Malachi151

LOL, this is a thread for presenting the cases for the language that the gospels were written in, yet we still haven't had ONE PERON make a case for any language other than Greek. I laid out a case for Greek, others have as well.

No one still has laid out a case for Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Ebonics, yet.

LOL, drop some names, LOL, that's a good one. :wave:

Johann_Kaspar

I despise people who dont' want to learn and who are happy with their ignorance. :wave:

Toto

Dubourg and Tresmontant do not seem to have written in English, nor have they been translated. Can you summarize this evidence?

I did find this:

"Midrashic assumption"

Bernard Duborg is evidently a mythicist who believes that the New Testament is wholey based on midrash of the Hebrew Scriptures. Claude Tresmontant merely thinks that there were originally gospels in Hebrew.

judge

malachi, you seem to not have even read the opening post.

This is the opeing line. The author asks for the evidcne in favour of the greek.

If you wish to start another thread feel free.

I have posted a link to plenty of evidence for the peshitta here...Aramaic Peshitta

As anyone can see the ammount evidence in favour of the peshitta is very large.

By contrast as anyone can see from this post the evidence in favour of the greek is scanty.

Naturally people who spend years studying biblical greek would be threatened by the idea they have studied the wrong texts, so no doubt it will take time for another view to be accepted.

Malachi151

Yes, the typical nonsense:



Another good one:

Yeah, that's the ticket, yeah, they copied them, then threw away the originals...

This is why we don't take you seriously.....

I have yet to see anything convincing. If YOU want to make the case for it then YOU make the case, I'm not going to drag it out of you. I think its nonsense, and you links are weak at best. Here is the place to make the case, do so if you wish. If not, you make a thread, I don't care about it.

judge

Ok...all the best. :wave:

Chris Weimer

Oi vey. This is entirely irrelevant, you know. But we have dated Mark to at least the early 60's, oh wait a minute, why the fuck am I arguing with you?

Two words, Yuri: Markan priority.

Iasion

Greetings,

Who?
Where do they realize this?


For reference, consider these mentions of the Gospels -



The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.


This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives NO NAMES.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.


This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.


This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel scroll - NO NAMES given.


The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - NO NAME given.


Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.


This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - NO NAMES given.



All these examples (and there are more), go to show the Gospels were originally anonymous works, with names only attached in late 2nd C.



Iasion

judge

IIUC correctly the words are ambiguous (and I stand to be corrected here)

IOW it does not necessarily say the gosple was new in that period

Chris Weimer

What every IIDBer should know about Yuri Kuchinsky.

a) He argued from authority here and then later dismissed the most authoritative person in textual criticism just a post of his later here. He then dismisses all NT scholars here.

We have to wonder to ourselves, why would Yuri flip flop sides? Either he respects the positions of NT scholars, or he doesn't. He's not even picking and choosing here, he's just flat out contradicting himself.

Why is this relevant? Because Yuri was slammed in a debate about Markan priority. Three persons dominated the scene - Yuri Kuchinksy, Walter Shandruk, and Stephen Carlson. Of the three, only one actually has a degree in a relevant field, Walter Shandruk, and another, though lacking the relevant degrees, is actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, Stephen Carlson. Yuri has neither. Yuri possesses neither the peer acceptance (which isn't always a bad thing) nor has he the rigorous training in the field. But more importantly, he hasn't demonstrated competency in anything related to textual criticism.

The debate, for the record, is recorded here and here.

b) Yuri's argument is based on a misleading statement. He was prone to cite Neirynck's number of 750 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. What he failed to specify was that the number was so inflated because he included all the omissions as well.

You can't agree with someone against someone else if neither of you have a position in the first place.

Despite Yuri's pseudo-erudition, Walter did go "inform" himself and took a serious look at Neirynck, which it appears that Yuri never did. His conclusions are found here.

This is why, friends, that when you hear Yuri clamoring about Aramaic priority, or proto-Lukan priority, we need to only take what he says with a grain of salt, until he can show proper form and decorum with the exposition of his hypothesis.

His conclusions are based on too many assumptions. Scholar after scholar, people with degrees, with long research in this field, have come to the conclusion of Markan priority, with very little departure. Yuri's hypothesis fails to capture any one of those. His reasons were torn apart in the links I gave above. So who do we believe? Is Yuri really the sole light of reason in NT studies, or are his theories merely his flight of fancy.

I'll let the readers decide.