
LS2 592
LS2 v: prAgelA)
from the verb,

prgl V
091 Syr to warn
092 Syr to send a denunciation
093 Syr to stir up
094 Syr to prohibit
095 Syr to hold back
096 Syr to impede
097 Syr to reproach
098 JLATg to whip
121 Syr to be stirred up
122 Syr to be forbidden
123 Syr to be impeded
124 Syr to be reproached
LS2 592

[spin]

judge,

Go back and read what I said in the thread. You'll see that I made a clear case based on the phonemics of the Latinisms going through Greek into Aramaic. I cannot help it if you don't understand the problem, but simply stated the problems of transliterating from Latin into Greek are different from those those from Latin into Aramaic.

Giving the explanation that the hall in Mk 15:15 was a "praetorium" is an aid for a Latin speaking audience, just as that two lepta are equal to a Roman quadrans. This is no use to anyone except a Latin speaker used to those terms and not too aware of lepta or an aulhs.

Finding these in the Aramaic simply makes no sense, for it doesn't help an Aramaic speaking audience. Note the difference between citing a few Aramaic abracadabra words and then giving an explanation in Greek, which gives you the fact that the Aramaic wasn't included to aid a Greek audience, but needed to be explained. The Latin words are an explanation of the Greek terms, ie we are dealing with a Latin audience which reads Greek, as clearly was the case at least in Rome.

You said,

I will ask you the same thing I asked Spin IIRC.
Can you outline clearly the exact argument you make in relation to "Latinisms". If you can make your argument clearand point out the precise nature of the "problem" I will do my best to address it.
If the argument remains vague it is difficult to address.

There is no point in you simply repeating the fact that you still don't understand the problem posed to you.

Talking of blunders, next we get the lovely piece of linguistics for the transliteration of fragellare into Greek then into Aramaic.

Be aware that it appears Spin has made a blunder here due to the fact he does not undertand aramaic.
For example Spin claims..."When Jesus is whipped the word in Greek fragellow borrowed from the Latin flagellare. In the Peshitta Mk 15:15 one doesn't find a transliteration (but a translation NGD), but in Mt 27:26, which also uses fragellow, the Peshitta supplies, not a transliteration of the Latin flagellare (with the letter L), but of the Greek fragellow -- noting that the F becomes a P in the Aramaic (which has no F), BPRGL'. The Aramaic form has come from the Greek, not the Latin directly."

This all seems quite reasonable on the surface (so much so DR X wants to send spin a cheque).
But the peshitta does not contain a transliterated word but rather the Aramaic word PRAGELA, listed in the comprehensive aramaic lexion as..

You attempt to say that its manifestation in Mt 27:26 is based on some Aramaic word (look at your list 098, note that LAT stands for Latin). The word has simply come from Latin into Greek then into Aramaic, the trajectory I have stated, whipping having nothing to do with the other words that use the phonemic representation of PRGL.

And as I pointed out the Aramaic of Mk 15:15 uses another verb in Aramaic, NGD (you'll find it looking up "scourge" in your dictionary). Now strangely enough Grk MT 27:26 uses the same verb as Grk Mk 15:15 on which it depends. It is only in the Aramaic that the translators have used different words, ie the Aramaic Mt 27:26 is not dependent on the Aramaic Mk 15:15, but is dependent on the Grk Mt which is dependent on the Grk Mk which uses the Latin word. Greek Mt is obviously based on Greek Mk, as it uses the same verb. The Aramaic versions of these verses are dependent on the Greek, not one another.

You should not compound your blunders so openly. It's better to be silent than to show that you don't know what you are talking about. And if you want to respond, try to understand the argument here outlined first.


spin

[judge]

Originally posted by spin
judge,

Go back and read what I said in the thread. You'll see that I made a clear case based on the phonemics of the Latinisms going through Greek into Aramaic. I cannot help it if you don't understand the problem, but simply stated the problems of transliterating from Latin into Greek are different from those those from Latin into Aramaic.

I read what you said. You made assertions based upon your lack of understanding of the history of the aramaic language and it's interaction with other languages in the region.


Giving the explanation that the hall in Mk 15:15 was a "praetorium" is an aid for a Latin speaking audience, just as that two lepta are equal to a Roman quadrans. This is no use to anyone except a Latin speaker used to those terms and not too aware of lepta or an aulhs.



Read my reply above. What on earth do you expect. These are the actual names for these things. Do you expect the jews to simply make up thgeir own names for these things?



Finding these in the Aramaic simply makes no sense, for it doesn't help an Aramaic speaking audience. Note the difference between citing a few Aramaic abracadabra words and then giving an explanation in Greek, which gives you the fact that the Aramaic wasn't included to aid a Greek audience, but needed to be explained. The Latin words are an explanation of the Greek terms, ie we are dealing with a Latin audience which reads Greek, as clearly was the case at least in Rome.

Why not turn this argument around? We find Aramaic words all through the Nt. What use are these to greek speakers?
See what nonsense your argument is?




[B][QUOTE]
You attempt to say that its manifestation in Mt 27:26 is based on some Aramaic word (look at your list 098, note that LAT stands for Latin). The word has simply come from Latin into Greek then into Aramaic, the trajectory I have stated, whipping having nothing to do with the other words that use the phonemic representation of PRGL.

No it is an aramaic word. Which explains why it occurs in John 2:15 as well.
Or are you really suggesting Jesus made some kind of Roman whip in the temple?



And as I pointed out the Aramaic of Mk 15:15 uses another verb in Aramaic, NGD (you'll find it looking up "scourge" in your dictionary). Now strangely enough Grk MT 27:26 uses the same verb as Grk Mk 15:15 on which it depends. It is only in the Aramaic that the translators have used different words, ie the Aramaic Mt 27:26 is not dependent on the Aramaic Mk 15:15, but is dependent on the Grk Mt which is dependent on the Grk Mk which uses the Latin word. Greek Mt is obviously based on Greek Mk, as it uses the same verb. The Aramaic versions of these verses are dependent on the Greek, not one another.

Since you still aren't clear on the interaction between aramaic and other languages in the region lets have another look at a good latin word tunic. This entered Latin through phonecian (punic) which it in turn borrowed from akkadian which in turn came from Sumerian (gada .."linen")



You should not compound your blunders so openly. It's better to be silent than to show that you don't know what you are talking about. And if you want to respond, try to understand the argument here outlined first.


spin

As I mentioned above the word is aramaic for whip. It is also used in john 2:15.

You must think you are pretty clever to have stumbled upon how this word was borrowed from latin by the greek and then borrowed from greek by Aramaic. All from a superficial examination of these verses. Incredible.:)

That is quite a conclusion. What else did you take into account when you just decided this is how the word came in the Aramaic language?

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
I read what you said. You made assertions based upon your lack of understanding of the history of the aramaic language and it's interaction with other languages in the region.

Pleading to ignorance to comparative linguistics is no escape from dealing with the insurmountable phonetic problems your position implies.

Read my reply above.

If you'd noticed, I had.

What on earth do you expect. These are the actual names for these things. Do you expect the jews to simply make up thgeir own names for these things?

Doh, you don't need to explain that two lepta were a quadrans to people who didn't use Roman currency!! You don't need to explain that an aulhs would be a praetorium to an Aramaic audience.

And let me repeat, praetorium gets a Greek form in Greek, praitwrion, which in turn is transliterated into Aramaic, but it needs to be explained: the dipthong in Latin becomes "ai" which is usually read as a short vowel in Greek, while the stressed "o" in Latin becomes a long vowel, omega, in Greek, hence the transliteration into Aramaic is from the Greek, not the Latin, because the dipthong totally disappears and you get the normal relation between the omega and the waw, which is not called for from the Latin.

No it is an aramaic word. Which explains why it occurs in John 2:15 as well.

And what's the Greek?? Yeah, you guessed it, it's fragellion. Straight transliteration as before. Have you not thought about why there is an "r" in the Aramaic PRGL? It doesn't come from the Latin flagellare, but from the Greek fragellion.

Or are you really suggesting Jesus made some kind of Roman whip in the temple?

I couldn't suggest anything of the kind. I'm working with texts.

Since you still aren't clear on the interaction between aramaic and other languages in the region lets have another look at a good latin word tunic. This entered Latin through phonecian (punic) which it in turn borrowed from akkadian which in turn came from Sumerian (gada .."linen")

Sorry, but this is straight non sequitur.

As I mentioned above the word is aramaic for whip. It is also used in john 2:15.

Yup, and see the above explanation.

You must think you are pretty clever to have stumbled upon how this word was borrowed from latin by the greek and then borrowed from greek by Aramaic. All from a superficial examination of these verses. Incredible.:)

If you knew a little about phonetics and comparative linguistics the obviousness of the process might start to penetrate. :banghead:

That Mark and Matt agree in the Greek with fragellion and Matt is based on Mark, one can easily see that Matt got the Greek word from the Greek Mark. It simply doesn't work in Aramaic: you can't see the same word in the Aramaic, which hides the relationship between Matt and Mark. Obviously, the Greek has priority and apparently you cannot deal with such facts. But please respond when you can.


spin

[spin]

It is unlikely that our friend judge will have much to say about the Latinisms which have passed via Greek into Aramaic, but maybe he might find simple Greek words which passed into Aramaic more appetising.

I did a quick search through the Aramaic of Mark to find some Greek words that have been transliterated into Aramaic in the Peshitta, showing that the words have come from Greek into the Aramaic text, demonstrating that Greek was the language from which the Aramaic text was derived.

Mk 1:1 euaggelion [gg = ng], (gospel), Aram: 'wnglywn (apostrophe = alef)

This is exceptionally interesting for we have the Greek word for gospel being transliterated into the Aramaic, though we would expect, had Aramaic been the original language for the gospel that the word for gospel at least would be Aramaic. The word literally means "good news" in Greek, "eu aggelion", from which our word evangelism comes.

Mk 6:25 pinax (board, ie platter), Aram: pynk'
Mk 6:43 kofinos (basket), Aram: qwpynyn . . . and 8:19
Mk 7:4,8 ksesths (pot, from Lat sextarius), Aram: qst'

These show that ordinary household items with Greek names were transliterated into Aramaic.

And what follows is mainly a collection of words which show a problem in the transliteration into Aramaic. Aramaic usually doesn't allow a combination of "s" plus a consonant at the beginning of the word, so it has to put a vowel before the "s" (just as Spanish, where for example Stephanus becomes Esteban, or station is estacion).

Mk 8:8 spuris (basket), spuridas (a plural form), Aram: 'sprydyn
Mk 12:38 stola (garment, robes), Aram: 's+l' . . . and 16:5 ("+" is the Aramaic letter TET)
Mk 15:7 stasis (insurrection, sedition), Aram: 's+syn
Mk 15:16 stratiwths (soldier), straiwtai (a plural), Aram: 's+r+yw+'
Mk 15:27 lhsths (thief), Aram: ls+y'
Mk 15:36 spoggos (spunge), Aram: 'spwg'
Mk 15:43 bouleuths (counsellor), Aram: bwlw+'
Mk 16:1 arwma (spice), Aram: hrwm'

So, like Latins words which passed from Greek into Aramaic, we also find numerous Greek words appearing in the Aramaic as well, showing once again that the Aramaic is dependent on the Greek.


spin

[judge]

Originally posted by spin




If you knew a little about phonetics and comparative linguistics the obviousness of the process might start to penetrate. :banghead:

That Mark and Matt agree in the Greek with fragellion and Matt is based on Mark, one can easily see that Matt got the Greek word from the Greek Mark. It simply doesn't work in Aramaic: you can't see the same word in the Aramaic, which hides the relationship between Matt and Mark. Obviously, the Greek has priority and apparently you cannot deal with such facts. But please respond when you can.


spin

Spin lets recap what happened here.

You went to matt 27 and saw the aramaic word pragela.
Now rather than run a simple check on this word you fabricated a falsehood. You claimed that this aramaic word pragela was a transliteration of a greek word in the aramaic version of matthew.

So next I pointed aout that this word was not a transliteration at all but actually an aramaic word.

Next rathert than admit you made a simple error you then claimed that this word must have entered the aramaic language from latin via greek.

Since you arrived at this conclusion in a mater of hours I asked you what other considerations you took into account?

I notice you ignored my example re the word tunic.
Let me ask you. Is Tunic a latin word?

In other words how do you really know that allthe words you mention went from latin to greek to aramaic?

All you are doing is assering that it is obvious. But you haven't really studied the issue in any depth. You are merely making superficial assertions to cover up your original invention (that pragela was transliterated in the peshitta version of matthew):boohoo:

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
Spin lets recap what happened here.

Yes, let's recap what's happened here.

You have found that the Latin word flagellare has been transliterated into Greek on a number of occasions, featuring a phonemic change of the "l" in the Latin to an "r" in Greek. On a few of those occasions it has also been found transliterated into the Aramaic of the Peshitta, featuring the Greek "r", showing the trajectory of the borrowing from Latin into Greek into Aramaic. You then you want to claim -- because the word has been translated a few times into Aramaic and against all logic -- that it must be of Aramaic origin. Well, that's all very noble of you for your cause, but you are just plain ignorant of linguistic processes and what's more you then take this as an opportunity to ignore all the other evidence of linguistic movement from Latin to Greek and from Greek to Aramaic. This is called burying your head in the sand.

But just to help you put yourself out of your misery, why don't you look at Morris Jastrow's "Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi...", which will tell you on p.1214 that PRGWL in Hebrew, meaning whip, scourge, is an "adaption from flagellum, fragellion". Next, of course, you will assert, on just as many grounds as before, that the Aramaic here is different from the Hebrew and that it invented the word which went to Latin then to Greek then to Hebrew. I guess anything is possible when you are in a state of denial.

So next I pointed aout that this word was not a transliteration at all but actually an aramaic word.

Next rathert than admit you made a simple error you then claimed that this word must have entered the aramaic language from latin via greek.

Since you arrived at this conclusion in a mater of hours I asked you what other considerations you took into account?

As you clearly know nothing about linguistics, it would be had for me to clarify the matter for you.

I notice you ignored my example re the word tunic.
Let me ask you. Is Tunic a latin word?

As I said, it was a non sequitur. Numerous words have entered Latin from other languages. "Flagellum" was not one of them.

In other words how do you really know that allthe words you mention went from latin to greek to aramaic?

Comparative linguistics. You observe how linguistic items change across the linguistic barrier from one language to another. You cannot look at single items and hope to be able to say anything. You note that while Latin can have an initial "fl-" it's very difficult for Greek to have this and substitutes "fr-". It is also very difficult for Aramaic to have an initial "fl-" or "fr-", so it inserts a vowel between the two consonants. I also showed you that the initial cluster of "st-" and "sp-" are too difficult for Aramaic to handle as well so it inserts a vowel at the beginning to support the "s".

All you are doing is assering that it is obvious.

Actually, no, but comparative linguistics will require a few years of study for you with the prerequisites of phonetics and a general grammar course.

But you haven't really studied the issue in any depth. You are merely making superficial assertions to cover up your original invention (that pragela was transliterated in the peshitta version of matthew)
:rolleyes:

:boohoo:
How ironic.

Now would you like to claim that evangelion was borrowed into Greek from Aramaic? It seems to be endemic that you deal with all my examples by ignoring them.


spin

[spin]

Incidentally, I think that there is enough evidence just in Mark to show that the Peshitta priority claim has been falsified. There are just too many words going from the Greek into the Aramaic to justify a translation in the other direction.


spin

[judge]

Originally posted by spin
Yes, let's recap what's happened here.

You have found that the Latin word flagellare has been transliterated into Greek on a number of occasions, featuring a phonemic change of the "l" in the Latin to an "r" in Greek. On a few of those occasions it has also been found transliterated into the Aramaic of the Peshitta, featuring the Greek "r", showing the trajectory of the borrowing from Latin into Greek into Aramaic. You then you want to claim -- because the word has been translated a few times into Aramaic and against all logic -- that it must be of Aramaic origin. Well, that's all very noble of you for your cause, but you are just plain ignorant of linguistic processes and what's more you then take this as an opportunity to ignore all the other evidence of linguistic movement from Latin to Greek and from Greek to Aramaic. This is called burying your head in the sand.

But just to help you put yourself out of your misery, why don't you look at Morris Jastrow's "Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi...", which will tell you on p.1214 that PRGWL in Hebrew, meaning whip, scourge, is an "adaption from flagellum, fragellion". Next, of course, you will assert, on just as many grounds as before, that the Aramaic here is different from the Hebrew and that it invented the word which went to Latin then to Greek then to Hebrew. I guess anything is possible when you are in a state of denial.


OK lets assume you are right here and the word started in Latin and found it's way into aramaic.
This still does not help your original argument..
The word is still an aramaic word albeit a loan word.

In other words the writer of matthew simply used the aramaic word for whip. SO WHAT!!.

Your original invention was the the writer of Matthew transliterated a greek word but he did not he merely used the Aramaic word for whip, which may or may not have originally been a latin word.







Now would you like to claim that evangelion was borrowed into Greek from Aramaic? It seems to be endemic that you deal with all my examples by ignoring them.


spin

Not at all. Al cultures borrow words from other cultures .

Here are some examples of aramaic words remaining in the gospels.

:)
Lebonthah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11)
Mammona (Luke 16:9)
Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13)
Rabbi (Matthew 23:7,
Beelzebub (Luke 11:15)
Qorban (Mark 7:11)
Satana (Luke 10:1
cammuna (cummin, Matt 23:23)
raca (a term of contempt Matthew 5:22)
korin (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7)
zezneh (tares, Matthew 13:25)
Boanerges (Mark 3:17)


You see this kind of thing works both ways.

:rolleyes:

Can you find something likethis (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79974) going from greek to Aramaic?

If not , why not?

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
Here are some examples of aramaic words remaining in the gospels.

Yes, let's look at your examples.

Lebonthah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11)

You are wrong that this word came from Aramaic. It entered Greek (with the form "libanon") from Phoenician, just as the word "smurna" to describe another unguent entered into Greek from a place name (Smyrna) where it came from as well. This later was also borrowed from Greek into Aramaic, as mwr' -- noting the loss of the initial "s". These cannot help you for direction of translation.

Mammona (Luke 16:9)

What's lost here is that we are dealing with the name of a deity of wealth and you don't normally translate names.

Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13)

Do you think that Aramaic was the only language that used such interjections? They don't normally get written in formal prose, but you will find it used in Epictetus. Perhaps he borrowed it from the Aramaic.

Rabbi (Matthew 23:7,

What do you expect? Look at the context. "Rabbi" was used throughout the diaspora.

Beelzebub (Luke 11:15)

This is a name.

Qorban (Mark 7:11)

This has a transparent Greek explanation in the text to clarify its use.

Satana (Luke 10:1

This is a name.

cammuna (cummin, Matt 23:23)

The question I would find interesting is whether it was Greek or Phoenician traders who supplied it to the Aramaic speakers. This again is another word which entered Greek from Phoenician long before.

raca (a term of contempt Matthew 5:22)

Again this is purporting to be the exact word said, as in the case of "rabbi".

korin (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7)

"Cor" is of Hebrew origin.

zezneh (tares, Matthew 13:25)

Hey, you got me on one.

Boanerges (Mark 3:17)

This yet again is taken a name as can be seen in the phrase "onomata boanerges".

You see this kind of thing works both ways.

Hardly. You've had to go to a list you've found from all over the gospels and turned up mainly names and words which did not originate in Aramaic.

:rolleyes:

Can you find something likethis (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79974) going from greek to Aramaic?

You'll note that I've already shown you were in error. But of course you'll run and get another of these set pieces that you find on the Peshitta priority sites.


spin

[Ted Hoffman]

I know nothing about this subject so its an opportunity for me to learn.

Vork has stated that almost all scholars (from 200 years ago?) argue that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written in Greek. Vork believes that the said scholars have sound methodologies for reaching this judgement. Therefore the Gospels and Paul's letters must have been written in Greek.

Toto has stated that based on the observation that "wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX", therefore the NT was written originally in Greek.

There was the argument that Paul's letters could not have been written in Aramaic because he was writing for a Roman Audience. Spin argued that due to the presence of latinisms and Greek words, the documents must have been written for a Latin audience that read Greek (Romans) and he adds that finding words like "praetorium" "... in the Aramaic simply makes no sense, for it doesn't help an Aramaic speaking audience."
Thus, spin has argued, Aramaic versions of verses like Mt 27:26 are dependent on the Greek, not one another.

Spin also argued that " like Latins words which passed from Greek into Aramaic, we also find numerous Greek words appearing in the Aramaic as well, showing once again that the Aramaic is dependent on the Greek."

Now, judge has countered each of these arguments. Whether his counterarguments falsify the arguments is another question altogether. I have personally always believed that the NT was largely written in Greek, but if one wants to argue otherwise, I want to see the arguments.

Its possible that spin may have erred with regards to pragela. I really don't know and I don't care. What we want to see is a point to point list of arguments for Greek writing and the counterarguments against them. Then arguments for the idea that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.

Judge seems to be ready to debate. Doctor X are you ready to pick the gauntlet or not? Spin, are you ready to enter a formal debate with judge or not.

If you can't debate judge, then judge, what I ask is you condense all the arguments that have been made for Greek writing, then rebut them, then provide arguments for Aramaic writing. When you do this, very thoroughly, you can always copy and paste the counterarguments and arguments for anyone parotting the Greek writing argument. And your work would be a valuable resource.

This would be very refreshing.

[spin]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Spin argued that due to the presence of latinisms and Greek words, the documents must have been written for a Latin audience that read Greek (Romans) and he adds that finding words like "praetorium" "... in the Aramaic simply makes no sense, for it doesn't help an Aramaic speaking audience."

You haven't quite conveyed the idea here. "Praetorium" is an explanation of the Greek word "aulhs" for the reading audience, ie clarifying the Greek term with a Latin one, as one might expect for a Latin cultured Greek speaking audience. One doesn't need a reference to a Latin term to clarify in Aramaic. (One does however find that Aramaic terms need clarification in the Greek, so the hypothetical Greek translator has not only translated the Aramaic, but kept some of the Aramaic in order to give a Greek explanation.)

Spin also argued that " like Latins words which passed from Greek into Aramaic, we also find numerous Greek words appearing in the Aramaic as well, showing once again that the Aramaic is dependent on the Greek."

One needs to understand the lingustics to appreciate the power of the arguments involved. These are partly to do with necessary sound changes because the target language doesn't use the same sounds as the source language. Imagine an Italian borrowing the word "third"; the "th" isn't used in Italian so the speaker substitutes a "t" with amusing consequences.

Now, judge has countered each of these arguments. Whether his counterarguments falsify the arguments is another question altogether. I have personally always believed that the NT was largely written in Greek, but if one wants to argue otherwise, I want to see the arguments.

I'd love to see some arguments as well.

Its possible that spin may have erred with regards to pragela. I really don't know and I don't care. What we want to see is a point to point list of arguments for Greek writing and the counterarguments against them. Then arguments for the idea that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.

I guess anything is possible.

Judge seems to be ready to debate. Doctor X are you ready to pick the gauntlet or not? Spin, are you ready to enter a formal debate with judge or not.

If judge would show even a little linguistic nous, rather than relying on cutting and pasting of internet pages.

If you can't debate judge, then judge, what I ask is you condense all the arguments that have been made for Greek writing, then rebut them, then provide arguments for Aramaic writing. When you do this, very thoroughly, you can always copy and paste the counterarguments and arguments for anyone parotting the Greek writing argument. And your work would be a valuable resource.

How many people do you see rushing to support the notion of Aramaic primacy here? I've only seen judge who answers problems by ignoring them and responds to refutations simply by providing another to be refuted. It won't matter how many one refutes.

If you are really interested in Aramaic primacy you might check out this site (http://www.aramaicnt.org/). Now there you have people who are committed to finding such evidence in spite of reality. Don't expect me to waste too much more time on their errors.


spin

[judge]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
I know nothing about this subject so its an opportunity for me to learn.

Hi Jacob there have been a few threads here in the past on the subject. Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45854) is one. There is another one on whether Romans was written in Aramaic one on Mark 9:49 as a mistranslation , check out the links in the recent discussions some of them link to previous threads.


Vork has stated that almost all scholars (from 200 years ago?) argue that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written in Greek. Vork believes that the said scholars have sound methodologies for reaching this judgement. Therefore the Gospels and Paul's letters must have been written in Greek.

Not really following the disovery of the Cureton pampliset the idea that the peshitta was a revision of this was raised. But it was a scholar by the name of Burkitt who tried to make the case that the peshitta was a translation by Rabulla.
This was later refuted by Arthur Voorbus.
I may do a thread on all this stuff sometime. But for now I will point out the interesting fact that although this is a forum dedicated to textual criticism with some very knowledgeable posters none of them seem to understand exactly where the peshitta should fit in.
Dr X for example suggests that arguments against it were made but he does not know what they are (apparently).
No body seems to it is just assumed to be a later work.
The Aramaic speaking Christians have always held that their version (the peshitta) is the original. Western scholars ignore this and pretend it was written in greek and then refuse to provide evidence.

Toto has stated that based on the observation that "wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX", therefore the NT was written originally in Greek.

But I do not believe this is the case check out this (http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm)



If you can't debate judge, then judge, what I ask is you condense all the arguments that have been made for Greek writing, then rebut them, then provide arguments for Aramaic writing. When you do this, very thoroughly, you can always copy and paste the counterarguments and arguments for anyone parotting the Greek writing argument. And your work would be a valuable resource.

This would be very refreshing.

I might try to do a thread sometime on the history pf the peshitta from the perspective of western scholars. This may give a good overview. additionally I want to responmd to Richard Carriers article ont the Infidels website.

But as usual time is hard to find (except to snipe) In fact i'm running late as usual...just running out the door now.:notworthy

[Ted Hoffman]

Thanks spin and judge. Where is Yuri when you need him?

[judge]

jacob wrote:

Judge seems to be ready to debate. Doctor X are you ready to pick the gauntlet or not? Spin, are you ready to enter a formal debate with judge or not.

Spin responded:
Originally posted by spin


If judge would show even a little linguistic nous, rather than relying on cutting

spin

Come on Spin (or as we say in Australia "come in spinner" :) )

Why not take up the challenge I put to Dr X?

Is there anyone out there who believes that textual criticism is reliable willing to argue the case for why textual critics rejected the peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html) as underlying the greek versions?

That is if they ever actually considered it at all.:D

[gregor]

It still seems that the burden of proof should be on judge. He is asserting Aramaic primacy. This is the argument against the status quo. He should present his case, and unless his case is compelling, the status quo will remain.

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Judge seems to be ready to debate. Doctor X are you ready to pick the gauntlet or not?

Doctor X has been banned. I don't know why and I don't know if he intends to return (assuming he can).

[spin]

Originally posted by judge
Come on Spin (or as we say in Australia "come in spinner" :) )

Why not take up the challenge I put to Dr X?

Because you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't responded sufficiently to anything I have posted. You don't show any knowledge of comparative lingusitics. You can cut and paste and little else.

You need to show that there is some reson for me to consider anything now that you say, as you have shown no ability to look at the implications of the material I have posted for you. When you deal with that in a knowledgible way, I might consider your challenge.

As things stand, I think the linguistic evidence I have presented is pretty convincing that there is no case for Aramaic primacy. Each of the so-called examples you have got off the net and placed here have been seen to have no basis. I have shown that there is a sizable, clearly directional vocabulary movement from the Greek into the Aramaic nt and I haven't even looked at the better Greek of Luke. I think that you have no tangible reason for clinging to this Aramaic primacy lunacy.


spin

[Ted Hoffman]

Originally posted by gregor
It still seems that the burden of proof should be on judge. He is asserting Aramaic primacy. This is the argument against the status quo. He should present his case, and unless his case is compelling, the status quo will remain.
Status quo is not an argument. The status quo will have to reclaim its dominance and respond to challengers. We shall be constantly comitted to reasessing our most basic assumptions(TM).

As it is, no-one seems to be ready to defend the status quo but plenty are willing to stand by it. From what I have seen, the arguments spin makes can be made to cut both ways in terms of name borrowing (ie. names not being translated) etc and then there was the argument Vork made about "showing that the writers were aware of Aramaic sources, or that their sayings sources had Aramaic origins. other than demonstrating that the narrative sections were written in Aramaic". How does one differentiate between an original text and a translated one?

As it is, even a formal debate is not necessary. One only needs to state:

ARGUMENTS THAT DEMONSRATE THAT THE GOSPELS AND PAUL'S LETTERS WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN GREEK

1. ARGUMENT THAT THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN FOR A LATIN AUDIENCE THAT READS GREEK

2. ARGUMENT OF THE PHONEMICS OF LATINISMS TO GREEK

3. ARGUMENT OF THE TRANSLITERATIONS FROM GREEK TO ARAMAIC

4. ARGUMENTS OF AUTHORSHIP

etc etc. As I said, I know nothing about phonetics, phonemics, dipthongs, transliterations, linguistics Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew but lets see a summary of the arguments.
Either party can start. For example judge, please list three strongest points why you believe the NT was originally written in Aramaic and spin can do the same. Three points.

<puts on moderator hat and robe and prepares to preside - then turns round and looks ant Amaleq>

Why the hell was DoctorX banned? Jesus H. Cheeerist!

[spin]

{Off-topic post deleted}

[Postcard73]

Why the hell was DoctorX banned? The reason for any ban is between the admins and the user in question. The closest thing to an answer you'll get can be found here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79935). I know this thread started as a challenge to Doctor X, but some decent discussion has developed in his absence. Please keep the posts on biblical criticism and refer questions concerning Doctor X's situation to the Bugs forum. Thanks.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator