Doctor X

I keep forgetting that Gk literature lacks any concept of metaphor.

Lectio difficilior lectio potior remains one of the standards of textual criticism.

--J.D.

spin

Umm, both salt and fire are purifying agents. If you can salt with salt (see both Greek and Syriac), then naturally you can salt with fire.

Umm, this is what I said:

This is the late form of the verse, as also found in the Peshitta:

For every thing will be salted with fire; and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.


spin

Vorkosigan

>spank< !!!!

judge

So lets see.
1. The Aramaic could read either everything will be destroyed with fire. which makes perfect sense.
Or it could read everything will be salted with fire which makes no sense and has never been heard of before or since

2. You think that we should go with this 'metaphor" even though there is no evidence of anyone at any time in all of history ever using this saying..."salted with fire".

Unless of course you know of any instance ever in all of recorded history where any one at all uses this "metaphor"

Do you?

Doctor X

I hear the bottom of a barrel being scrap'd.

--J.D.

spin

Can you show me before or including the time of writing the gospels examples of TTMLX being used to mean what you would prefer it to mean?


spin

judge

The same root is used in Isaiah 51.6, "Lift up your eyes to the sky, Then look to the earth beneath; For the sky will vanish wxlmn like smoke, And the earth will wear out like a garment And its inhabitants will die in like manner; But My salvation will be forever, And My righteousness will not wane."

This not the only time translators have had problems with this root. As you have an interest in Latin Mark you may like to compare Bobiensis in this area.

There are a couple of odd things you will notice. I have it somewhere at work if you don't have access, but I suspect you may. If not I will provide it tomorrow.

Added in edit...Bobiensis Mark 9:49, Omnia autem substantia consumitur (all things of means will be destroyed).

This is followed by have bread in yoursevles instead of have salt in yourselves IIRC.

Salt xlm seems to have been mistaken for bread mxl.

Easy to explain if the Aramaic was first!

added even later.
Also check out Acts 1:4. The peshitta reads "he ate bread" whilst the greek translations again seem to have gotten mxl (bread) confused with xlm salt.
The alexandrian text has “kai sunalizomenus� . With a long "a" this meant in classical greek to collect or assemble together, whilst with a short "a" it meant to eat salt together.

These oddities seem explanable if the greek was translated from Aramaic but not the other way around (to me at least)

:notworthy

spin

The Hebrew definitely has NMLXW, but I asked you for a documented example in Syriac/Aramaic which predates the gospels.

I don't have my BDB with me, but it seems that this is the only time a word based on MLX in the Hebrew bible isn't somehow obviously related to salt.

I would need to see what Codex Bobbiensis has and what is known about the text. While netting, I notice that it is from 4th-5th century and seems to have come from Nth Africa. It shows the short ending to Mark, suggesting a later tradition than Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. Cyprian, who knew no Greek, used something similar. (You will forgive me if I'm not up with all manuscripts, this is definitely not my area of study.)

But note the word "consumitur", as in what happens to sacrifices through fire.

This may even be so, given that we don't know the heritage of Codex Bobbiensis, which doesn't reflect the western texts normally seen behind the Old Latin versions. Ahh, but so what?

All you've done here is to show that the Peshitta here is based on a corrupted knowledge of the underlying Greek.

Now I'm through at the moment with your set Peshitta priority proof texts. It's time that you faced the problems posed to you, rather than changing the subject again.


spin

judge

The only arguments I have seen from you are the presence of latin words translated or transliterated. Big deal.
Can you explain why the trajectory must be from latin to greek to aramaic. All you have really done is claim this must the case.
The other argument was that you did not undersdtand why some words of jesus were retained in Aramaic!
Well we are talking about religious folk, who thought He was the son of god. They revered His words. Why is it surprising they kept His words in Aramaic?

And I will however continue to provide more examples of the Aramaic underlying the greek. There are many more.
Mark 6:11 clear evidence the greek was translated from the Aramaic.




The Byz. Maj. and Stephens / Scrivener Textus Receptus have osoi an mj dexwntai ('as many as will not receive')
The Alexandrian text reads as follows:

ov an topov mj dexjtai ('whatsoever place will not receive')

The Aramaic root here can mean either of these phrases!!

mn p
0 passim from
1 passim : direction: place
2 passim : direction: person
3 passim : origin : place
4 passim : origin : person
5 passim : origin : material
6 passim : origin : time
7 passim : agent
8 passim : cause
9 passim : comparative
10 passim : other verbal complements
11 passim : partitive
12 Syr : distributive
13 Palestinian : multiplicative
14 Syr : on the side of
15 Syr : reflexive


Any greek translator would not know whether a place or person was meant!!

One translation went with the place and one went with the person.

All this stuff has never been examined by western scholars who just agree with western protestantism that the greek underlies the peshitta because that is what we have been taught.

Why be so quick to dismiss it when it has never been examined by western scholars?

There are many more examples. Mark 4:30 is another. Check out the variation in the greek texts and we again find that we have an underlying aramaic word which can mean either of the greek variants!

My computer appesrs to have gone into go slow mode so I cannot access the link but if you are interested the CAL (comprehensive Aramaic lexion) database will be a good tool for this stuff. It will be easily found

spin

Ignorance of phonology is no escape from the problems

I already have.

Actually, no. This is a pseudo-argument for Jesus having spoken Aramaic, which has stimulated numerous people to construct ideas why that must necessarily have been so.

If we were to believe you, we had tons of his words in Aramaic, but those who, according to you, translated the into Greek only chose a few trivial phrases.

Thanks but I can download them myself.


spin