Ted Hoffman

Thanks spin and judge. Where is Yuri when you need him?

judge

jacob wrote:

Spin responded:
Come on Spin (or as we say in Australia "come in spinner" )

Why not take up the challenge I put to Dr X?

Is there anyone out there who believes that textual criticism is reliable willing to argue the case for why textual critics rejected the peshitta as underlying the greek versions?

That is if they ever actually considered it at all.

gregor

It still seems that the burden of proof should be on judge. He is asserting Aramaic primacy. This is the argument against the status quo. He should present his case, and unless his case is compelling, the status quo will remain.

Amaleq13

Doctor X has been banned. I don't know why and I don't know if he intends to return (assuming he can).

spin

Because you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't responded sufficiently to anything I have posted. You don't show any knowledge of comparative lingusitics. You can cut and paste and little else.

You need to show that there is some reson for me to consider anything now that you say, as you have shown no ability to look at the implications of the material I have posted for you. When you deal with that in a knowledgible way, I might consider your challenge.

As things stand, I think the linguistic evidence I have presented is pretty convincing that there is no case for Aramaic primacy. Each of the so-called examples you have got off the net and placed here have been seen to have no basis. I have shown that there is a sizable, clearly directional vocabulary movement from the Greek into the Aramaic nt and I haven't even looked at the better Greek of Luke. I think that you have no tangible reason for clinging to this Aramaic primacy lunacy.


spin

Ted Hoffman

Status quo is not an argument. The status quo will have to reclaim its dominance and respond to challengers. We shall be constantly comitted to reasessing our most basic assumptions(TM).

As it is, no-one seems to be ready to defend the status quo but plenty are willing to stand by it. From what I have seen, the arguments spin makes can be made to cut both ways in terms of name borrowing (ie. names not being translated) etc and then there was the argument Vork made about "showing that the writers were aware of Aramaic sources, or that their sayings sources had Aramaic origins. other than demonstrating that the narrative sections were written in Aramaic". How does one differentiate between an original text and a translated one?

As it is, even a formal debate is not necessary. One only needs to state:

ARGUMENTS THAT DEMONSRATE THAT THE GOSPELS AND PAUL'S LETTERS WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN GREEK

1. ARGUMENT THAT THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN FOR A LATIN AUDIENCE THAT READS GREEK

2. ARGUMENT OF THE PHONEMICS OF LATINISMS TO GREEK

3. ARGUMENT OF THE TRANSLITERATIONS FROM GREEK TO ARAMAIC

4. ARGUMENTS OF AUTHORSHIP

etc etc. As I said, I know nothing about phonetics, phonemics, dipthongs, transliterations, linguistics Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew but lets see a summary of the arguments.
Either party can start. For example judge, please list three strongest points why you believe the NT was originally written in Aramaic and spin can do the same. Three points.

<puts on moderator hat and robe and prepares to preside - then turns round and looks ant Amaleq>

Why the hell was DoctorX banned? Jesus H. Cheeerist!

spin

{Off-topic post deleted}

Postcard73

The reason for any ban is between the admins and the user in question. The closest thing to an answer you'll get can be found here. I know this thread started as a challenge to Doctor X, but some decent discussion has developed in his absence. Please keep the posts on biblical criticism and refer questions concerning Doctor X's situation to the Bugs forum. Thanks.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator