judge

Thanks Toto.
I don't know if you recall but we did touch on this once before post 8 here .

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 ...."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

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

You could try Signs of the Cross if you want to read a book discussing some arguments for the primacy of the peshitta.

All the best

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.

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

Vorkosigan

judge

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

Quote:

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

I have found a fuller explanation of Craig A Evans views here 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

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

Hi again,
I realise here that you may be indirectly referring to spin's recent post on this thread .
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.

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

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.

Quote:

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?


[B][QUOTE]
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?

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?

Quote:

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")

Quote:

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?