spin

Pleading to ignorance to comparative linguistics is no escape from dealing with the insurmountable phonetic problems your position implies.

If you'd noticed, I had.

Doh, you don't need to explain that two lepta were a quadrans to people who didn't use Roman currency!! You don't need to explain that an aulhs would be a praetorium to an Aramaic audience.

And let me repeat, praetorium gets a Greek form in Greek, praitwrion, which in turn is transliterated into Aramaic, but it needs to be explained: the dipthong in Latin becomes "ai" which is usually read as a short vowel in Greek, while the stressed "o" in Latin becomes a long vowel, omega, in Greek, hence the transliteration into Aramaic is from the Greek, not the Latin, because the dipthong totally disappears and you get the normal relation between the omega and the waw, which is not called for from the Latin.

And what's the Greek?? Yeah, you guessed it, it's fragellion. Straight transliteration as before. Have you not thought about why there is an "r" in the Aramaic PRGL? It doesn't come from the Latin flagellare, but from the Greek fragellion.

I couldn't suggest anything of the kind. I'm working with texts.

Sorry, but this is straight non sequitur.

Yup, and see the above explanation.

If you knew a little about phonetics and comparative linguistics the obviousness of the process might start to penetrate. :banghead:

That Mark and Matt agree in the Greek with fragellion and Matt is based on Mark, one can easily see that Matt got the Greek word from the Greek Mark. It simply doesn't work in Aramaic: you can't see the same word in the Aramaic, which hides the relationship between Matt and Mark. Obviously, the Greek has priority and apparently you cannot deal with such facts. But please respond when you can.


spin

spin

It is unlikely that our friend judge will have much to say about the Latinisms which have passed via Greek into Aramaic, but maybe he might find simple Greek words which passed into Aramaic more appetising.

I did a quick search through the Aramaic of Mark to find some Greek words that have been transliterated into Aramaic in the Peshitta, showing that the words have come from Greek into the Aramaic text, demonstrating that Greek was the language from which the Aramaic text was derived.

Mk 1:1 euaggelion [gg = ng], (gospel), Aram: 'wnglywn (apostrophe = alef)

This is exceptionally interesting for we have the Greek word for gospel being transliterated into the Aramaic, though we would expect, had Aramaic been the original language for the gospel that the word for gospel at least would be Aramaic. The word literally means "good news" in Greek, "eu aggelion", from which our word evangelism comes.

Mk 6:25 pinax (board, ie platter), Aram: pynk'
Mk 6:43 kofinos (basket), Aram: qwpynyn . . . and 8:19
Mk 7:4,8 ksesths (pot, from Lat sextarius), Aram: qst'

These show that ordinary household items with Greek names were transliterated into Aramaic.

And what follows is mainly a collection of words which show a problem in the transliteration into Aramaic. Aramaic usually doesn't allow a combination of "s" plus a consonant at the beginning of the word, so it has to put a vowel before the "s" (just as Spanish, where for example Stephanus becomes Esteban, or station is estacion).

Mk 8:8 spuris (basket), spuridas (a plural form), Aram: 'sprydyn
Mk 12:38 stola (garment, robes), Aram: 's+l' . . . and 16:5 ("+" is the Aramaic letter TET)
Mk 15:7 stasis (insurrection, sedition), Aram: 's+syn
Mk 15:16 stratiwths (soldier), straiwtai (a plural), Aram: 's+r+yw+'
Mk 15:27 lhsths (thief), Aram: ls+y'
Mk 15:36 spoggos (spunge), Aram: 'spwg'
Mk 15:43 bouleuths (counsellor), Aram: bwlw+'
Mk 16:1 arwma (spice), Aram: hrwm'

So, like Latins words which passed from Greek into Aramaic, we also find numerous Greek words appearing in the Aramaic as well, showing once again that the Aramaic is dependent on the Greek.


spin

judge

Spin lets recap what happened here.

You went to matt 27 and saw the aramaic word pragela.
Now rather than run a simple check on this word you fabricated a falsehood. You claimed that this aramaic word pragela was a transliteration of a greek word in the aramaic version of matthew.

So next I pointed aout that this word was not a transliteration at all but actually an aramaic word.

Next rathert than admit you made a simple error you then claimed that this word must have entered the aramaic language from latin via greek.

Since you arrived at this conclusion in a mater of hours I asked you what other considerations you took into account?

I notice you ignored my example re the word tunic.
Let me ask you. Is Tunic a latin word?

In other words how do you really know that allthe words you mention went from latin to greek to aramaic?

All you are doing is assering that it is obvious. But you haven't really studied the issue in any depth. You are merely making superficial assertions to cover up your original invention (that pragela was transliterated in the peshitta version of matthew):boohoo:

spin

Yes, let's recap what's happened here.

You have found that the Latin word flagellare has been transliterated into Greek on a number of occasions, featuring a phonemic change of the "l" in the Latin to an "r" in Greek. On a few of those occasions it has also been found transliterated into the Aramaic of the Peshitta, featuring the Greek "r", showing the trajectory of the borrowing from Latin into Greek into Aramaic. You then you want to claim -- because the word has been translated a few times into Aramaic and against all logic -- that it must be of Aramaic origin. Well, that's all very noble of you for your cause, but you are just plain ignorant of linguistic processes and what's more you then take this as an opportunity to ignore all the other evidence of linguistic movement from Latin to Greek and from Greek to Aramaic. This is called burying your head in the sand.

But just to help you put yourself out of your misery, why don't you look at Morris Jastrow's "Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi...", which will tell you on p.1214 that PRGWL in Hebrew, meaning whip, scourge, is an "adaption from flagellum, fragellion". Next, of course, you will assert, on just as many grounds as before, that the Aramaic here is different from the Hebrew and that it invented the word which went to Latin then to Greek then to Hebrew. I guess anything is possible when you are in a state of denial.

As you clearly know nothing about linguistics, it would be had for me to clarify the matter for you.

As I said, it was a non sequitur. Numerous words have entered Latin from other languages. "Flagellum" was not one of them.

Comparative linguistics. You observe how linguistic items change across the linguistic barrier from one language to another. You cannot look at single items and hope to be able to say anything. You note that while Latin can have an initial "fl-" it's very difficult for Greek to have this and substitutes "fr-". It is also very difficult for Aramaic to have an initial "fl-" or "fr-", so it inserts a vowel between the two consonants. I also showed you that the initial cluster of "st-" and "sp-" are too difficult for Aramaic to handle as well so it inserts a vowel at the beginning to support the "s".

Actually, no, but comparative linguistics will require a few years of study for you with the prerequisites of phonetics and a general grammar course.



How ironic.

Now would you like to claim that evangelion was borrowed into Greek from Aramaic? It seems to be endemic that you deal with all my examples by ignoring them.


spin

spin

Incidentally, I think that there is enough evidence just in Mark to show that the Peshitta priority claim has been falsified. There are just too many words going from the Greek into the Aramaic to justify a translation in the other direction.


spin

judge

OK lets assume you are right here and the word started in Latin and found it's way into aramaic.
This still does not help your original argument..
The word is still an aramaic word albeit a loan word.

In other words the writer of matthew simply used the aramaic word for whip. SO WHAT!!.

Your original invention was the the writer of Matthew transliterated a greek word but he did not he merely used the Aramaic word for whip, which may or may not have originally been a latin word.

Quote:

Now would you like to claim that evangelion was borrowed into Greek from Aramaic? It seems to be endemic that you deal with all my examples by ignoring them. spin

Not at all. Al cultures borrow words from other cultures .

Here are some examples of aramaic words remaining in the gospels.


Lebonthah (frankincense, Matthew 2:11)
Mammona (Luke 16:9)
Wai (Woe! Matthew 23:13)
Rabbi (Matthew 23:7,
Beelzebub (Luke 11:15)
Qorban (Mark 7:11)
Satana (Luke 10:1
cammuna (cummin, Matt 23:23)
raca (a term of contempt Matthew 5:22)
korin (a dry measure, between 10-12 bushels, Luke 16:7)
zezneh (tares, Matthew 13:25)
Boanerges (Mark 3:17)


You see this kind of thing works both ways.



Can you find something likethis going from greek to Aramaic?

If not , why not?

spin

Yes, let's look at your examples.

You are wrong that this word came from Aramaic. It entered Greek (with the form "libanon") from Phoenician, just as the word "smurna" to describe another unguent entered into Greek from a place name (Smyrna) where it came from as well. This later was also borrowed from Greek into Aramaic, as mwr' -- noting the loss of the initial "s". These cannot help you for direction of translation.

What's lost here is that we are dealing with the name of a deity of wealth and you don't normally translate names.

Do you think that Aramaic was the only language that used such interjections? They don't normally get written in formal prose, but you will find it used in Epictetus. Perhaps he borrowed it from the Aramaic.

What do you expect? Look at the context. "Rabbi" was used throughout the diaspora.

This is a name.

This has a transparent Greek explanation in the text to clarify its use.

This is a name.

The question I would find interesting is whether it was Greek or Phoenician traders who supplied it to the Aramaic speakers. This again is another word which entered Greek from Phoenician long before.

Again this is purporting to be the exact word said, as in the case of "rabbi".

"Cor" is of Hebrew origin.

Hey, you got me on one.

This yet again is taken a name as can be seen in the phrase "onomata boanerges".

Hardly. You've had to go to a list you've found from all over the gospels and turned up mainly names and words which did not originate in Aramaic.



You'll note that I've already shown you were in error. But of course you'll run and get another of these set pieces that you find on the Peshitta priority sites.


spin

Ted Hoffman

I know nothing about this subject so its an opportunity for me to learn.

Vork has stated that almost all scholars (from 200 years ago?) argue that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written in Greek. Vork believes that the said scholars have sound methodologies for reaching this judgement. Therefore the Gospels and Paul's letters must have been written in Greek.

Toto has stated that based on the observation that "wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX", therefore the NT was written originally in Greek.

There was the argument that Paul's letters could not have been written in Aramaic because he was writing for a Roman Audience. Spin argued that due to the presence of latinisms and Greek words, the documents must have been written for a Latin audience that read Greek (Romans) and he adds that finding words like "praetorium" "... in the Aramaic simply makes no sense, for it doesn't help an Aramaic speaking audience."
Thus, spin has argued, Aramaic versions of verses like Mt 27:26 are dependent on the Greek, not one another.

Spin also argued that " like Latins words which passed from Greek into Aramaic, we also find numerous Greek words appearing in the Aramaic as well, showing once again that the Aramaic is dependent on the Greek."

Now, judge has countered each of these arguments. Whether his counterarguments falsify the arguments is another question altogether. I have personally always believed that the NT was largely written in Greek, but if one wants to argue otherwise, I want to see the arguments.

Its possible that spin may have erred with regards to pragela. I really don't know and I don't care. What we want to see is a point to point list of arguments for Greek writing and the counterarguments against them. Then arguments for the idea that the NT was originally written in Aramaic.

Judge seems to be ready to debate. Doctor X are you ready to pick the gauntlet or not? Spin, are you ready to enter a formal debate with judge or not.

If you can't debate judge, then judge, what I ask is you condense all the arguments that have been made for Greek writing, then rebut them, then provide arguments for Aramaic writing. When you do this, very thoroughly, you can always copy and paste the counterarguments and arguments for anyone parotting the Greek writing argument. And your work would be a valuable resource.

This would be very refreshing.

spin

You haven't quite conveyed the idea here. "Praetorium" is an explanation of the Greek word "aulhs" for the reading audience, ie clarifying the Greek term with a Latin one, as one might expect for a Latin cultured Greek speaking audience. One doesn't need a reference to a Latin term to clarify in Aramaic. (One does however find that Aramaic terms need clarification in the Greek, so the hypothetical Greek translator has not only translated the Aramaic, but kept some of the Aramaic in order to give a Greek explanation.)

One needs to understand the lingustics to appreciate the power of the arguments involved. These are partly to do with necessary sound changes because the target language doesn't use the same sounds as the source language. Imagine an Italian borrowing the word "third"; the "th" isn't used in Italian so the speaker substitutes a "t" with amusing consequences.

I'd love to see some arguments as well.

I guess anything is possible.

If judge would show even a little linguistic nous, rather than relying on cutting and pasting of internet pages.

How many people do you see rushing to support the notion of Aramaic primacy here? I've only seen judge who answers problems by ignoring them and responds to refutations simply by providing another to be refuted. It won't matter how many one refutes.

If you are really interested in Aramaic primacy you might check out this site. Now there you have people who are committed to finding such evidence in spite of reality. Don't expect me to waste too much more time on their errors.


spin

judge

Hi Jacob there have been a few threads here in the past on the subject. Here is one. There is another one on whether Romans was written in Aramaic one on Mark 9:49 as a mistranslation , check out the links in the recent discussions some of them link to previous threads.

Quote:

Vork has stated that almost all scholars (from 200 years ago?) argue that the Gospels and Paul's letters were written in Greek. Vork believes that the said scholars have sound methodologies for reaching this judgement. Therefore the Gospels and Paul's letters must have been written in Greek.

Not really following the disovery of the Cureton pampliset the idea that the peshitta was a revision of this was raised. But it was a scholar by the name of Burkitt who tried to make the case that the peshitta was a translation by Rabulla.
This was later refuted by Arthur Voorbus.
I may do a thread on all this stuff sometime. But for now I will point out the interesting fact that although this is a forum dedicated to textual criticism with some very knowledgeable posters none of them seem to understand exactly where the peshitta should fit in.
Dr X for example suggests that arguments against it were made but he does not know what they are (apparently).
No body seems to it is just assumed to be a later work.
The Aramaic speaking Christians have always held that their version (the peshitta) is the original. Western scholars ignore this and pretend it was written in greek and then refuse to provide evidence.

Quote:

Toto has stated that based on the observation that "wherever there is a conflict between the LXX and the hebrew text, the quotations in the NT almost always follow the LXX", therefore the NT was written originally in Greek.

But I do not believe this is the case check out this

Quote:

If you can't debate judge, then judge, what I ask is you condense all the arguments that have been made for Greek writing, then rebut them, then provide arguments for Aramaic writing. When you do this, very thoroughly, you can always copy and paste the counterarguments and arguments for anyone parotting the Greek writing argument. And your work would be a valuable resource. This would be very refreshing.

I might try to do a thread sometime on the history pf the peshitta from the perspective of western scholars. This may give a good overview. additionally I want to responmd to Richard Carriers article ont the Infidels website.

But as usual time is hard to find (except to snipe) In fact i'm running late as usual...just running out the door now.:notworthy