Chris Weimer

Funny thing, though, that the churches in Rome, Corinth, Thessalonika, Phillipi, Galatia, Ephesia, and Colossus would have spoken Latin (in Rome) and Greek (in the rest) and not Aramaic at all. Hm...

judge

Not really. The COE still writes it's letters in Aramaic sends them out and they are translated when they arrive at various locations.

Why don't they write them in English today if they are going to say, Chicago?

rlogan

Hi judge. Several things. First, there were additional errors cited, and all of them must be contended with, eg Mk 7:31. I don't recall if you participated in any of those older geography threads. I think Vinnie started one of them. But there were others too.

Secondly, I do not reject what you showed, but only a partial sentence appears and I am unsure what the full context is.

Given the totality of geographical errors, even if the Peshitta does not have some or all of them, it surely is an odd suggestion, as noted by others, that mistakes are introduced later instead of being fixed in later editions.

Finally, we are again contending with a cumulative weight of evidence and not parsing every single issue into an isolated context-free debate. The geographic errors are in addition to all of the linguistic evidence. The lack of early Peshitta copies. Etc.

spin

If Mk 11:1 had been translated from Aramaic, there is no way that it would say what it says in Greek. The Aramaic says something like, As (they) approached Jerusalem toward the side of Bethpage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, (he) sends out two from his disciples. Note the "toward the side of", which gives the direction of the approach to Jerusalem, from the side which has Bethpage and Bethany.

The direction is still wrong of course, because coming from Jericho along the old road you come from east-north-east and arrive at the Mount of Olives without any necessary reference to the two villages, which lie to the south-east.


spin

spin

Yo Felonius, what did that poor preposition do to deserve being eliminated?


spin

judge

Hi rlogan,
you seem like a fairly open minded sort of guy.

Can you explain what "liguistic evidence you find compelling. I suggest you be careful about relying on Spin's experience with Aramaic though as as demonstrated here.
Nothing personal but ask yourself, if Spin had any experience whatsoever with Aramaic would he have made his comment in point 9 in post 5 about "sons of thunder"?

But with that caveat can you explain exctly what you find compelling linguistically?

Thanks

Yuri Kuchinsky

I don't understand your logic. What can I not defend?

These are parallel passages according to Aland.

Who said anything about Luke borrowing?

Yuri.

spin

Poor judge, incapable of dealing with any of the languages involved in these discussions, is merely trying to pull a little bit out of the fire to score a belated point. Just look at any of his posts to see his, umm... linguistic experience.


spin

spin

Forgetting arguments from authority, what exactly makes you think they're parallels, Yuri?


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Reading them makes me think they're parallels. What makes you think they are not parallels?

Yuri.