judge

Here are a couple of links, you can no doubt find more on the web.

http://aramaicnttruth.org/page.php?page=home

http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com/

French Prometheus

Hello, Notsri.
OK, Aramaic-speakers sometimes used the Hebrew Eli. Then, Eli, Eli Lama Sabachtani is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic as I said earlier.


I'm not gonna do your homework. I have no time to waste searching for evidence to support your claim. As I said :
The earliest known NT manuscripts are in Greek and predate the earliest known Aramaic manuscripts by about 200 years.
If you have evidence to the contrary, present it (something like payrus XXX which contains parts of the NT dates bact to XXX and was written in Aramaic).

judge

Apologies I may have misunderstood, I got the impression you were interested in possible mistranslations from Aramaic to greek. There is a lot to look at, far more than can be looked at in a single thread here. That is why i posted links to examinations of such.
Yes the earliest portions and fragments of the NT that have survived are in greek but then again prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest hebrew bibles were in greek too. Noone, however thought that it was written in greek.
It just may not be that simple. You may notice that when it comes to the greek we have various scraps and portions that have survived, but when it comes to the eastern peshitta we just have entire mss.
The COE had their own tradition regarding there scriptures. When one became damaged they did not keep it they copied it and destroyed the original.
The greek speaking believers did not have the same regard for their bible, thus there are many old scraps.
The oldeast complete NT in greek are around the same age as the oldest complete peshitta copy though.

French Prometheus

Well, my point was that the Pehitta Bible is not the ultimate source from which we can judge the accuracy of the Greek NT. Some may claim that there was an "original" Gospel written in Aramaic (as opposed to mere oral tradition) but there's no archeological evidence to support this. And more important, assuming Jesus existed and said most of the things ascribed to him in the canonical Gospels, there's no evidence that the Peshitta has preserved the original Aramaic words as uttered by Jesus.

But the Greek scraps are much older. What's more, the scraps were parts of larger scrolls. We don't know what was written on the missing parts nor do we know how much is missing.

And when did it all start? What was the original version they used?
What proves that the current Peshitta draws from earlier and/or more accurate sources than the Greek Bible?

The scraps are evidence that the Greek texts are older than their oldest surviving extent version. there's no such evidence for the Peshitta (there may never be any such evidence if used Aramaic Bibles were systematically destroyed).

lulay

ahaaaa spin....first real challenege about Allegro at this forum. i was waiting for it and it was you. collect your prize later...hehe

i much wold rather get challenges than ignored--(an LP675, i try and be different that keep to a conformity of having to start every post quoting someone else. i try and keep to the flow, adding mew bifurcationary points of view)--.

I am not new to the attacks on Allegro. i happened upon that book by chance. ok, i was just cruisin round town and saw this book glinting in through this shop window on a book shelf. it attracted me. when i looked at it it was the paperback version, and the clour was the colur of a golden brownish mushroom colour. i instantly recognized the title, cause when i was a kid it was in our News of the World (usually a sunady paper wohse main concern was sexual scandals and titilation)...they were showing excerpts from the book, and also showing righteous indignation too. Allegro was more shcking than even the 'Great Beast' Crowley himself. in that he got more attention from that paper!

I have read many critics of his work, but you know what? it hasn't deflected my enormous respect for the sheer brillinace, and unbelieveable boldness of that man. the fact that his 'scholarly' so-called colleagues all dissed him till his death--well THAt doesn't impress me one little bit. i have utter contempt for it in fact

but so as not to change the topic too much from this thread. let be tell you why i think Allegro has gotten to the roots

His book was THE book --a milestone for me--that got me interested in mythology. I had never really seen the point of it before, but as he revealed the hidden layers of meaning, and how they used all forms of word plays, puns, etc etc, i became fascinated and intrigued. and still am

As i went on to read vastly more other stuff, i saw patterns.

the KEY thing you must understand spin, is the enormity of the hallucinogenic experience. not only for then, but for now also. It is a profound experience, which can put you into a timeless dimension, etc. it is primeval, direct, and icrediblt life-changing. all else follows from that

so these scholars who trash Allegro. what do they have to offer about Jesus' cry on the Cross? let me see....that it is an historical event. let me put this question to you spin. Are you claiming that scholars--those that disrespected Allegro's work, and those presently--believe in the historical Jesus? and that his cry on the cross is literalist, and historical? having no cryptic meaning?

judge

How do you know? Some say it is some say it isn't. I don't know how it could ever be proved either way to everybodies satisfaction.

One point I do know for sure, despite the incredible volumes of work produced by western NT scholars over many decades the possibility that the greek texts were translated from the peshitta has scarcely been considered.


:huh:

French Prometheus

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Peshitta is more authoritative than Greek manuscripts which are 200 years older. The mere fact that it's written in Aramaic is no proof that it preserved accurately the words uttered by Aramaic-speakers who lived several centuries earlier.