Doctor X

Spin:

You check is in the mail. . . .

--J. "ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι" D.

judge

1.We do have examples of where Aramaic words were mistranslated by the greek translator. An example of which is contained in this thread.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=61336

2. I am interested in your explanation as to why Mark uses both Gallilean and Judean Aramaic in Mark 15:34(?). Have you considered why this would be so according to your present theory?

3. Dr X is still unable to provide any evidence at all (aprt from older extant mss) to argue the greek prededs the Aramaic peshitta. Can yopu provide anything at all? (apart from older mss)

Many people beleive the greek was first (or latin) but no can ever provide any evidence whatsoever (apart from older mss).

This seems to be a good example of blind faith to me at least.

Doctor X

Had the individual read the above posts and references he would not make this mistake.

However, because I love irony:

The inidividual is still unable to provide any evidence at all (aprt from eroneous claims of consistency in the late witnesses) to argue the aramaic peshitta prededs the Greek papyri. Can yopu provide anything at all? (apart from eroneous claims of consistency in the late witnesses)

I remind, again, with redundancy, should the individual submit his texts to the peer-reviewed literature, I would be happy to review it. Otherwise he is a waste of time and courtesy.

--J.D.

spin

Wrong assumption. You have examples of a writer with a confused understanding of Greek, which fits what we know of the Marcan writer.

Besides, you have to be wilful to construe Mk 9:49 as you have. As you should be aware, the oldest Greek manuscripts don't have the second part of the verse, though the Peshitta does, yet this second part clarifies the problem you are trying to create.

I gather this is only based on the Marcan received form of the citation from Ps 22. Given the paucity of language skill displayed by the writer, what makes you think he had the ability to understand the differences that you feel he should? Did Matthew's version get it much better?? People make mistakes with hokus-pokus words but the listener usually wouldn't know the difference.

Well of course I did.


spin

spin

... Mind and fingers not operating in concert. I usually reread.


spin

judge

Can you explain the "paucity" of the language skills of the writer of Mark in the Aramaic version?
Or are we to accept your circular reasoning here?

Doctor X

The individual could always try responding to Spin's post.

He could also submit his paper.

--J.D.

judge

To be honest I am not as excited as you are about Spin's arguments in this instance (and I think the bulk of his posts here are excellent).

Perhaps if someone else finds his arguments convincing in this instance I will discuss why I do not.
How's that?

spin

I was talking about the Greek text. We have a Greek text which shows a low level of knowledge of Greek, ie paucity of language skills. Look at the user's ability with conjunctions for example.

Normally when one translates a text it is because it is needed in the one's own language, so normally the translation doesn't represent the quality of language skills of the original text. This is also true for revisions: usually revised texts are improved, as Matt shows, being a revision of Mark. The sociolinguistics of the situation are reasonably well known.

Perhaps you would like to posit the translation from an Aramaic text which evinces the differences in linguistic abilities as shown by Mark and Luke?


spin

judge

I have al;ready given an example of a word being mistranslated from Aramaic to greek.
How does something get salted by fire????

IOW you have not really dealt with this example yet.