rlogan

well, let me try a different approach.

There are Aramaic fragments of things about. IIRC there were some found at Qumran. Now, I believe that some of these actually date first century, but are OT texts like daniel.

So whereas we do find Aramaic bible fragments dating first century, we do not find NT fragments. Of course, we wouldn't find any of the gospel accounts because those weren't even written in the first century which is point two.

The Peshitta argument is that the apostles handed down their original writings in the vernacular of the region. But of course, that begs the question of who wrote the gospels, for example, and it wasn't anyone in the first century. (Notwithstanding the wishful thinking of late first century proponents)

The DSS don't mention Christians, Jesus, or even JBapt. We need our trusty interpolations of Josephus and what not to bring on the illusion of a line of succession from the nonexistant Jesus to the disciples to the apostles and Eastern Church.

When more substantive references to the gospels appear in the second century, it is far too late to make the argument that Aramaic is a first choice for language.

I guess the upshot of this is that the strongest argument for Aramaic relies on the veracity of the gospel to begin with. Spin has done the heavy lifting on the linguistics side of this, and that is an evidenciary issue. Questioning the gospel strikes at the central reasoning of the Peshitta argument, and is a separate line of inquiry.

judge

Hmm..well here is
Mark 3:17 in Aramaic as you can see it say ."He gave to them the name bnay raghshee."

Now bnay raghshee coulod either mean "sons of rage" or it could mean "sons of thunder". So the text then says "that is sons of thunder."

Lets suppose that you actually could read Aramaic and you knew that raghshee could mean either rage or thunder. which way would you interpret it?

If there was no explanation you might think it meant "sons of rage" rather than "sons of thunder"

judge

Spin, you need to show that first century palestinian hebrew would have had the vowel sound and you also need to show that first century Aramaic did not include the vowel sound.

spin

So, of course, it would have been more logical to call them "sons of thunder rather" than "sons of rage", which might mean "sons of thunder".

Let's face it: the text says they were called Boanerges, which is "sons of thunder". And that means the informant didn't get it right. This works in Greek, but your attempt at explaining it away in Aramaic doesn't. You don't give an epithet that people need explained in the same language. There are explanations of foreign words given in Greek Mark, suggesting that it is a normal modus operandi of the writers of that text. Suddenly now the Aramaic needs such an explanation to elucidate an obscure Aramaic epithet.


spin

spin

Actually I don't need to show anything. Have given evidence for the pronunciation of sounds at the time of the transliteration of names into Greek and noted that they have changed from second temple times to that from which you facetiously cited with B'nai B'rith, indicating that it is not useful to rely on modern Hebrew pronunciation to illustrate ancient Hebrew pronunciation.

You are arguing a substative case and fail to support on all fronts. Show me linguistically that boanerges comes from Aramaic and not Hebrew (which seems more likely to me, given amongst other things, the Greek diphthong in the first syllable). That is the task before you, as you claim a list of words are definitely Aramaic and so the Greek text must have come from Aramaic.

There is not a solid reason to believe any of them must have come from Aramaic. Yet looking at examples like denarius, evangelion, etc., we have no way of explaining these except that they either came from, or through, Greek, thus indicating a Greek source for the Peshitta.


spin

judge

Of course you do. We could say ..He was known as a really "gay chap", meaning he was happy.

judge

Alraedy dealt with that.

spin

BWA-HA-HA-HA.

You assume your list of supposed Aramaic words in the Greek nt to be correct on no evidence, when challenged on them, you respond halfbaked, when called on your halfbakeness, you turn back and now claim for your further lack of evidence that my comments were "all those incorrect linguistic claims".

BWA-HA-HA-HA.

Your job is to demonstrate your claims and show that you have the wherewithall to do so. You have done neither.

BWA-HA-HA-HA.

BWA-HA-HA-HA.

The susceptible reader can happily forget the Aramaic claim at this rate.


BWA-HA-HA-HA.


spin


BWA-HA-HA-HA.

---------------------------
Edited to note your edit

BWA-HA-HA-HA.

spin

When you contextualize it, the quibble falls apart. Who could use the term that way now?

Note though how ridiculous this Aramaic primacy stuff gets? It simply has no way of getting past these farcical levels you always take the argument to. You're now squabbling about the collocations of a word you haven't demonstrated had those collocations at the time, by talking about "gay chaps", when no-one would use the term today...


spin

judge

Are you denying you made some incorrect linguistic claims? We can revisit them if you like?
Spin, it is easy for you get be praised on here. Of course infidels
:devil1: will commend you. Even when you make the incorrect linguistic claims you make here. But seriously how would you go in the real world with the linguistic claims you made earlier in this thread. Your fellow infidels aren't going to pull you up when you make bogus claims like "Corban is a Hebrew term".
In other words boasing about how good you are on a forum that is friendly to you is no real victory at all. Don't you agree?