judge

Really?!
Now lets see, you yourself have not studied this so you can't be relying on your own work. So whose work are relying on? What is the name of the person who did the work, compared the texts and concluded that there were no signs of a semitic vorlage?

Matthew 11:8 is mistranslated from Aramaic into greek, don't you think so?

What about matthew 12:1 or 13:7 aren't these mistranslated?

Or is the truth of the matter that you have never studied it and don't know who has?

spin

One thing I have done is seen the plethora of shoddy scholarship in the Aramaic-must-be-primary school. You have a habit of citing from it. You know, you can't salt with fire and all those other modern misunderstandings. I'm tired of straightening out these errors and you have a habit, when challenged on one, of trying to hide behind another, cutting and pasting, and then another, cutting and pasting.

One thing is obvious: you have an a priori commitment to the Aramaic-must-be-primary school.

Have you ever wondered why no serious linguistics scholars ever jump on this bandwagon? It's because the position is baseless. And scholars who would like to believe it because it would tie up loose ends can't bring themselves to believe because of lack of evidence. Have you looked at any evangelical or conservative scholarly commentary on Matthew? They always bring up the Papias tripe and sadly dismiss it, because there is no discernable Aramaic substratum in the language of Matt.


spin