Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)
#12
Distazo, terrific reply. Great points. I'm probably not going to ignore the wordplays indefinitely, but just initially as I search for more of the convincing proofs. And I believe that I've come across some of these last night as I read back through Christopher Lancaster's primacy proof documents.

And one such proof, which I examined last night and today is the issue of "hanging earrings on dogs" in Mat 7:6, which you just mentioned--both as a semi-split word and as a wordplay. My interest is primarily on the semi-split word aspect--namely, that there are either dictionaries or other ancient sources (Targums) that attest to a double-meaning of qudsha.

Now, I admit that I didn't look this up myself yet, because I read it in Christopher Lancasters primacy proof article last night. But he did a decent job because he included screenshots of dictionary and lexicon entries; and furthermore, as you pointed out, he included testimonies from the Targums / Tanakh. That is what I call "doing your homework."

I then checked the Greek words through my simple dictionaries to make sure that didn't offer the same double meaning, and they didn't. For the present time then, I feel secure about Matthew 8:7 as a legitimate primacy proof (and the wordplay a nice enhancement).

On the first "split word" document, Christopher Lancaster goes so far as to show which Greek manuscripts (not just English) have a certain reading; and that is huge. But like all people, he is prone to errors, as I found that he made a whole long dissertation on "hate or put aside - Luke 14:26".

Come to find out that his whole premise is built on an error, as he cites the completely wrong Aramaic word to build his argument. (He cites "s-n-a" (sone) when the actual word is "s-b-r" (sebar) or "hope.") He was trying to say that the Greek mistranslated from "sone" but this isn't possible because "sone" isn't even in the Aramaic text.

Lamsa apparently did the same thing when he claimed that Luke 19:17 should read "ten talents" instead of "cities." Sounds great contextually, and even harmonizes with Matthew 25:16, but sadly it seems that he completely misread the Aramaic text in Luke 19:17, which clearly says karkey (cities) and not kakrey (talents). These words may look similar, but they are different roots, and I could make out the difference when looking at the Khabouris codex.

What an enourmous letdown and disappointment. And Paul Younan even admitted to falling into this same mistake (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1653&hilit=talents">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1653&hilit=talents</a><!-- l -->)--I assume from following Lamsa's translation on this. That is what motivated me to begin this discussion--both to find these things out for myself, and to encourage others to test, test, test.

Think of it as a refining process. Hopefully there's some gold lying beneath a lot of the "dirty" claims in Aramaic primacy, but I want to have an open mind to the truth either way. Thanks again for your responses.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting) - by Thomas - 01-13-2015, 02:15 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)