gregor

I don't read this forum as "friendly" to spin such that it ignores the arguments.

This forum appreciates the poster who has demonstrated personal knowledge and expertise over the poster who cuts and pastes from another source without demonstrated personal knowledge or expertise - taking a position rejected by the vast majority of those considering the issue.

spin

Fine, but bring something better than you have so far.

The easiest thing to do is to show how QRBN is used 32 times in the Hebrew bible with a technical significance. To start you off look at Lev 1:2, 2:1, 2:4, 2:12, 2:13, 6:20, etc. Note as well that the source of the examples just provided is Leviticus which is mainly concerned in priestly technical matters.

What's your problem with the fact that Corban is a Hebrew term? The possibility that it's also employed in other languages will not change the fact. You made the claim that Corban came into the nt from Aramaic (rather than from Hebrew). You are in no position to justify your claim.

I have always asked for one thing: evidence. You fail to supply the goods. That should be obvious to any onlooker who is not committed.


spin

JoeWallack

Re: JW assertion that language experts will tell you the Peshitta was translated from another language.

JW:
Sure, no problem:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php...eply&p=1880134

Maybe you've heard of Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. I think this is typical of what you will find. Mainstream Bible scholarship has accepted the Peshitta followed the Greek for all the reasons identified here:

1) No early manuscript evidence.

2) No early quoting.

3) Transliteration of Greek and copying of Greek explanations of Aramaic words.

4) Tendency to agree with Byzantine as opposed to Western.

Because of these big picture reasons Mainstream Bible scholarship has not had a compelling reason to do the detailed type of analysis you are looking for
which has created a vacuum for the pseudo-scholar you are quoting from. The consensus of Mainstream Bible scholarship can be overcome of course with evidence (Hell, most of these Bible scholars believe that god sacrificed himself to himself thereby conquering death by dying and ending a Law which was eternal). Would you be so kind as to provide us with the source you are quoting from? We've received reports that Messianics are promoting the Peshitta as original because it has a tendency to agree with the Byzantine (which it was near geographically and chronologically - surprise) against the Western. You haven't seen any have you?

Spin has been the main one here to give you the type of detailed language analysis you are looking for and Spin does claim in the recent Luxor thread that the Inscription shows a Virgin Birth when in fact probably the main point of Carriers' related article was to explain that it does not show a Virgin Birth. So Spin has been known to make a mistake which he will probably be the first to admit (I myself thought I made a mistake once, but it turned out I was wrong). So, give us your source please (pumping sodium pentium into thread) so that we can tear, er, I mean, objectively analyse it.



Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

judge

Yes and prior to the dead sea scrolls being discovered the earliest Hebrew Bible was from 1100 C.E. No one ever thought the HB was written in greek though

Just waht early writings would you expect to contain quotes from the peshitta?

All languages contain loan words. "Sauna" is one we use in english. Also the greek NT contains transliterations also. From Aramaic!

As for the exaplanations this happens many times in the greek texts but only three times in the peshitta. We can look at the specifics if you like.

Circular reasoning

As you must be thinking of metzger you will note that he does not even consider the arguments at all. Take the example from above. Metzc ger does not even consider that raghshee has two meanings in Aramaic.
How can his arguments be compelling if he does not even deal with something as basic as this?

Note also Andrew criddles claim that Aphrahat does not quote the peshitta. It is just flat out false, as I demonstarted in this thread, yet scholars support this view.

I do not know of this. But i would be interested to see the details

O come on Spin is still trying to claim that Corban is an hebrew term. It is Akkadian first. It is an Akkadian word that found it's way into Aramaic and hebrew.

judge

OK anyone who does not agree with you must be biased :rolling:

spin

Typical non sequitur.

judge

Oh come on spin. I asked you for evidence for your claim . Check out post #43, and you ran away.

Vorkosigan

Judge, the origin of the term Corban is irrelevant. What's relevant is how it got into the NT. I seriously doubt that it came into the NT from the Akkadian. My students here in Taiwan know dozens of loan words in Chinese from English that came into English from other languages, such as French and latin. For example, to spell Chinese using western alphabets is called "romanization" in both English and Chinese. I doubt you would find anyone who seriously thought that "romanization" came into Chinese from Latin! Similarly, where the writer of Mark got Corban from, it was most likely Hebrew, not Akkadian. The whole discussion of Akkadian is a non-sequitor, as spin has already pointed out.

The NT Gospels were written in Greek, judge. This is clear to everyone without doctrinal axes to grind. They contain Greek idioms and Greek literary references, especially in Acts, where a number of scenes appear to refer to Greek literature. They also refer to the Greek version of the Torah, the Septaugint, on numerous occasions. They speak to the reader as if the reader does not know Jewish customs and practices, and when they do, they are sometimes wrong, as if they are not Jews. Further, they take the outside point of view in referring to "the Jews." They also translate -- for example, Luke makes a point of translating "Barnabas" and "Dorcas" while Mark explains "Bartimaeus." Had they been written in aramaic, that would make no sense. Neither would translating "Talitha kumi" for the reader of Mark. Why would an aramaic translator preserve the alleged aramaic and then give a definition? John also translates "Rabbi" and "messiah" which surely no reader of aramaic would need a translation of. Of course, if Matthew hadn't read the Septaugint, he never would have screwed up Is 7:14 and Zec 9:9. Word for word copying of the Greek NT is found in many places, such as Mark 1:2, where Mark copied the Greek word for word, except the last two. The idea that he wrote in aramaic is absurd. I could multiply such examples by the thousand.

Furthermore, speaking as a translator of 15 years experience, and a teacher of translation, you cannot back-translate a document to get the original language. Even texts whose original language is known -- such as the translations I see every day here in Taiwan -- cannot be back translated. That is well-known from translation theory. You cannot discover Aramaic by looking at the Greek -- that is simply not possible. You can only inject aramaic in for doctrinal reasons.

It's time to move on to new and more productive ideas. The Peshitta are later documents and the NT was written in Greek.

Vorkosigan

spin

I've already shown that corban is a Hebrew word, even accepting that it is related to the Akkadian. The thing that you don't understand is that "sauna" is an English word even though it was of Finnish origin -- and naturally still used in Finnish. You seem to confuse origin with ownership.

You made the outrageous claim (amongst other outrageous claims of yours) that your list of words extracted from the Greek nt were necessarily of Aramaic origin. Hopefully now you can see that you aren't in a position to make that claim. Whether Corban originally came from Akkadian or was a Semitic word which made its way into the various Semitic languages (like the word father/pater/pitar/Vater/pere/etc. in Indo-European languages) is irrelevant to your unsupportable claim about that word (and nearly all the others).

The gospel writers may have got some words from Aramaic beside things like talitha cumi, but there is insufficient evidence on that score because nearly all your examples also existed in Hebrew, the others were common words in Greek as in frankincense and kummin, from antique trade. None of them necessitate an Aramaic source for the gospels, though Hebrew and Aramaic words should be expected from literature set in Palestine.

I have shown with Boanerges that a word is being redefined for the reading audience, as one does with terms that might seem strange to them, Boanerges gets explained as "sons of thunder", just as the hall aulh gets explained as "praetorium", and even Golgotha, which according to John is Hebrew. These explanations are given to clarify terms for a Roman Greek audience. there is no need to explain to an Aramaic audience that a certain palace was a praetorium. That doesn't help an Aramaic speaker, but it does help a Roman Greek speaker. So often we find evidence which suggests that the Peshitta is translated from Greek.


spin

spin

While I'm here, show us that Hebrew and Aramaic borrowed Corban from Akkadian, ...

...rather than all three being cognates, ie different forms of the same source, developed from that source by all three languages.


spin