judge

Dr Gibson, in the light of this

...which you have not commented on, so I assume have no problem with, do you have a point to make? If so why not just say it?

Jeffrey Gibson

Never assume. And never trust anyone who uses Strongs as his source or thinks that it is an actual Lexicon, let alone an authoritative one. Moreover, your source seems to think that the Greek Γάζα, ης, ἡ (ץַזָּה) Gaza that is used by Diod. S. 19, 59, 2; Strabo 16, 2, 21; Arrian, Anab. 2, 26 and elsewhere in the story of Alexander; inscr.; Gen 10:19 al.; Ep. Arist.; Joseph.; Sib. Or. 3, 345 for one of the 5 chief cities of the Philistines is the same Greek word as that which is derived from Persian ganuÅ

In any case, what is his source for his assertion that the Persian word is what he says it is? Does he read Persian. Has he consulted a Persian Lexicon? And why do you trust his claims?

I should have thought the point was obvious.

Jeffrey

spin

And your one trick pony is lame.

All you have to do is supply the text in the Greek (and preferably the Latin as well) and you'll get an answer.

See above. While you don't have to do anything other than blindly cite your source (which we both know you're incapable of analysing linguistically), you'll continue to just cite someone else's work. Get me the Greek and Latin and you'll get a definitive response regarding Codex Bezae.

When there are a number of earlier manuscripts, the ones on which the current reading is based, that don't support the conjecture, you have no explanation. As I've indicated, the Bezae has both Latin and Greek. That should tell you that trawling in it as though it were representative of the earliest Greek is a blunder.

:deadhorse:


spin

judge

Ironically this is conjecture from you. You can't demonstrate the history of this bezan verse with any certainty. All you can do is guess. You just don't have enough information to support any conjecture you make about the history of the bezan verse in question.

Which leaves us with one explanation. The one I provided.

If you wish to provide another explanation, please do. So if you have no alternative I'll leave this thread.

best wishes to you all the same.

spin

The text is clearly datable by its palaeography to mid 6th c., while Codex Sinaiticus dates almost 200 years earlier. It is also datable by the fact that it also has a Latin translation included on alternate pages. Bezae tends to reflect the western text tradition. The scholarly consensus sees the western tradition as less strong than the Alexandrian tradition reflected in Sinaiticus, for example. The bottom line: your guy hopes that one text -- thought by most not to be the best tradition --, a later text at that, is somehow a better witness.

:rolling:

:deadhorse:


spin

spin

And you won't like how this will backfire in your face.

The comparative linguistics is quite clear on the issue.

But you have to earn the information. You need to give me the form of the Greek and Latin words from Codex Bezae where the Peshitta has GZH. (This information is not directly related to my understanding of how one accounts for what your source talks about.)


spin

judge

It really does not matter to me in the slightest whether you do or don't try to explain the evidence.

Who cares?

At the moment all I can do is note that only one explanation has been provided to account for the evidence.

As you are unable to provide an alternative explanation it means it is a one horse race.
All we can do is note that and move on.

spin

This was you earlier:

Since Spin is back I thought I might post a thread looking again at an issue we looked at a while ago.

You've changed your mind!

When one doesn't know anything better, any explanation -- no matter how wrong -- is better than no explanation.

You use the word "unable", but this is all about your inability.

All you need do really is fess up that you have no possibility of looking at the raw material that your source used to lead you into the ditch and I'll give you an explanation based on the evidence I have available ranging from the bible to the Talmud.


spin

judge

Not at all.

1.I note that a peshitta primacist provides an explanation for the evidence which refutes your case.

2. As you are back on the forum I post this rebuttal.

3.You are unable to present an alternative explanation for the evidence.

4. We therefore make note that only one side of this debate has been able to explain the evidence.

If you can't explain the evidence we see according to your present framework why should I care?

Jeffrey Gibson

But you have not yet shown that the claimed evidence is evidence, let alone good evidence or the sort that refutes anything.


And what you have shown is that you have no idea of what the reading of Codex D is.

Jeffrey