Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
37 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,114 Year: 12,862/23,288 Month: 587/1,527 Week: 26/240 Day: 7/19 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two different fields.
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 1 of 44 (29800)
01-21-2003 6:25 PM


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."


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 01-21-2003 7:28 PM judge has not yet responded
 Message 3 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-21-2003 9:18 PM judge has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5546
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2 of 44 (29808)
01-21-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by judge
01-21-2003 6:25 PM


You're kidding, aren't you? There were really two different Judases, too, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by judge, posted 01-21-2003 6:25 PM judge has not yet responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 44 (29818)
01-21-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by judge
01-21-2003 6:25 PM


quote:
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".

Oh?

quote:
In the Aramaic and in the greek two different words are used to describe two different fields.

and the greek was the original was it not? One of them came first and if one contradicts the other its still a contradiction.

besides the name was just a word with a meaning. Something to do with "field of blood" or something to that affect. It received its name after Judas died.

quote:
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.

You are just playing semantic games -- trying to guess what they ment by field and property.

Lets think about this;

If you bought a field wasn't it property of the previous owner? I am both buying a field and property.

quote:
How could Judas have used the thirty pieces of silver to purchase the field.

Why not?

quote:
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."

First off you don't know what he could or could not have done with the money.

Secondly the verse states "reward for his wickedness". Clearly this denotes the the money he received for the betrayal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by judge, posted 01-21-2003 6:25 PM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by judge, posted 01-21-2003 9:50 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 4 of 44 (29819)
01-21-2003 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by iconoclast2440
01-21-2003 9:18 PM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-21-2003 9:18 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-22-2003 12:26 AM judge has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 01-22-2003 3:04 AM judge has responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (29828)
01-22-2003 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by judge
01-21-2003 9:50 PM


quote:
Riiiiight!...So are you saying that stealing is not wickedness.

Lol and you are saying his REWARD was for stealing. You are totally off base here.

quote:
Again...John 12:6b - "he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." ;-)

Lol.

quote:
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.

LOL You never even addressed what i said about the lands. you are playing a semantic game. There are no problems in the real text according to you - you will just simply make something up inorder to try and flim flam your way ought of tight stops. Your arguments lack sound reasoning.

-btw you couldn't show how the original text supported your argument at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by judge, posted 01-21-2003 9:50 PM judge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 01-22-2003 12:51 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (29831)
01-22-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by iconoclast2440
01-22-2003 12:26 AM


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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-22-2003 12:26 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 12:55 AM John has responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 7 of 44 (29832)
01-22-2003 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
01-22-2003 12:51 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 01-22-2003 12:51 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John, posted 01-22-2003 1:11 AM judge has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (29834)
01-22-2003 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by judge
01-22-2003 12:55 AM


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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 12:55 AM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 4:05 AM John has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3585 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 44 (29842)
01-22-2003 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by judge
01-21-2003 9:50 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by judge, posted 01-21-2003 9:50 PM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 4:10 AM Brian has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 10 of 44 (29844)
01-22-2003 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
01-22-2003 1:11 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 01-22-2003 1:11 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 01-22-2003 11:27 AM judge has responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 11 of 44 (29846)
01-22-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
01-22-2003 3:04 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 01-22-2003 3:04 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-22-2003 5:41 AM judge has not yet responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (29857)
01-22-2003 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by judge
01-22-2003 4:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
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


This is definately the first time i have ever heard some one claim that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.

I have heard some rumors of text found in Aramaic but I didn't hear anyone claim they were "originals." I have only heard they are very old. Simply because they may be older than various books we have discovered isn't evidence that they are "more original". Even If they were "more original" they still aren't the originals.

Are you basing your argument souly off the age of the text or are you assuming that the aramaic texts are "more original" because you need the aramaic to play your word games? Honestly, no offense intended but that is exactly what you are doing here. You haven't presented any solid evidence for any of your assertions.

You challenged John on the issue of having to provide evidence. I find that ridiculous. YOU are the one with an irregular positive claim. Scholars (not just western as you want to believe) have come to the conclusion greek was the language for the original texts. Assuming their theory is based off some evidence (which i am sure is a safe assumption to make) how can you state a dissenting opinion and ask people not be baffled by your claims? You haven't provided any evidence that make your arguments look credible.

Why do you think the immediate inability of some one to disprove your theory makes it more credible (especially in the light of the fact you haven't presented any evidence)?

If you are wrong about this how will it affect your apologetics concerning Judas and Jesus' lineage?

Your last response is really getting to me:

quote:
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.

What original texts? You have already admitted to assuming the aramaic texts were "original". You haven't provided any evidence for this yet. With that being said how can or can't you establish there are real problems in the original texts?

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 01-22-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 4:10 AM judge has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 44 (29887)
01-22-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by judge
01-22-2003 4:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
I would be interested in why you beleive the evidence is "overwhelmimg"?

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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 4:05 AM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 3:43 PM John has responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 5069 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 14 of 44 (29912)
01-22-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
01-22-2003 11:27 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 01-22-2003 11:27 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 01-22-2003 6:36 PM judge has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 44 (29938)
01-22-2003 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by judge
01-22-2003 3:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by judge:
Do you really imagine that the peshitta calls Jesus the alpha and the omega??
No this is only in the greek!

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.
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:
John it's about time you provided an example.

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:
Can you? Please can you provide one example. Perhaps you are right.

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:
One as I have pointed out this is just not true.

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:
But even if it is, what would this prove?

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:
What I can only presume John is alluding to here is the script style.

Yes, and the script style of estralango did not exist until around 300 AD.

quote:
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.

That is a bit dismissive. Script styles are pretty good indicators of the time a text was written.

quote:
This was a translation done for greek speakers.
Do you really think Jews in Israel spoke Greek?

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:
Josephus seems to contradict this.

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.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=3
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 01-22-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 3:43 PM judge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by judge, posted 01-22-2003 10:19 PM John has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020