judge

I have given many examples of this sort of thing. But as a few infidels are still resisiting I will give yet another example showng how the greek versions of Mark are translated from aramaic.

The alexandrian version of mark 6:11 reads as following.

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

The Byz. Maj. and Stephens / Scrivener Textus Receptus have

osoi an mj dexwntai ('as many as will not receive')

In the Aramaic this verse contains the root mn

Lets lok at what the comprehensive aramaic lexion has to say about this root.


mn P
1 passim who?

mn P
1 passim who?
2 ImpArEg,JLAGal + %zy/dy/d% whoever

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

As we can see the aramaic could be translated either of the ways shown above.

The translator behind the Alexandrian text translated it 'whatsoever place will not receive'.

The translator behind the Byzantine maj translated this root differently,'as many as will not receive'.

Both translations are acceptable.

spin

This quibbling is mainly based on the English translation and doesn't look too closely at the Greek original text.
You'll see that the major difference between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott & Hort (Alexandrian) is that the latter has the word "topos", "place", while the word "osoi" from "osos" is a reduplicated form of "os" and underlines the separateness of the items, which is also indicated by the "an", but it is not able in itself to indicate the difference between "which", "what" or "who". This is only indicated by context. So the only functional difference is the insertion of "topos". It takes a scribe who wishes to be precise to add the word.

This seems to be clutching at straws.

But let me assure you all that the proponents of Aramaic priority have scoured the texts for such "proofs" that the Peshitta was used by the Greek text, so you can expect to see judge, having assimilated others, attempting to convince you of his conviction.


spin

judge

Let me assure you?

Quote:

so you can expect to see judge, having assimilated others, attempting to convince you of his conviction. spin

Sure why not
What we wont find is you providing any example going the other way.

Here Mark 4:30 is another example

Check out the variations in the greek texts.

Here is the aramaic word from the comprehensive aramaic lexion.mtl N mtl)
1 JLAGal,Syr,JBA parable
2 Syr tale
3 Syr proverb

mtl#2 N mtl)
1 Syr gift
mtl V
011 Palestinian,Syr,JBA to compare
012 Syr to represent symbolically
013 JBA,JLAGal,Syr to use a parable
041 Syr,JBA to be compared
021 Syr to compare
051 Syr to become like
052 Syr to be compared
053 Syr to be signified
054 Syr to be predicated
031 Syr to use a simile
032 Syr to use a proverb
033 Syr to compare
034 Syr to represent allegorically
035 Syr to tell a tale
036 Syr to demonstrate (this jives with 'set it forth' mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of this post)
037 Syr to predict
038 Syr to fabricate

spin

Because it is not you doing the work. You are just a believer who accepts the stuff and isn't capable of studying for yourself. It doesn't matter how many times that you are shown that the quibbling you support is unfounded, you will ignore the fact that you just got shown that your quibbling was in vain cough up with another.

You still haven't dealt with the phonetic evidence that important words such as "evangelion" went from Greek into Aramaic, showing that there was a tradition in Greek for such a concept before it made it into Aramaic. The evangelion existed in Greek before it made it into the Peshitta.

This is one of the good things about ancient Semitic languages: they have such a limited vocabulary that the meanings of the words get stretched to cover all sorts of concepts that the languages would otherwise lack. Our Aramaic prioritists use this lack to their favour: they stretch the meagre resources to fit.

Perhaps I should just put up the rest to save judge from copying them. This of course means that I'd have to do all the work.

Now with words whose meanings have such variety, judge could show that Aramaic was the source for stuff in English as well.

But let me wait for judge to enunciate the problem clearly and acknowledge is source, before I deal with it fully. Let me just ask him, while he attempts to explain his problem what he thinks of

to sing a song
to tell a tale
to salt with salt

and while we are here, what exactly does the Greek "parabola" mean?? Perhaps you might like to forget this one as well.


spin

spin

Oh, don't forget

to sing a ditty
to tell a story
to cover with salt


spin

spin

While waiting for judge's incisive analysis, here is one source for judge's post on Mk 4:30 for those who want to know where he might be getting it from -- there are other places, but this shows the original poster.

The original poster notes:

Bible-researcher.com chooses 'set it forth' instead of 'represent.'

yet doesn't twig to the fact that the online source shows him that his quibbling is in vain. He wants the two different Greek forms to point to the hypothetical Aramaic word's ambiguity of compare/represent. However, "represent" is only used in an English translation. The Greek verb the original poster refers to does indeed mean "set down, place, put", but he prefers the more convenient, though less literal, English translation.

The Alexandrian text scribe perhaps didn't like

to parabolize a parable

and preferred

to "set down" a parable

just as some don't like saying

to tell a tale
to sing a song

So, can judge come up with an example of his own or will he continue to rely on the erroneous scholarship of others?


spin