judge

I do not beleive the the original aramaic is lost.
The funny thing is if we ask the average western scholar we are told that greek is the original language of the NT.
However if we ask someone from the assyrian church of the east, whose services are still conducted in aramaic we are told that the eastern peshitta nt is word for word the same as came to them 'from the blessed apostles".

Now obviously at least one of these views is wrong.

I think the best solution is to get specific and examine the details of both claims.
I would be interested to hear any specific arguments detailing any evidence at all of a greek original. There just doesn't seem to be any at all.

There seems to be much evidence indicating that the eastern peshitta is in fact the text underlying the greek translations.

This idea has NOT been examined by western scholars, wjhich seems quite unbelievable really.

www.peshitta.org is one site that examines these claims.

offa

Then he would not be born during the Census:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

Offa

That's my point, he was twelve years old (thirteen) when the census occurred. Acolytes were counted, not infants. Begat does not mean born, it means indoctrinated. You are a Jewish nobody until your bar miz and that occurs at 12/13 years of age.
Then you are "begat", you become a person. Mommy has to release her infant (11/12 years old) out into the cruel world and that infant becomes a Child (children of GOD).

Javaman

I, too, think you're mistaken here. Here are the two passages in question:

Luke 2
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
3 And everyone went to his own town to register.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,

Matthew 2
1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem
2 and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

As A.N. Wilson puts it:
Not to keep bringing this book up but I am reading it right now and I had just read this passage...

Perhaps there's something I'm not understanding, though. Where are the 'begats' of which you write? Please clarify.

Doctor X

Birth Narratives:

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

Hands Javaman a dram of Belmenach. . . .

I Prefer the Bible in His Own Language [Insert language here.--Ed.]:

Regarding the whole Aramaic issue, methinks this paragraph reveals the motivations:

Mind stepping over the strawmen . . . both western, eastern, northern, and, I am told, some who spend too much time on the Grenich Meridean, accept the Greek.

On the otherside . . . those with a religous axe to grind.

Now, one can imagine some evil conspiracy of pro-Greek Christian scholars . . . but to what purpose? Jewish NT scholars have recognized the text were Greek.

Anyways, everyone has a "pet theory"--for Judge it is Aramaic primacy, for Yuri it is Secret Mark is not a forgery--you will find Mythicists, and all sorts of opinions on "who" really started Christianity--Paul? Some historical Junior? You even have a few insisting errancy . . . though I think they have been hiding behind the rocks.

With me you will have to accept the manifest evil that is country western music.

At some point, one has to defend the "pet theory." Not to beat up on Yuri, but he has web pages . . . some agree with him . . . some do not. Nevertheless, you can look at his argument. With Aramaic primacy, I have suggested that proponents submit there evidence for publication in the peer review literature since, frankly, I have not found the arguments here at all convincing, particularly in face of the evidence of Greek composition.

With me . . . just listen to the stuff!

--J.D.

Javaman

Javaman intends to, one day, save enough pennies to try a Chateau Petrus but doens't know of this 'Belmenach'. Perhaps you meant 'Balmenach'?

Edited to add...
I didn't mean to say earlier that I didn't know where there were a bunch of 'begats'... they are obviously later in the afformentioned passages but, if you translate begat as 'indocrtrinated', they certainly make much less sense and I can't see that being what offa wanted us to look at. I could be wrong... 34 years as an atheist and I have just started reading the bible over the last two years.

judge

Hi again DR X.

Can you elaborate?
What exactly is the evidence of greek composition?

Doctor X

Javaman:

In that case . . . try this Blair Athol. . . .

Judge:

"I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I have given previously."

This issue has been raised on this board a number of times. You have made your views known, and I have not found them persuassive. Your comments on seasoning actually argues for the Aramaic correcting a metaphor, for example.

I suppose I could post an entire chapter from an introductory text NT . . . just as if one asks "what evidence is their for Mt and Lk using Mk as a source." However, since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," I had invited you then, and do now, to write up and submit your theories to peer review.

Since I dislike it when individuals try to make arguments for me, forgive my practice of it right now. If you respond with the protest that the "peer review" represents a closed-minded scholarship that "will not consider" such earth-shattering claims, I will consider your rejection letter proof enough of your sincerity and academic honesty.

More likely, methinks, you will receive a detailed rebuttal from the reviewers. This you can post as well . . . along with your rebuttal if you wish.

Or . . . perchance . . . it may get accepted. Everyone "wins" in that case.

--J.D.

Javaman

Judge, I'm no scholar but I've read through some of the HRV page and, admittedly, some of it makes sense. I honestly don't know enough to see where you're going with this other than you seem to want a better translation out there. Is that all you're after? The books written by Paul would still be translated from the Greek, right? And RUmike asked you a question earlier that I'd like to see an answer to.
This, to me, is a very valid point which, if you're right, then casts doubt on the veracity of any bible.

Doc, I'm no whisky scholar either but word on the street is that the Evan Williams Single Barrel is worth a try and the release of the 1994 is highly anticipated. Maybe I'll get some.

offa

offa,

Alas, I am stricken by you apologetics. I suppose, just somewhere people will read what I write. I have been on this board longer than most. I admit to "lack of knowledge", and I get huffed (pissed off), but I would like one of you findie dare-devils to take ME on!
I wonder, are you a part of the Chritian Coalition trying to divert a subject you do not understand? A bunch of Toto's?

Javaman

Offa, I'm sorry but I don't follow you there.