Chris Weimer

Hrm, wouldn't French mean from France? Like Mandarin and Cantonese are languages in their own right, yet their still Chinese.

Hey, you started the nit-picking first.

French Prometheus

Technically-speaking, only the languages derived from Langue d'Oïl qualify as "French dialects/languages". Being spoken on French territory is not enough. There are many other languages spoken in France that are distinct from French. Some of them aren't Romance languages (e.g. Breton, Alsatian, Basque,...) and others are but they form a distinct linguistic group which is as different from French as Spanish, Italian, Catalan,... These languages are derived from Langue d'Oc.

It's 1:50 AM here. I think it's time for me to go to bed instead of further derailing a promising thread with my uncalled-for linguistic nitpick

Peter Kirby

Here is the argument:

(Whereas the First) Whereas the Gospel of Matthew has iakwb for the Hebrew Bible's Jacob iakwbos for the NT Jacob, both of them nominative;
(Whereas the Second) Whereas the Gospel of Matthew has two different sources for these two names, one of them the Hebrew Bible, the other from Mark and/or Paul and/or other tradition;
(Whereas the Third) Whereas the Syriac version of the Gospel of Matthew has only one form/inflection of this name Jacob, whether used for the Hebrew Bible's Jacob or for the NT Jacob;
(Consideration the First) And, considering that it is more likely that the two forms in the Greek Gospel of Matthew came from its two different sources as being originally in Greek than it is that the two forms in the Greek Gospel of Matthew came from translating the Syriac version, which has uniformity in its references to Jacob;
(Consideration the Second) And, considering that it is more likely that the one form/inflection in the Syriac version would produce one form/inflection in the Greek Gospel of Matthew (being originally in Syriac) than it is that two different inflections in Greek would come from the one source with uniformity in its inflection (that source being the Syriac),
(Conclusion) Accordingly, based on these factors, it is more likely that that the Syriac was translated from the Greek than it is that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic.

Or, here would be some first steps towards formalizing the argument:

Presupposition: the word Jacob is in both the Syriac and the Greek.
G1: there is one form in the Greek. (In the nominative case: there are also multiple inflections, such as genetive and dative and accusative, the term properly so used.)
G2: there is more than one form in the Greek. (also, ~G1)
S1: there is one form in the Syriac.
S2: there is more than one form in the Syriac. (also, ~S1)
GP: the Greek has priority over the Syriac.
SP: the Syriac has priority over the Greek.
Presupposition: GP <-> ~SP.
Presupposition: we don't have absolute certainty about which has priority.
So the probability variables used are G1, S1, and GP.

Taken as Assumptions: the two Considerations mentioned above.
To be proved: P( GP | Assumptions ) > P( GP )

If there is a way to formalize the argument, I leave it to one with more time and/or talent.

Colloquially, this is a piece of evidence. Of course, it could be mooted if you had a couple aces up your sleeve.

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Well as we have looked at before the most obvious example of a mistranslation in Matthew is in Matthew 1:16.
The greek translator translated baala as husband when contextually it obviously refers to the father of Mary.

Thus the greek text ends up full of contradictions.
If Matthew 1:16 is husband we have 13 not 14 generations :rolling:
We have Joseph having two fathers :rolling:

The peshitta reading seems the only way to make sense of Matthew 1.

This does not sit well with western scholars who have invested much time and money into believing the greek is original. One would not expect them to admit they are wasting time and money on a wild goose chase.

The fact remains , western scholars decided the NT was penned in greek before examining the evidence. This is very unscientific.

If you think that western scholars were scientific and examined the evidcne beforehand then I would ask you to provide some evidence.

Peter Kirby

Judge, I'm not even sure that the scientists in "real science" actually have studied the evidence beforehand before making a working assumption, either as individual scientists (each one) or collectively (in the history of science). The individual scientists are too concerned with their areas of specialization to hope to cover everything thoroughly. The field as a whole did not begin tabula rasa but carried certain ideology and literature, etc., such that there was no beforehand of which to speak--there has always been one opinion or another. The question is, whether that opinion can be overturned, either with evidence (the most direct route) or through a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of whatever evidence might possibly be assembled on the other side of the scale (a long and arduous road).

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Thanks peter for this formalisation. I don't have anything else from matthew, apart from Chapter 1 but here is an argument in relation to John 21:15-17

Peter Kirby

I thought we were going to examine Chris's argument.

Or do you agree that it supplies inconclusive evidence?

(I don't know whether Chris considers it conclusive; I consider it suggestive.)

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

I think it is inconclusive and perhaps suggestive.
If there is only one Aramaic word that could have been put in both places then that would have been there from the start.
Why the greek translator would have put two variations I don't know.
I dopn' think this example is as strong as the variations in matthew chapt 1 because the lack of variation in chapter one does not make sense in greek.

The greek is self-contradictory as it only has 41 not 42 generations.

Peter Kirby

You acknowledge it as evidence by the way you feel the need to follow up with an argument of your own (after I've said that this thread is about the evaluation of Chris's argument). Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread on the 42 generations, unless you believe there's nothing more to be said on that (that hasn't already been said).

best,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

Bad idea Peter. We already went over the 42 generations arguement. But still, I never said it was conclusive (as I said further evidence thereof) but definitely suggestive and for judge to try to redirect the conversation is escapism.