10-18-2014, 03:56 AM
And here's Charley being obstinately obtuse again... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
One place (of several): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/">http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/</a><!-- m -->
Click on any link labeled "Apparatus."
The Peshitta is listed under the siglum "P."
But you're already aware of this.
I draw my conclusions (which are not unique) with strong confidence because I have worked in the field of Aramaic Studies in a professional capacity for nearly a decade and a half and am very well established in that field.
If you wish to talk about certainty and opinions: You're an armchair amateur who can't even read Aramaic without consulting a Strong's Concordance. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
When treating a serious illness, does one trust a practicing physician or something you google off of WebMD?
This is the persistent claim that really has me baffled. I mean completely baffled. Galilean Aramaic is an established dialect family within Western Aramaic with a significant corpus ranging from funerary inscriptions, mosaics, and graffiti in the first few centuries to entire works during its renaissance in the 3rd-6th (such as the larger of the two Talmuds). To say it's "newly constructed" is a rejection of reality. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Peace,
-Steve
Thirdwoe Wrote:[Where] do you see The Peshitta Aramaic New Testament at Steve's site?
One place (of several): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/">http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/</a><!-- m -->
Click on any link labeled "Apparatus."
The Peshitta is listed under the siglum "P."
But you're already aware of this.
Thirdwoe Wrote:And the fact is, Steve can't say with any certainty, what dialect of Aramaic Jesus and His Apostles used as their main dialect.
Quote:When Steve answers "No", it certainly doesn't mean that his opinions are true.
I draw my conclusions (which are not unique) with strong confidence because I have worked in the field of Aramaic Studies in a professional capacity for nearly a decade and a half and am very well established in that field.
If you wish to talk about certainty and opinions: You're an armchair amateur who can't even read Aramaic without consulting a Strong's Concordance. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
When treating a serious illness, does one trust a practicing physician or something you google off of WebMD?
Thirdwoe Wrote:newly constructed dialect
This is the persistent claim that really has me baffled. I mean completely baffled. Galilean Aramaic is an established dialect family within Western Aramaic with a significant corpus ranging from funerary inscriptions, mosaics, and graffiti in the first few centuries to entire works during its renaissance in the 3rd-6th (such as the larger of the two Talmuds). To say it's "newly constructed" is a rejection of reality. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Peace,
-Steve