judge

If it is true that the NT was written in Aramaic then it is only natural that those holding "establishment" points of view will resist.

Eventually the 'old guard" dies off.

Chris Weimer

I will retract my statement about Ochozias, Ozias, etc... It appears I was wrong.

judge

So...er...have you done this?

Or have you decided you are correct before you tested your theory?

I repeat my question so it is clear.
Have you done this?

spin

judge, you've missed the boat. I don't have to do it. I just need to have a way of showing that it can be tested.

You, unfortunately, are the one who is bucking the status quo with the outlandish proposal that Aramaic had priority.

The status quo exists because all the earliest documents are in Greek, none of the earliest fathers favour the Peshitta, and as I have shown the Peshitta is strongly influenced by the sorts of Greek one finds in the NT. It appears to be a translation of the NT.

The onus is fairly on your shoulders to show your case for Peshitta priority rather than play the shifting responsibility game.

You may repeat your cop outs as much as you like. Aramaic is a poor candidate and you haven't done the leg work to improve that situation. Until you do, I'll just assume you can't.


spin

judge

Well i'm not even sure you have done this though. Will any ration do?

What about equal ratios...does that still prove your case. Obviously not I would say. IOW you still haven't provided a test.

Outlandish..god forbid.

This argument is easily refuted. There are NO fragmentary copies of the peshitta, NO damaged copies.

Why? Their textual tradition did not keep damaged copies of their bible. They copied them and destroyed the old ones.

Only an outlandish person would expect this kind of tradition to have the oldest texts.


Again, this is a bit vague. Which fathers? Greek speakers who spoke greek?

The earliest Aramaic speaking fathers favor the peshitta. Ahprahat quotes it word for word but never anything else word for word.


You have shown nothing. You can't adjudicate on your own theories.


If it is true that the NT was written in Aramaic then it is only natural that those holding "establishment" points of view will resist.

Eventually the 'old guard" dies off.

gregor

Please quit making up "just so" stories. If you think spin is wrong, prove it by doing what he asks.

judge

Spin opened with this claim.
In the past I have listed a number of transliterations showing that the Peshitta is a translation from Greek in which a number of Greek and even Latin words made it directly into the Syriac of the Peshitta.[/quote]
[quote=Spin]

I asked (twice)


Spin replied (eventually)

Spin admits he has not done this.

Sounds like creation science, doesn't it?

First work out the right answer and then check. If wrong answer ...move goalposts.

* * *

I will also repeat my question for stephen.

In Aramaic, the word for "wicked" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? Rasheya - but the word for "blameless/innocent" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü? ("Reshyana")

Just one letter is different.

This letter is in the same place in the word.


The peshitta reads.





What part of this do you disagree with?

gregor

So I take it that you will continue to ignore the challenge.

judge

Spin made the following request.

I have provided Romans 5:7

The ball is in spins court. :-)

spin

Another judge crock. You're getting worse than the supporters of Velikovsky and von Daniken. How many of these quibbles have I already pulled apart?

Try something substantial, or give yourself a general rethink of an apparently unsupportable conjecture.


spin