Why the NT was written in Aramaic and Greek

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have lost track of the rest of the missing Metzger text you accuse Roth of deliberately omitting for purposes of deliberate deception. Would you mind posting it here in it's entirety?

I'll do you one better. Rather than simply giving what your source left out in order to garner support through his dishonest, misrepresentation of what Metzger said, I'll also supply you with the beginning of the liar you continually support follows the end of his "quote" with, as well as what Metzger said in more recent sources your source ignored in favor of quote-mining the one he did.

"The Pe****ta version, or Syriac Vulgate, of the New Testament (SyrP) was prepared about the beginning of the fifth century, probably in order to supplant the divergent, competing Old Syriac translations. It contains only 22 books; 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not translated."
(emphasis added)

Metzger, B. M. & Ehrman, B.D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration (4th Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Apparently Metzger doesn't agree with your source. I could go on to other publications in which Metzger is quite clear and goes into extensive detail (some of them not around in 1977), but your source didn't cite these and I don't need them. They could just indicated an uneducated, lazy research rather than a liar, slandering Metzger my deliberately misrepresenting what Metzger said. So let's go to what he left out:
"That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Võõbus's researches. At the same time one is reluctant to believe that the statement by Rabbula's biographer is without any historical foundation. Baarda may well be correct in his supposition that Rabbula's work of revision was not a radical one: 'The purpose', he suggests, 'was to have a more accurate translation of passages that were important in the Christological discussions within the Edessenian clergy.' Consequently, most of the changes Rabbula introduced involved passages in the Gospel according to John, a feature that, as was mentioned above, is reflected in the Gospel quotations included in the biography of Rabbula.
It appears that, besides Rabbula, other leaders in the Syrian Church also had a share in producing the Pe****ta. The presence of a diversity of mannerisms and style in the Pe****ta Gospels and Apostolos suggests that the revision of the Old Syriac was not homogeneous, but the work of several hands. Whether, as Rendel Harris thought, one of the translators was Mar Koumi, a well-known Syrian bishop of the fifth century, is problematic. In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in A.D. 431. Despite the remarkable degree of unanimity of reading among most manuscripts of the Pe****ta version, there are occasional copies, such as codex Phillipps 1388 (see p. 50 above), that preserve scores of Old Syriac variae lectiones, a feature that, as Black remarks, 'disposes of the textual myth of a fixed Pe****ta New Testament text, with little or no internal evidence of variants) to shed light on its development and history'.
Finally, some attention must be given to problems involved in determining the textual affinities of the Pe****ta version of the New Testament. It has been frequently stated that the type of text represented by the Pe****ta is what Hort designated the Syrian text and Ropes the Antiochian-a form of text which also appears in the writings of John Chrysostom and which eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, in a considerable number of readings the Pe****ta agrees with one or other of the pre-Syrian Greek texts, against the Antiochian Fathers and the late Greek text. In a detailed examination of Matt. chaps. i-xiv, Gwilliam found that the Pe****ta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances (almost one-fourth of the whole number) it stands alone. From these data he concluded that the unknown author of the Pe****ta 'revised an ancient work by Greek MSS. which have no representatives now extant, and thus has transmitted to us an independent witness to the Greek Text of the New Testament'."
(emphases added, italics in original)

 

[godnotgod]

Apparently Metzger doesn't agree with your source. I could go on to other publications in which Metzger is quite clear and goes into extensive detail (some of them not around in 1977), but your source didn't cite these and I don't need them. They could just indicated an uneducated, lazy research rather than a liar, slandering Metzger my deliberately misrepresenting what Metzger said. So let's go to what he [Roth] left out:

"That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Võõbus's researches....."

So to be clear: Metzger is saying that Rabulla did not create the Pe****ta?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So to be clear: Metzger is saying that Rabulla did not create the Pe****ta?

Metzger is saying that Rabulla wasn't the only one who did, just one of the people who did. He is also saying that it is a translation of Greek, is written in Syriac, and our early estimations for when it was written (not our earliest manuscripts) is centuries after we actually have a manuscript from John.

However, the dishonest, slanderous liar you use decided that he would rely on real authorities so long as he ignored what they said and made them appear to support positions they did not: "Voobus in fact goes on to argue that Rabulla never even used the Pe****ta at all! Furthermore, even Dr. Bruce Metzger, who may be the world's foremost Greek New Testament Primacist, agrees with Voobus and rejects Burkitt"

First, your source misrepresents Võõbus. Võõbus argued not that Rabulla didn't use "the Pe****ta at all!" but that his Syriac is partly based or uses the Pe****ta, but also the Old Syriac and Diatessaron. He glosses over all the work Võõbus did on the influences of the Greek on the Syriac texts (including the Pe****ta). Then, to support his lies about, and misrepresentation of, Võõbus, he goes on to slander Metzger. He uses Metzger's expertise by quote-mining to mislead the reader into thinking that Metzger agrees with the view expressed by Võõbus, only he has lied and distorted Võõbus.

The problem is he wants to use two lines from Metzger. So he skips over what Metzger says about Võõbus entirely with the exception of a single line: "That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Voobus' researches..." He then skips all the lines that would show he's a liar preys upon the ignorance of his audience, including "It appears that, besides Rabbula, other leaders in the Syrian Church also had a share in producing the Pe****ta". However, Võõbus didn't think that Rabbula produced the Pe****ta, so this: "Metzger, who may be the world's foremost Greek New Testament Primacist, agrees with Voobus " is a lie.

However, he's not done abusing Metzger yet. So he skips right over all those inconvenient lines that Metzger writes on the ways in which your source is a misleading liar whose expertise is misrepresenting experts, and gets to this line by Metzger:

"In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD 431".

He then states "I could not have said this better myself. Since the Eastern and Western Aramaic groups hated each other with a passion, once again we see that one faction would never accept the Scripture of the other".

Only, that has nothing to do with what Metzger said. Metzger said both factions did accept the same scripture, but that this scripture was the result of "several hands" revising the Old Syriac and that this continued after the factions. He even names a specific manuscript (the codex Phillips) and refers the reader to an earlier page (p. 50) where he states: "Certain features in its lectionary system have been thought to point to a date toward the close of the fifth century. Its text seems to represent a stage between that of the Old Syriac and the fully developed Pe****ta text"

So your source not only ignores the little inconvenient fact that Metzger states specifically that the transition from the Old Syriac to the Pe****ta was going on at the close of the 5th century, he acts as if Metzger supports his view about the factions and goes on to speak of a quote from the 4th century he made up which directly contradicts what Metzger claims.

This is called distorting, misrepresenting, and lying in the form of quote-mining, lies of omission, misleading suggestions, outright lies, and just about every way a source with no integrity can appeal to real specialists and use their expertise to support points they wholeheartedly disagree with. To represent someone with Metzger's expertise as in anyway agreeing with any part of your source is just maligning the poor man's name to an audience to clueless to realize they are being misled by a liar.

 

[godnotgod]

Metzger is saying that Rabulla wasn't the only one who did, just one of the people who did.

Roth quotes Metzger in his opening line as saying:

"The question who it was that produced the Pe****ta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered."

Therefore, Metzger is making it clear that he actually does not know who created the Pe****ta.


"That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Voobus' researches..."

Here Metzger refers to Voobus to demonstrate that it was clearly not Rabulla who did.

 

[godnotgod]

There's a pretty good reason why "99%" of Greek NT scholars believe as they do. It's called "responsible scholarship."

It's called indoctrination, but it's really a form of hypnotic trance.

"But if some brave souls wish to go even further back, towards an even older type of a text, it's definitely the ancient Aramaic gospels that give us the best and the most original text of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Strangely enough, these ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels have been all but completely neglected in the last 100 years of biblical scholarship. The main reason for this is clearly political, in my view, the desire to make Yeshua into a Greek. But this is a separate long story in its own right."

Earliest Gospel MSS make it all clear -- it's a Fraud!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Roth quotes Metzger in his opening line as saying:
"The question who it was that produced the Pe****ta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered."

This isn't an opening line. It's just where your source starts his quote-mining. Had he included material before or after (and even within his quote, in the portion he has selected out), it would contradict his point and he wouldn't be able to appeal to Metzger's expertise by distorting and misrepresenting what he says.

Therefore, Metzger is making it clear that he actually does not know who created the Pe****ta.

He isn't. Because he specifically speaks of multiple people who did have a hand in producing it (including Rabulla). However, in context (that your source avoids to manipulate the reader), it is clear: Metzger is saying we will perhaps never know who the people were that produced the Pe****ta, as it wasn't one person and he says this quite explicitly.



"That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Voobus' researches..."

Here Metzger refers to Voobus to demonstrate that it was clearly not Rabulla who did

And those "..." hide what follows: that Rabulla had a hand in producing as did several others. However, as that would be inconvenient, your source avoids integrity and honesty like the plague by neatly removing about half a page with "..." as, after all, had he not misrepresented what Metger said by dishonestly misquoting him (yes, misquoting is not limited to adding elements into a quotation it is also leaving out elements), then he'd have no support from experts.

It's called indoctrination

How would you know?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Strangely enough, these ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels have been all but completely neglected in the last 100 years of biblical scholarship.

I'm a neuroscientist, not a biblical scholar and this is just a hobby for me. Naturally, then, my sources on topics related biblical studies is nothing compared to my sources on topics related to my field nor can they compare to the familiarity with (and authorship of) Pe****ta/Aramaic/Syriac studies those like Joosten, Jenner, Võõbus, ter Haar Romeny, etc. So we can look at what I have on this subject (understanding that the real experts would have far more), just to see how "neglected these ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels" really are.

First, general works on early Christian manuscripts & textual criticism all of which address both the Pe****ta and the Syriac manuscripts in general:

Fitzmyer, J. A. (1974). Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SB'sL Sources for Biblical Study 5). Scholars' Press.

Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1989). Der Text des Neuen Testaments: Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik Deutsche Bibelges

Metzger, B. M., & Brock, S. P. (1977). The early versions of the New Testament: their origin, transmission, and limitations. Clarendon Press.

Ehrman, B. D. (1993). The Orthodox corruption of scripture: The effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press.

Epp, E. J., & Fee, G. D. (1993). Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual criticism (Vol. 45 of Studies and Documents). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Ehrman, B. D., & Holmes, M. W. (Eds.). (1995). The text of the New Testament in contemporary research: essays on the status quaestionis (Vol. 42 of Studies and Documents). Brill.

Metzger, B. (2001). The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Baker Academic.

Parker, D. C. (2008). An introduction to the New Testament manuscripts and their texts. Cambridge University Press.

Ok, I'm bored with that and I've quoted other sources (like Metzger's and Ehrman's book on textual criticism), so let's move on to studies on Syriac, Aramaic, and the Pe****ta:

Kaufman, S. A. (1974). The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Assyriological Studies, 19). University of Chicago press.

Sokoloff, M. (1978). The Current State of Research on Galilean Aramaic. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 37(2), 161-167.

Fitzmyer, J. A. (1979). A wandering Aramean: collected Aramaic essays. Scholars Press.

Joosten, J. (1991). West Aramaic Elements in the Old Syriac and Pe****ta Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 110(2), 271-289.

Brock, S. P. (1997). A brief outline of Syriac literature (Vol. 9). St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute.

Casey, M. (1998). Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel (Vol. 102 of SNTS' Monograph Series). Cambridge University Press.


Baarda, T. (1999). Nomikos in syriac texts. Novum Testamentum, 41(4), 383-389.

Williams, P. J. (2001). Bread and the Pe****ta in Matthew 16: 11-12 and 12: 4. Novum Testamentum, 43(4), 331-333.

Casey, M. (2002). An Aramaic approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Vol. 122 of SNTS' Monograph Series[/I). Cambridge University Press.

Casey, M. (2002). Aramaic idiom and the son of man problem: A response to Owen and Shepherd. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 25(1), 3-32.

van Keulen, P. S., & Van Peursen, W. T. (Eds.). (2006). Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshiṭta (Vol. 48 of Studia Semitica Neerlandica). Van Gorcum.

Jenner, K. D., van Peursen, W. T., & ter Haar Romeny, R. B. (2006). Text, translation, and tradition: studies on the Pe****ta and its use in the Syriac tradition presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday (Vol. 14 of Monographs of the Pe****ta Institute). Brill Academic Pub.
(fyi- that series is the center for Pe****ta research and you can check out the titles in the series here: Monographs of the Pe****ta Institute. The go back over 40 years.
ter Haar Romeny, R. B. (Ed.). (2008). Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac culture of his day (Vol. 18 of Monographs of the Pe****ta Institute Leiden). Brill.

Juckel, A. (2009). Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Pe****ta Gospels. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 12.

Smelik, W. F. (2009). The Aramaic Dialect (s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments. Aramaic Studies, 7(1), 39-73.

Elliott, J. K. (Ed.). (2010). New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation (Vol. 137 of Supplements to Novum Testamentum). Brill.

Ruzer, S., & Kofsky, A. (2010). Syriac Idiosyncrasies: Theology and Hermeneutics in Early Syriac Literature. Brill.

Fassberg, S. E. (2010). The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa (Vol. 54 of Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics). Brill.

McNamara, M. (2010). Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Again, I'm too tired (and there are WAYYY to many journal articles. Plus, some of the stuff is written in Latin it's so old (Pusey, P. E., & Gwilliam, G. H. (1901). Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem. E typographeo Clarendoniano.)

Where's the neglect?

 

[godnotgod]

Where's the neglect?

'neglected' in the sense that they are not really taken seriously in light of their being overshadowed by the Greek texts.

 

[godnotgod]

This isn't an opening line. It's just where your source starts his quote-mining....

Roth is quoting Metzger as the speaker, who states:

"The question who it was that produced the Pe****ta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rabbula has been proved by Voobus' researches..."

 

[godnotgod]

How would you know?

Because it's obvious to the un-indoctrinated.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

'neglected' in the sense that they are not really taken seriously in light of their being overshadowed by the Greek texts.

Ironically, it was the "indoctrination" of scholars that allowed for so long the uncritically accepted work at the turn of the 19th century and the publication of the critical edition of the Pe****ta that is behind your claims and the claims of your sources regarding the "remarkable agreement" between Pe****ta manuscripts. Because the critical edition was published so long ago and, despite vast amounts of scholarship it has taken time to realize how much of a construct the Pe****ta is, created almost whole-clothe by scholars who took Syirac manuscripts that agreed and slapped on a nametag. However, in the past several decades research into the influences on the manuscripts generally considered to be Pe****ta manuscripts, including Old Syriac influences, Greek influences, scribal tendencies (such as harmonization), etc., has changed things.

The increased attention and recognition of "neglect" that began some 50 odd years ago and has gained since hasn't done Pe****ta primacists any favors, as it turns out that the exemplar Pe****ta manusripts differ more from each other than from particular Old Syriac manuscripts (Sinaitic & Curetonian). The idea of "remarkable agreement" stems from
1) Defining which Syriac manuscripts are Pe****ta texts in terms of agreement
2) Failing to adequately apply the then burgeoning field of modern textual criticism in order to trace influences and relations among Syriac manuscripts and between these and other (non-Syriac) manuscript traditions.

That has changed. After 40+ years of trying to determine the origins of the Pe****ta by looking at affinities between the Pe****ta and other manuscript traditions as well as ways in which the Pe****ta reflects Western, Greek, or other influences increasingly made clear the arbitrariness of "the Pe****ta" compared to the other Syriac manuscript traditions. It's not just a matter of knowing who produced it (as it was a work in progress and many had a hand), but what exactly it is (that is, given a Syriac manuscript, how do we determine if it should be considered to be a Pe****ta manuscript vs. some transitionary/intermediate between e.g the scribal harmoniations of Old Syriac manuscripts and the influence of Tatian's Diatessaron.

The Pe****ta was never neglected. It simply took longer to be scrutinized than the Greek and Latin texts in part because there are far more of the latter and in part because early work defining the manuscript relations (in e.g., the ways we find "remarkable agreement" we created).

Before you determine what was and/or is neglected in biblical studies/NT research, it's important to have an understanding of that research. In particular, if you haven't actually read any scholarship, how do you know what is neglected?

 

[godnotgod]

... if you haven't actually read any scholarship, how do you know what is neglected?

You consistently and egotisitcally attempt to use academia as a weapon to beat me into submission, in precisely the same manner the Bible fundies use the Bible to beat up others with. Just a note to let you know it just ain't gonna happen. It's getting old and is becoming a nuisance. Just a friendly suggestion for you to cut the obvious crap.

Is it not obvious to you that this is what is keeping you from realizing more from your QiGong practice?

 

[godnotgod]

Ironically, it was the "indoctrination" of scholars that allowed for so long the uncritically accepted work at the turn of the 19th century and the publication of the critical edition of the Pe****ta that is behind your claims and the claims of your sources regarding the "remarkable agreement" between Pe****ta manuscripts. Because the critical edition was published so long ago and, despite vast amounts of scholarship it has taken time to realize how much of a construct the Pe****ta is, created almost whole-clothe by scholars who took Syirac manuscripts that agreed and slapped on a nametag. However, in the past several decades research into the influences on the manuscripts generally considered to be Pe****ta manuscripts, including Old Syriac influences, Greek influences, scribal tendencies (such as harmonization), etc., has changed things.

The increased attention and recognition of "neglect" that began some 50 odd years ago and has gained since hasn't done Pe****ta primacists any favors, as it turns out that the exemplar Pe****ta manusripts differ more from each other than from particular Old Syriac manuscripts (Sinaitic & Curetonian). The idea of "remarkable agreement" stems from
1) Defining which Syriac manuscripts are Pe****ta texts in terms of agreement
2) Failing to adequately apply the then burgeoning field of modern textual criticism in order to trace influences and relations among Syriac manuscripts and between these and other (non-Syriac) manuscript traditions.

That has changed. After 40+ years of trying to determine the origins of the Pe****ta by looking at affinities between the Pe****ta and other manuscript traditions as well as ways in which the Pe****ta reflects Western, Greek, or other influences increasingly made clear the arbitrariness of "the Pe****ta" compared to the other Syriac manuscript traditions. It's not just a matter of knowing who produced it (as it was a work in progress and many had a hand), but what exactly it is (that is, given a Syriac manuscript, how do we determine if it should be considered to be a Pe****ta manuscript vs. some transitionary/intermediate between e.g the scribal harmoniations of Old Syriac manuscripts and the influence of Tatian's Diatessaron.

The Pe****ta was never neglected. It simply took longer to be scrutinized than the Greek and Latin texts in part because there are far more of the latter and in part because early work defining the manuscript relations (in e.g., the ways we find "remarkable agreement" we created).

Before you determine what was and/or is neglected in biblical studies/NT research, it's important to have an understanding of that research. In particular, if you haven't actually read any scholarship, how do you know what is neglected?

Ya. Jesus was a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Caucasian, don'cha know?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You consistently and egotisitcally attempt to use academia as a weapon

The way you did with Caruso? He isn't "credentialed", remember?

to beat me into submission

No. A central reason I have continually engaged in this hopeless quest has nothing to do with the fact that you believe what you do. It isn't even that you do this without any justification (in the epistemic /JTB sense). It's that you refuse even to look at what arguments, reasons, justifications, etc., exist behind the position of the thousands of specialists in multiple fields before dismissing these.

Academics disagree and can be (and often are) wrong or at least partly wrong.

However, it is essential to understand certain things about the nature of scholarly disagreements. I'll use one example:

You probably know of the two source hypothesis (i.e., that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a source we call Q). There is a lot of disagreement over the hypothesized "layers" of Q and which communities and what languages are behind these. There is less disagreement over whether Q was written (i.e., Matthew and Luke were using texts). And finally there is almost no disagreement that we cannot explain the similarities that Matthew and Luke share not found in Mark without Q.

Notice that as we go from specific details very general conclusions, we find more and more agreement. This is because of the way research advances. All that disagreement about layers of Q exists because when scholars argued over whether there was such a source they amassed a wealth of information. This settled (almost) that Q must in some sense exist, but the details amassed opened up other questions like how much of Q might exist that isn't found in Matthew or Luke.

When it comes to the original language of the NT, we know so much that we're down to track the influences of various kinds on single words or terms in the Pe****ta. In fact, we can even track how the Syriac manuscripts (including the Pe****ta) regularly render νομικός in the same way except in a single line of the Pe****ta (the other lines in the Pe****ta are consistent with the other Syriac manuscripts) thanks the discovery of a 5th century commentary on the Diatessaron and the extant Arabic Diatessaron.


The level at which your sources are operating is not only no where near this, it can't be. Where we Chancey approaches the Aramaic influences in Q and in Mark in his monographs by using actual evidence of Aramaic in and around the first century, your sources claim that Jesus spoke "Galilean Aramaic" despite the fact that "Galilean Aramaic" didn't exist when Jesus lived (also, the name of the dialect is outdated).

in precisely the same manner the Bible fundies use the Bible

This isn't a back and forth of you coming up with your interpretation of some line in the KJV to argue against my use of the New World Translation. I'm arguing that you are rejecting scholarship you haven't read in favor of trust in your sources' claims though you cannot evaluate their veracity. The point is not "I'm right but you're wrong" it's "you cannot even determine who is right or why".

It's an plea or perhaps an exhortation that you at least gain some understanding of what you are arguing against or even what basis you have for claiming the things you do of scholarship you haven't read.

Just a note to let you know it just ain't gonna happen.

Does this mean you are going to do research?

It's getting old and is becoming a nuisance.

Nuisance? All you have to do is copy & paste repeatedly from the same sources. I used to try to do most of the same except through the use of copying and pasting from experts but you dismissed all of these offhand. So I switched to explaining myself and pointing you to sources for verification. You eschewed my sources and countered my explanations mostly by repeating hat you already said. So I extended my explanations from analyses to ways in which you wouldn't need any expertise.

I still haven't heard an explanation for why the Pe****ta "translates" the Aramaic terms/phrases we find in the Greek NT). So I tried another tactic: find a none scholar similar to your sources.

What did you do? You claimed he wasn't credentialed and dismissed him.

You've refused to answer even those questions that depend only on logic/reason like the why the Pe****ta "translates" it's own terms/phrases like the Greek, while I have gone out of my way to provide you with every source and explanation I can. That's a nuisance.

Refuting arguments you can't evaluate by repeatedly referencing the same sources, dismissing scholarly credentials as mere "indoctrination" and then dismissing a non-scholarly source for not being credentialed, and ignoring questions you find inconvenient to answer is not a "nuisance".

Just a friendly suggestion for you to cut the obvious crap.

How is it "obvious crap"?

 

[godnotgod]

The way you did with Caruso? He isn't "credentialed", remember?
...You claimed he wasn't credentialed and dismissed him.

I'm merely using your criteria and methodology in light of your condemnation of Alexander.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm merely using your criteria and methodology in light of your condemnation of Alexander.

No part of that is true.

1) Caruso employs no methods similar to Alexander and his goal is entirely different

Spoiler: Details

First, there is absolutely no similarity between any "methods" Alexander uses and Caruso. There can't be, as Alexander doesn't just fail utterly to address dialect differences but invents an "ancient Aramaic" actual specialists in Aramaic (including native speakers) refer to as "Late Aramaic" (whereas Old Aramaic pre-dates Jesus by over 1,000 years).

Caruso, whatever his credentials or his familiarity with the methods used in historical and comparative linguistics, is at least vastly more familiar with not only the dialects and periods of Aramaic but also the need for caution:
"Retro-translations are, at least in part, exercises in speculation. Possibilities will continue to be refined."

Caruso is not making claims about the manuscript traditions, textual dependence, or anything like that but is concerned retro-translation (unfortunately without the expertise required). He's trying to understand the Aramaic of Jesus' day and then reconstruct how the Greek of the NT might be translated into Aramaic.

2) If by "methodology and criteria" you mean my own, than it is to rely on and use actual "credentialed" experts, not amateurs. I don't use Caruso's work, I have no interest in his results, and I find his methods almost completely unreliable. However, you have ignored every attempt of mine to use actual specialists by writing them off as having been "indoctrinated". So I gave you a non-credentialed source to show you that it isn't simply real experts who disagree with the nonsense your sources spout.

3) My sole use of Caruso was (and will ever be) yet another attempt to get to you to at least begin to rely on something other than religious-like faith in a few sources you promote and then defend by inventing this "indoctrination" you claim exists in specialist literature (a claim you make about what you haven't bothered to read yet dogmatically cling to nonetheless).

4) My criteria is to rely on extensive research of primary and secondary sources so that I am capable of evaluating things like the distorted, misrepresentation of Metzger your source so dishonestly provided to deliberately mislead.

 

[godnotgod]

Caruso employs no methods similar to Alexander and his goal is entirely different

Different, but both are concerned with translating Galilean Aramaic, so BOTH need to use existing material available to them, then go backwards from there. I see Alexander as having an edge as he speaks fluent Aramaic, whereas Caruso does not, and neither do you!

Caruso is not making claims about the manuscript traditions, textual dependence, or anything like that but is concerned retro-translation (unfortunately without the expertise required). He's trying to understand the Aramaic of Jesus' day (so is Alexander!) and then reconstruct how the Greek of the NT might be translated into Aramaic.

Ha! Good luck with that. He'll most likely end up rejecting Greek NT primacy because of it.

If by "methodology and criteria" you mean my own, than it is to rely on and use actual "credentialed" experts, not amateurs. I don't use Caruso's work, I have no interest in his results, and I find his methods almost completely unreliable. However, you have ignored every attempt of mine to use actual specialists by writing them off as having been "indoctrinated". So I gave you a non-credentialed source to show you that it isn't simply real experts who disagree with the nonsense your sources spout.

But as he is non-credentialed, he really isn't in a position to call Alexander a fraud. HE"S the fraud! So your use of him is useless. Do you have anyone else in mind who does have the 'propah' credentials, ala LOM?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Different, but both are concerned with translating Galilean Aramaic

Alexander isn't:
"Ancient Aramaic and the Ancient Hebrew are the only dialects that retain all the consonants of the original scribal language of the Bible; but only the Ancient Aramaic of Nineveh retains the original vowel sounds." (source)

He just makes up dialects (and confuses dialects with languages).


Caruso states:
"Early Galilean Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus, is a language that has all but fallen into obscurity. It is perhaps one of the least understood of the ancient Aramaic dialects and is very distinct"
and continues:

"Galilean Aramaic (increasingly referred to as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic) is a Western dialect of Aramaic. Its closest contemporary cousins were Samaritan Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA), all of which share similar features. While there are a number of modern Eastern Aramaic dialects, the only dialect of Western Aramaic that survives to this day is spoken in the three villages of Ma’loula, Bakh’a, and Jub’addin in Syria (collectively known as the Ma’loula dialect). Sadly with current events and violence in the middle east, the fate of this dialect is uncertain."
(Galilean Aramaic)

He at least recognizes that "Galilean Aramaic" isn't the language of Jesus (and although "early Galilean Aramaic" isn't a dialect, it seems to be just a way to refer to Aramaic as spoken in Galilee in Jesus' day). His project will never succeed, but I never intended to use his site for anything other than another attempt to communicate using sources you don't dogmatically reject because they are experts.


Alexander is so pathetically inept here that his every reference to Aramaic is incorrect:

"So when you hear and see various scripts and pronunciations of Aramaic over the Internet, don't be confused by the claims of many that theirs is the oldest or most authentic presentation. There's only one language and one dialect that Eashoa spoke, and that's the Galilean of His Day. What I've shown you is not a construct of plausible translations or pronunciations of the Ancient Aramaic language, like some movies have attempted to do by distorting the story of Eashoa Msheekha and His Teachings; my pronunciation captures the true meanings of what Maran Eashoa Msheekha said and did two thousand years ago" (source)

He makes no distinctions between dialect, refers to a non-existant "ancient Aramaic", and claims that Iranian teachers and his native Syrian allows him to use the Syriac language he claims is the Aramaic of Jesus (or that his ability to exactly represent it without giving any indication how allows him to use Eastern Late Aramaic and divine Jesus' language through his expertise at using a video camera.

so BOTH need to use existing material available to them

"I want everyone to understand why the Ancient Aramaic language must be treated as the sacred scribal language and not as a spoken language or literary language. I don't need to prove that the manuscript I'm translating from is the oldest found; archeology is not the issue. I don't need to prove that the manuscript I'm translating from has been sanctioned by any church; doctrine is not the issue. I don't need to prove that the manuscript I'm translating from is in the proper dialect; nationalism is not the issue. The only thing I need to prove is whether or not the manuscript I'm translating from contains the fundamental belief system of the Apostles of Eashoa, the belief system which Eashoa taught. This I've done, even if you take just two words: Maryah and Milta"

(source; emphases added)


Your source is apparently using "a manuscript" he won't describe, confuses dialects with languages, describes an invented "ancient Aramaic", insists he has magically produced perfectly Jesus' language, and refuses to give any evidence for any of his claims. We don't know what he has or what he's doing with it because he refuses to tell.

So no, they are not both using material available to them because Alexander is making up material, not using any.

he speaks fluent Aramaic

I can give you scholarship by native speakers of Aramaic who are also specialist. They would have Alexander's edge and far more. Would it make any difference when they too disagree with everything Alexander says? If not, why?

whereas Caruso does not

You are a native English speaker are you not? Why haven't you translated those two passages? They're in English. It's just a few lines. What's the hold-up?

Good luck with that.

It's an exercise in futility and guaranteed to fail. But I don't care, as I don't rely on blogs by amateurs or even specialist literature. You seem to have missed the only reason I linked to Caruso's site because when I presented you with credentialed specialists you dogmatically asserted they are all indoctrinated. I tried to find a source that is similar to the kind you use (amateurs who aren't producing scholarship) to show that even non-specialist don't buy Alexander's lies.

he really isn't in a position to call Alexander a fraud.

Why? All it takes to show he's a fraud is to show what Alexander refuses to produce: evidence. For example:
"The Hebrew script and dialect evolved out of the original Ancient Aramaic language"

HE"S the fraud!

He doesn't lie. He's just wrong. That's not fraud.

So your use of him is useless.

True, I underestimated your determination to remain ignorant. You dismiss specialists because their credentials are products of indoctrination, but it turns out you dismiss those without credentials just as readily and just as dogmatically.

Do you have anyone else in mind who does have the 'propah' credentials

Do you revel in being ignorant? Here's part of an already partial list of sources you already know I referred to:

Fitzmyer, J. A. (1974). Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SB'sL Sources for Biblical Study 5). Scholars' Press.

Kaufman, S. A. (1974). The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Assyriological Studies, 19). University of Chicago press.

Sokoloff, M. (1978). The Current State of Research on Galilean Aramaic. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 37(2), 161-167.

Fitzmyer, J. A. (1979). A wandering Aramean: collected Aramaic essays. Scholars Press.

Joosten, J. (1991). West Aramaic Elements in the Old Syriac and Pe****ta Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 110(2), 271-289.


Casey, M. (1998). Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel (Vol. 102 of SNTS' Monograph Series). Cambridge University Press.


Baarda, T. (1999). Nomikos in syriac texts. Novum Testamentum, 41(4), 383-389.

Williams, P. J. (2001). Bread and the Pe****ta in Matthew 16: 11-12 and 12: 4. Novum Testamentum, 43(4), 331-333.

Casey, M. (2002). An Aramaic approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Vol. 122 of SNTS' Monograph Series[/I). Cambridge University Press.

Casey, M. (2002). Aramaic idiom and the son of man problem: A response to Owen and Shepherd. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 25(1), 3-32.

van Keulen, P. S., & Van Peursen, W. T. (Eds.). (2006). Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshiṭta (Vol. 48 of Studia Semitica Neerlandica). Van Gorcum.

Jenner, K. D., van Peursen, W. T., & ter Haar Romeny, R. B. (2006). Text, translation, and tradition: studies on the Pe****ta and its use in the Syriac tradition presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday (Vol. 14 of Monographs of the Pe****ta Institute). Brill Academic Pub.

ter Haar Romeny, R. B. (Ed.). (2008). Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac culture of his day (Vol. 18 of Monographs of the Pe****ta Institute Leiden). Brill.

Juckel, A. (2009). Research on the Old Syriac Heritage of the Pe****ta Gospels. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 12.

Smelik, W. F. (2009). The Aramaic Dialect (s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments. Aramaic Studies, 7(1), 39-73.

Ruzer, S., & Kofsky, A. (2010). Syriac Idiosyncrasies: Theology and Hermeneutics in Early Syriac Literature. Brill.

Fassberg, S. E. (2010). The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Challa (Vol. 54 of Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics). Brill.

McNamara, M. (2010). Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a Light on the New Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[godnotgod]

True, I underestimated your determination to remain ignorant. You dismiss specialists because their credentials are products of indoctrination, but it turns out you dismiss those without credentials just as readily and just as dogmatically.

Dismissed yes, but not for the reasons that you think. In a nutshell, I dismiss Caruso on the same grounds you dismiss Alexander, though you disagree that they are the same grounds, and that is because you somehow think your academia gives you some special insight and/or privilege, while I see the same specialized academic cat's eye view as a deficit. So not only are you indoctrinated (or is it hypnotized?), but ignorant to boot.

Footnote: I speak Spanish, but not fluently. I learned what I did from my parents and peer group, but never formally. I have listened to formally-trained Spanish speaking people who have a wider vocabulary range and command of the language in general than I, but my pronunciation and inflection of the words I do know is far superior and more authentic than theirs. This is, in part, why I get what Alexander is trying to get across.

 

[godnotgod]

He doesn't lie. He's just wrong. That's not fraud.

Being wrong in and of itself is not fraud, until you advertise yourself publicly as a bona-fide translator of a language that is not your native language and for which you have no real authentic credentials attesting to your mastery of that language. But not only does he execute translations publicly, he teaches Aramaic in a formal course, all based on....what? That he self-proclaims a vaguely defined 'proficiency' and 'knowledge' with no formal credentials to do so?

I really don't care....just sayin', but maybe you've learned a lesson here about your little 'experiment', which did'nt work.