Hello again John! :-)
Originally posted by judge:
Hi John, just what exactly do you find so conclusive about the "christian seperatist" analysis.
Do you think perhaps it would be better to get the views of someone who understood aramaic rather than the "christian seperatists"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:
Having some religious tolerance issues there judge? That post sure smells like distaste.
Judge:
No John, my point is that the author of the article does not know what he is talking about, as I will demonstrate further down. :-).
I did go to that site some time ago and some of his other stuff is probably to the point (not his white supremacist rubbish though)
John:
But seriously, folks, that would be a ad hominem directed toward the author of the article. Granted, the man appears to be a white-supremist type, but the article looks to be a competent account. It tracks pretty well with what I've found elsewhere. That's right. I didn't stop looking when I found Mr. Herrel's site. His is a nicely written article though. I have in fact been looking into this for a week or so, off and on, because of this very thread. What I've found is that there is a lot going for the Greek-originals hypothesis and not much going for the aramaic-originals hypothesis.
Judge:
Hmm..perhaps you woulfd be able to give ONE piece of evidence for a greek original then?
Judge:
1)The Peshitta is written is Syriac. Syriac is not the Aramaic of the 1st century. Syriac didn't pop up until the third or fourth century.
Judge:
Are you sure you want to stand behind this statement John?
Inscriptions dating to the year 6A.D have been found using the estrangelo script (which the Peshitta is written in). Syriac is a form of Aramaic!!
This is the language of the assyrian empire.
Listen to what Schollar william Cureton had to say..
""Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place."
there is probably a lot of conflicting stuff on the web about this :-) so I would urge you to continue looking.
The following may be agood site.
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html
John:
2)The Peshitta wasn't produced until 400 something. It can't therefore be the original.
Judge:
This is merely the opinion of some western schollars. But the peshitta is used in the liturgy of the COE which is the liturgy in the world.
Here is the COE's version of the histopry of the peshitta.
""With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."
Mar Eshai Shimun
by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East
John:
3)A major language of the area at the time of Christ was Greek, and had been for some 300 years. (Christ apparently spoke aramaic, but then we are talking about the original language of the NT, not the language Christ spoke.)
http://answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/queball23/Jesusspoke.html
"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions is that most of them are IN GREEK -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately TWO-THIRDS of these inscriptions are in GREEK.
"APPARENTLY FOR A GREAT PART OF THE JEWISH POPULATION THE DAILY LANGUAGE WAS GREEK, EVEN IN PALESTINE. This is impressive testimony to the impact of Hellenistic culture on Jews in their mother country, to say nothing of the Diaspora.
"In Jerusalem itself about 40 PERCENT of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) ARE IN GREEK. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them" ("Jewish Funerary Inscriptions -- Most Are in Greek," Pieter W. Van Der Horst, BAR, Sept.-Oct.1992, p.48).
Judge:
This is just plain wrong. Lets here what a first century jew (Josephus) had to say...."this it was that I promised to do in the beginning of this history. And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains."
Antiquities, 20.11.2:
John:
4)The NT quotes the Greek septuagint, thus establishing that the authors read Greek.
Judge:
The NT DOES NOT quote the LXX! It merely agrees wjth the LXX over the massoretic text the majority of times.
One proof of this is Ephesians 4;8 where the quotation agrees neither with the LXX or the massoretic BUT does agree with an Aramaic targum.
John:
5) Mark 5:41 quotes Jesus speaking in aramaic and TRANSLATES those words into GREEK. This makes no sense if the text was written in aramaic. Why translate the aramaic to greek if your readers are already reading aramaic? -- my fav
Judge:
This appears in the greek because the greek is a translation!!!
It does not occur in the Aramaic (why would it?)
All the best..........judge
™ Version 4.2
Just curious 