Chris Weimer

Not true. The Masoretic Text has roots dating at least back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and probably earlier. If I recall correctly, it was the edition that supposedly "came back from Babylon", but it probably was the Palestinian version. The LXX is technically the Greek translation of the Alexandrian version of the Hebrew, which is also attested at Qumran.

judge

Chris this statement is false.

There has been no scholastic analysis of this issue, or very little.

This issue is still open until such time as it is subject to normal scholarly processes.



Yes good idea as a starting point.

Chris Weimer

Actually, judge, this is a lie. Trying to prove Aramaic primacy is not the same thing as subjecting it to the normal peer reviewed journals for examination and conclusion. Books have been sent out to "prove" Aramaic primacy, yet fail hopelessly. So far, especially with Fun with Transliteration, there's no compelling reason to bother looking at Aramaic primacy from a scholarly prospective, or at least you haven't given us one.

Chris

judge

Discussing something on an internet discussion forum is not the same as scholarly analysis. Not to take away from the high standard dispalyed by quite a few posters here.

Spin provided what he suggested was evidence of some kind. When I prodded him to provide a means to test whether his idea was any good, he came up with a test.

Why do the greek texts contain the Aramaic for "strong drink". Didn't the greeks have a word for strong drink?
This thing works both ways.

However Spin did not do the test. It seems like a good test too.

So the theory has not been tested. Shouldn't we test the theory out and then decide, rather than the other way around?

Again in Was Mark written in Aramaic?
I provide some evidence,and argued what the evidence might mean.

No evidence is ever presented against this. It is suggested that the greek mark suggests a substratum rather than a translation.
But no evidence is ever provided of a substratum producing a similar result.

You guys lose until you can provide evidence.

Unless of course yours requires some kind of "blind faith"

I mean come on this in infidels let's look at the evidence.

darstec

Not exactly. Both the Aramaic and the Greek fragments are woefully under represented at Qumran. In fact I doubt there is any Greek outside the Torah in the DDS. Or at least any fragment is too small to be unambiguously assigned to any of the other books of the Old Testament. The combined total of those two languages only makes up about 10% of the fragments/manuscripts found at Qumran.


According to Josephus only the Torah had been translated at the time of his writing, which is the reason he gave for writing his history of the Jews circa 90 - 98 CE. Therefore, I think any quotes of the Septuagint that come from other than the Torah found in Paul's epistles for instance point to a later date for those Epistles or a later rewriting.

The vast bulk of the Masoretic Texts was written from 600 CE to about 1200 CE. The most one could say was the underpinnings to the vowel representations later used in the Masoretic Texts started around the period represented by the earlier DDS. This gives rise to the oft quoted "fact" that the Masoretic Texts were started as far back as 200 BCE. And you have failed to take notice of the Samaritan bible which is much closer to many of the books found in Qumran.

Chris Weimer

I never made that assertion. I merely said that many have tried to show their evidence in favor and have utterly failed. I never contradicted you about submittals to respectable, peer-reviewed journals.

I already provided an answer to that a long time ago. Actually, it's in that same thread. In case you still can't find it, it's here. Still waiting on that one.

This is because it was a false test. You asked spin to, in essence, prove a negative, knowing very well that's nearly impossible. Spin showed that there were Greek loan words in the Aramaic, not only for words that Aramaic already had a word for, but for Semitic contexts that the Greek should not have played a part in. You should have provided the defense of showing that other Aramaic documents prior to the Peshitta contained these, but instead asked spin to search the entire Aramaic corpus. Yeah, no wonder he scoffed at it.

Right on! Go find where prcwp', prqlt', and nmws' find there way into earlier Aramaic works. Have fun!

No need. It's up to you to prove that it was a translation and not a substratum. Elsewhere we have presented an overwhelming amount of evidence against Aramaic primacy, so clearly one can conclude that it has to be substratum and not translation.

You should be talking.

Blind faith? Jeez louise. You subscribe to the exact position of the Church of the East regarding Aramaic primacy and call us out in blind faith? Mr Kettle, meet Mr. Pot!

We're still waiting.

Chris Weimer

That's not what I said. The underlying Hebrew for the Greek translation is found at Qumran. And who said anything about Aramaic?

Citation?

No I haven't at all! The Samaritan bible is a definite recension to many of the books found at Qumran, but so is the Septuagintal readings (in Hebrew, mind you) and so is the Masoretic. But I fail to see your point here. :huh: