S.C.Carlson

No, the Queen Helena inscription dates to the 40s and had been the earliest Syriac inscription for several decades since its discovery in the 1800s until the inscriptions around Edessa had been discovered.

If Paul did write his letter from Corinth to the Romans in Syriac is more likely that he would the employ the script used to write it that was current in Jerusalem, he Paul had lived, not a local script from a place like Edessa, where he had never been.

Nevertheless, a certain combination of factors, including the period and place in which it was found, its close connections to the Bible, and the exotic language and script of the inscription for its location and time, gives me pause. I cannot avoid the sinking feeling that the Queen Helena inscription could be a fake, so let's look at the Edessene inscriptions in more detail.

I managed to find a site (in Spanish) giving the letters of the archaic Syriac inscriptions found near Edessa, including from the AD 6 inscription (link here). Though their script is clearly the precursor to Estrangelo, these inscriptions still have yet to reflect the features of the fully developed Estrangelo, including the very feature that your example from Rom 5:7 relies upon: the similarity of nun and ayin. These two letters are still distinct in the pre-Estrangelo inscriptions.

Another problem with this example is that the Syriac words have been misspelled. For some reason the yod and the ayin are transposed in the word for "wicked"!

As for the other word, a big problem is that r$ny) does not mean a "just man," it means "accusation" or "blame." To get something like "blameless," one needs a phrase, dl) r$yn "without blame" as in 1 Cor 1:8, but there's no alap at the end of the word, and the supposed translation error would not only have to mistake a letter but omit a word.

This example is incompetent and just doesn't work. For the theory of Aramaic priority to be correct, I hope it is not representative of your other examples that have not been presented (so far).

Stephen

spin

They are all foreign words to Syriac, judge. But the linguistics is easy. Speech communities use terminology which is most familiar to them. The community which used "pentecost" and "paraclete" used them because they were the most familiar to use. This is certainly not the case with the hypothesized Aramaic community which some claim wrote the original gospels. There are nice words in Aramaic for these terms. The translator didn't find them, probably because the tradition came to him with these terms well ingrained, so they were simply transliterated.

Sure, compare the ratio of Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta NT with that in other non-religious Syriac texts. This will deal with the common words.

How many would be sufficient?

I never made that claim. I said that the Syriac translator of the Greek NT didn't use Aramaic terms at times but transliterated Greek ones.

You given me no cause. You have no argument whatsoever. Now all you're doing is trying to shift the onus off yourself.

It's interesting that the community didn't have words for baskets, had to use the Greek word for "tanner", couldn't use local terms for political positions (why is Nicodemus an "archon"??), preferred Greek words for clothing, used numerous foreign coins, and bandied about Greek theological terms.

I find it amusing that you muse on my rethinking when you have no defence for your own position.


spin

S.C.Carlson

It's also interesting that the name of the script Estrangelo comes from a Greek word.

Chris Weimer

Indeed judge, the burden of proof is upon you, since you're arguing for a new theory. And the one example you cited was already demolished, so, what else have you got?

judge

OK, but that still leaves the fact that it is only the one letter difference. The argument is till there though a little weakened.

This till leaves no explanation as to why the greek version makes no sense.

The most reasonable explanation is a mistranslation.



Where exactly?

Can you explain your reading of the peshitta text then?


How do you think the peshitta reads in Romans 5:7?

]

judge

Can you be a bit more specific? And give yourself less "wriggle room". I mean lets really test your theory.

What ratio do you suggest. Be specific and give reasons.

judge

You made the original claim, it is up to you to justify it.

S.C.Carlson

But the supposed one-letter difference is between letters that looked distinct at that time. But that's a minor problem considering that both words have to be misspelled to get to that one-letter difference!

Rom 5:7 "Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die." (NRSV)

Makes sense to me. In English it is tempting to give the word "good" a primarily moral sense, but in Rom 5:7, agathos, "good," has a pragmatic sense, as in "kind," "benevolent," or "helpful." Paul is referring to the very human tendency of overlooking the moral faults of those who are on our side.

Nope.

As I said, the two letters are transposed.

Huh? The Peshitta lacks the dubious form r$ny).

Stephen

judge

Thanks for your replies. But I'm still not sure about a couple of points. So if you can indulge me a little more I would be grateful :-)


Just to make it perfectly clear. I am claiming the following.

In Aramaic, the word for "wicked" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¥Ü? Rasheya (#20309) - but the word for "blameless/innocent" is ܪܫÜ?Ü¢Ü?("Reshyana") (#20289)

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?


Where are the two letters transposed?


Yes, so how dos the peshitta of this verse read to you? How does the whole verse read ?

spin

Rubbish.

You claimed that the texts were originally written in Aramaic. I've shown you a great deal of evidence that repudiates your claim. You now conveniently forget you claimed Aramaic priority, ignore the evidence to the contrary, and are back peddling your secondhand examples of Aramaic priority based on a knowledge of a language you don't understand even the linguistics of.

Your position is extremely vulnerable, despite the fact that you've never clearly stated the details of how it works according to you.

If as you claim Aramaic priority is true, how do you explain the Greek theological terms in Aramaic? How do you explain the Semitic idiom "fall on one's face" using a Greek word for "face" transliterated into Aramaic?? These things apparently indicate that Aramaic was not the original language for the ideas.

Please explain. Stop shifting responsibility.

You need linguistics 101.


spin