Amaleq13

So how many examples are we talking about?

I'm talking about other, non-biblical, texts. I'm looking for support for your assertion elsewhere.

We should also not expect to see these in a text that has not been altered from the first time it was written regardless of whether it is an original text or an attempt to produce a single of translation of varying texts.

judge

Ok lets have a look at this hypothesis. When and by whom do you think the peshitta may have been translated?

judge

Sorry Amaleq I seem to have misunderstood or a leat got a little lost.

When I wrote...
I meant that when we compare the various greek texts with the peshitta, on many occaisions we find instances where a single word or phrase was translated in more than one way by more than one translator.

We never find the opposite of this. We never find more than one variation in the peshitta (which can then be traced back to a single word in the greek).

I do not thin any one actually knows how many times this happens. Western scholars have all but ignored the peshitta. Religious people just decided that the NT was penned in greek. They never bothered to test out this theory.

spin

Judge, you will never respond to anything. There were numerous problems I posed for you in my last post. Not a word from you.

You refuse to provide a means for how different understandings of Aramaic could have found their way into the differing Greek text traditions. You have been asked often enough.

Please explain how this idea of John being "translated (on more than one occaision) into greek" is possible. If we are dealing with distinct translations, you would expect much more difference. If we are not, then what are we dealing with exactly, according to your hypothesis?

The Aramaic verb could not mean "say"... but more below

The problem is that it is a load of bullsh*t.

It's a nice creative attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Mostly these variations are crap. There may be others that aren't but I haven't seen any others yet.

The problem with such hyperbole is that legw does not mean "to bring news, preach the gospel, receive news, be announced": it means "to say, tell". What we see is another example of faking the data to suit one's presuppositions.

You simply continue your cutting and pasting of other people's work expecting a response from me. I will await your response to my previous post, which, if you were serious, you would deal with. If you can't, please stop your unhelpful attempts to bluster your way, via more supposed problems other people have supplied you, through a topic which you seem unprepared to deal with.


spin

Ted Hoffman

I await a comprehensive answer to the following question asked by Amaleq:
If judge cannot produce at least six examples (John is huge enough) of Ambiguous Aramaic words that lend themselves to various Greek translations, he should drop the argument.

Talking of variations. I have always wondered why the heck people use "different than" while it should be "different from". Is this wrong English coming from the Americans?

Amaleq13

Unless there is more evidence, we really don't have much to go on. I would assume his first language was Aramaic but, beyond that, who knows?

As to "when", all we've got are unsubtantiated rumors of Aramaic versions existing in the late 2nd century.

But you've already explained that the absence of variation is due to the fact that it was preserved by a single group sharing a view as to how it should read. This is contrasted with the Greek versions which were preserved by multiple groups with differing views as to how it should read. The absence of variation, therefore, is meaningless with regared to establishing age.

The only way your linguistic evidence can become conclusive is if the age of the peshitta can, in some other way, be pushed back to predate the Greek variations.

It is no more incorrect than the phrase "different to" that is also used by Brits but causes Colonists to cringe. The Americanism is typically referred to as "nonstandard" or as an irrelevant grammar variation by open-minded editors, you limey bastard.

judge

One translaotor used a diffrent word to another translator. It it quite simple Spin

More than one person translated it.

Please explain the methodology you used to arrive at this conclusion. Explain this precise method you used to "expect more".

Please explain the methodology you used to arrive at the conclusion that

judge

I think I could find six in John. Who knows how many there are though. There is no need for western scholars to even look for them becasue e already know John wrote in greek. It is an article of faith.

Yes we should all just believe John wrote in greek! Even if there is no evidence. This is the default position adopted by "religious people". Infidels :devil1: should blindly follow this and not consider putting it to the test.

graymouser

Have you ever read different translations of the same passage? Let's take, for example, John 3:15. In the New American Standard Bible, Jn 3:15 reads:

so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

Turning to the English Standard Version, we see:

that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Now, the NASB is fairly well known as being a formal-equivalent translation of the Bible, and the ESV is not nearly as loose as, say, the NIV. And interestingly, both the NASB and the ESV are translations descended from the ASV (American Standard Version), the early 20th century revision of the RV (Revised Version), itself the post-Westcott/Hort update of the KJV; because of this "heritage" (the NASB is an update of the ASV, and the ESV is a successor to the RSV (Revised Standard Version)), both do not try to stray too far from the idiom of the KJV, yet even this simple text has a number of differences: there is no "so" in the ESV, "will" is changed for "may," and the prepositional phrase is in a different place so as to give the sentence a very different meaning.

This is the kind of difference we would expect from texts of John if they were really multiple translations of an Aramaic original. Two variants that both fit well within the meaning of the Aramaic word are hardly great evidence; we'd rightly expect major differences in word choice, syntax, etc. Translation is not a one-for-one substitution, as this argument for Aramaic priority seems to assume it is.

-Wayne

judge

I have dealt with your arguments before.
Lets see you originally claimed that because the gospel of mark contains latin words it must have been written in greek!!! :huh:

You point out that the Aramaic of Mark contains the greek loan word for "good news". But this is no argument at all really . All languages contain loan words from other languages.

Then I point out that many Aramaic words remain even in the greek NT. Your reply was embarrassing for you because it showed that although you may have some knowledge of biblical hebrew and biblical greek you are not competent to comment much outside this area. You do not understand the relationships between hebrew and othe languages of the ancient middle east.

You may be able to bluff your way here on an internet forum but not for too long.

Here is the discussion.