A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Seven dwarves ask a duck
Where the heck are we?
Duck says shut up I'm reading the Aramaic NT
Where the heck are we?
Duck says shut up I'm reading the Aramaic NT
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus: The Missing Years in the East
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Two bookmarks are in hell
One bookmark says to the other bookmark
"So, what are you in for?"
"Lying"
"Aramaic NT?"
"No, that only exists online. I kept falling out of a real book."
One bookmark says to the other bookmark
"So, what are you in for?"
"Lying"
"Aramaic NT?"
"No, that only exists online. I kept falling out of a real book."
godnotgod
Thou art That
My goodness Brother AE of the Essene Order of the Blue Rose. Looks like you're coming along just fine. Why, with repeated exposure, I'm convinced you'll soon awaken from your slumber to find yourself happily singing the praises of both Rene Salm and the Essene Yeshua who lived and taught at Mt. Carmel, and that no Nazareth need apply.
Just remember the dictum:
"The honest man, I believe;
the liar, I also believe"
Just remember the dictum:
"The honest man, I believe;
the liar, I also believe"
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Gullible that one is.
godnotgod
Thou art That
"The Sage has no decided opinions and feelings,
But regards the people's opinions and feelings as his own.
The good ones I declare good;
The bad ones I also declare good.
That is the goodness of Virtue.
The honest ones I believe;
The liars I also believe;
That is the faith of Virtue.
The Sage dwells in the world peacefully, harmoniously.
The people of the world are brought into a community of heart,
And the Sage regards them all as his own children."
Tao te Ching
- Chapter 49
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I copied the lot. The most valuable posts are often the deepest and yet the simplest.
Methinks your well of knowledge is as deep as your good-manners and humility. Thankyou
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:faint:
One in a million chance - that was one of the few posts not spammed from a cheap website.
You should by a lotto ticket tonight.
godnotgod
Thou art That
What? Cheap? Try 'free'. You prefer the astronomically expensive modern Paulanity wherein the debt paid is one you can never, ever repay, while being a complete fabrication?
'I owe, I owe, so off to work I go', LOL
Q. What is the most valuable thing in the world?
A. The head of a dead cat.
Q. Why?
A. Because no one can put a price on it.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What? Cheap? Try 'free'. You prefer the astronomically expensive modern Paulanity wherein the debt paid is one you can never, ever repay, while being a complete fabrication?
'I owe, I owe, so off to work I go', LOL
Q. What is the most valuable thing in the world?
A. The head of a dead cat.
Q. Why?
A. Because no one can put a price on it.
It's cheap because it has no substance - at least in terms of its historical claims, which are silly.
It's cheap because it takes no effort to make stuff up.
It's cheap because it's authors and devoted readers make no sacrifice of time and energy to actually learn something - anything about their topic.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What? Cheap? Try 'free'. You prefer the astronomically expensive modern Paulanity wherein the debt paid is one you can never, ever repay, while being a complete fabrication?
'I owe, I owe, so off to work I go', LOL
Q. What is the most valuable thing in the world?
A. The head of a dead cat.
Q. Why?
A. Because no one can put a price on it.
I'd prefer a kick in the face with a golf shoe to the crap that you peddle.
Whatever my Christianity - it has no affect whatsoever on the truthfulness of an historical interpretation. That's the beauty of the historical methods. Surely you can sense the local fallacy, "I don't like Christianity, so the Aramaic NT is the original NT." That's exactly what you're doing.
And then there's my personal favorite, "The NT has been edited and therefore it's not as old as the Aramaic NT, which has not been edited." Only someone who has no clue - and I mean knows nothing - can claim that ancient documents have a 99.999% accuracy. No document in the ancient world was free from redaction - it's what scribes were taught to do. That number alone is enough to cry foul, because it means that the speaker is just pulling nonsense out of the air (or his backside) to try and impress people who don't have the competence to verify the source.
Now to be clear - the man is a liar. He's not misunderstanding something that's there. He's actively making stuff up for whatever reason. Maybe it's as innocent as he gets is rocks off by people reading his website. It could be a little more nefarious, but the worst part is he's leading people away from something that even partially resembles the truth.
godnotgod
Thou art That
That you already have in Christianity, which has put you into a hypnotic, knee-jerk trance.
Heh...heh... It's 'Truth' is cleverly bent to fit it's teeth.
...and then you have the nerve to coat it with artificial scholarship to give it that nice, glossy 'official' look 'n feel, while suppressing any other view, shouting 'foul', and calling them all 'liars', a telltale trait of the biggest of all liars.
More erroneous logic. But you're so hypnotized by those dancing Xtian cave wall shadows, you can't sense the illogic.
Even more erroneous logic, but even without an Aramaic NT for comparison, the Greek NT is not just edited, but manipulated, interpolated, omitted, and downright fabricated out of whole cloth, they (as there are many versions) being a hodge-podge of this 'n that.
Yet even MORE! I never said that. I said that the copies from one Pe****ta to the next have that level of accuracy, when compared one to the other.
You wouldn't know the so-called 'truth' if kicked in the face with it!
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's precisely what I was talking about.
"Only someone who has no clue - and I mean knows nothing - can claim that ancient documents have a 99.999% accuracy [in the copying process]. No document in the ancient world was free from redaction [in the copying process] - it's what scribes were taught to do. That number alone is enough to cry foul, because it means that the speaker is just pulling nonsense out of the air (or his backside) to try and impress people who don't have the competence to verify the source."
I think that you misread me as saying that it was 99% accurate in some other way. Well, that would be stupid, too. I can see that it doesn't matter at all, but I was directly addressing what you have said multiple times on multiple threads. I didn't think that I needed to remind you what we were talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
We both know it's a lost cause.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
We both know it's a lost cause.
It's a game I like to call "poke the bear."
Note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmIBvAM0bbY
Last edited by a moderator:
godnotgod
Thou art That
godnotgod
Thou art That
The following is just a load of crap pulled from thin air. It's not 99.999% accuracy, but 99.98% accuracy, BTW.
I will post this just once. If you want to disprove it, be my guest, but I have no reason to believe it is a fabrication, nor will I attempt to prove it if requested:
Would the caretakers of The Divine words be as careless as the Greek scribes obviously were, while The Aramaean scribes, transcribing a mere human translation of the NT , counted words and letters, burying old mss.and maintaining such accuracy, that two Pe****ta mss. – Eastern or Western, maintained by The Church of The East and The Orthodox Syrian Church, respectively, differ , on the average, only once every 3.3 pages , or 101 times in the entire New Testament ?(This is ignoring the pericope de adultera). That is based on a comparison of ten Pe****ta mss. in
Pusey and Gwilliams’ critical apparatus of Matthew, five Eastern and five Western. Some Eastern mss. vary from each other as little as once in 43 pages! A comparison of three of them in Matthew reveals an average of one variant per seven and two thirds pages!
These are almost always insignificant variations in spelling or even splitting of compound words into two single words and vice versa.
The agreement between two avg. Pe****ta mss. amounts to 99.98% !
A pair of average Eastern Pe****ta mss. agree 99.99%.
A pair of average Western mss. agree 99.97%.
The best we can expect from two Greek mss. (Textus Receptus) is 99.80% .
The letter # differences are 10 times greater between Elzevir's 1633 TR edition and Stephens 1550 TR edition.
The Greek NT Textus Receptus exists in various editions, whose mss. are the most consistent and carefully copied of all Greek mss. Elzevir's 1633 edition differs from Robert Stephens 1550 edition by about 87 letters in 1 Corinthians!
That , while only 2 thousandths of the book's 33,260 letters, (0.2%) is still ten times the variation found in the Pe****ta mss. (compare 2 ten thousandths for Pe****ta-Pe****to)-Lukes highest variation of 0.09%)
The Byzantine NT (1991 edition -Pierpoint) has 691,023 letters. Stephens 1550 has 693,395 letters. This is pretty good for Greek texts overall- 99.66 % agreement.This is 0.33 % variation ; Pe****ta-Pe****to Lukes vary by 0.09%, 56 letters (the highest variation of Pe****ta books) , just 1/3rd of Greek variation.
Overall Pe****ta-Pe****to variation, comparing only 22 common books and disregarding John 7:53-8:11 which is found only in Western Pe****to, is 0.023%.
That is an overall variation in The Greek 10 to 14 times as great as The Pe****ta(o) versions. (1 Cor. is 10 times as great.)
The modern Critical Editions of The Greek NT have much wider divergences.
Westcott & Hort's Greek NT has 679,885 letters. That differs from Byzantine by 11,038 letters, or 1.60%. 98.40% agreement is still not bad at all, but relative to the Byzantine-Textus Receptus comparison, about five times as great.
This is 70 times the Pe****ta variation. 1 Cor - W&H 32717; Byzantine 33182; 1550 TR 33256. WH 98.60% of Byz. ; TR 100.22% of Byz.
WH varies 1.40% from Byzantine - Majority text in 1 Cor.
TR varies 0.22% from Byzantine - Majority text in 1 Cor.
WH variation is 6.36 times as great as TR from Majority text.
I don't have USB NT or Nestles' 26th Edition stats yet. They will be better than W&H comparison numbers, however.
The Eastern Pe****ta text mss. have even less variation among some mss. than some of the variation we see in Western editions.Consider 8 variants in one ms. in all of Paul's epistles- (one for every ten pages), in an 8th century manuscript from a 2000 year old version.
The average for two Eastern mss. at 0.01% variation , or 0.0001 , is one twentieth the variation found between two editions of the Textus Receptus -(1633 Elzevir and 1550 Stephens).
Two Greek mss. will vary more than this.
P32 and P33 , , two Eastern Pe****ta mss. in Pusey and Gwilliams’ critical apparatus of Matthew, differ only once in the whole of Matthew’s Gospel! That is 0.000017 variation , or 99.9983% agreement!
That is less than one thousandth the variation between the two closest Greek editions.
We have had the picture reversed for time immemorial. It is obvious that this
phenomenon of accuracy of copying and preservation of mss. strongly supports Pe****ta primacy and a secondary Greek NT.
Facts are such pesty things sometimes, especially for those who have an interest in promoting an agenda rather than discovering the truth. Why are these facts not even known in seminaries and Bible colleges, much less discussed and written in textbooks on Textual Criticism?
http://aramaicnt.com/Research/Proofs of Pe****ta Primacy.pdf
Last edited:
...were already working on what had developed out of a corrupted mishmash of other manuscript traditions. That's why it includes portions of the Old Syriac version that predates it. Apart from the fact that the Pe****ta didn't emerge until around the 6th century (with earlier "pre-Pe****ta" versions in the 5th) and the comparatively few manuscripts attestations that survive, one reason that the Pe****ta manuscripts all tend to agree including having the same errors is because it is an amalgamation of different traditions that was edited and re-edited over time. Also, it's incomplete.
1) Pusey and Gwilliam's didn't provide an edition of Matthew. They provided an edition of the Syriac NT in 1901 based off of late manuscripts even for the Pe****ta (the earliest Pe****ta manuscripts date from ~500 CE).
2) Their edition is problematic because it doesn't even adequately reflect the Pe****ta tradition itself, as the early stages of the Pe****ta version is entirely absent from it.
3) Even though their critical edition is not represent of the Pe****ta, the critical apparatus has more errors and variants than my critical Greek edition.
Ah ha! I see. That's how these statistics are made up. It's true, that is the bulk of the differences between the Syriac manuscripts. It's also the vast majority of variations between the Greek, but apparently your source simply included all variations between the many thousands of Greek manuscripts, picked a handful of Syriac manuscripts from one gospel in a critical edition of the entire syriac NT, and then ignored the kinds of variants that he included in the statistics for the Greek. Wow.
Sure, and that has nothing to do with the fact that the manuscripts your source mentioned were cherry-picked to agree. Why use 10 manuscripts from "Pusey and Gwilliams critical apparatus of Matthew" when
1) it's "Gwilliam's", not "Gwilliam", and Pusey and Gwilliam didn't use just 10 manuscripts
&
2) They didn't produce a critical edition of Matthew. They produced a critical edition of "the Pe****to" in its entirety. Your source apparently decided that the variance in the other books was too great and ignored them. Either that, or he bought a version of their edition that had only one chapter out of the whole volume.
The TR started as a haphazard collection of Greek manuscripts. There are many thousands. The authors of the "critical edition of Matthew" your source uses talk about when the variations from the Greek NT used to for the "Aramaic" translation were introduced. In other words, they measured how reliable the manuscripts they used were based on how often the same errors introduced when translating from the Greek were found in most of the manuscripts they used.
And surprise! There are no variations between Sinaiticus and the copy an acquaintance of mine has. Amazing. In fact, given the many thousand Greek manuscripts there are, we can do what your source does and start looking for the closest manuscripts to compare and make the variations among Pe****ta manuscripts look like they were produced by blind monks with terrible arthritis in the knuckles.
Actually they don't, not if we use the method your source does. Because the "modern Critical traditions" like the UBS actually consult the Syriac traditons including the Pe****ta, but more importantly they rely on a range of manuscripts many times greater than there are Pe****ta texts. To actually compare the Greek manuscripts to the Pe****ta, we'd have to pick out one Greek textual tradition, because apart from anything else, the Pe****ta is just one "Aramaic" textual tradition. And if we actually used a valid comparison (one tradition within the Greek to one within the "Aramaic"), the Pe****ta loses.
And the edition by Snoopy is 100% accurate. This is ridiculous. An enduring problem within Pe****ta studies is the lack of an adequate critical edition. Nobody actually knows how many variations there are between the manuscripts and tracking the transmission of Pe****ta manuscripts is still a work in progress because no exhaustive study of the manuscripts necessary exists.
This is also just making up numbers, as your source can't possibly track Pe****ta variations because these aren't available. That's why he cites a critical edition over a century old and it didn't include all the manuscripts that were available even then.
Oh, you mean the most important Greek edition? Who needs that when we can make comparisons with another Greek edition from 400+ years ago.
As long as we're saying that the Syriac manuscripts of the Pe****ta are "Aramiac", then we have to look at why we call some the Pe****ta variation, others the Philoxenian, others Old Syriac, others the Palestinian, etc. It's because we group them according to which ones are the most similar. They're all in the same language in the same way that the Greek manuscripts are. However, just like the Greek manuscripts, we can track different manuscript traditions by noting that, for example, the Pe****ta manuscripts tend to all make the same mistakes in translation that the other traditions in the same language don't. So this who thing is like saying "Once we pick a bunch of "Aramaic" manuscripts that show less variation between them then the total variation in the "Aramaic" manuscripts, we find less variation!"
8 variants from what? I can say the entire manuscript is a variant from Vulgate version.
...out of the selected few examined.
P32 and P33 are Greek.
Because actual textual critics aren't morons who get impressed typing practically random and absolutely meaningless numbers into a calculator like your source.