judge

It does not require this conclusion (own it's own) but it means that an argument based on just the oldest fragments might not be much of an argument at all.

judge

No mammon is Aramaic for money even today.




Actually no not from hebrew when it is in the emphatic form. The Hebrew would be HaSatan.

Here is another example:
Semitic root

bayt - "house"

Aramaic Emphatic

Bayta - "THE/A house"

Hebrew Emphatic

HaBayt - "THE/A house"


Baal is Aramaic,"Zebub" is found in Hebrew, but also in Akkadian, Aramaic and even Amorite





It's also Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic.

spin

Corban:
You are right, though it has probably come to the writer from Hebrew. That still shows that there is no reason to believe that the source is Aramaic. Try, try again.

Wai:
Yup, that's all you can say. It's a ridiculous piece of logic to argue that a translator decided to leave this word of all the words in Aramaic!

Libanos:
Ground control to judge, I didn't say that it was of Greek origin, just that it had been used in Greek for centuries, so it can show no direct relationship with Aramaic. Hell judge, it's like you claiming that a person who uses the word "chief" today has been directly influenced by Old French! But it's been in English for centuries. Doh, yet again.

Rabbi:
Sorry, so the word in the Hebrew bible found in titles like rabshakeh (2K18:17) have come into Hebrew from Aramaic? Grin. The other one plays jingle bells. But let us assume against all logic you're correct, then you would have the word used in common Hebrew anyway, so there would be no evidence of direct Aramaic influence, which is what you necessarily must argue for the case you want to sell. Can't you hear the roar of the distant doh?

Kuminon:
So, having existed for centuries in Greek, like libanos it functioned as a Greek word and you cannot show a trajectory directly from Aramaic, as in the Greek nt being translated from Aramaic. If I point out all the French words in English you'd answer everyone was translating from French. Such examples as kuminon don't support your case.

Raca:
Firstly, as a vocative there would be no article in Hebrew. Secondly final schwas in Hebrew weren't necessarily written, but Greek needs a nice clear vowel. The Peshitta Aramaic is written RQ'. Your transliteration is hokey.

Zizanion:
How did it get into Aramaic? You don't know.

Boanerges:
The Hebrew plural is BNY, usually transcribed as "beni". "bnai" is used for the Aramaic plural. Note the first syllable of Boanerges has a clear vowel presence, indicating that you don't have a schwa in the underlying original language, ie therefore not bnai, not Aramaic. It's just old scholarship.

You still finish with an empty list. While Aramaic and Hebrew words are expected in the nt to give a bit of colour, the trivial examples show that the text was not translated from a Semitic original. [edited-V] The translation of keywords into the Aramaic text, such as coin names, or euaggelion shows 1) that the cultural context is not Aramaic, and 2) that the scribe was working from a non-Aramaic original.


spin

spin

Sorry, but this sort stuff is unintelligible in this form. Can you either transliterate directly from the Aramaic, or use more traditional renderings?


spin

spin

Mammon:
Yeah from the Peshitta.

Mammon comes from M-`MN, "that which is strong (amen)", though the original source is unclear (the derivation I've supplied is Hebrew, but the same mechanism existed in closely related languages). "The strong one" is an epithet of a god.

Satana:
The LXX uses satan in 1K11:14 for "adversary". There is no need for the Hebrew article to be preserved in Greek. And Greek does tend to have the necessaity to add Grammatical suffixes.

Beelzebub:
Ugaritic, Phoenician...

There is no reason to believe that the Greek nt writers got the term from a written Aramaic source. It is found though all Semitic languages.

Amen:
Yup, that's the point. There is no reason to believe that the Greek nt writers got the term from a written Aramaic source. It is found in other Semitic languages.

I now know that, beside the lack of evidence for a direct Aramaic source behind the Greek nt, you are not dealing with the logical problems placed before you.


spin

Chris Weimer

STN is also found in job, as "adversary"...

Vorkosigan

Judge, this horse has been beaten into hamburger. There isn't anything here. It just seems that with your knowledge of scripture, there are many other areas where you could be contributing, instead of posting periodic claims that cannot be supported, and are universally rejected by mainstream scholarship.

Amen-Moses

And before that Egyptian (all semitic languages are heavily infused with Egyptian words).

Amen-Moses

JoeWallack

JW:
You have bigger problems than the age of manuscript evidence (mainly language analysis indicating the Peshitta was translated from another language) identified in this Forum but as far as the above there are other ways to establish dates of authorship besides extant manuscripts such as quotes. The Talmud fits your dates and is all about the Jewish Bible indicating authorship in Hebrew long before 1100 CE. This illustrates another problem with the argument of Aramaic priority - No one is giving Aramaic quotes in the early centuries. You are welcome to point this out to the source you quoted from.

I'm going to go out on a Branch here and guess that you do not accept the Orthodox (Jewish) explanation that Jesus, as an apostate, had his name and words blotted out of history by God. So, just out of curiosity because I've never seen a resurrection or any Bible scholar state that they knew Jesus' name with certainty:

What was Jesus' name?

You have until Jesus returns to answer.



Joseph

Jesus. Name. The fleshy part of the trinity.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

What Judge is citing here are the sectarian views of the Church of the East (COE). This is purely a faith position, that has nothing to do with science, or the scientific study of history.

According to COE, Aphrahat is all good, but Ephrem is irrelevant. This is based on geography only, since Aphrahat was from Persia, while Ephrem was from Edessa, in Syria. (And yet, from the scientific historical perspective, there's hardly any difference between them either in language or in doctrine.)

Both Aphrahat and Ephrem used the Diatessaron (as virtually every professional scholar accepts). Moreover, they used the Old Syriac version of the Diatessaron. There are many indications that their gospel quotations show the closest similarity to the Old Syriac type of a text, rather than to the Peshitta.

Many Aphrahat quotes are paraphrases. But also, some of his quotes do show parallels to the Peshitta (probably because of scribal Vulgatization that occurred later). So Judge prefers to cite those Peshitta-like quotes, while ignoring all the others. Typical fallacy of composition...

Since COE is fully invested in the Peshitta, its apologists feel a need to discredit the Old Syriac texts in every way they can. Hence this loveable designation 'Old Scratch' to denote the Old Syriac gospels. The reference here is to the fact that the Old Syriac Sinaitic manuscript is a palimpsest. (The notion that any palimpsest is unworthy of study is peculiar only to the Judge wing of COE.) Also, the Old Syriac Curetonian manuscript is _not_ a palimpsest, but why let facts intrude into your pretend reality? Maybe they should be describing the Curetonian as 'the Old Non-Scratch', though...

COE has one rather difficult problem on its hands. Since it's quite clear that their Saint Aphrahat used the Diatessaron, why didn't they preserve this old text until the present time? Aren't they failing to preserve the true tradition of St. Aphrahat somehow?

And yet, to be sure, this whole area of study is sufficiently obscure, and filled with so many interpretative difficulties, that any sort of a red herring can always have a firm lease on life in such rather murky waters... 99.9% of people know nothing about any of this stuff, so they can always be snowed with some obscure grammatical and exegetical expositions in the languages they probably never even heard of.

All this is of course apologetics pure and simple, which is, as always, immune to any criticism based on facts and logic.

Cheers,

Yuri