Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-01-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Would you be so kind as to indicate by when and by whom?

I would be most aprreciative, unless you have made an error here?

We can then just examine the exact arguments and reasons, can't we?

We can see for ourselves why the greek came first according to peer review.

Most mainstream translations after the KJV have been done by the top scholars of the field of the time.

spin

Malachi151 · 11-01-2006, 04:01 AM

I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek.

So far I've seen a bunch of noise about claims that we shouldn't believe that the gospels were written in Greek, yet I've not seen any case be made that they were written in another language.

Once again, sounds like ID "theory" to me...

Doug Shaver · 11-01-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek.

Lemme give it a try, since nobody else will.

There is a scholarly consensus that they were written in Greek. To say that therefore they were written in Greek is a fallacious Argument from Authority. Therefore they probably were not written in Greek. Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.

How'd I do?

spin · 11-01-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Lemme give it a try, since nobody else will.

There is a scholarly consensus that they were written in Greek. To say that therefore they were written in Greek is a fallacious Argument from Authority. Therefore they probably were not written in Greek. Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.

How'd I do?

Well, you could throw in the line about Jesus speaking Aramaic as a throwaway. What does he say to the little girl? "Talitha Kumi." Obviously Jesus spoke Aramaic and some of it is preserved in the gospels. This is because the gospels were written in Aramaic.

spin

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-01-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

So says the person who claims that they were written in Aramaic

I didn't say that.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,

How does it acknowledge its derivation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek.

But maybe it was based on something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew.

Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

spin

The original names were not the same as later names.

Yuri.

Solo · 11-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge
I dont believe so. The earliest references by the Aramaic speaking church fathers are of the peshitta

This may mislead some people. Here's what I know: others may know more about Syriac versions of the bible than I do.

There are no "Aramaic speaking church fathers" who have left works in that language. The Peshitta is in Syriac.

But Syriac is the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, of course, a literary language from the 2nd-13th centuries, and in a minor way later than that. (The decline follows the Arab invasions in the 7th century).

The Syriac fathers are all rather later than the Greek fathers. Indeed the remains of Syriac prior to the 4th century -- the age of Ephraim Syrus and Aphrahat -- are limited. I'm afraid that I don't know much about biblical quotations in that period. The peshitta Old Testament is a second century production, possibly some of it of Jewish origin, if I understand correctly?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger, The Peshitta, I am told, no longer figures to be the oldest Syriac Manuscript nor originates in the 2nd century as previously held. B.M.Metzger ("The Early Versions of the New Testament", in Peake's Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)) states that two fragmentary manuscripts discovered at a Mt.Sinai monastery in 1892and by William Cureton in 1950's are the earliest translations of the gospel into Syriac. He refers to them generically as "The Old Syriac Version". Even though this gospel probably dates from the 2nd century (the MSs are from the 5th, and 6th century), Metzger points to a number of Greek transliterations as evidence that the earliest known Syriac gospel was also translated.

Jiri

hatsoff · 11-01-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Cryptic, huh? You mean it's not there, but you can put it there.

No, I mean it's signed as a disciple of Jesus. The question is, does he mean the disciple last spoken about prior to the signature, or another, unknown disciple? In any case, it is signed, so it is not anonymous.

Quote:

Uh-huh. In its original form!? Ie you have no evidence whatsoever.

Sure I do. All complete extant mss. I've seen include the heading. In fact, it takes more speculation on your part to assume the originals did not include any such headings. Now, that speculation is not without merit, but it is impossible to say with any certainty that the originals were unsigned, anonymous scrolls. In my opinion, it seems likely that GLuke, which included a lengthy salutation, also sported a signature of some kind. Of course, that's just speculation, too, but my point remains: It's unfair to say that the Gospels were anonymous. A better statement would be to note all of the synoptics may have been anonymous.

Quote:

They may have been signed by Josephus for all you know.

And if they were, they wouldn't be anonymous.

Quote:

That's your epistemological quandary, isn't it?

No; why would you think that?

Quote:

I'm sorry, Hatsoff, but you have nothing in your hands, nothing up your sleave, nothing to offer for your desires. WHy should anyone listen to what you say about this?

Because I'm correct. And if that doesn't satisfy you, go look to those who are more qualified than I, and they'll usually tell you the same thing (with a few exceptions, of course--but not many). Or of course you could just re-evaluate the evidence for yourself.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 11-01-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.

Now, here's an argument even a child would understand... But the NT professors are still having trouble understanding this!

:Cheeky:

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 11-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Because I'm correct. And if that doesn't satisfy you, go look to those who are more qualified than I, and they'll usually tell you the same thing (with a few exceptions, of course--but not many).

It is my understanding that the current consensus of modern scholarship is that they were originally anonymous.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2006, 04:01 AM	#42
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek. So far I've seen a bunch of noise about claims that we shouldn't believe that the gospels were written in Greek, yet I've not seen any case be made that they were written in another language. Once again, sounds like ID "theory" to me...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.