spin

They have one word in common.

Most parallels have a lot more than that.


spin

judge

Spin as I mentioned it is nothing personal. Imerely asked rlogan what he found compelling linguistically?
It will save us some time if he checks your analysis though. You will admit you have made quite a few mistakes.

You have probably done quite well for someone with no or very little experience with Aramaic, however I just suggest it may be wise for anyone using your arguments to check them first.

Anyway I await rlogans reply

Chris Weimer

Appeal to Authority Fallacy. If he doesn't offer any commentary, how do you know his arguments? If you argue something without any evidence, kind of defeats the purpo, doesn't it? These are not parallel passages.

spin

You aren't able to comment, not knowing any of the languages.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Can't you count? There are more than one word in common.

If the Greek prioritists need to make such untenable claims in order to prove Greek priority, their case cannot be really that strong.

Trying to argue against Aland's Synopsis is like barking at the moon. Good luck, guys!

Yuri.

judge

As we can see here this is by no means indicative of an explanation that occurs in a translation.

In Acts 24:24, we read of Drusilla, "who is ('d)ytyh') a Jewess."

This is not an explanation that has anything at all to do with translating.

Likewise the courtyard that was was or even which is the praetorium is not indicative of a translation.

If however we look at the greek of John 1:38 we do find an explanation in the text that looks like it is an explanation for a non semitic audience.

The peshitta does not have this explanation though.

the greek and in turn the english reads.

It seems the greek translation includes this explanation. The explanation being which means teacher The peshitta does not it just has the Aramaic nbr

spin

Already in Doh! mode.

The examples given were to help one understand the use of d)ytyh, which judge doesn't understand. It is a means of giving information about the subject which comes immediately before it. It doesn't allow judge to change tense and disguise the significance of the sentence. Judge, misunderstanding the problem, wrote in message #93,

You can see his change of tense from the present, which is the problem that was being shown. He has apparently lost the thread and in his confusion fastened onto the idea that d)ytyh is "indicative of an explanation that occurs in a translation." It is instead a means of giving defining information, ie an explanation, which incidentally reflects the Greek underlying text.

Obviously not. It is simply a translation of the Greek explanation.

Again, simply a translation of the Greek explanation, including the transliteration of the Greek form of the Latin "praetorium".

Obviously, it sometimes dawned on the Aramaic translator that such explanations weren't really necessary. Thus we see the translator of Mt (27:46) didn't translate the Greek explanation ("that is, my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"), but the translator of Mk (15:34) did.


spin

spin

Yuri. Don't grandstand. The onus is on you to show the parallel and not rely on someone else's authority. Until you get past this, we must assume that there is no parallel.


spin

Lógos Sokratikós

I don't get it. Greek is the original version or Aramaic... Does it matter even? I mean, what if the oldest manuscript ever was 1st century (C.E.) Thracian, or Coptic, or Chinese?

What is important, vitally important, for believers and non-believers alike, is what the best translations available do say, if it is coherent logically with itself, with the other three gospels, with the scientific historical and archæological evidence in the most serious interpretation possible, and with the old testament, esp, the prophesies.

Don't you think?

Sorry if burtsed your high flying bubbles there!

-TheOpenMind

spin

When someone makes a claim about the content of the original text, a translation cannot help you. Relying on a translation makes you dependent on the translator.

The proposal of Aramaic priority puts forward the claim that the history of the text was different from the current status quo position. It will have different implications to how one understands religious history. I see the first gospel from the four we have composed in Rome for a Roman Greek-speaking audience. Those who see the Aramaic have the notion that they are fundamentally confronting the very words of their Jesus.

If you don't have access to the original language, then use more than one translation, for example the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible. You'll then see where different translators take different courses with the same text.


spin