FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-13-2003, 01:26 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Actually, orthodox Jews do not make the Armaic contention. They say Jesus is a Greek legend to begin with. His attributes are not Jewish in origin, they're Greek.
That makes it highly unlikely that the stories about Jesus were written in Aramaic before they were Greek.
Most scholars do not support the Aramaic contingent.
I would really like to see some evidence that the gospel of Matthew was written originally in Greek. I've been looking for such evidence for years now, and so far I've found zilch.

All the arguments that I've seen to this effect have proven to be completely phoney. Some of them even looked like jokes, they were so weak...

So I guess if there's no hard evidence to this effect, then we should all agree to accept it on faith?

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 11-13-2003, 04:14 PM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

I apologize for my "mildly inflammatory remark". I thought putting the smiley face next to it showed it was in jest.

But since it was not taken that way, i apologize.
rlogan is offline  
Old 11-13-2003, 05:19 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, I say to you, rise up."

I wonder. If the gospel was first written in Aramaic, then translated in Greek, why would the alleged translator make a point to preserve some tidbit of Aramaic?
Why would "Talitha, koumi" be kept as is?
How come the alleged translator did not know "I say to you" is not included in "Talitha, koomi"?

Best regards, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 06:36 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the dark side of Mars
Posts: 1,309
Default

Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?
Radcliffe Emerson is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 07:48 AM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: portland, oregon, usa
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?
Because of the linguist on the grassy knoll.

godfry
godfry n. glad is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 09:17 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

"And he took the little girl by her hand, and said to her, Talitha, koomi, which means, Little girl, I say to you, rise up."

I wonder. If the gospel was first written in Aramaic, then translated in Greek, why would the alleged translator make a point to preserve some tidbit of Aramaic?
Why would "Talitha, koumi" be kept as is?
How come the alleged translator did not know "I say to you" is not included in "Talitha, koomi"?
Best regards, Bernard


I may have been misunderstood. I wanted to say it does not make any sense for a translator from Aramaic to Greek to keep some Aramaic words (and very regular words at that) and then mistranslate them (by adding "I say to you").
It makes a lot more sense for a Greek author to keep some Aramaic words, well remembered by himself and his audience, as spoken to them by an only Aramaic speaking eyewitness (and rendered in Greek all along by somebody else). And the later Greek gospel author, knowing little Aramaic, assumed "I say to you" was part of "Talitha, koumi".

Best regards, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 11:51 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Muller

I may have been misunderstood. I wanted to say it does not make any sense for a translator from Aramaic to Greek to keep some Aramaic words (and very regular words at that) and then mistranslate them (by adding "I say to you").
It makes a lot more sense for a Greek author to keep some Aramaic words, well remembered by himself and his audience, as spoken to them by an only Aramaic speaking eyewitness (and rendered in Greek all along by somebody else).
Hi, Bernard,

You mean like there were some eyewitnesses who actually saw this miracle, and reported on it for years to come, reporting the dialogue word-for-word? Just like the Bible says?

But I'm afraid that many people here don't really believe in such miracles...

Quote:
And the later Greek gospel author, knowing little Aramaic, assumed "I say to you" was part of "Talitha, koumi".

Best regards, Bernard
This addition of "I say to you" just seems like a later literary embellishment in Mk. Not much to build on, I'm afraid...

Regards,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 11:57 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?
I think you're wrong about this. Lots of them say that the earliest stories were first written in Aramaic. But the question now is about the original language of Matthew as a whole.

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 11:57 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Then why do almost all people who study this stuff for a living say there is no evidence the NT stories were first written in Aramaic?
If you mean most scholars then most scholars in the west ignore the peshitta.

No one in the west has ever bothered to sit down and point by point examine the peshitta and compare it with the greek manuscripts and outline why one would underlie the other.

If you ids agree with this then lets have a look at the specific arguments proposed by these people.

Just what are the arguments that people use to say that the peshitta was translated from greek.
If there really are people who study this thing for a living and who beleive that the peshitta is a translation from the greek then they must have specific reasons...right?.
Well what are they?
judge is offline  
Old 11-14-2003, 01:34 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the dark side of Mars
Posts: 1,309
Default

All I've ever seen is the Greek manuscripts are the oldest, outdating anything Aramaic by a couple of hundred years. Whether that's true, I don't know.
I do fully believe the Orthodox Jewish view however that Jesus in general is a Greek myth, not a Jewish myth.


Here's a link that says the evidence supporting the NT originally being written in Greek is overwhelming.


http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm
Radcliffe Emerson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.