Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Your "mistranslations" confirm Greek primacy
#1
It's funny that all greek manuscripts contain the same mistranslations.
For example, your "Treasure" for Aramaic Primacy (Acts 8:27) actually prove greek origin of this text. It's not possible that all translators used "gaza" and none used "thesauros".
Another example is Romans 5,7 with greek "mistranslation" - righteous/wicked. ALL translators did the same error ???
All "mistranslations" prove greek primacy, it's so clear.
Reply
#2
kria Wrote:It's funny that all greek manuscripts contain the same mistranslations.
For example, your "Treasure" for Aramaic Primacy (Acts 8:27) actually prove greek origin of this text. It's not possible that all translators used "gaza" and none used "thesauros".
Another example is Romans 5,7 with greek "mistranslation" - righteous/wicked. ALL translators did the same error ???
All "mistranslations" prove greek primacy, it's so clear.

You're right, that's soooo funny. lol. Thank you like so much. lol. Your logic is bulletproof, your linguistic skills unsurpassed, and this post is quite possibly one of the most sublime compositions that a human mind has ever produced in all the history of humanity.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Shlama alokh akhuni Kria,

I would definitely build up your argument before ever stating something to be a fact on this forum. I myself suggest things and ask questions regularly, but never simply assert something without putting it in context. Facts needs evidence and/or logic. Just thought I would chime in on this.

Push b'shayna,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#4
Paul Younan: I'm sorry, I don't understand you. What's the point of what you said? Maybe you can help me but not this way...

Nimrod Warda: I don't say Greek Primacy is true. I just say that "mistranslations" don't prove Aramaic Primacy. They actually restrain me from accepting Aramaic Primacy.
Reply
#5
...

Kria,
What is the biggest thing that shows you that the Aramaic came 1st? And what is the biggest thing that shows you that the Greek came 1st?

...
Reply
#6
Thirdwoe: The biggest thing that shows me that the Greek came before Peshitta is:

(1) Greek manuscripts agreement (if they are translations by DIFFERENT TRANSLATORS, they should be MUCH MORE DIFFERENT) - that is what I'm talking about in this topic. ALL translators did THE SAME MISTRANSLATIONS? - I can't believe it. ALL translators translated aramaic word for LOVE in the same way (there are at least two different words for love in greek) ...and so on...
and also
(2) Paul wrote mostly to greek-speaking people
(..ok, it is possible that he wrote both in greek and aramaic because he wanted to send his writings to aramaic people as well...)

I think there is nothing else for greek (except controversial numerics) but these two arguments are huge.

I don't have any "biggest thing" for Aramaic primacy (maybe the fact that Jesus spoke aramaic, but it's not so big...).
I admit that most of the linguistic arguments presented by Paul Younan and others are very impressive. But they are nothing because of my "(1)" argument (maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it now).

I have the feeling that this whole issue is not important for God at all and He does't want us to know the truth and He is just laughing at us :-)
Reply
#7
kria Wrote:All "mistranslations" prove greek primacy, it's so clear.

Your logic is a fallacy, called an "Argumentum ad populum."

If 99 people think 'fact x= right' and 1 thinks not, the 99 are right. Okay?

Why did I not expect from Greek primacists anything better than the usage of fallacies?
Reply
#8
kria Wrote:I don't have any "biggest thing" for Aramaic primacy (maybe the fact that Jesus spoke aramaic, but it's not so big...).

Dear Kria,

Aramaic Primacy can be a conclusion arrived at not from only considering one area of evidence ("Mistranslations"), but from the cumulative effect of studying different types of examples on a wide range of topics. Surely "Mistranslations", if considered on their own, do not amount to much. But if you take into account, along with the "Mistranslations"...say....."Polysemy" (where you have NO agreements by the Greek translators, who each chose a different meaning to that Aramaic word), then the argument for an Aramaic original becomes much more convincing.

There is a reason why we have broken up the forum into sub-topics dealing with these different types of evidence. Our argument is much more convincing when considering the sum of all the parts. Why would you only choose to look at one type of evidence rather than considering them all together?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
distazo:
I'm not greek primacist and I'm sorry for this "fallacy". Can you tell me what's exactly wrong with my argument?
Reply
#10
Paul Younan:
"...if you take into account, along with the "Mistranslations"...say....."Polysemy"..."

That's exactly what I'm doing. "Polysemy" is great for aramaic primacy but along with "mistranslations" I don't understand it.

For example, there are 10 translators form aramaic to greek. Each of them translates some verses differently. There are even examples like quadruple split words. But they agree in all other verses and they all do the same mistranslations! I don't see how is this possible...
Reply
#11
My point is that if the greek manuscripts are different translations, they should be MUCH MORE different.
Reply
#12
...

Kria,

The Greek manuscript copies that exist...are all copies of other earlier Greek copies, back to the 1st century...and the few original Greek manuscripts, say 27, that all the rest are copies of copies of, just perpetuate the overall readings of the original Greek manuscripts right?

Then there would only be 27 of the Greek manuscripts at the start, rather they be the 1st translations of the Original Aramaic manuscripts, or they themselves being the Original writtings...

So, really, there would only be 27 original Greek manuscripts either way...and if they still exist somewhere only 27 translator or Scribal hands doing them, like Tertius for Romans and Silvanus for 1st Peter and so forth...in which it was common back then to employ a scribe...and all the thousands of other copies of these 1st ones would just be copies of copies of copies of copies of them....with various scribal errors in each one of the many copies, as would be normal in a handwritten copy and multiple copies thereof....

I don't think your argument has any merit really if you consider what I just said.

And for arguments sake....try and use the same logic you used if the Aramaic were just copies of the Greek originals...would you find the same would be true as you have concluded about the Greek copies?

...
Reply
#13
Shlama all--

Maybe I am missing something but I think there should be an obvious question asked: How much more different should the Greek mss be? By what standard? From what forms of evidence? I would really like to know who decides that only one form of evidence counts and others don't.

You see, from where I sit, the Peshitta is very different from the Greek. Also, not all Greek families of mss were around when the Peshitta was done. Sometimes a mistake in the first translation into Greek spreads to all families and other times it leads to other mistakes. (We have, most of us, documented many examples of each type.)

I don't think most people know how different the Greek families are from each other. Why doesn't anyone mention that fact? At least when the Peshitta family of 360 mss are shown to be 99.99% in common, that unity is real. When Westcott and Hort did their Frankenstien operation, that was fake. No Greek mss in the world reads like their version all the way through. No Scripture tradition in the world has unity like the Peshitta does either. Those are facts that need to be dealt with first.

You see, this is a classic example of shooting an arrow and then drawing the target. You don't know the Greek mss are not identical so you assume concordance there that doesn't exist and then use that "fact" to suggest they had to be original against the Peshitta which really has that concordance??? Why do you think we call these "Greek families" in the first place--because one family doesn't speak to the other ones!

I suggest a refresher on some of what Lamsa observed about how many differences there exist between Peshitta the the Greek and how sentences are moved around and so on. Raphael Lataster also has a lot of these in his book.

Beyond this, let me say that there are many other legitimate ways to approach this question, but just using vague feelings, backed by zero evidence, without consistent rules or even explanation, that is not the way to go about it.

Therefore I say, this "argument" is actually no argument at all. As the Latin guys say NON-SEQUITUR, does not follow.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#14
kria Wrote:For example, there are 10 translators form aramaic to greek. Each of them translates some verses differently. There are even examples like quadruple split words. But they agree in all other verses and they all do the same mistranslations! I don't see how is this possible...

Dear Kria,

Why would there be 10 translators from Aramaic to Greek?

More likely than not, each Aramaic book was translated once into Greek - possibly by an immediate disciple of that author, or perhaps someone who was bilingual at that congregation a little later on for the benefit of those people who didn't understand Aramaic.

After that initial translation, different manuscript lineages (like Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, etc.) developed over time. So a mistake in that very first translation perpetuated itself throughout the rest of the branches of the tree. That's where "Mistranslations" come in.

And the scribes responsible for the later manuscripts and Greek textual traditions introduced some of their own mistakes, not based on the Aramaic, but rather on a misunderstanding of the Greek text they were copying, or revising, or adding to, or subtracting from. That's where "Variances" come in.

In certain cases where Polysemy exists, it can be argued that the authors of those manuscripts attempted to correct what they considered to be an erroneous Greek reading by referring back to the original Aramaic. So they chose an alternate meaning to that word in Aramaic. That's where, of course, "Polysemy" comes in.

It's quite a mess in certain cases.

This is a rather complicated topic, and it requires careful thought. For your benefit I would suggest that you consider the sum of the parts when reaching a conclusion, rather than isolating one type.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#15
kria Wrote:distazo:
I'm not greek primacist and I'm sorry for this "fallacy". Can you tell me what's exactly wrong with my argument?

You seem to base your argument on 'because most Greek translations translated it like this, automatically the one with -that- translation, must be non authentic'

It's not convincing because there is idiomatic support since the dead sea scrolls support the Aramaic reading.

In Romans, an older Aramaic idiom was used. In later ages, the meaning of the word reversed. (Translators used the modern meaning).
This happens with many languages. It supports an Aramaic original, not a Greek one.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)