judge

Well one would also need to demonstrate that modern English is comparable to ancient greek in this regard as well.

However the ancient greek translators seemed to have a different approach in that they retained the Aramaic word order as well. They reatined the semitic style of the writing, which we do not do in our modern translations.

See here.
The Semitic Style of the New Testament

spin

If you can shamefacedly spout such stupidity I can only assume you have no understanding of the problems you are messing with.


spin

spin

When you don't understand them you can't.

You specifically didn't deal with any of the material in message 24 of this thread, to quote:

Here is a typical example of your missing the point. I showed a trajectory of certain words from Latin modified in the Greek forms and those Greek forms further modified into Aramaic. The phonological movement should be plain to reasonable people who care to investigate the linguistics, but such relatively plain data whizzes above your poor head. But then simple transliterations from Greek into Aramaic are also shrugged off by you, even key words such as euaggelion.

Mark has terms transliterated from Latin, suggesting it was written in a specifically Latin context, with explanations appealing to that Roman context, explanations that make it into Aramaic.

I also pointed out that there was a word in Hebrew and presumably Aramaic which was available with the same meaning, so why generally import such a word when it wasn't necessary, unless it was so important in the Greek tradition that the translator felt it necessary to transliterate it?

You didn't point it out, you merely reiterated it. Everyone knows of the few Aramaic terms in the gospels which you gormlessly tried to extend with words from all over the place, as though they came into the Greek text directly from Aramaic, whereas 1) such a thesis is never demonstrated and 2) another reasonable trajectory has been supplied for most words either because they already existed in Greek or that they could have come from Hebrew.

This is amusing coming from someone who knows none of the languages involved. Linguistics, which you may study at university, is a basic requirement for serious linguistic analysis: you need to know how languages work. You do not. You need to know something about the language interface, at least as reflected by translation. You do not. You need to know something about diachronic and comparative linguistics. Sadly, you do not.

You are in no position to... judge.

This is the pot looking for a kettle.

Any interested bystander who has come this far might care to, ummm, judge for yourselves.


spin

gregor

Judge

Admittedly, I'm not able to independently weigh the substance of the Aramaic priority argument. However, spin and Amaleq appear to argue from first-person knowledge of linguistics, while you appear to simply cut and paste from another source with knowledge.

So I'd tap the brake on calling someone else a 'bluffer.'

Amaleq13

Spin certainly knows his languages but I am only fluent in English (Ted might suggest that be given as "American English" ). I am relying entirely on judge and spin for my understanding of this issue.

judge

Lets have the detail of your "argument"

Ah yes the answer "of course" is. Only your explanation can possibly be the right one. Is this your "educationalist" approach?


No big deal just different translations.

Red Herring. So the translators translated "byt hrwds" as herodians. So what.


Your showed your pet theory. That's all. You seem to think you have proved something.

Loan words occur in every language. Again your haven't shown anything except your pwet theory.

Again you are short on detail. Lets see this explanation that makes it into Aramaic.

Obviously this was one of the many "loan words" that was commonly used. Again the use of loan words should be expected to some degree.


Again you may have some knowledge of biblical hebrew but you don't understand the simplest concepts. Aramaic preceded and predataed Hebrew.
Aramaic came before hebrew.
You seem to have the funny notion that Hebrew gave rise to Aramaic.

judge

Read this thread. Spin does know biblical hebrew and biblical greek , but he ids bluffing when he steps inot the relationship between tem and other languages.
Have a look for your self

judge

John 12:12 the greek translators dod not know whether it was "the crowd" or "a crowd".
The manuscripts which translate it "A crowd" are: S, A, D, K, W, X, Delta, Pi, Psi, f1, 28, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

The manuscripts which translate it "THE crowd" are: p66, B, L, Theta, f13


John 12:41 we find another ambiguous Aramaic word.

The following Greek manuscripts translate it "Because": p66 p75 S A B L X Theta Psi f1 33

The following translate it "When": D, K, Delta, Pi, f13, 565, 700, 892, 1241

And the following manuscript translates it "Since": W

John 6:14

Syame marking indicating plurality/singularity were not added to the peshitta text for centuries. Time and time again when we look to the greek texts and the context is ambiguous WRT plural/singular, the greek translators were not sure which way to go.

John 6:14 is an example. Both singular and plural, sign/signs, could make sense.

One translator went with the singular and one went with the plural.

The following Greek manuscripts translate F0 "miracle/sign" in the plural - p75, B, 0191

The following Greek manuscripts translate F0 "miracle/sign" in the singular - S, A, D, K, L, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

Thank again to Paul Younan.

There are no doubt more but as western scholars already know John was written in greek they have not tested the theory out by counting these kind of things.

spin

Yeah, read the thread and see how whacky judge can be in his religious adherence to a terminally silly claim.


spin

graymouser

A difference of one letter; specifically, "o" or no "o." Neither difficult to add or to lose in copying. You betray fundamental ignorance of Greek when you make the difference specifically between "a" crowd and "the" crowd; Greek had no indefinite article. There's no evidence against Greek priority here.

So, what's the Aramaic word that means "because," "when," and "since," what are the Greek words, and do they look like each other?

You have three witnesses for the plural and over a dozen for the singular; meaning that there was an error in the transmission somewhere, and at least the bulk of the manuscripts agree on the singular.

I still think you should be looking for major syntactical differences in multiple translations, and find tendencies indicating multiple translations. A singular/plural discrepancy or the presence of an article in some manuscripts is hardly compelling evidence against Greek priority.

-Wayne