judge

Hi Yuri

No I did not forget I lost interest when you failed to provide anyhting specific enough (for me anyway).

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is not the original.

judge

Dr X:

Methinks you should not presume to know the motivations of others.

Nevertheless, in a word, γαρ




Judge:


Dr X...lets have a close look at what you are saying here.
Lets stop beating around the bush.

Are you willing to have your claim put to scrutiny or not?

Posting one word does not help. what exactly are you saying???


Dr X:

......The first is sort of an argument from a vacuum, akin to a "doubtless evidence will one day demonstrate Star Fleet Command's involvement in the Kennedy Assassination." On the contrary to the second, people do use the Syriac in textual criticism and people do study the text.


Judge:
I am not talking about "the syriac"
I am talking about the peshitta. Two entirely different propositions.

My claim is this.
No one has put forward any peer reviewed literature explainig why the peshitta is a transaltion.

If you think there are arguments why the peshitta is a transaltion then lets look at them

Doctor X

I recall a story from Martin Gardner concerning a friend of his who was an editor for a major science publication. He received all sorts of mail and had an "Oh Dear!" file. He realized that if he engaged in one, he would never have an end of the correspondence. Methinks a survey of the Creationist arguments against evolution rather approximates the problem.

Instead, according to Gardner, the editor would refer letter writers to one another. In respond to a "Flat-Earther" he wrote, "I have a gentleman who is excited by your theories," and refered his letter to another who claimed "The World is Hollow and We Live on the Inside."

He would then let them have it out somewhere "out there."

Indeed. A wise man proved this editor.

Now, someone who understands the problem sufficiently to comment, particularly render conclusions, would be able to address the use of γαρ in Greek, particularly Mk's use of it. He would wonder why a translator from Aramaic would find the need to include this word--particularly to the extent it is used almost to the point of combersome.

One would, of course, respond to the particular observation I have made concerning the process of translation.

Furthermore, one would certainly notice the Mathean and Lukan corrections of Mk's Greek--particularly from a grammatical standpoint as well as a theological standpoint--and be able to explain why they would have happened in another language first, and then been preserved in translation!

One time I did encounter a person who claimed the NT was written in "Caldean." I did not maintain a correspondence--he left my table quite aggitated when he could not reconcile some problems with birthdates--so I cannot engage him in this discussion and quitely move on to more fruitful areas of research . . . like child sacrifice.

Nevertheless, I have provided a very tried and true method to "put the money where the mouth is." I have invited those who have an "extraordinary claim" to give "extraordinary evidence" and submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

For some reason, this has not been done. What I have received, in contrary, is the mistaken rational that NASA has to prove we landed on the Moon.

Well, I remain selfishly happy with my conviction that we did land on the Moon, and my current areas of interest do not suffer from the realization that the Greek texts were written in Greek. While I have stumbl'd upon literature supporting a few "flat-Earth" and "Greenpeace Killed Kennedy" theories in NT studies, I must confess I have yet to find any credible evidence to support the belief that texts were written in a different language and then translated with various idioms added . . . ala the myth of the LXX formation in that all 400-odd scribes magically created the same exact Greek . . . despite evidence to the contrary!

Is "absence of evidence evidence of absence?" That is not really the problem. Rather, you have the evidence for one thing and claims for the other. I have merely demonstrated where the burden of proof lies.

--J.D.

RED DAVE

Thanx Yuri:

My restless brain would, of course, like to see a prototype of this geneology is some Essene text or other, but, for the nonce, your explanation seems very reasonable.

RED DAVE

judge

Are you afraid to examine a specific instance?

Lets look closely at a specific instance

Come on in the water's fine

All you have to do is give us an example of a specific instance of mark using this word and we can subject your claim to scrutiny.

All the best..judge

Amos

Hello Koyaanisqatsi, you do not have to do anything I say nor do you have to believe anything I write. I suggested that it helps to see the Gospels as different perspectives of the same event and that the differences are there to help us understand the causal relationship that are in effect during the renewal of the human mind. Matthew was the Jewish perspective and really is the effective cause of the story. Luke tells us what it looked like from the inside and Mark just tells us what it looked like from the outside. John is added to run away with the spoils that were needed to start a new religion and this was done in effort to further the kingdom of God in a faster and better way.

It is silly to think that God created the universe because the universe has no existence of being to start with. The truth is that God creates man and man creates God but that a mythology is needed to procreate man and recreate God in such a way that both man and God can enjoy heaven on earth.


I once thought that they had held a Gospel writing compettition in those days but now I think that the Gospels were written by one person (or group of mythmakers) and that all the descrepancies were placed there to befuddle the many followers that would search for the truth unto the ends of the world.

Joseph was the Jew to whom the story happened. Jesus was the reborn Joseph now seeking to purge himself from the old human/Jewish identity (the gospels take place in what we call Purgatory) and it is not until he gets his ego nailed to the cross that his true Man identity is set free (here under the name of Bar-abbas), and I think the final message of the Gospels is that we must do the same ([as I am] you must "follow me, Jn21:19)."



I'll stop here because I must go again.

Doctor X

One "afraid" to address the information given previously or provide evidence for his claim should not presume to know the motivations of others.

For the rest, I refer to the answer I gave previously.

Oh yes, Amos, you have no textual support for:

--J.D.

Amos

So what do you think "born again" means?

Do you not see that the Gospels are a description of his rebirth and show us how Jesus worked out his own salvation?

Hint: Ask yourself why he was never addresses as Jesus in the four gospels until after the Resurrection and here only as Christ (Mark 16, Freer Logion)

Doctor X

Most ironic since Jn 3:3 does not actually say "born again."

Hard to see something that does not exist. Mk certainly does not speak of "rebirth," nor does, frankly, Jn. In Jn, Junior does control events more than in the Synoptics, but that is a different issue.

On the contrary, in Lk 1:26-38 Gabe instructs Mary to name him "Jesus." He is identified as "Jesus" immediately in Mk.

Why concentration on what the texts actually say proves helpful.

--J.D.

References Used by Source:

Kent Aland, et al., Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, corrected, Institute for New Testament Textual Research, United Bible Societies, Munster, Westphalia, 1966.

Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammer, Harvard University Press, 1984, ¶342.

judge

Dr X lets examine your claim. Lets have a look at the greek here. You can choose your own instance and then we will look at the aramaic.

waddya say?