spin

Honesty is not something this fellow can... judge.

A Roman audience is a specific non-Semitic audience. I have already stated that Mark was written for a Roman Greek speaking audience, but the other gospels I have not made any comment on. As one would have noticed I referred to more than just Mark. So, why bitch when I use the term "non-Semitic"? Because one have to bitch about something.

:snooze:

Non sequiturs are judge's trademark.

Sadly drt) is not quite so precise. You should have looked at the Greek, but I forgot, you can't. You'll note that I gave a standard translation of the Greek, but the Greek word aulh is either the court or the building surrounding it. The next problem with your erroneous translation is the intrusion of the past tense "was". The Peshitta actually has d)ytyh which is non-verbal used as we might use "i.e." for an explanation.

So, while judge is bleating "wrong", he's putting forward more error in order to hide from reality.

How romantic. The parallels have no such explanation. Mark is simply still playing to his Roman audience who didn't know about leptas. The Aramaic explanation is superfluous because they didn't use those coins anyway.

This just shows that you have no reason to believe that the text was ever written in Aramaic. Even the Aramaic needs translation. :rolling:

My god, judge is right! I gave the wrong reference. I was actually working from Mk 15:34.

wbt$( $(yn q() y$w( bql) rm) w)mr )yl )yl lmn) $bqtny d)ytyh )lhy )lhy lmn) $bqtny

I've put the repetition in bold so anyone can see it. Isn't it cute?

Lovely avoidance of the problem (and judge is right, it is "evening", but that is not relevant to the problem). There is no term "Friday", just "preparation" (rwbt), and there is no indication of "before evening" (this is just judge's belief that the day before the Shabbat ended with evening), just the "evening of preparation", rm$) d(rwb), but this is as meaningful writing "Friday, the day before Saturday" to someone who knows the order of days.

On Akeldama:
I wish judge would read the text before responding!

"... the field (that is called) in the tongue of the country, Akeldama [=portion of blood], ie interpreted, the field of blood." (Acts 1:19) :rolling:

If judge knew something about the subject he would attempt to represent the actual text instead of this awfully poor representation, ie look at how I transliterated the Aramaic so that one could see the actual letters. Look at them again:

t)wm) called t)m)

or to be a little more compromising for pronunciation, tauma called tama. "Thomas" means "twin". In 4Q318, an astrological text in Aramaic from Qumran, the name for Gemini was twmy) or tumia, which is seen by the editor of the text, when written fully, to be t)wmy) or taumia. And the Hebrew of Gen 38:27 talks of twins, t)wmym (-ym indicating masculine plural). But let's let judge maintain his fantasy that t)wm) doesn't mean "twin".

No, it's not a play on words. It's the equivalent of judge's "puleease" and "please".

That's because there's no word play at all, and the Greek happily hides the problem of the twin called the twin. Thomas called the twin, as it is in Greek, looks less cretinous than the Aramaic.

So Mary spoke this apparent Aramaic word in Hebrew now, right? Did she actually speak in Hebrew or was it just coincidentally this one word? And what Hebrew form is this??

One thing we know for sure: neither rabbuni or rabbi means "teacher", and an Aramaic speaker would know that. It is an honorific title given to a teacher, "master". While it is understandable that such a term could get confused in Greek, such confusion wouldn't be there in Aramaic. What we have in the Aramaic is a translation of the confusion in Greek.

I think for each case I listed, where there is an explanation given for a non-Semitic audience, Greek is the more likely source than Aramaic. I cannot imagine the Aramaic form being created as it is, except by translation.


It also should be noted that judge has totally failed to respond to the glairing problem for his hobby horse Aramaic theory indicated by nomikoi/grammateis in Luke and "the father"/"my father" in John. An Aramaic original is incapable of explaining these differences.

He remains silent over the errors he made accruing from his "analysis" of Corban and his theories about the Semitic language family. And he failed to explain how two different translators could hit on the same strange translation for byt hrwds, as "herodians", a word formed from the name of Herod with a Latin infix.


Don't forget my warning at the beginning of this post.


spin

Chris Weimer

Yes, I agree with spin. The nomikoi/grammateis dilemma for Peshitta enthusiasts are still a major problem, as well as the Thomas dilemma and, well, all the other problems an Aramaic primacy would cause that spin has appropriately dealt with. Please, judge, address these concerns.

judge

I noticed you failed to respond to this Spin.. Apologies for insinuating you may be dishonest though. I do not think you are or have any reason to think you are dishonest in any way or to resort to this. I apologise.

However I am interested in your experience with Aramaic

judge

No I don't think anyone has been either.

My original response was to Vinnie who claimed (in a linked thread) that he could show john did not write GJohn.
What is the point of showing this if John was not penned in greek?

Be aware too that the peshitta has been almost iginored by western scholars for over one hundred years. The claims for it's primacy need to be tested not rejected out of hand.

Those who earn have spent years assuming greek primacy are of course reticent ot open mindedly consider it.
Who wants to admit that they have wasted years of work and money barking up the wrong tree?

Who wants to admit that all the time and effort they have spent analysing greek texts assuming greek primacy are partly wasted?

Chris Weimer

ad homines, judge, without any refutation, are purely useless.

judge

As we know that the various greek texts were subject to all manner of change it is possible that the greek texts themselves were compared with each other and revised.
I mean we know they were changed. There is no necessity to involve the peshitta when we see changes in greek texts.

This one example cannot be much evidence for greek primacy for the simple reason this phenomenon happens on many more occaisions the other way around.
On it's own it shows little.

If you want to look at "major problems" that have not been responded to on this forum check out..

The Semitic Style of the New Testament



You seem unemotional. Can you explain precisely why the "thomas dilemma" is a "major problem"?

jbernier

How about the complete lack of evidence that there was an Aramaic text before the Greek?

btw, you've made the claim so it's your job to back it up with evidence. Until you do so, it ain't our job to prove it wrong.

jbernier

No. It needs to be demonstrated by those who would make the claim.

But I will humour you and 'test' your claim:
- There are Greek manuscripts that date as early as 125. No such manuscript evidence exists for an Aramaic text.
- Similarly, as far as I know there is no ancient witness which suggests that GofJohn was written in anything other than Greek. Do you know of any? As I recall Irenaeus (c. 200) states explicitly that it was written in Greek.

So, I will throw it back at you: What is your evidence to support your claim? You made the claim, so it's your job to substantiate it, not mine.

jbernier

That strikes me as a huge non sequiter. How would an Aramaic original render the question of Johannine authorship irrelevant? In fact, in many ways an Aramaic original could strengthen the case for Johannine authorship.

jbernier

Btw, given the number of posts presenting more evidence refuting your claim than you have given supporting it, I am not sure how you can claim that it has been "rejected out of hand." Indeed, I think that, given the amount of evidence you've presented, it has been taken far more seriously than it needed to be.