judge

Spin you are playing a game.

When actual Aramaic words appear that have simlar words in other languages appear you say .."these words could have come from another language."

When Aramaic words appear that have no other possible source you say we should expect the writer to insert Aramaic words into the text, that's why they are there.

There is nothing wrong with playing devils advocate but that's all you are doing.

All therories need to be tested, other wise what good are they.

Toto

Pilate - how humungous is the document? Is it online? Feel free to PM me.

Pilate

What does "PM me" mean?
And what is the policy for size of posting?
I want to be law abiding.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO KNOWS :huh: WHERE I CAN READ ON THE INTERNET:

[B]THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND RECOGNITIONS?[/B]

Toto

Private message - click on my user name

We do not want to waste bandwidth on material that is available on the internet, and there is a limit on the amount of material you can include in a post. I don't know offhand - you might have to try it.

Try here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/TOC.htm#TopOfPage

Chris Weimer

And yes, spin has been blaming the "scholars" for creating the Qumran-Essene fiction. It simply does not exist, and there is been plenty for that. A simple search of this forum should do, or you can go to scrollsforum.com to debate it there.

spin

Remember I was talking about evidence. You need to supply some. I have commented at length about the problems of extracting Aramaic from the nt.

Conjecture is not a reasoned response. Biblical Hebrew is not the same dialects used by the new texts from Qumran, so biblical Hebrew is irrelevant to the issue.

Conjecture.

Conjecture.

Aww, c'mon tell me what those other historical facts are, pretty please. What have I got to do to get facts out of you?

So, by attacking the scribe, you render the other evidence in the text useless, for how many other such scribal influences in the area are you prepared to conjecture?

You still presuppose Jesus. You need to demonstrate his existence before you can make historical analyses based on him.

You are assuming the text is a historical document rather than some other type. So far, all conjecture, not one piece of evidence to back up anything you've said.


When you make a judgment not based on evidence. You still have none. This is endemic. Without evidence you can't say a word that's useful.

Try again, what evidence makes you think that "most Jews of Palestine ... adopted the Aramaic language"? Evidence please.

It's not like repetition will make it any less conjectural.

Therefore?? There is no antecedent to justify a "therefore" here.

Well, yes, as I said targums are very poorly attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, meaning that the targum issue is wasted space, as it is mainly conjecture on your sources' part.

First you quote stuff you don't understand, then you argue from authority and finally you want me to give you some more evidence! Charming.

One of the best books onthe subject of the Hebrew of the DSS is strangely called "The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls", by Elisha Qimron. In this book at various places he shows the state of the orthography of the scrolls, which certainly was not the spartan orthography of the Hebrew bible. The scribes attempted to clarify to a public reader of the text just how the words should be pronounced by adding extra WAWs, YODs and ALEPs in order to distinguish between vowel and consonantal uses of these letters. This is an innovation aimed at the spoken word: how do you pronounce the Hebrew? Hebrew only has 22 letters and the three of those I've mentioned served both as vowels and consonants, so, while you are reading the text, it is difficult to distinguish which function each serves, making public reading more difficult. The use of these letters is covered in Qimron pp17-24.

There is no problem there. The problem is your misnomer "auxiliary title".

You have no trajectory for this conjecture (even though there were equivalents in much earlier non-Canaanite literature). So, you have no reason to assume that the Jews borrowed it from the Canaanites. Besides, the Jews linguistically were Canaanites.

More unfounded conjecture. Don't you have any evidence up your sleave?

Oddly enough there was no debate on this issue. The point was that it locates the use of )l (lywn to the 2nd and early 1st c. BCE. The Genesis Apocryphon which profusely uses the reference in Hebrew dates to the same period. In fact, all the datable material we have which uses )l (lywn is from that period. The evidence says that it is a late form of referring to god in Hebrew.

Would you believe more conjecture? No, really? I thought you were going to try to give some evidence.

This is just another conjecture, though a popular one. Because your religionists place Genesis of higher value than non-biblical texts, it must have been written earlier than the others, which must have been rewritings of Genesis. All conjecture. This is an extremely complex house of cards we are dealing with. You keep siding for the christian conjecture without analysing its merit. You have your head firmly in the lion's mouth. I wish you would remove it: it's rather dangerous.

One thing we know is that texts were often rewritten and added to. The Genesis of the DSS era will havew been no exception. It may easily have been a product of the same source as Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. This is just as valid a conjecture. In fact I did a study of all three where they dalt with the same material and found that one often favoured another part of the time but then the last one at other times. It seems that you cannot establish a priority between these three texts as they are. But this is evidence and from someone on I.I. and not found in your books.

"[C]urrent" here I gather means "different". Genesis naturally fitted a current dogma, be it uninterested in angels and Satan or before the existence of these things is more conjecture.

But what exactly does that indicate?

The angels in Jubilees have no names either. The comment about "sons of god" simply assumes a single edition of the text that came to be Genesis, though I've given some evidence to suggest that this may not be the case. Besides, the versions of Genesis from Qumran are too lacunous in ch 6, so one cannot say what the form of the text was at the time.

One thing seems relatively certain: the state of Gen 6 as we have it today is not its original state. It is simply too obscure and assumes too much information that is not stated. This is what makes the approaches of 1 Enoch's watchers and Jubilees more credible in reflecting some of that earlier form.

More scholarly conjecture. Fairly reasonable, but still conjecture. Zoroastrianism has demoted deities to angelic status. Judaism demoted the sons of god.

What you have said is not related to my comments. You are not responding to me. You are rehashing people's opinions (based on sloppy use of Josephus) the which you don't understand the impact of.

Not all the scholars, just those people who have commitments to the "international team" who botched the management of the scrolls -- and to have access to the scrolls you had to suck up to the international team and their errors.

I'm only interested if it's your work. This is why I said you've got all the space you need if you have something to say. But, I guess you're ultimately right. If it is truly humongous, then we'll see what the moderation suggests.

Archaeology can't help unless it turns up actual documents. There has been one item which was touted as a brief citation from Numbers (IIRC), which of course begs the question which came first the citation or Numbers.

Language experts will have difficulty as they have no absolute markers.

This is not an argument. You assume a substantive position, you have a responsibility to make it substantial. You need to show rather than assume.

Please stop shouting. You are just talking to yourself, because it is unrelated to the problem before you. If you want to talk about a historical Jesus, you must demonstrate that there was one. Otherwise anyone can introduce any item into history without any validation whatsoever.

This has nothing to do with faith. It is about scholarship. You demonstrate and don't assume.

Remember that scholarship has rules that make it function. Forget the rules and you can't say anything useful.


You have really underdone yourself with this maxi-post. Almost not one shred of evidence. Perhaps not even one.

Pilate, the task about reconstructing the past involves making sure steps. This means giving evidence to back up your claims. The christian apologist doesn't have this responsibility, but then is unable to communicate anything of use through lack of methodology. The reason why scholarship exists is to analyse the evidence for and against hypotheses and weigh up whether they are, can be, or cannot be, correct.

To be a scholarly infidel you need scholarship of your own and not be dependent on the enemy to give you useful information. This is putting your head in the lion's mouth.


spin

judge

You have not commented at length.

You sniped and made various claims that showed your ignorance of Aramaic.
You thought bar was the meant "sons" in aramaic.

If I hadn't corrected you your worshippers hear would have no doubt believed you.

Not to mention you ignored my recent post above.

You are just playing a game.

Chris Weimer

Actually, didn't he say bar was son in Aramaic and not ben? Regardless, judge, your "proficiency" in Aramaic has been so far worse, to call spin out on a mistake, even two, would be hypocritical. Since you have already done that, on numerous occassions (one can merely search this forum to produce many, many threads) you have already in my view damaged your reputation enough so that anything you say is automatically nullified without external corroboration. Have you even looked at this thread yet? What have you to say for yourself, judge? :down:

judge

Of course it's not hypocritical. Spin made some basic errors, I pointed them out.
No one else here did.

Yes we all make mistakes but according to your logic we should never point them out unless we are perect. :rolling:

I'm sure Spin is a big boy and can handle it. <sigh>

Chris Weimer

:sigh: Way for judge to miss the point again.