Chris Weimer

Sort of like calling the kettle black here, eh judge? How much exactly do you know of Aramaic? How about Greek?

Actually judge, difficilor lectio potior lectio potior. Paul might have been alluding that a righteous man is unpopular and oft persecuted, and that perhaps some even may die for a good man. Righteousness often comes with persecution such as Matthew's beatitudes.

And did anyone else catch that judge wrote the Aramaic backwards? Come on, judge, there goes your credibility out the window.

spin

And with a final NUN in a medial position. What else can you expect?


spin

judge

OK I am trying at the moment to learn a lttle more, and see if I am wrong about this.

On the surface it certainly appears I am worng about "blameless". The word does seem to mean blame.
Thank you to Stephen and Spin :notworthy

How ever blameless is still very simliar, so the same argument is still there.

The peshitta still reads wicked. See here and here .

The trajectory of the change still goes from Aramaic into greek.
There is still no explanation of how an Aramaic translator could have got "wicked".

It is too much of a coincidence to think that in smoothing out the text they just happned to chance upon a word that looked the same and fixed the problem.

Far more parsimonious to see the greek translator making the error.

spin

Without some suitable word with which the hypothetical translator from Aramaic confused there is no such trajectory.

If we assume that the NT was translated from Syriac for a moment, the translator(s) had come across the negative dl) over 650 times in the nt, so there is no likelihood that our translator could have overlooked it. This means it wasn't there. If it wasn't there then there couldn't have been a mistake based on the notion "blameless" in Aramaic.


How about the translator doing what you have done, ie you don't like the Greek text so you rewrite it to suit your understanding.

But this didn't happen. An adjective from r$yn would be quite similar in significance to r$(h, so you cannot connect the current state of the text to the hypothetical misunderstanding of an original r$(h: you can't derive righteous as is found in the Greek from blameworthy as you hypothesize in the "original" Syriac.


spin

judge

Errors are rare but they do happen. The translator of this epistle was very probably not the same person who translated the rest of the NT

Chris Weimer

Very true judge. The person who translated the Greek into Aramaic was probably not the same person as the one who did the rest. :thumbs:

spin

It's dead, judge. Just another dose of poor scholarship, showing that no-one who actually knows the scholarship supports the position of Aramaic primacy. All you are doing is wringing out the last few remnants of an argument from ignorance: although the word you claim is the source for the Greek doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean, it must, though not reflecting the Greek, be the source of the Greek anyway for some obscure reason, best known to your subconscious.


spin

judge

Spin, I'm not sure you grasp the argument here.

Stephen Carlson firstly, and then yourself are correct. I did have the word slightly wrong.

I had stated that 0ny4r meant "innocent" and 09y4r meant "wicked".

As anyone can see they only have one letter difference and are would be easily confused.

I neglected to mention that in order for 0ny4r to mean "innocent" we need to add the negative particle f.

However as anyone can see the two words still are very alike.

One could still easily confuse the two words. occasionally a translator will make such an error.

What Spin repeatedly ignores is

1. the greek text makes no sense!

2.The Aramaic text makes perfect sense.

The greek text can't be the original reading.

Here is the nonsensical greek reading Spin ignores.

For one would hardly die for a righteous dikaiov man; though perhaps for the good agaqov man someone would dare even to die.

Why would someone die for a good man but not for a righteous man?

The Aramaic by contrast makes perfect sense.
For one would hardly die for a wicked man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.

Spin all you have at the moment is that you have repeated Stephen Carlsons work in pointing out I neglected to add the negative particle. However you have no actual argument by way of explanation about the two texts, and how they came to be.

So you ignore the problem...but the problem in the greek text remains. :wave:








:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Come on Spin...rather than a personal attack, why not make some effort to look at the whole problem here, and provide a better overall solution.

Chris Weimer

Judge, I already explained to you that the Peshitta text sounds like revision, which makes it more probable that the Aramaic was translated from the Greek. And you have ignored it. Come on judge, if you're going to try to call other people out, why not actually answer something of yourself.

judge

I ignored it because your explanation is incomplete. Why would the original text make no sense?

1.Why would the greek have a non-sensical reading in the first place?

2. Why by some sheer coincidence would the Aramaic word for blameless, just happen, just happen, to look like the word for wicked if this revision didn't happen until after the greek text was supposedly written?

this is "true believer " style rationalisation.

The paesimonious explanation is that two similar Aramaic words were confused. Quite possible.
Having a greek original involves a whole string of improbablities.

Go with parsimony.