|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two different fields. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Judge, if I remember correctly, is quite convinced that the NT was originally written in aramaic and that the aramaic is consistent where the greek and english texts are not. Initially I was quite interested and researched the issue. The case for an aramaic original is barely tenable, but that is about it. The overwhelming evidence is for a greek original, as most scholars concur. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Unable? I didn't try to provide evidence, not here. We've been through this before when you first brought the aramaic original idea to my attention. I don't know what thread that was though. I assumed that you would remember that discussion, but I guess not. The only other option is that you thought you'd take a cheap shot at my integrity. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 1) "I am the alpha and the omega." This is the first and the last letters of the greek alphabet. If it were hebrew, the phrase would have been aleph and tau. In aramaic, it would have been al and tau ( or something similar ) but not alpha and omega. 2) There are clear case of names and phrases being translated from aramaic to greek. This makes no sense if the original was aramaic. 3) The Peshitta is written in a text-style that didn't exist until several hundred years after the life and death of Christ. 4) The OT was translated into Greek as Hebrew dies out as a spoken language. This indicates that the Jews read greek predominantly, not aramaic. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, the phrase is from Revelations (1:8, 1:11, 21:6, 22:13) so I find it odd that the peshitta includes it at all since:
[qs]Commentary: The Syriac Peshitta New Testament was a 3rd-4th c. translation from Greek, made on the basis of older Syriac translations. The present text comprises Luke 14-23, John, Acts, and the Epistles. The Peshitta text does not include Revelation, which is not canonical in the Eastern Churches.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/4/4.1/415.html Your objection seems rather odd in context. It makes me think you don't know what you are talking about. Care to clear this up?
quote: Judge, is there some reason you have decided to be an ass? If you have a good reason, please share it. I may well agree that such behavior is understandable. Otherwise... I rather like this type of thing, as do you. I think you will find that very few on this board share that interest, so you may consider at least marginal civility towards me.
quote: Mark 5:41 Christ instructs a girl, in aramaic, to rise. This instruction is then translated for the sake of the readers. Several possibilities: 1) The aramaic was the original language and the translators inserted the definition when making the translation, presumably to preserve the exact words christ spoke. This does not seem likely because the translator only used this device a few times, rather than every time Christ spoke. Lets say we assume an aramaic original, why would the translators choose to preserve only select phrases? If we start with an all aramaic text it doesn't make sense. Reading through an aramaic text the tendency would be to translate all of what christ said or preserve and define all of it-- much like modern translators highlight in red the supposed direct quotes of Christ. 2) This leads to the other possibility; that christ only spoke aramaic on occasion. Then if you assume a greek text all of christs words, including the aramaic words, are preserved in the original language, which require translation for the Greek speaking audience. This makes a lot more sense than option one. Then, when translated to aramaic, the translations could be dropped as superfluous which they certainly would be.
quote: Yes, you have pointed this out and your reference appears to me to be on the losing end of the debate, as I have pointed out. At best your source is careless with the information. Here is what looks to be the relevant part.
Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke. It was spoken in south western mesopotamia in the small kingdom of Osrhoene with its capital at Edessa. The earliest datable Syriac writings are from this kingdom. They are in the form of inscriptions found at Birecik, (near Edessa) dating from 6 AD, (Maricq 1962, Pirenne 1963). These early Syriac inscriptions demonstrate that the Syriac language and script existed before Jesus' ministry. Another first century Syriac inscription was found in Jerusalem and dates from about 49 AD, [6, 7]. Many second century pagan Syriac inscriptions have also been documented from mesopotamia, [6, 7]. Three legal documents have been discovered from later in the third century (dated 28 Dec 240, 1 Sept. 242 and 243, respectively). These were discovered in the Euphrates valley (Brock 1991, Drijvers 1972). Syriac was not only spoken in mesopotamia. In fact, Syriac was still spoken by the people of Palestine many years after the time of Jesus. The author emphasizes that syriac was spoken during the time of Christ. No one debates this. But it didn't reach any promanance until 2-3 hundred years later, which make the assertion that it was a common language very odd.
quote: It is possible to date a manuscript by looking at the script style and the dialect, just as you can look at a paper written 100 or 200 years ago and place it in time, by the dialect the author uses provided you have some other information-- like location.
quote: Yes, and the script style of estralango did not exist until around 300 AD.
quote: That is a bit dismissive. Script styles are pretty good indicators of the time a text was written.
quote: Well, yes, as did everyone else in the region since Alexander the Great conquered it a couple hundred years BC. What mass of greek speakers would be reading THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES if not the jews? Why make a greek translation if jews did not speak greek? Your objection is hard to comprehend.
quote: Yes, while writing in GREEK.
[qs]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. Antiquities 20:11:2[qs]
Umm... Josephus says he can't pronounce Greek. Did you notice that the free-men and slaves are all speaking greek? Ever notice that things that are considered common are usually, well, common? oh... I found the thread where I and several others have discussed this aramaic original with you at length.
EvC Forum: Luke and Matthews geneologies------------------ No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I am aware of what your source says on the issue. I can't back it up with outside evidence. Lets look at couple of things.
quote: I have the feeling that your source is confusing 'aramaic' and 'syriac'. The two are not the same and are not interchangeable. Syriac is an aramaic dialect. It does not work the other way around. Every reference I have found to the Galilean Christ spoke places it as an aramaic dialect. It doesn't follow that it was also syriac. In fact, the dialects in use at the time appear to be the palmerian and the hatran, not the syriac which came along later. For details:
ERROR 404 - PAGE NOT FOUND Also:
Syriac grew out of Aramaic, the dominant language in the Near East from about the 4th century B.C. through the 6th century A.D. Syriac developed around the city of Edessa (now Urfa, in southeastern Turkey), the leading center of Christianity after about 200 A.D.
Syriac language products quote: I cannot find anything confirming that the script is estrangelo, even in the text you quote, though that text asserts that the inscriptions proves that the script was around. It is very vague and that makes me suspicious. And please remember, it isn't the syriac it is the estrangelo script that concerns me. The text goes on to make several more claims about syriac inscriptions, but these are irrelevant unless they also demonstrate the estrangelo script. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, judge, and that is the ONLY place I can find a similar statement. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The point is that the logic is backwards. The argument reads something like this to me: Christ spoke a dialect of aramaic.Syriac is a dialect of aramaic. Therefore christ spoke syriac. This is fallacious. It is used to connect the language of the peshitta with the language of christ, but it is a bad argument. Various aramaic dialects have existed as spoken languages since 2000BC. You may be correct that these languages were mutually intelligible. I am not sure. Frankly, French is a dialect of latin and so is Spanish but the two are not mutually intelligible. Nonetheless, mutual intelligibility isn't the issue. The issue is timing. And... 1) At the time of Christ syriac was not a common language2) At the time of Christ syriac was written in blocky arabic characters, not the estrangelo of the peshitta. The two are radically different. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmmmm.... really it seems that someone has been so arguing, or least blurring the distictions.
judge writes: Abram was of Aramaic stock, Jacob is described in the scriptures as a wandering Aramaen. I beleive he would have spoken Aramaic/syriac/chaldean.
EvC Forum: Luke and Matthews geneologies Notice the blurring of the various dialects? It is not ok to treat them as one language. When called on something similar previously, you replied:
judge writes: 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.
EvC Forum: Luke and Matthews geneologies Here again there is a great emphasis upon the Syriac, presumably because that is the language in which the Peshitta is written. And as the Peshitta is being asserted as the original text, the implication is that the earliest disciples spoke syriac. William Cureton practically states that syriac was the language of the disciples.
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. All of this, I think to blur the time lines and confuse the dating. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I'm not implying an intentional confusing of anything by the early church. I have, however, come to believe that some modern sects are pushing the peshitta as original despite the evidence, just as some christians push the KJV as being more than it is.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: errr..... sect: a subdivision of a larger religious group. ( from rhymezone )
quote: Running out of substantial responses and opting for fallacious jabs instead? Just scanning this site on logical fallacies I find that your statement fits the following: 1) Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy2) Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author 3) Attacking the Person: the person's character is attacked 4) Attacking the Person: the person's circumstances are noted Why not review the response I gave last time you tried this tact?
Having some religious tolerance issues there judge? That post sure smells like distaste. 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. I thought we'd cleared this up, but I guess you were just saving it for a rainy day. Now, care to provide some substantial response to my objections? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Judge, if had been reading my responses you'd already know the answer to this question. I've stated my objections time and again. I've lost count.
quote: I am surprised that you have stooped to mudslinging. So in this post then you admit that this was an attempt to discredit ME. This is a fallacy. You avoid the argument presented. This is a fallacy. And you minimize the effort I have put into researching your claims about the Peshitta. This is a further attempt to discredit me. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I say scroll back to post #13 of this thread and follow our exchanges through to the present. You see, we have been doing just what you suggest, but for some reason you have decided to feign ignorance.
quote: My suggestion is that you get a good book on informal logic. The man's agenda is irrelevant, if the argument works. And it happens to track with everything I have found on the topic except for the one cite you seem to rely upon. And please stop mispelling 'supremacist.'
quote: I don't know and I don't care. It is irrelevant. WHO is making the claim is not the point. The claim that the aramaic is original is the point.
quote: LOL... you have a real hard time seperating the relevant from the irrelevant. What the man wrote about the claims that the NT was written in aramaic tracks pretty well with what I have found elsewhere. And, yes, the man does a damn good job at that presentation. He is presenting the consensus opinion of the scholars of the subject. There is nothing iconoclastic here. But, having ran out of arguments, I suppose you have nothing better to do than play games. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
It isn't estrangelo as you have been claiming. If you scroll down and read the messages, quite a few people have noticed this fact.
Compare:
Syriac ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 01-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It is far more than simply less formalized. You understate the differences. To say it is 'less formalized' is to me misleading. Less formalized implies that the more formalized coexisted or preceeded the less formalized. Maybe its just me. The script that we have on this inscription is the earlier block form of aramaic, which is exactly what we'd expect.
quote: Could have, judge, but this undercuts your arguments that it DID exist. Much of what you have argued has hung on very fine threads. I think if you'll read through some of your posts, you've hung a lot on this inscription. It could have existed in any of many scripts, but we have no evidence that it did. What we have is estrangelo, and it didn't show up for several hundred years.
quote: No it isn't. This isn't the argument at all. The argument is about dating the document. If we had a book written in a particular typeface and we looked up the typeface and found that it was invented in 1950, then we know that the book was printed no earlier than 1950.
quote: Wow. Struck a nerve... It is very very simple, judge. 1) The Peshitta was written in estrangelo2) Estrangelo did not exist around the time the NT was written 3) Thus, the Peshitta is not original. It was copied from some other work. That other work could have been an earlier arabic work but we have no copies and no evidence of there having been copies. Or it could have been copied from any of the thousands of greek manuscripts we do have, which is a hell of a lot more reasonable. Either way it isn't original and you can't use it for the very precise semantic analysis' of which you are fond. Now, if it were copied from an aramaic original, why can you not use it as if it were original? Because there are several hundred years between the writing of the NT and the emergence of the estrangelo script. Languages change. If you read the posts discussing that inscription, you'll notice that not only is the script different but so is some of the grammar. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I notice that the title refers to the oldest estrangela, presumably in reference to the claims made that it is in fact estrangela. You can see this theme starting in the second post of this thread:
Peshitta Forum - The original script of Aramaic In the text, the only reference to estrangelo is to point out the differences between this text and that of the peshitta and to point out a feature of the Alaf that doesn't appear to be relevant to our discussion.
Also, notice how the Shin character in this Edessan inscription is very close to the shape of the Ashuri~Hebrew S rather than the shape of Peshitta Estrangela $ quote: Judge, look at the script. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to see the differences.
quote: It means that it probably did not exist much before the EARLIEST style of alphabet of which we have an example.
quote: You have got to be kidding me? You are arguing for an ARAMAIC original. Timing is a critical issue.
quote: Then you have lost a key component of the aramaic original argument. You are now basing the arguement upon the assumption that the peshitta was copied from an earlier aramaic text for which we have no evidence.
quote: This is your assumption and without the hypothetical earlier copies we don't know this. You don't know this. People tend to update spellings and change words for many different reasons. Just look at the countless modern translations of the Bible. Two hundred years ago most anyone would have written 'negro' and never thought twice about it, but when working up a modern version of that book from an unfamiliar alphabet the translators are going to be real tempted to change it.
quote: ummmmm.... why are you changing your mind now?
quote: But you have lost the ability to prove that assertion. Either the earliest copies of the peshitta are original, or they are not. If not you can't make the very fine distinctions that you need to make. And we have both agreed, it seems, that the earliest copies of the peshitta are not original.
quote: What are you talking about? This makes absolutely no sense. You need proof of pre-peshitta NTs, I don't.
quote: The peshitta was produced somewhere around edessa, just a hop skip and jump from this inscription.
Review of Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament Time can account for the grammar differences as well, so you cannot simply dismiss it but must show that the peshitta grammar does match that of judea in the first century. I can't find any such comparisons. Perhaps you can. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024