Pe****ta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

[angellous_evangellous]

Right, due to Aramaic primacy, LOL.

That's exactly right. The same moron that invented Aramaic primacy had to create a straw man argument for the Greek, naming it "Greek primacy."

It's a little confusing at first because it doesn't exist. A cursory internet search solves the problem: it's a silly part of a profoundly strange Aramaic primacy argument.

And nothing else.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's exactly right. The same moron that invented Aramaic primacy had to create a straw man argument for the Greek, naming it "Greek primacy."

You sound just like one of those gravitationists.

 

[godnotgod]

That's exactly right. The same moron that invented Aramaic primacy had to create a straw man argument for the Greek, naming it "Greek primacy."

It's a little confusing at first because it doesn't exist. A cursory internet search solves the problem: it's a silly part of a profoundly strange Aramaic primacy argument.

And nothing else.

But there is no 'straw man'. Those who advocate that the NT was written in Greek are real. It doesn't matter who koined (no pun) the phrase. It applies. You and LOM are Greek primacists, whether you like it or not. Ha ha ha

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But there is no 'straw man'. Those who advocate that the NT was written in Greek are real. It doesn't matter who koined (no pun) the phrase. It applies. You and LOM are Greek primacists, whether you like it or not. Ha ha ha

It certainly does matter who coined the phrase, because it's an imaginary thing that doesn't exist. If people actually argued for Greek primacy, there would actually be an argument for it that the Aramaic primacy folks could criticize.

There's a good reason why no scholar anywhere, ever, has argued for Greek primacy. It's because it's stupid - almost as stupid as Aramaic primacy. Scholars don't argue for Greek primacy because there is no hint of "Aramaic primacy" anywhere. And believe me, scholars have looked.

If there was an older Aramaic text, it would be a bigger discovery than the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I and every other NT scholar / classical historian would be drooling over it like a teenager with a Hustler.

 

[godnotgod]

It certainly does matter who coined the phrase, because it's an imaginary thing that doesn't exist. If people actually argued for Greek primacy, there would actually be an argument for it that the Aramaic primacy folks could criticize.

"Aramaic primacy"
Some advocates of the "Pe****ta original" view, or the view that the Christian New Testament and/or its sources were originally written in the Aramaic language, also use the term "Aramaic primacy" though this is not used in academic sources, and appears to be a recent neologism.
The words do earlier appear together in print in the sentence "according Aramaic primacy among the languages," in Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in antiquity: conflict or confluence 1998 but only as a general expression used to note the primacy of Aramaic over other languages in specific context, and also describing "Aramaic's predominance" over Hebrew and Greek in Second Temple Jerusalem. Levine could equally have written "according primacy to Aramaic."
This article titled "Aramaic primacy" appeared on Wikipedia in August 2004, with the first line "Aramaic Primacists believe that the Christian New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek as generally claimed by Churches of the West". The term then appeared in print in 2008.[citation needed]
Likewise advocates of the primacy of an Aramaic New Testament have coined a new meaning for the phrase "Greek primacy" (earliest confirmed reference 2007) to describe the consensus scholarly view that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. These terms are not used by text-critical scholarship, since in its view the evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament was written originally in Greek.

Wikipedia

So it depends from which point of view you are looking at the issue.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Aramaic primacy"
Some advocates of the "Pe****ta original" view, or the view that the Christian New Testament and/or its sources were originally written in the Aramaic language, also use the term "Aramaic primacy" though this is not used in academic sources, and appears to be a recent neologism.
The words do earlier appear together in print in the sentence "according Aramaic primacy among the languages," in Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in antiquity: conflict or confluence 1998 but only as a general expression used to note the primacy of Aramaic over other languages in specific context, and also describing "Aramaic's predominance" over Hebrew and Greek in Second Temple Jerusalem. Levine could equally have written "according primacy to Aramaic."
This article titled "Aramaic primacy" appeared on Wikipedia in August 2004, with the first line "Aramaic Primacists believe that the Christian New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek as generally claimed by Churches of the West". The term then appeared in print in 2008.[citation needed]
Likewise advocates of the primacy of an Aramaic New Testament have coined a new meaning for the phrase "Greek primacy" (earliest confirmed reference 2007) to describe the consensus scholarly view that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. These terms are not used by text-critical scholarship, since in its view the evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament was written originally in Greek.

Wikipedia

So it depends from which point of view you are looking at the issue.

Yes. One is a lie. The other has a very strong relationship with the evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. One is a lie. The other has a very strong relationship with the evidence.

Right, that the NT was first written in Greek being the lie fabricated in such a manner as to appear to be the case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Right, that the NT was first written in Greek being the lie fabricated in such a manner as to appear to be the case.

Flawless logic

 

[godnotgod]

Flawless logic

No logic. Just seeing through the facade.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No logic. Just seeing through the facade.

How would you know that if you were not thinking clearly.

It doesn't make sense to cover what you think is a facade with stupidity and proudly flaunt your ability to see the truth.

 

[outhouse]

Iclassical historian would be drooling over it like a teenager with a Hustler.

Better start with a playboy or a penthouse, you just don't throw out the hardcore right off the bat, their eyes will explode

 

[godnotgod]

Better start with a playboy or a penthouse, you just don't throw out the hardcore right off the bat, their eyes will explode

The Church has done just that over the years. What comes to mind immediately is the covering over/censorship of the Sistine Chapel frescoes by Michelangelo, and the literal destruction of scores of Gnostic texts, not to mention the suggested suppression/destruction of Yeshu's original teachings to be replaced by Rome/Pauline doctrine. In addition, we have the Qumran Essenes hiding their scrolls from destructive Romans. There is a pattern to all of this, and I strongly suspect this is also the case with original Aramaic texts. Gabriel Roth tells us that Rabulla ordered the burning of hundreds of original texts, to be replaced by his version, today known as 'Old Syriac', and which, he tells us, modern scholars have falsely come to believe it to have been copied from the Greek.

IOW, the suppression/destruction of the original Aramaic texts was political. After all, we do know that Greek was being forced upon the populace.

We have in America today an active suppression of Spanish spoken by Mexican students in the public schools. What do you do when you rob a people of 1/3 of their territory and then keep them racially oppressed in order to keep them from legitimately sharing in the wealth and/or reclaiming their rightful lands? You create a revisionist history and keep them from communicating with one another in their native tongue so they cannot learn the real truth or plot your overthrow.

We have today at least two functioning myths believed by millions as true, namely that of a historical Jesus who rose from the dead and ascended bodily into the heavens, and that of Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo in Mexico who, in actuality, is the Aztec goddess of fertility known as Tonantzin. If that is possible, then an NT manipulated in such a manner as to appear to be first written in Greek is easy as pie.

Someone here even went so far as to suggest that the Aramaic texts when translated from the Greek, somehow magically created Aramaic rhymings . That is pure poppycock when one looks at the actual meanings of the poetry.

 

[gnostic]

Right, that the NT was first written in Greek being the lie fabricated in such a manner as to appear to be the case.

Except that all NT (canonical) gospels and epistles are found - extant - in the earliest texts, in Greek (even those in incomplete fragmented states).

If there were earlier Aramaic or Syriaic evidences (whether it be complete or incomplete state), then some things have to be found dated earlier than the earliest Greek texts. There are none.

No logic. Just seeing through the facade.

And yet, you can't see through the facade that Victor Alexander's claim is nothing more than fraud, just showed that you have put your head stubbornly in the sand, refusing to see the lies about this Aramaic primacy.

 

[godnotgod]

Except that all NT (canonical) gospels and epistles are found - extant - in the earliest texts, in Greek (even those in incomplete fragmented states).

If there were earlier Aramaic or Syriaic evidences (whether it be complete or incomplete state), then some things have to be found dated earlier than the earliest Greek texts. There are none.

...none that we know of. However, the Kourabhouris Codex points to an original in its colophon.

What we have are your Greek NT Gospels, which, though dated earlier than any Aramaic texts, are corrupted and split up into many versions.

The Pe****ta copies we have match one another with little or no variation.

The actual Aramaic texts have clearer meanings than do the Greek texts. In fact, many of them rhyme, where the Greek appears meaningless and do not rhyme. For example, the Greek says:

"...camel through the eye of a needle."

whereas the Pe****ta says:

"....rope through the eye of a needle."

The Greek scribes apparently did not know how to translate the Aramaic words, which can have 2 or 3 different meanings in Aramaic, but not in Greek.

Which texts are the most trustworthy?

And yet, you can't see through the facade that Victor Alexander's claim is nothing more than fraud, just showed that you have put your head stubbornly in the sand, refusing to see the lies about this Aramaic primacy.

No one I know of who has reviewed his translation have accused him of any such deception. Can you show me what 'fraud' Victor Alexander is guilty of?

Aramaic primacy does not even need proving. All we need to do is to look at the Greek texts themselves to see that they are fraudulent on their own, as some authors suggest:

"All we have to do is simply take a brief look at what was the actual basis for that famous 19th century edition by Westcott & Hort. They based it mostly on the two Egyptian manuscripts from the 4th century, the Sinaiticus (abbreviated as "Aleph") and the Vaticanus (abbreviated as "B"). They thought that they are the best... But how can they represent the "original text of the gospels" if they constantly disagree with each other? In fact, just in the gospels, these 2 happen to disagree among themselves the whole 3000 times! (And we're now talking about the substantial disagreements here, not some minor spelling discrepancies, of which there are even a lot more.)"

http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/earlymss.htm

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The actual Aramaic texts have clearer meanings than do the Greek texts. In fact, many of them rhyme, where the Greek appears meaningless and do not rhyme. For example, the Greek says:

"...camel through the eye of a needle."

whereas the Pe****ta says:

"....rope through the eye of a needle."

So if the Pe****ta had said "camel", it would indicate a problem? Question:
In Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25 we find a form of the word ܓܡܠܐ.

Here's the problem. In the Aramaic of Jesus' day, this would mean "camel" (גמל /גַּמְלָא). In Syriac, it can also mean (and primarily means) "camel". However, it also means a plank of wood. It never means rope. Do you know why this "translation" exists?
Because Syriac commenters didn't understand what to make of the passage. What it a camel? Or was it a wooden plank? In the middle ages, Syriac commentators like Bár Bahlul sorted this out. They decided that "wooden plank" must mean "a ship's plank", and therefore "a ship" and specifically the ropes that ships have. Why did they do this? Well, in the middle ages the learned weren't much better than their classical counterparts who used didn't know what Greek words only found in Homer (and unknown to classical authors), and so tried to guess.

We can do better. We don't have to speculate whether the author intended Jesus to mean a word that means "camel" or that (in Syriac Aramaic) can also mean "wooden plank". That's because we need not rely on translations from Greek into a Semitic language that didn't exist in Jesus' day. We don't have to resolve ambiguity in the Pe****ta by determining that a word which can mean "camel" or "wooden plank" really means "rope".

Can you show me what 'fraud' Victor Alexander is guilty of?

I'm going to try something new. If I quoted some academic source you'd just write it off as you have so often. So instead I went with a guy who knows, teaches, and preaches Aramaic so much so that his main project is the Aramaic of Jesus (from The Aramaic New Testament to his Aramaic blog). He accuses Victor Alexander of fraud. I'll let you go over the ways in which he exposes Victor Alexander as a fraud, but for some particulars of Alexander's claims regarding "Galilean Aramaic", here's some preview:

"As of late, however, I've noticed links popping up often on Twitter, sporting that Alexander's work comes from "Galilean" Aramaic and sure enough when clicking through (at least as of March 7th) I found claims that it was from "the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic."

However, listening to the audio recordings, such as his recording of the Lord's Prayer, it is immediately evident that there is little "Galilean" (such as Jesus' dialect of Old Galilean, a Western 'Old Aramaic' dialect) about his work, and that it instead rests very heavily upon the Syriac Pe****ta (a work composed in Classical Syriac, an Eastern 'Middle Aramaic' dialect)"

I added the emphases in the above, but the following (as you can check for yourself) is all in the original:

"These are Eastern Aramaic (specifically Syriac) features, but this is no surprise as upon further examination what he was trying to call "Galilean" Aramaic was simply taken verbatim from the Syriac Pe****ta."

He even gives you an audio recording he comments on. Also check out this page from his non-academic, amateur site (the only kind you seem to think reliable) as a teacher of Jesus' Aramaic and a non-academic researcher on the Aramaic of the NT: Problems With Pe****ta Primacy

All we need to do is to look at the Greek texts themselves

...which you can't do.

to see that they are fraudulent on their own, as some authors suggest:

and then see how even fringe scholars like Price show how much you rely on utter fraud:
"Kuchinsky's reading is not required by, nor really even easily compatible with, the text he himself has provided. I do not belong to that magisterium of mainstream scholars on whom the author expends his venom so often throughout the book. Nor is my own working paradigm of gospel origins threatened by his reconstruction. Indeed, it would come in quite handy for me at various points." (source)

All we have to do is simply take a brief look at what was the actual basis for that famous 19th century edition by Westcott & Hort.

And then realize that this is from the 19th century and nobody depends on it for any argument remotely related to the original language of the NT.

 

[godnotgod]

So if the Pe****ta had said "camel", it would indicate a problem? Question:
In Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25 we find a form of the word ܓܡܠܐ.

Here's the problem. In the Aramaic of Jesus' day, this would mean "camel" (גמל /גַּמְלָא). In Syriac, it can also mean (and primarily means) "camel". However, it also means a plank of wood. It never means rope. Do you know why this "translation" exists?
Because Syriac commenters didn't understand what to make of the passage. What it a camel? Or was it a wooden plank? In the middle ages, Syriac commentators like Bár Bahlul sorted this out. They decided that "wooden plank" must mean "a ship's plank", and therefore "a ship" and specifically the ropes that ships have. Why did they do this? Well, in the middle ages the learned weren't much better than their classical counterparts who used didn't know what Greek words only found in Homer (and unknown to classical authors), and so tried to guess.

We can do better. We don't have to speculate whether the author intended Jesus to mean a word that means "camel" or that (in Syriac Aramaic) can also mean "wooden plank". That's because we need not rely on translations from Greek into a Semitic language that didn't exist in Jesus' day. We don't have to resolve ambiguity in the Pe****ta by determining that a word which can mean "camel" or "wooden plank" really means "rope".

As i understand it, rope was actually made from camel hair. The Aramaic word for rope and for camel are the same. The Greek scribes somehow were confused in making the translation, using camel instead of rope:

Truth of Our Faith - James Killian - Google Books

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As i understand it, rope was actually made from camel hair. The Greek scribes somehow were confused in making the translation, using camel instead of rope.

The Greeks weren't confused. It's true that κάμιλος/kamilos is a word for rope in Greek and that this word refers to Camel hair rope. But this isn't the word in the Greek NT. It's also true that by the time we find medieval commentaries on the Syriac texts, the distinction between the way the Greek word for "camel" (κάμηλος/kamelos) sounded and the way "camel rope" (κάμιλος/kamilos) sounded were indistinct. It's even true that some later Greek manuscripts have κάμιλος/kamilos. Here's the problem: The Pe****ta doesn't have any word for "rope" here. The word is "camel" or "wooden plank", and the only time we ever find it connected to "rope" is through medieval commentaries on the Syriac text.

So you loose either way. If "rope" makes more sense, than the Greek word is similar to rope (and in some later manuscripts we find the word for "camel-hair rope" instead of camel). But the Pe****ta doesn't have any word for rope.

If camel makes more sense, then Greek texts use the word for "camel" and only some later variants use a word that by that time sounded the same as the Greek for camel. However, the Pe****ta word can mean "camel" or "plank".

So which is it? Does "rope" make more sense, in which case the word in the Pe****ta has no similarity to any Aramaic word for rope, or does "camel" make more sense in which case the Greek has camel and can't mean "wooden plank"?

There is no way for your argument to favor the Pe****ta, as whether the original was camel or rope, the Pe****ta either agrees with the Greek or doesn't have rope.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm going to try something new. If I quoted some academic source you'd just write it off as you have so often. So instead I went with a guy who knows, teaches, and preaches Aramaic so much so that his main project is the Aramaic of Jesus (from The Aramaic New Testament to his Aramaic blog). He accuses Victor Alexander of fraud. I'll let you go over the ways in which he exposes Victor Alexander as a fraud, but for some particulars of Alexander's claims regarding "Galilean Aramaic", here's some preview:

"As of late, however, I've noticed links popping up often on Twitter, sporting that Alexander's work comes from "Galilean" Aramaic and sure enough when clicking through (at least as of March 7th) I found claims that it was from "the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic."

However, listening to the audio recordings, such as his recording of the Lord's Prayer, it is immediately evident that there is little "Galilean" (such as Jesus' dialect of Old Galilean, a Western 'Old Aramaic' dialect) about his work, and that it instead rests very heavily upon the Syriac Pe****ta (a work composed in Classical Syriac, an Eastern 'Middle Aramaic' dialect)"

I added the emphases in the above, but the following (as you can check for yourself) is all in the original:

"These are Eastern Aramaic (specifically Syriac) features, but this is no surprise as upon further examination what he was trying to call "Galilean" Aramaic was simply taken verbatim from the Syriac Pe****ta."

He even gives you an audio recording he comments on. Also check out this page from his non-academic, amateur site (the only kind you seem to think reliable) as a teacher of Jesus' Aramaic and a non-academic researcher on the Aramaic of the NT: Problems With Pe****ta Primacy

Steve Caruso has a degree in Library and Information Science, and calls himself a 'translator'. Bull! Alexander lives and breathes Aramaic. He was formally taught Aramaic since childhood in his native Iran, and is a native speaker of the language. He states that Aramaic was brought into the Galilean region by his people, the Ashuria, where it became Galilean Aramaic. I believe him; not your MLIS 'translator' from Highland Park, New Jersey, even!

 

[godnotgod]

The Greeks weren't confused. It's true that κάμιλος/kamilos is a word for rope in Greek and that this word refers to Camel hair rope. But this isn't the word in the Greek NT. It's also true that by the time we find medieval commentaries on the Syriac texts, the distinction between the way the Greek word for "camel" (κάμηλος/kamelos) sounded and the way "camel rope" (κάμιλος/kamilos) sounded were indistinct. It's even true that some later Greek manuscripts have κάμιλος/kamilos. Here's the problem: The Pe****ta doesn't have any word for "rope" here. The word is "camel" or "wooden plank", and the only time we ever find it connected to "rope" is through medieval commentaries on the Syriac text.

So you loose either way. If "rope" makes more sense, than the Greek word is similar to rope (and in some later manuscripts we find the word for "camel-hair rope" instead of camel). But the Pe****ta doesn't have any word for rope.

If camel makes more sense, then Greek texts use the word for "camel" and only some later variants use a word that by that time sounded the same as the Greek for camel. However, the Pe****ta word can mean "camel" or "plank".

So which is it? Does "rope" make more sense, in which case the word in the Pe****ta has no similarity to any Aramaic word for rope, or does "camel" make more sense in which case the Greek has camel and can't mean "wooden plank"?

There is no way for your argument to favor the Pe****ta, as whether the original was camel or rope, the Pe****ta either agrees with the Greek or doesn't have rope.

'Rope' makes more sense:


“It is easier* for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:24 = Mark 10:25

Traditional scholars have been aware of the problematic nature of this verse for many years. They have suggested the “eye of the needle” may be a place name,
or more specifically, a part of one of Jerusalem’s gates that allows a man and a camel to pass, but only in single file. Since this gate has been called “Eye of the Needle”, they reason this is what Y'shua meant. However, this is not the only explanation, and there is no evidence at all that a proper place name was intended either in Aramaic or in Greek. And so, if the “eye of the needle” is literal, then it means no rich people can be saved; bad news for the wealthy followers listed in Luke 8:1-3, as well as two Sanhedrin members, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Fortunately, the Aramaic gives a much clearer image, for while gamla does mean “camel”, gamala means “heavy rope”, but both words in the actual text would appear exactly the same way as G-M-L-A (0lmg).

Although, in order to understand why "heavy rope" is the right translation, we need to look at the situation that precipitated the comment in the first place:

(Y'shua said) “If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come; follow me.”
Matthew 19:21 = Mark 10:21

So now we have two images in juxtaposition, a heavy rope (the man’s riches) and the needle’s eye (the narrow door to salvation). Can a heavy rope pass through such a small opening? The answer is yes, but only if it is undone one small strand at a time. The rope “unraveling” would then represent the rich man “unraveling his fortune”, so to speak. This is also a great example of Y'shua's sense of humor, because if the question is “Can a rich man enter the kingdom of God?" the answer is, “Yes, if he is not so rich by the time he dies”

Andrew Gabriel Roth

http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/Pe****ta Matthew and the Gowra Scenario.pdf

*Note that the passage says that it is 'easier', not 'impossible'. A rope can pass through, though only strand by strand, but a camel cannot pass through at all. Therefore, 'camel' cannot possibly be the correct word. The Greek is incorrect.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Steve Caruso has a degree in Library and Information Science, and calls himself a 'translator'. Bull!

Compared to Alexander, whose expertise on 1st century Aramaic is clearly indicated by the fact that he "entered college and finally graduated in 1970, from the San Francisco State University, with a BA in Filmmaking".

Alexander lives and breathes Aramaic. He was formally taught Aramaic since childhood in his native Iran

"Yes, I do understand Aramaic to a profound level. I went to an Aramaic language school. It was a Presbyterian Church school. Our two teachers were both from Urmia, Iran, where the Aramaic language scholarship was the dominant force in Ashurai cultural life and where most of our best literary people came from. I studied religion and language from the first grade, in the language Jesus spoke!" (from Alexander's site)

Despite Alexander's inability to even write English well

Spoiler: two examples

(you don't "understand to a profound level" in idiomatic English, nor can one have "studied religion and language from the first grade" in idiomatic English)

, we're supposed to trust that his Iranian teachers in a Presbyterian school taught a first grader Galilean Aramaic (and in addition, the dialect Jesus spoke)? When did Iranians start speaking Galilean Aramaic? Also, an FYI- Jesus didn't speak Galilean Aramaic. All of our sources for the Aramaic in his day (and at least a century before and after) indicate that Jesus' dialect was closer to the Aramaic of the Qumran scrolls than to Galilean Aramaic (which is attested mainly after the 4th century and in places like Cairo and Babylon).

and is a native speaker of the language

So why did he have to be taught it?

He states that Aramaic was brought into the Galilean region by his people

The Ashurai, with it's key cities: "three capitals, Ashur, Nimrud and Nineveh." Here's the problem: while we have a great deal of attestation of the use of Akkadian in those areas, our evidence for Aramaic goes back to the 11th century BCE in Aramaean states (hence "Aramaic") in what is now portions of Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, & Jordan. So while "his people" left plenty of traces that they spoke Akkadian and none that they did Aramaic, we do find Aramaic in the same time period your source claims to "his people" were speaking Aramaic.
Of course, this was "Old Aramaic" (not the language of Jesus). Did he learn this from Iranian priests in first grade too?

where it became Galilean Aramaic

Which we know of thanks to epigraphic, literary, and epistolary sources from the 4th century onwards in places from Palestine to Babylon.

I believe him; not your MLIS 'translator' from Highland Park

Because a film student who received his degree here yet can't write idiomatic English can be trusted in his claim to have studied Galilean Aramaic in first grade from Iranian priests.

Oh, and in addition to Galilean Aramaic studied Old Aramaic and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.

I gave him as a source as he is more akin to sources you use. There are other people who were raised speaking modern Aramaic and who went on two study ancient Aramaic. Lots of them. You ignore them because you trust the linguistic knowledge of a film student whose English is poor despite receiving his degree here. And you trust that Iranian priests taught him Jesus' language in 1st grade in a Presbyterian church.

Why do you trust a film student? Because we can't trust people who "live and breath Aramaic" but who go on to study Semitic languages as academics. We can't trust archaeology which shows that your source's incompetence when it comes to English is matched only by his pathetic knowledge historical linguistics, Semitic languages, or anything other than modern Aramaic read back into Syriac that he claims to be Galilean Aramaic without even the basic competency in historical studies of Aramaic to know that "Galilean Aramaic" dates from about 200 years after Jesus.

New Jersey, even!]

Your source was born in first century Galilee? If it matters where someone was born, then why pick a film student who claims to have learned that language Jesus spoke in 1st grade from 2 Iranians?

'Rope' makes more sense:

The word in the Pe****ta isn't rope. It cannot mean rope. It can mean a wooden plank. I guest the Pe****ta doesn't make sense.

(just so you know- that "heavy rope" idea came from Hassan bar Bahlul's Lexicon syriacum. I've given you the page number where we find this medieval attempt to make your sources word refer to "rope" even though it is never used to mean rope. Ever.