judge

In this thread Dr X made the following claim.

"The various Syriac versions are well-known, as well as their variants, and are used in textual criticism. It is a myth perpetuated that the texts(Nt Texts that is) were written in Aramaic. It was the assumption over a century ago, that evidence overturned."

I challenge DR X to a debate where he will argue in favor of the evidence he mentions here. He must specifically explain the exact nature of this evidence and why it means the NT was not penned in Aramaic, with specific reference to the peshitta .

I will respond and counter his case. (if he is game to provide one)

judge

Delete..for some reason this recalcitrant post would not be deleted.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hi judge,

You may want to ask the BC&H mods to move this thread to FD(CS) (assuming you want a formal debate on the issue).

Jason

gregor

I think Dr. X's point has been (for some time now) that YOU are asserting Aramaic primacy. He has asked YOU to present arguments in the affirmative.

That seems like the better debate

judge

Hmmm..lets have a look at one occaision when DR X actually did respond , it can be found on
this thread .

I argued that Pauls letter to the Romans contained a translating error.

Dr X responded by suggesting that because the greek version of Romans contained a greek word the original must have been in greek!!

Can you believe it? Are you impressed by this?
Here is the post



Whilst wondering about a book on child sacrifice--with the screaming brats in the café about me wishing to "bring back that ol' time religion!"--I stumbl'd upon this:


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term for "propitiation" (hilastêrion) in v 22 [4 Macc 17:20-22; "a profound work of Jewish philosophy in narrative form, of uncertain provenance and a likely date of composition between 18 and 55 C.E."--Ed.], for example is the word that the Septuagint uses for the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrew, kappõret), on which the high priest sprinkles the blood of the bull as a sin of offering (Lev 16:14). It is worthy of note that it is also the term Paul was to use when he wrote that "God set [Jesus] forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood" (Rom 3:25).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny that Paul should use a Greek term rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic.

FYI

Doctor X

On the many, many replies I have given, I have encourage the individual to defend his claim with a formal statement.

I even offered to help him have his paper reviewed.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

He has, apparently, forgotten that little matter about metaphor. How convenient.

--J.D.

He does not sell his secrets cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time.

[Edited for the codes . . . the codes.--Ed.]

Vorkosigan

Judge, this debate was settled 200 years ago. It would be great if you wanted to publish a rebuttal of the last couple of centuries of biblical scholarship. You could really make a name for yourself and do something very exciting. But until you do, the best evidence and methodology demonstrates that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written originally in Greek, and it is unlikely that you will be able to demonstrate otherwise (why would Paul have written a letter in Aramaic to the Romans????).

If you wish to seriously outline your case here, go ahead. There are many who might give you helpful suggestions.

Vorkosigan

judge

It's very funny. Everyone knows that the deabte was settled You say 200 years ago. DR X says over a centry ago. But neither of you know any details of this debate.
Or at least are unwilling to present any arguments of this debate.

I'm calling your bluff .

Lets hear the specific details of the arguments used 200 years ago against the peshitta.
If you beleive but you don't know why you believe it then isn't that "blind faith".
If you do know why you beleive it then what are you afraid of. Lets have a look at the specific reason you believe it. Is that too much to ask?

All the best

Vorkosigan

Sure don't. Don't care either. Every single book I have, conservative, liberal, atheist, Christian, says the same thing: the docs were written in Greek. Since scholars possess sound methodologies for determining this, I see no reason that they are not right...


...whereas I suspect you are arguing from religious faith, and thus, arguing with you would be both unenlightening and unprofitable.

So, again, publish your earthshattering theory somewhere.

Vorkosigan

Toto

judge - a common argument for the gospels being written in Greek is that "as in Isaiah 7:14, wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX." [LXX = the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures in common use among diaspora Jews who spoke Greek] See
here