Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "O" argument
#15
I believe I explained that number. Don't laugh at it's largesse until you look at what it represents.

Well, for starters, I don't believe that human beings are ever truly objective. At least, if it is possible, I've never seen it.
Second, I find it fascinating that you think I've never read your translation. I own it, and I use it regularly when I study the New Testament. I have read many of your notes. Most of them are based on ELS, which has serious issues. Of the others, polysemy are the best ones.
You shouldn't have doubt. In fact, you can't have doubt. If you're teaching it I would hope that you don't have any doubts. That is not the same as saying that there can be no doubt. Of course there is room for doubt. That is just honest.

You don't have to respect it, but you never answered my objection. The name "Omega" is Byzantine. Before that it was simply called "O."

Why would you modify a Hebrew text if you need a translation? Note also the Copper Scroll, a clear example of first century colloquial Hebrew.

It wasn't weak. He was capable of saying it if he wanted, yes. But if I were to speak of Dutch I would not say "The primary language of Holland." I would say "The language of Holland" and specify the others by saying "French" or "German."
Except that there are other clear possibilities.

I did not say that it is equal. I actually made a much bolder claim, that the evidence for both is inconclusive. Certainly they're unequal. That should go without saying. But it is irrelevant which has the weight of evidence if that evidence is still inconclusive.

Yes, I have researched the issue. And it is disputed among scholars. There is no clear universal opinion that ebraisti means Aramaic. If he read the LXX, which he undoubtedly had, he would know the Greek word for Aramaic.

I don't think there is any reason to get sarcastic. I was not implying that they were ignorant. We do, however, have more information than they did. Whiston lived before we knew that Koine was an actual Greek dialect! Since his time many Koine papyri have been discovered, but at his time it was uncertain if it wasn't simply Septuagint Greek. And that's just one example of what he couldn't have known. I am not doubting his knowledge or his skill, and I am not suggesting that we should ignore him. He was an excellent scholar. One of the best. But he did not have all the information that we did now.
With all due respect, I do not think that is a legitimate comparison. We could say that Eusebius had more information than Wescott and Hort. Perhaps. If they had two-hundred year old texts, which is questionable. But it is not the same as the difference between us and Whiston. We have more information due to archaeology than he did. We almost certainly do not have more information than Eusebius, Jerome, and the other fourth century fathers.

I also find it interesting that you are accusing me of picking up the latest fad theories, and yourself are a proclaimed fan of Codex W theory? This is the height of irony.
We know nothing without tradition.

I am okay with uncertainty. My faith is strong enough, and I am at peace.

I am not saying that Edersheim has nothing good to say. I am not saying that his are not valuable insights. I am not saying he was not a great scholar. I am simply saying that modern scholars have a lot more information available to them.
I am not basing any of this on thinking that I am some kind of genius. I am relying on scholars who are much more knowledgeable than I. Coming to the realisation that Peshitta primacy is not entirely certain has been a very humbling experience for me, because I had to acknowledge that I am not wiser, less biased, or smarter than the hundreds of scholars who are Greek primacists.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-25-2009, 01:58 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-26-2009, 06:59 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-27-2009, 12:44 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Nimrod Warda - 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-28-2009, 12:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-29-2009, 03:19 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:28 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-17-2009, 06:32 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:09 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:12 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 04:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 05:02 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 09-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-22-2009, 09:32 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)