judge

No problem. I'm not sure where you expected it might be. It is in the peshitta in 1 Corinthians 16:22. The greek translator left it in the greek translation.

The closest I can find online to an Aramaic peshitta is the
peshitto

funinspace

Uh, no. The question was what is the reasonable meanings of the words used in this verse. I understand that you argue for earlier Aramaic sources. The arguement usually revolve around possible, plausable, and probably translations of the Greek since both sides tend to rely on that source. And I thought it would be interesting to pick up some of the opinions of the knowledgable people here since one mostly hear only Christian interpretations.

Personally I don't have a serious interest in which way the verses should be read. But I tire of literalists that demand a perfect Bible, then strain to keep all the bits and pieces together in harmony so the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even when I was United Methodist, this didn't cause me grief, since I also already didn't buy into Noah's flood nor Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still. I just considered this another Human driven FUBAR.

DK

spin

I'm saying that once again you have taken the opportunity to proselytize Aramaic primacy.

Aramaic has words for "soldier".

I'd expect them to talk about soldiers in Aramaic. The language didn't lack such words. What we find is that as the Aramaic translator found technical terms in the Greek he simply transliterated.

The fun thing is that we can see the migration from Latin into Greek and then into Aramaic because of the phonetic necessities. Notice the Latin flagello. The Greek didn't like the fl- combination so it became fr-. The Aramaic didn't cope with fr- so it became pr-. This is a loan word, having nothing to do with similar looking words in Aramaic.

Edited to add:

Just so that you understand the linguistic problem here, the English word "compound", meaning "fence-enclosed living area" looks like "compound" meaning "a chemical combination", but in fact has come into English from Malay, "kom-pong". Now I can give a folk etymology as to why "compound" is really from the mixing idea, you know, mixing buildings with other structures including fences, but it is simply wrong.

This gets a grin for ingenuousness.

The etymology I have for this word is different from yours, coming from the Latin tog-nica < tego, to cover, which is testified to throughout the Indo-European family, eg Ger. decken or Eng. thatch.

On euaggelion transliterated into Aramaic:

You'll note that the transliteration only occurs at the beginning of Mark, on all other occasions it is translated.

Not ignored. The information is irrelevant to the point, which was that Hebrew was being used creatively to produce many new texts, at a rate of five Hebrew texts to one Aramaic text. Hebrew is now seen as a clearly living language at the time. There were three distinct Hebrew dialects represented at Qumran. Even its orthographic novelties show that the language was spoken for the scribes attempted to show pronunciation more clearly: WAW, YOD and ALEF were used much more frequently. This is not a dead language.

This is fallacious. It has been proven totally wrong for the period we are looking at. As I said, five new Hebrew texts to every one Aramaic one from Qumran. Murabba'at has numerous Hebrew agreements and contracts. People don't sign documents they don't understand, especially when they could have had them done in Aramaic or Greek as there were also such contracts from Murabba'at.

Hebrew was the language of the Hasmonean court and you'll find Hebrew on all their coins (along with Greek). Herod the Idumean who surplanted the Hasmoneans didn't use Hebrew as it was a political reflection of the Hasmoneans, hence Hebrew was not fostered during the Herodian dynasty.

JW 6.2.1


spin

judge

English has words for soldier as well, and yet when we describe a certain kind of soldier we call it a guerilla


Really what do Latvians call beefeaters?


Even if this is correct your original claim was still wrong. You claimed that pragella was a transliteration into the gospel. Why not just admit that even if it went from Latin to Aramaic you don;'t know when this happened.


Thank you I will check out my sources.



I'll get back to you

Why is it that the gospel writers , who were in a much better position than you or I have Jesus and Paul speaking aramaic?

judge

Spin, I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here. Are you referring to Mark only or the peshitta in general?

spin

One usually talks about guerillas and beefeaters because there is a necessity to do so. When we find stratiwths used 52 times in the nt and 18 times in the gospels, what special information does this generic Greek term for "soldier" supply? You got it, none.

spekoulatwr in Mk 6:27 doesn't supply us with useful information at all for the fact that it is used, at least to a non-Roman audience and Mark has numerous signs that it was written specifically for a Roman audience and even Mt's parallel omits the info about the beheader. Now the interesting thing about the use of spekoulatwr is that it doesn't refer to a Roman at all, but to one of Herod Antipas's guards. So, why is a soldier for Herod A. given the name of a Roman scout in an Aramaic text? There is no reason other than that was the word found in the original Greek, a Greek aimed at a Roman audience.

Not all the Aramaic translators used pragela. Check out Mk 15:15. In fact the majority of the time derivatives of NGD are used throughout the nt.

This is what I said in the conversation that you cited:

The gospels often have Jesus citing the LXX; are we supposed to believe that he was actually a Greek speaker. There is vastly more evidence for the gospel Jesus speaking Greek. That would make more sense than working from the mumbo-jumbo words that the writers thought he spoke Aramaic.


spin

judge

The gospel do not have Jesus citing the LXX, they have Jesus citing a version that we no longer have that is closer to the LXX than the massoretic hebrew.

The quotes in the gospels at times match the LXX at other times they match the hebrew we have and at other times they match neither.
At times Jesus seems to reference aramaic targums we have.

Further 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!"

Understanding the usage of Aramaic in Jesus’ time explains another often
puzzling passage. In the parable of the wicked vineyard tenants (Mark
12:1–12), Jesus alludes to Isaiah 5:1–7. In the Hebrew version of Isaiah
(on which our English translations are based), the people of Judah as a
whole (and not their leaders) are condemned as guilty of bloodshed. But
when Jesus told the parable, the ruling priests understood that Jesus had
told the parable "against them." This is because Jesus applies the passage
in his parable in a way that reflects the Aramaic Targum’s interpretation
of it, in which God’s judgment is directed primarily against the temple
establishment. (The tower of Isaiah’s parable is understood as the temple,
and the wine vat is understood as the altar.)

From Professor Craig A Evans

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/apr26/9t5098.html

Here is another link which details how the NT compares WRT the septuagint versus the hebrew


What words do you think are mumbo jumbo? Why do you think they are mumbo jumbo?

spin

Yeah, judge , I actually know of the range of citations from Jewish texts, be they LXX, MT-style, some of the rarer Qumran varieties, even Symmachus.

But this is basically a smoke screen.

Can you deal with the post you didn't deal with?


spin

judge

What is to deal with? All languages have loan words from other cultures.

Because you find this "proof" that the peshitta is a translation is interesting but not very convincing.

How about answering my query. You have said that there are "mumbo jumbo" aramaic words.

Why do you say this?
Can you please explain your familiarity with the Aramaic language. I was under the impression from previous posts you have vvery little knowledge of aramaic. If this is correct how do you know these words are "mumbo jumbo"?

spin

OK folks, I think we should be able to conclude that the next time judge rants about the idea that Aramaic was the original language of the new testament, we can happily see that he has no historical reasons to believe it.

1. the earliest nt documents we have are in Greek.
2. the gospel of Mark was written in Greek for a Roman audience, giving explanations of terms suited to a Roman audience
3. the new testament has numerous Latin terms in it, which naturally had no reason to exist in a hypothetical Aramaic original version
4. numerous Greek terms have been transliterated directly into Aramaic, apparently from a Greek literary source, ie the relevant nt text, including the Greek word for gospel in Mk 1:1, euaggelion, indicating that the word already had a specific meaning in Greek beyond the simple phrase "good news", ie "the good news about Jesus"
5. the few Aramaic words in the nt are of such a trivial nature, such as "little girl come", "father" and very few other words, yet had a fully Aramaic gospel been available more relevant Aramaic phrases would certainly have been chosen; as it is the very odd little collection shows that Aramaic was not the language of the gospel because they are such a trivial collection! Mumbo-Jumbo terms as I have indicated, just as a magician uses abracadabra, having little meaning to the audience other than the mystery of strange words.
6. attempted arguments in favour of the gospels being originally written in Aramaic are usually based on poor linguistics.
7. transliteration of significant words (ie excluding mumbo-jumbo words) in the gospels seem to be from Greek into Aramaic and non the other way at all.

judge shows little understanding of the linguistic problems he creates for himself, little knowledge of linguistics in general, not much knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek.

One is left wondering really why he is so hung up on the idea that the nt was originally written in Aramaic, especially when one thinks that no major nt scholar supports the idea.

All we really know is that judge is committed to the idea and will take every opportunity to advocate it, despite his linguistic lack of expertise.


spin