Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "O" argument
#16
Forget the 4^27 power . It is not worth discussing.

Quote:I have read many of your notes. Most of them are based on ELS, which has serious issues. Of the others, polysemy are the best ones.

Absolutely not! Most of the notes in the NT have nothing to do with ELS, unless you are reading the appendix of an older edition of the interlinear. The notes in the NT text are almost exclusively about variant Greek readings compared to Aramaic readings and misreadings. I don't understand how these are inconclusive to you, even if you don't accept some of them. There are too many of these to be coincidental, and you will not find equivalent Greek primacy examples in the same number or quality as these; of that I am confident.

Codex W as a 1st century ms. is not a new fad; it is unheard of.

The problem with Greek primacy is that it is all tradition with no evidence to support it, and there are very few Greek primacists who read Greek and Aramaic and have studied The Peshitta and the Peshitta primacy evidence.

I have learned Greek and Aramaic and have studied the Greek Bible and The Peshitta in Aramaic, and continue to do so, and have translated the Peshitta NT and the entire book of Peshitta Psalms, plus 60% of Proverbs through Nehemiah.

You say "we have more information today"; We have access to more information, which includes what those men discovered and published, but information is not knowledge. I think your are laboring under the modern misconception to which I referred in my previous post; it is the idea that we today can know more about
the origins of something, the farther from the event we go. You mention archeology. If we know more than Whiston, due to archeology, then we know more than Aphraates, due to archeology; and yet, that is a fallacy. Certainly Aphraates knew more about his time than we will ever know; he lived in it! He also would have known more about the 1st and 2nd centuries than we could; he would have had records from those and earlier times. He would have had grandparents who most likely were born during the end of the second century. Manuscripts did not self destruct after 100 years, or 200 years, or after 5 minutes, as in Mission Impossible. But it is as if modern scholars assume just that, and that we must come along, with our superior knowledge and rewrite the past, after digging up some bones, pottery, coins and manuscripts.

I am not buying it, especially with regard to Biblical scholarship. As I said, tradition is great if it is based on truth. The history of The Eastern church is traceable to the first century, as is their tradition of copying the Peshitta and its Massora. The history of Josephus, the Greek NT testimony, the internal readings of The Peshitta as compared to Greek, and the Peshitta text itself all bear preponderant testimony to the Aramaic text of the Peshitta as the original NT. Nothing else even comes close. Some tradition may actually be tradition, because it is true.

You may find fault with a few examples with a magnifying glass, but the big picture is pretty clear.

Sorry you can't see it!

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#17
I agree that there are too many to be coincidental, however, I don't think that is a valid statistical analysis, since these are independent phenomena. Each one must be taken as a separate probability. (This is basic stats 1301.) So to take them as cumulative would be a mistake, since some could be viewed as influenced by Aramaic while others might have other explanations, etc.
I'm afraid I must beg to differ. Codex W theorism is not unheard of. It is, however, insupportable. Besides the fact that it is a codex, its text is an odd mixture of various readings, not homogenous as we would expect in an original or close-to-original document, but an odd block-like mixture where whole passages will follow Byzantine, and then abruptly change into another whole passage following a Western reading, etc. This kind of block-like, abrupt changes clearly indicates a late date for this text, after the other traditions had already come into being.
Its paleography is also clearly late. Fourth century at the earliest.
It is not unheard of. It is very well-known, and has been refuted multiple times on multiple levels by multiple scholars. And, to my knowledge, no one has backed up Dr. Woodard's claim. He is a good scholar, but I, along with most scholars, disagree with his conclusion.

The one does not lead to the other. It is not reasonable to equate three hundred years ago with sixteen hundred years ago. Someone in the fourth century was significantly closer to the time of the actual events. Three hundred years is not significant enough to attach them to the events. Your argument does not make sense. It is the fallacy of a weak analogy. Because arguments A and B are similar does not mean B has all the same characteristics as argument A. This is what you have done. You have tried to set me up with an argument that we know more about the first century than, for instance, Polycarp. Of course I do not think that. But that is not at all the same as saying that we know more than Whiston, who was separated by sufficient time and distance to not be associated with the events. I'm amazed that this argument passed muster in your own mind. You're a better critical thinker than that. I know you are. I've read your translation. I may disagree with many of your thoughts, but I respect your work. I respect the thought you put into it. I appreciate what you've achieved, and I understand that this was no easy task. You're better than this, Mr. Bauscher. How can you possibly compare saying we know more than Whiston (eighteenth century) because of archaeological discoveries to saying that we know more than Aphraates? That doesn't even make sense.

Only traceable via tradition. The critics will disagree adamantly with that idea. I've not researched the history of the COE enough to have an opinion myself, but I have researched it enough to know that most scholars do not trace its origin to the first century. So it is certainly disputable.

I find that all of the examples that I examine more closely have had gaps in them. If they are looked at through a magnifying glass, your big picture begins to become cloudier. True, there is a big picture. But it is made up of minutia. And the parts are not adding up to your whole for me anymore.
Reply
#18
...

If you notice the NOTICE that was placed above the head of our Messiah...it was written in three languages. I believe that this is telling us something...certainly that the people of the region knew these languages, maybe not all, but at least one or perhaps two if not all three. These must have been the three main languages spoken then and around there.

Perhaps God is showing us something by recording this fact in The Holy Scriptures. Could it be that the New Testament books were also written down in these three languages during the 1st century when they were in use and read by the populous of the Nations who spoke in these main languages as they were being evangelized?

Could there not have been employed scribes to write down simultaneously the words dictated by the Apostles and there co-workers to be sent out at once to the ones who were coming to faith in The Messiah from the Nations who spoke in these Languages? Most, if not all being written from the 50s to the late 60s...

Certainly when the Apostle Paul went to share the Good News to the Nations, these three languages were the foremost...did those who could not read in more than one language have to take the long time to learn a new language, or was it rather that The Books of the New Testament were at once given to them in these three languages at the same time.

I think it not too hard to believe if it can't be disproved with any certainty.

Luke writes to a person named Theophilus in his 'Gospel' & in 'Acts'. Is this person a Greek? His name seems to reflect that. If so, would Luke have written to him in a language that he was not familiar, or maybe Luke could not write in Greek because he only understood Aramaic.

I think there is something to be said that the Scriptures were given through God's providence in these three main languages during the 1st century and perhaps at the same time.

Even today, the Scriptures are seen in these three Languages and are the oldest ones around and considered Holy by the three oldest churches of the world. The COE-The Aramaic, The Eastern Orthodox-The Greek, The Roman Catholic- The Latin.....


Is it just me....<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

...
Reply
#19
As to the notice, yours is one possible explanation. However, it is improbable for multiple reasons. The first is common sense: if the populace was trilingual, then it would have only been necessary to write the notice in one out of those three languages. More likely, there were two or three elements of the population, each of which spoke only one or two of these three languages. The native (Jewish) population spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. Or both. According to Josephus some of them spoke Greek, but not many. The ruling class (Roman administrators and various officials) as well as any immigrants were most likely to speak Greek. Soldiers would have spoken Latin.

That does not, however, deal with the theory you posit of trilingual origin of the New Testament. I will disagree with that, though. Bilingual is possible. I wouldn't say likely, but hypothetically it could have happened. I do not think, though, that there is any evidence for a Latin original. I know that some people do believe in an Old Latin origin for the New Testament, but it has been very well established that Latin was not used popularly in the eastern portions of the Empire. Greek was used in the eastern portions of Europe, North Africa, and some parts Anatolia, while Aramaic was more popular in the middle east and some parts of Anatolia.
I like the idea of multiple scribes, though I find it unlikely. It's interestingly similar to the old stories about the LXX, or theories of the Church Fathers on the authorship of Hebrews.
On the other hand, it is said of the Gospel According to the Hebrews, at least, that everyone "translated it as best they were able." So I find it highly unlikely that it was written simultaneously in two languages. Translation seems to have been the order of the day.

The name Theophilus seems Greek, but then note that Josephus names three high priests "Theophilus." So this is at least at times used to represent a Semitic name.
Reply
#20
A quick note before I run off to do homework:
The unification of the Aramaic tradition. This is an interesting argument, which I find to be clearly paralleled in the argument used by Muslims to show the superiority of the Quran over the Bible. However, I'm sure you all know that the text was actually standardized under Abu Bakr, and variants were burned.
Likewise, the unification of the Peshitta tradition can be explained. It was used by only two communities, essentially isolated from outside influence. Because old versions are regularly burned or buried, we would eventually expect to naturally find no more variants, even where there were variants originally.

I am not saying that this is proof that the Peshitta is inferior to the Greek. It's not proof that the Peshitta is not original. It is simply another piece of evidence for Peshitta primacy that does not really prove anything. As I've said before. I'm not saying I don't think the Peshitta is the original. I'm simply saying that the evidence is decidedly inconclusive.
Reply
#21
Yea, I know Dawid...just some of my thoughts rolling around in my cerebrial cortex.

What do you think is the diferance in doctrine between the Aramaic, Greek, and Latin? I mean, would the people be mislead into dangerous error by reading the Greek or Latin? What does the Aramaic retain that those two do not as to any essential doctrines of the Faith?

- Chuck
Reply
#22
Hi Dawid, always a pleasure... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Dawid Wrote:Shalom Christina,
The "Hebrew is Aramaic" argument fails to hold water to me, since both the Septuagint and Eusebius use an entirely different word to refer to Aramaic.

Hmm..what do you make of even the greek NT using Aramaic words rather than Hebrew? I am not 100% but am pretty sure that all the semitic NT words are Aramaic.
This seems to me, a reasonable argument for peshitta primacy. Other wise we have the greek either replacing Hebrew words with Aramaic in a direct translation from an hebrew original (this seems quite unlikely) ..or the greek being translated very early from an Aramaic translation of an Hebrew original. This too seems unecessarily complex , especially in the absense of any Hebrew versions (apart from some of Matthew which seem to date from the middle ages)


Quote:We also have the evidence of Peter's accent. This was only applicable in the context of Hebrew, where Galilean accents became an issue because of Synagogue usage. Galileans were forbidden from reading the Torah in Judean synagogues because of their accent when speaking Hebrew. The Judeans were afraid they would mispronounce the Torah and render a different meaning to it.

There are so many more possibilities.

Ok, but why would this preclude a Galileans having a different accent in Aramaic as well? Couldn't this be equally explainable in the context of Aramaic? (perhaps I misunderstood?)
Reply
#23
Dawid Wrote:On the other hand, it is said of the Gospel According to the Hebrews, at least, that everyone "translated it as best they were able."
Small nitpick. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->
I think this is what Papias is reported to have said of Matthews oracles.

Quote:The name Theophilus seems Greek, but then note that Josephus names three high priests "Theophilus." So this is at least at times used to represent a Semitic name.

Interesting. I didn't know that
Reply
#24
Dawid Wrote:Likewise, the unification of the Peshitta tradition can be explained. It was used by only two communities, essentially isolated from outside influence. Because old versions are regularly burned or buried, we would eventually expect to naturally find no more variants, even where there were variants originally.

.

A problem I see with this is that we have no evidence or record of any such unification.
In modern times the idea of editing and unifying of texts seems to have started with criticism of the Hebrew bible or OT. But here the arguments were carefully put together on internal evidence within the books themselves.
No such parallel can be found in the peshitta (at least that I have seen put forward).

I just dont think this sort of argument from silence, without corroborating evidence, can have legs.

On the other hand the bifurcation of the peshitta into the peshitta and peshitto does have an explanation. That being that the westerners, under the influence of the Byzantines changed Acts 20:20 and Hebrew 2:9 for theological reasons and added the other five books as those in the west had done.
Reply
#25
judge Wrote:Hi Dawid, always a pleasure... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Dawid Wrote:Shalom Christina,
The "Hebrew is Aramaic" argument fails to hold water to me, since both the Septuagint and Eusebius use an entirely different word to refer to Aramaic.

Hmm..what do you make of even the greek NT using Aramaic words rather than Hebrew? I am not 100% but am pretty sure that all the semitic NT words are Aramaic.
This seems to me, a reasonable argument for peshitta primacy. Other wise we have the greek either replacing Hebrew words with Aramaic in a direct translation from an hebrew original (this seems quite unlikely) ..or the greek being translated very early from an Aramaic translation of an Hebrew original. This too seems unecessarily complex , especially in the absense of any Hebrew versions (apart from some of Matthew which seem to date from the middle ages)
As has been noted, the Hebrew that might have been spoken in the first century was heavily Aramaised. Second, the fact that the place names are in Aramaic is not evidence for Peshitta primacy for several reasons. First, these names are in the Judean dialect of Aramaic, not the Syriac dialect like the Peshitta. I only know of a couple of Aramaic inscriptions from Israel that are in Syriac. Most are in Judean Aramaic, which was much more Hebrew influenced.
Finally, the fact that the place names are in another language is not evidence for what the book was originally written in. It could have just as easily (on that count anyway) been written in Greek originally with transliterated place-names from Hebrew or Aramaic.

Quote:
Quote:We also have the evidence of Peter's accent. This was only applicable in the context of Hebrew, where Galilean accents became an issue because of Synagogue usage. Galileans were forbidden from reading the Torah in Judean synagogues because of their accent when speaking Hebrew. The Judeans were afraid they would mispronounce the Torah and render a different meaning to it.

There are so many more possibilities.

Ok, but why would this preclude a Galileans having a different accent in Aramaic as well? Couldn't this be equally explainable in the context of Aramaic? (perhaps I misunderstood?)
They probably did have a different accent in Aramaic. The thing is that in Aramaic nobody cared. If you had a funny Aramaic accent, it didn't make any difference. If you had a Hebrew accent that prevented you from being allowed to read from the Torah, then people cared.
Reply
#26
judge Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:On the other hand, it is said of the Gospel According to the Hebrews, at least, that everyone "translated it as best they were able."
Small nitpick. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->
I think this is what Papias is reported to have said of Matthews oracles.
You're right. Sorry. My bad.

Quote:
Quote:The name Theophilus seems Greek, but then note that Josephus names three high priests "Theophilus." So this is at least at times used to represent a Semitic name.

Interesting. I didn't know that
Pretty interesting stuff. I think both Bauscher and Roth point this out in their books.
Reply
#27
judge Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Likewise, the unification of the Peshitta tradition can be explained. It was used by only two communities, essentially isolated from outside influence. Because old versions are regularly burned or buried, we would eventually expect to naturally find no more variants, even where there were variants originally.

.

A problem I see with this is that we have no evidence or record of any such unification.
In modern times the idea of editing and unifying of texts seems to have started with criticism of the Hebrew bible or OT. But here the arguments were carefully put together on internal evidence within the books themselves.
No such parallel can be found in the peshitta (at least that I have seen put forward).

I just dont think this sort of argument from silence, without corroborating evidence, can have legs.

On the other hand the bifurcation of the peshitta into the peshitta and peshitto does have an explanation. That being that the westerners, under the influence of the Byzantines changed Acts 20:20 and Hebrew 2:9 for theological reasons and added the other five books as those in the west had done.
Actually, mine is not an argument from silence. The idea that the Peshitta has no significant variants at present, on the other hand, is an argument from silence. "There are no extant variants, therefore there have never been any variants" is very much an argument from silence. All I've done here is to point out that that proves nothing. There is another simple, logical explanation.
Of course there is no evidence of it. Just like there is no evidence of the destruction of the variants of the Qur'an besides the story (and I'm suggesting a much more gradual process for the Peshitta than any kind of purge like the Qur'an).
I'm not saying that they created a critical edition. I'm saying that a particular version became the standard, the others fell out of use, and were burned or buried as they fell out of use. Thus the text could easily have become standardized. No variants where there had once been variants.

I'm not about to disagree with the idea of the bifurcation of the Peshitta. But it's not an "either/or" so much as a "both/and" issue.
Reply
#28
Dawid Wrote:As has been noted, the Hebrew that might have been spoken in the first century was heavily Aramaised. Second, the fact that the place names are in Aramaic is not evidence for Peshitta primacy for several reasons.

Ok, but there is a lot more than just place names. We have many many other words.



Quote:They probably did have a different accent in Aramaic. The thing is that in Aramaic nobody cared. If you had a funny Aramaic accent, it didn't make any difference. If you had a Hebrew accent that prevented you from being allowed to read from the Torah, then people cared.

How do we know no one cared? Being a foreigner was big issue in those times (even if only a Galilean foriegner). The fact that Galilean Hebrew accents upset people so much is evidcne of that.
Reply
#29
Dawid Wrote:Actually, mine is not an argument from silence.

An argument that the peshitta is the result of a unification process (if this is what you are arguing), without any evidence would seem to be an argument from silence.



Quote:The idea that the Peshitta has no significant variants at present, on the other hand, is an argument from silence. "There are no extant variants, therefore there have never been any variants" is very much an argument from silence.

This may be a strawman though. As I understand it the argument is we have no textual variants, there fore we have no evidence for textual variants.
We can't know there were none, but we just dont have any evidence of any.

Quote: All I've done here is to point out that that proves nothing. There is another simple, logical explanation.
Of course there is no evidence of it. Just like there is no evidence of the destruction of the variants of the Qur'an besides the story (and I'm suggesting a much more gradual process for the Peshitta than any kind of purge like the Qur'an).
I'm not saying that they created a critical edition. I'm saying that a particular version became the standard, the others fell out of use, and were burned or buried as they fell out of use. Thus the text could easily have become standardized. No variants where there had once been variants
.

But isn't this still an argument from silence?
The peshitta is the text used by the COE. All our earliest COE sources use the peshitta, including Aphrahat and the COE liturgy. We dont have any evidence of that tradition using anything else.
By saying that these other versions existed, but not providing any evidence they did, one cannot argue from evidence but must argue from silence.
Reply
#30
Dawid Wrote:A quick note before I run off to do homework:
The unification of the Aramaic tradition. This is an interesting argument, which I find to be clearly paralleled in the argument used by Muslims to show the superiority of the Quran over the Bible. However, I'm sure you all know that the text was actually standardized under Abu Bakr, and variants were burned.

Actually the Quran was standardized under Caliph Uthman the 3rd "Rightly Guided Caliph", Abu Bakr was the 1st.

Dawid Wrote:Likewise, the unification of the Peshitta tradition can be explained. It was used by only two communities, essentially isolated from outside influence. Because old versions are regularly burned or buried, we would eventually expect to naturally find no more variants, even where there were variants originally.

I believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" policy where this is concerned. In order to even consider the possibility whether the CoE did standardize the Aramaic NT mss, one first needs to find an example of them altering any of the readings in their mss collection, and there's nothing. It's the SOC who did alterations not the CoE, and western scholars often don't differenciate between the 2 textual traditions, either out of ignorance or convenience, always be aware of this. The fact is there are no grounds to accuse the CoE of standardizing or altering the Peshitta.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)