Doctor X

Judge:

Sorry, but current scholarship demonstrates that Mt was, indeed, written in Greek--as his quotes of the Greek Mk demonstrate.

The Peshitta--for other readers--was a term used by Moses bar Kepha first in 903. "It is interpreted at meaning 'simple' in conrast the the Harklean version with its apparatus."

The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts. This would, of course, explain why translators made the corrections you propose.

--J.D.

Reference:

Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament

Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988

judge

Hi Dr X...
I did at one time believe that Matt was written in greek first, but as you can see I no longer hold to this.

Perhaps you could explain why you believe matt was writen in greek first.
This seems to be a rather recent idea as you can see from my quotes.

Have you for example looked at the Aramaic of Mark?

Additionally Aramaic speaking Christians are a bit perplexed that we westerners beleive the gospels would have been written in greek.

Why do you believe they are wrong?

Thanks

RED DAVE

Thanx to all who have responded so far. I'm still confused, though.

1) Where did the geneology come from? Was it just fabricated out of the whole cloth or does it depend on earlier, known, sources. For example, Joseph Campbell demonstrates that the begats in Genesis depend from the Assyrian king list that is recorded in, among other places, Gilgamesh.

2) How did Matthew and Luke get ahold of similar geneologies.

3) Why aren't the geneologies in Matthew and Luke identical.

4) Why didn't some xtian forger reconcile the geneologies?

RED DAVE

judge

You may not have fully comprehended my post.

Matthew gives the geneology of MARY
Luke gives the geneology of JOSEPH (husband of Mary).

The are not identical because they trace the history of two different people.

Go to an english bible and change the word husband in Matt 1:16 to father.
The Aramaic version says father!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the problems are then solved. This solves aditional problems such as the missing generation

As I have demonstrated above Matthew was not written in Greek.
People will argue against this but I have yet to see any actual evidence.
Dr X may still come up with something, we will have to see.

My proposition is this. Western, english speaking theologians have concocted a story that matthew was written in greek. There is no hard evidence to back this up there is just gobblede gook.

Early witnesses all contradict this,

This "contradiction" and others are resolved by looking at the original Aramaic texts.

RED DAVE

Judge, just for openers, if Matthew wasn't written in Greek, why did he mistake the Hebrew word for young girl, "almah," for the word for virgin, "bethulah," exactly as was done in the Septuagant?

I learned that one in Hebrew School when I was a kid.

RED DAVE

Calzaer

Really? Mary and Joseph must have been related then, since some of the names are the same. Particularly Jesus's great-grandfather. Looks like Heli and Jacob were brothers! It's also odd that Matthew doesn't mention Mary at all... and it's even odder that Mary's geneology, with her being Jewish and all, was traced through MEN, when Jewish geneology is usually traced through women.

Finally, it's completely irrelevant. Jesus is in no way related to Joseph (thanks to the Holy Spirit) OR any of Mary's line beyond Mary herself (thanks to the Immaculate Conception). What's that? Protestants don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because it's something scripturally unsupported that the Catholics "made up"? If that comes into play here, my irony meter will break entirely; the idea that Matthew's geneology is of Mary is in the exact same boat. (If someone is going to reject Catholic oral tradition and go with sola scriputra, it would be nice for a change if they'd STICK with sola scriptura and quit relying on Catholic oral tradition whenever it suits them).

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, DAVE,

In my view, the genealogies in Mt and Lk are discrepant because each is primarily a theological statement that expresses the views of two different early Christian communities.

The community of Mt focused primarily on Judea and Jerusalem, while the community of Lk saw itself in more universal terms as representing the whole of Israel (including the northern tribes). Hence the descent from Adam.

Quote:

Why didn't someone change one of them, as was done with the final chapter of Mark?

Because of natural conservatism?

The text of NT gospels is like a complex quilt, where old elements are commonly intertwined with plenty of late stuff.

Quote:

2) If both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark, and there is no genology in Mark, where did this genology, in both its versions, come from? Enlighten this heathen.

Both genealogies are primarily theological statements. You can say they were pulled out of the thin air, whatever, but they were certainly not arbitrary. These name lists were intended to carry plenty of meaning in them...

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Doctor X wrote:

"The Peshitta and other Syriac texts are translations of the Greek texts" (citing Aland K, Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).

I can see that "judge" has managed to side-track this thread into 3 different directions at once.

We've already had a discussion with him a while back about the Peshitta. There can be little doubt that the Peshitta gospels are later texts, compared to the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels.

There's nothing that the Peshitta can do to help explain the genealogies in Lk and Mt.

As to the question of whether or not the Old Syriac Matthew was a translation from the Greek, I'll just say that there's not a shred of evidence for this. The Alands are not to be trusted on this, they are the typical Alexandrian fanatics with plenty of vested interests.

Best,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Judge et Yuri:

The understanding that the Synoptics were written in Greek is not a "new" idea to textual criticism, which quoting old tradition does not change. As Yuri notes, apparently the problems with the Peshitta as being "older" have already been discussed. What has also been discussed on other threads has been the attempt to make one the genealogies Mary's. Not only is it not supported by the text, it goes against traditional genealogies. Even with that erroneous assumption it does not solve the problem.

. . . not to mention that little problem with being born twice ten years appart. . . .

Now, if one believes one has "proved" that Mt or any of the other Synoptics were originally written in Aramaic rather than Greek I would be happy to see the peer-reviewed publication.

Nothing personal, but many can claim many things . . . or to quote an old science saw: "In God we trust! All else must show data."

--J.D.

Yuri Kuchinsky

And I would put it slightly differently, J.D..

The one who's making the claim has the onus of proof. So where's the evidence that the OS Mt was a translation from the Greek?

I've asked this question many times in different forums, and so far nobody could provide any valid evidence for this. Please note that I didn't claim the reverse; all I'm doing is simply asking for proof that the OS Mt was a translation from the Greek.

Believe me, such evidence is really hard to find. So perhaps it doesn't exist?

In any case, I'm not really satisfied with appeals to authority...

Regards,

Yuri.