Two different fields.

In matthew 27 we are told that after Judas returned and threw the thirty pieces of silver back, the chief priests went and purchased a field.But in Acts chapter 1 we are told that Judas purchased a field with "the reward of his iniquity"Is this a contradiction?No.If we look behind the english translations we soon find the solution.The field mentioned in Matthew is not the same field mentioned in Acts and the Thirty pieces of silver is not "the reward of iniquity".In the Aramaic and in the greek two different words are used to describe two different fields.
The word used in Aramaic in Matthew is "srwg" and the word used in the greek is "agros" (field).
But the word used in acts is "lgx" in Aramaic and "chorion" in the greek, indicating a property.How could Judas have used the thirty pieces of silver to purchase the field. The answer is he could not have. Judas was the treasurer, but also a thief. The "reward of his iniquity" that he used to purchase the property was money that he stole.
See ." John 12:6b - "he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by iconoclast2440:Secondly the verse states "reward for his wickedness". Clearly this denotes the the money he received for the betrayal.[/B][/QUOTE]Riiiiight!...So are you saying that stealing is not wickedness.Again...John 12:6b - "he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." ;-)P.S. We can look at some 'real' problems with the texts if you like sometime. These ones just aren't there when we look at the original texts.[This message has been edited by judge, 01-21-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
-btw you couldn't show how the original text supported your argument at all.

---

​

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.

​

---

Hi John...you may be right. But if you are, then why are you unable to provide any evidence to support this?
Merely claiming the evidence is overwhelming does not count. ;-)All the best.. (seriously I believe I am open to this being true...but do you have anything at all we can discuss in this regard?)[This message has been edited by judge, 01-22-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by judge:
Hi John...you may be right. But if you are, then why are you unable to provide any evidence to support this?

---

​

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.

​

---

John..I apologise. I am out of line. You are right you did not try to provide evidence. I have misunderstood, please accept my apology I do not wish to take a cheap shot at your integrity. perhaps you can understand , though, above you have made the statement.." Initially 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."
I would be interested in why you beleive the evidence is "overwhelmimg"?
I find these topics interesting but am perhaps giving them more import than the deserve.[This message has been edited by judge, 01-22-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
P.S. We can look at some 'real' problems with the texts if you like sometime. These ones just aren't there when we look at the original texts.

​

Hi Judge,

​

Could you let me know what original texts you are looking at?

​

Best wishes.
Brian.

---

Well my persoanl opinion (which may well be wrong) is that the only "original" we have is the NT eastern peshitta.
As I said I may be wrong about this and most western biblical schollars would disagree.It would have been better to say if we look at texts from which the english has been translated.All the best

Originally posted by judge:
I would be interested in why you beleive the evidence is "overwhelmimg"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:
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.Judge:Do you really imagine that the peshitta calls Jesus the alpha and the omega??
No this is only in the greek!John:
2) There are clear case of names and phrases being translated from aramaic to greek. This makes no sense if the original was aramaic.Judge:
John it's about time you provided an example. Can you? Please can you provide one example. Perhaps you are right.John:
3) The Peshitta is written in a text-style that didn't exist until several hundred years after the life and death of Christ.judge:
One as I have pointed out this is just not true.
(those interested in an overview of Aramaic can look here)
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html
But even if it is, what would this prove?
What I can only presume John is alluding to here is the script style.
There have been several script styles used to write aramaic/syriac over the ages. One can write the same thing in more than one script.John:
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.Judge:
This was a translation done for greek speakers.
Do you really think Jews in Israel spoke Greek? Josephus seems to contradict this.
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------------------all the best

John,
thanks for the interest. We seem to be clashing heads here, and at times over the same issues. So i might leave it here for the moment.I may come back later on your questions, but for today, if I can point out with regard to the estrangelo script one quick point. I gave a link which you have referenced part of which follows........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 inscription referred to here dating form 6 a.d is in estrangelo.All the best

"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."William Cureton.
as quoted ...
http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesopotamian Syriac is one of this ancient group of Aramaic dialects which included the Galilean dialect that Jesus spoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.To be honest John I am not sure what the point you are making is.
without doubt the dialect spoken in gallilea was different to that spoken in Syria, or that even in jerusalem (probably the hebrew dialect).
The point is they were very similar. jesus had no trouble speaking with the Syro(syrian) phoenecian (cannanite?) woman in Johns gospel.Spanish in south america differs from castillian spanish as well.
English around the globe differs from the queens english as well.Gallilean aramaic had it's own nuances..so?
They are all dialects of chaldean/babylonian/aramaic.[This message has been edited by judge, 01-23-2003][This message has been edited by judge, 01-23-2003]

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.Judge:
No one is arguing that Christ spoke Syriac!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a dialect of Aramaic). He would have spoken somehting very similar, but with its own nuances.Christ came from gallilea. (quite close to Syria though IIRC).Aramaic was the language of the entire region for ages. Abram was of Aramaic stock. Jacob is described in the torah as a "wandering Aramaen"
This was the language of the babylonians. It survives in the book of Daniel.

John:
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.judge:
Er...John, the assyrain Church of the East is not a sect.Their liturgy is the oldest in use anywhwere."Separated from the rest of Christendom by their extreme isolation, the Nestorians (sic) have preserved many of the traditions of the early church which have either disappeared altogether elsewhere or else survived only in the most unrecognizable forms. Their legends are fragments of fossilized early Christian folklore, while the Eucharistic rite (liturgy), the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, is the oldest Christian liturgy in use anywhere in the world." (William Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East., New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997, pg. 141)It' important , I think here to keep a sense of humor of course.
But I do find it curious that you think the COE is a sect, and on the other hand have such high regard for the writings on a "white supremecist" website, i.e the christian separatists..all the best.

Sure John,
Tell you what ...why don't you list your objections...and be very specific. And if you could be concise that would help too.But please be concise and stick to the facts.and on that othr point,are you surprised that doing a little surfing with google and then cut and pasting a white supremecist web site may make you look less credible? really?All the best[This message has been edited by judge, 01-25-2003]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell you what ...why don't you list your objections...and be very specific. And if you could be concise that would help too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.Judge:
John can you list your objections here clearly specifically and concisely, if so I will attempt to deal with them. If you list them here clearly in one spot I can refute them if they are wrong, and all the information will be here in one spot so we don't have to go through this. If your objections are coorect then I will have learnt something. what do you say?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and on that othr point,are you surprised that doing a little surfing with google and then cut and pasting a white supremecist web site may make you look less credible? really?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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 meJudge:
My suggestion is this that if you imagine that a white supremecist website will give you an account without an agenda than you are a little naive. I think that we should look for better references than white supremecist websites, that all.Do you really think that site has no agenda??
lets have alook at a quote from there, shall we?
..Knowing all of this, we need to look at why it has become a popular Jewish contention to claim that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.Perhaps there are some jews who claim the NT was written originaaly in Aramaic.
Can you name any?
The assyrian Church of the East, who claim the scriptures they use in their liturgy are the original are not Jews. you must be aware of this.The entire article is saying it is some kind of jewish conspiracy...lol. In view of this why are you saying it is a "nicely written article"?

For those interested here is a picture (and some discussion re: ) the inscription from 6 a.d., taken from ..from Han J.W. Drijvers and John F. Healey, "The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene", 1999 Brill.Peshitta Forum - Oldest Estrangela Inscription II[This message has been edited by judge, 01-30-2003]

Ok lets say for the sake of argument that this is not estrangelo, but a less formalised very similar script.
Can you clearly and concisely say what you think this means with regard to the peshitta not coming intop existence until the 4th century.
What possible argument are you making??I mean if this is not estrangela but a very similar script then what on earth is you argument. That because later peshitta texts use a more formalised script that a version in this very similar script could not have existedit similar script in the first century???????That is like arguing that because our king james version uses a script that is different (but with the same letters) than the one that was used in the days of king james that the king james could not have existed then.
it doesn't make sense!!!!IT"S LIKE SAYING THAT THE VERSIONS WE HAVE ARE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS...but we think people use lower case in those days so if people used lower case then then our version which is in capitals could not have existed.THE QUICK BROWN FOX...
the quick brown fox..these both say the same thing!![This message has been edited by judge, 01-30-2003]