Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

So?
The Peshitta OT comes for the same textual tradition in this instance as the henrew you quote.
This does not change the fact that there was more than one textual tradition.

No this is not sound reasoning. All we can safely conclude is that that the PNT and the LXX come from the same textual tradition as far as this geneology is concerned, not that the Matthews geneology comes from the LXX.

You have any evidence that the Egyptian tradition was used in Palestine/Syria around 80-90 CE? Against thinking I'm assuming that, I defer to Streeter's The Four Gospels on dating and location of the gospels. You have a better suggestion?

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2005, 11:59 PM

As for Acts 2.24, it's still better to assume it came from the LXX then from the Hebrew since the overwhelming evidence is in favor of Luke-Acts being written in Greek. You say you have many more examples, where are they?

Chris Weimer · 08-04-2005, 12:03 AM

Furthermore, judge, you're explicitly denying Occam's Razor by trying to claim that both the standard Aramaic Old Testament was not used by Matthew who wrote in Aramaic, but a different tradition? If Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he most likely would have read from the Aramaic OT, no? Thus that's two hurdles you have to jump instead of just one. Burden's on you buddy.

S.C.Carlson · 08-04-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But Stephen, think about it. What are the chances of the greek original reading "pain"....which is not a hebraism.

Since the reading "pain" was already in the LXX, the chances that a Greek original would follow the LXX are pretty good.

Stephen

judge · 08-04-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Furthermore, judge, you're explicitly denying Occam's Razor by trying to claim that both the standard Aramaic Old Testament was not used by Matthew who wrote in Aramaic, but a different tradition? If Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he most likely would have read from the Aramaic OT, no? Thus that's two hurdles you have to jump instead of just one. Burden's on you buddy.

Chris re: the Peshitta OT. Scholars are not sure when the various books in it were translated or when they came together. IOW we don't even know if the current books we have were around then or not.

It is more likely Matthew used Aramaic targums.

judge · 08-04-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.

Stephen

I think we can admit that estrangelo wasn't fully developed until this time.

Quote:

The oldest of the Syriac scripts, known as Estrangelo 'rounded', was fully developed by the 5th century.

from here . So I'm not sure how much was in use before that.

But this makes little difference as all the other letters are the same.

The two words are still easily mistaken.
The mistranslation still goes from Aramaic into greek.

The greek makes no sense.

judge · 08-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Yoo hoo!...Spin. :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To recap, there is a sufficient load of words derived from the Greek NT to be found in the Peshitta to indicate that the Greek NT was the source of the Peshitta NT.

spin

But how does one test whether these words are derived from the greek NT and not just derived from foreign words?

Is there a way to test your theory?

How can you possibly know that all these words entered Aramaic via the greek NT?

Quote:

robe /xlamus -- klmys Mt 27:28
governor / 'hgemonos -- hgmwn' Mt 28:14
writing tablet / pinakidion -- pnqyt' Lk 1:63
coats / xitonia (Hdt Hom Hes) -- kwtynyn Lk 3:11
wages / opswniois -- 'pswnyt Lk 3:14
dish / pinakos -- pynk' Lk 11:39
key / kleida (kleis) -- qlyd' Lk 11:52
(coins) / assarion -- 'sryn Lk 12:6
robe / stolh -- 's+l' Lk 15:22
ruler / arxon -- 'rkwn' Jn 3:1 (ie Nicodemus)
porticos / stoas -- 's+wyn Jn 5:2
portico / stoa -- 's+w' Jn 10:23
baskets / kofinous -- qwpynyn Jn 6:13 Lk 9:17
furlongs / stadiwn -- 's+dwt' Jn 11:18
box, bag / glwssokomon -- glwsqm' Jn 12:6 13:29
lamps / lampadwn -- lmpyd' Jn 18:3
captain / xiliarxos -- klyrk' Jn 18:12
pounds / litras -- ly+ryn Jn 19:39
uninstructed / idiotai -- hdyw+' Ac 4:13
basket / spurida = 'spryd' Ac 9:25
tanner / bursei = bwrsy' Ac 9:43

How can you say that no Aramaic speaker ever used these words apart from in the peshitta?

Don't you think you need to rethink your assertion and withdraw it or modify it?

judge · 08-04-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The biggest problem with this example is that this supposed mistake only works in Estrangelo and its descendant scripts. However, Estrangelo wasn't developed until the fifth century.

As I previously mentioned Estrangelo wasn't fully developed until that time, however I think you will find that the 6 a.d. inscription is much the same as estrangelo.

here is a previous discussion on this, I am not sure if the graphics will work but the refererence is there.

Added in edit:

Steven Ring also seesm to think this inscription is in estrangela.

Quote:

Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke. Syriac was spoken in south western Mesopotamia in the small kingdom of Osrhoene with its capital at Edessa. The earliest dated Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (see [12] pp. 1-2, Maricq 1962, and Pirenne 1963) and another inscription at Serrin dated AD 73 (see [12] pp. 2-3). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and the Estrangela Syriac script existed just before and just after Jesus' ministry.

from

Aramaic linguistics

S.C.Carlson · 08-04-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

As I previously mentioned Estrangelo wasn't fully developed until that time, however I think you will find that the 6 a.d. inscription is much the same as estrangelo.

Your link could not display an images for the inscription, unfortunately.

But all is not lost.

The earliest Syriac inscription usually cited is the Queen Helena of Adiabene inscription, a picture of which is shown here.

It does not look like Estrangelo but rather the Palmyrene Ornamental script (see here).

Stephen

judge · 08-04-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Your link could not display an images for the inscription, unfortunately.

But all is not lost.

The earliest Syriac inscription usually cited is the Queen Helena of Adiabene inscription, a picture of which is shown here.

Not from what I can see. the earliest one generally referred to is the 6 .a.d. inscription.
This is not the Queen Helena inscription is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

It does not look like Estrangelo but rather the Palmyrene Ornamental script (see here).

Stephen

Yes, but apparently the 6 a.d. inscription does look like estrangela according to the reference/s I cited.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2005, 11:59 PM	#22
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	As for Acts 2.24, it's still better to assume it came from the LXX then from the Hebrew since the overwhelming evidence is in favor of Luke-Acts being written in Greek. You say you have many more examples, where are they?

08-04-2005, 12:03 AM	#23
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Furthermore, judge, you're explicitly denying Occam's Razor by trying to claim that both the standard Aramaic Old Testament was not used by Matthew who wrote in Aramaic, but a different tradition? If Matthew wrote in Aramaic, he most likely would have read from the Aramaic OT, no? Thus that's two hurdles you have to jump instead of just one. Burden's on you buddy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.