Doctor X

Gooch's Dad:

Indeed, which may be why he never responded to Spin's rebuttal. He expects others to do his homework for him.

Which is why I advised him a long time ago to put together his evidence in a paper. Apparently he does not have the evidence other than his supposition and randomly tries to poke holes in the standard theories. When demonstrated that said holes are not actually holes but examples of his failure to understand textual criticism, he runs on to another one.

This is tedius and a waste of time, frankly, which is why he has been encouraged to present his evidence in a coherent fashion. That it proves beyond him does not instil confidence in his claims.

Consider well, that as much as we may find the arguments of some apologists laughable, they do, at least, make an argument.

--J.D.

judge

The saying closest to what you have written here is that attributed to papias. But this was not the subject of the toher thread (if it's the one I'm thinking about)

That was in regard to a statement by Jerome.

Here is the quote you refer to above (I think),attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)
MATQAIOS
MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA
hWS
HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

Schollars have argued about the xact meaning of the words here but I
believe the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work
in the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could"

spin

I said nothing about it being an idiom. Where on earth did you get that idea. I was merely working with the significance of the text in its context. The best term for it would be a metaphor, probably constructed by the writer who wanted to link the fire and the salt sayings.


spin

judge

Ok so you believe it to be a metaphor that as far as we know has never ever been used before or since?

I think it makes alot more sense to read it as destroyed than salted???? by fire. Particularly in view of the fact that no one has ever used this supposed metaphor ever as far as we know.

Salted by fire???? sounds ridiculous IMHO.

Oh well.
All the best.

spin

Apparently you are not in touch with literature at all. Metaphors are often one off turns of phrase. Literature is full of them.

When you have faith things ake sense, don't they? You can construe the world the way you want, can't you?

But why not use your head and stop the received ideas for a moment. The verb which signifies to salt needs a noun to qualify it, so you get ali alizo, which should sound just as ridiculous to you as salt by fire. But what about "to salt with gold"?: The mine was worthless, but he had salted it with gold in order to sell it. The verb "salt" in this English sentence has nothing to do with the substance salt, as can also be seen with the relevant verb in Greek for one has to say "to salt with salt". We have to assume that to salt means generically "to spread, disseminate, scatter".

You are attempting to analyse a text whose language usages to all of us is arcane, as though you were familiar with it -- which you are not.

It seems logical enough to say that you can salt something with a purifying agent, be it salt or fire. It seemed logical enough to the author who used the expression to pass from talking of fire to talking of salt. The only people who really have trouble with the expression are those who want to have trouble with it.

As I think there is a good case for the gospel of Mark being written in a Roman context, where denarii and quadranti were the currency unlike Palestine where they used shekels and prutahs, where a few terms needed to be explained in Roman terms and transliterated thus, it seems terribly unlikely that it was written in said Roman context in Aramaic.

The only thing that really sounds ridiculous is that you don't want to read what the Greek writer says before you accept canned pro-Aramaic priority rumblings.


spin

judge

Fair call. It is always worthwhile to reconsider.

Thank you for your time in your considered replies . I think I have exhausted myself on this for the time being.

All the best

Dr X , thank you also for your time and input.

judge

Not a bad effort Spin but it appears this word is not a transliteration of the greek word at all.


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

judge

Hmmm...I hope Spin did not cash that cheque yet DR X.
Spin has not claimed that he is knowledgeable of Aramaic at any time DR X, so this was an easy mistake to make, but perhaps you were a little early popping the champagne.

spin

I answered your mistaken idea where you placed it on the other thread judge. Please read there and understand.


spin