Vorkosigan

You're right. That is certainly an arguable statement.

Chris Weimer

I for one can't argue with it. I merely dismiss it as unfounded and absolutely ludicrous.

Orthodox_Freethinker

There are mistranslations in the Greek of Paul's Epistles and plays on words that become clear in the Aramaic.

For example, while Romans 5:7 translates from the Greek, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, but peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die".
That doesn't make sense, does it? What is the difference between a "righteous man" and a "good man"? Why would a person die for one but not the other?
Only in the Aramaic does the true meaning become more clear:
"For scarcely for a wicked man would one die?"
That's a big difference.

Aramaic Peshitta For Dummies, a free online book, provides evidence for the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles and the rest of the New Testament:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshi...es_FirstEd.pdf

Peace.

jgibson000

Leaving aside the question of whether, as is likely (see James Dunn, _Romans_), DIKAIOS here might mean "self-righteous" (i.e., "the pious moralist") and, whether, as Lightfoot noted, there seems to be an echo here of the distinction made by Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 5:15) between the AKRIBODIKIAOS and the EPIKEINHS, I'd be grateful if you'd tell me which of the members of the Roman Christ believers whom Paul addresses in Romans (most of whom were Gentiles) read Aramaic -- and what evidence you have to back up any such claim?

For that matter, given the evidence of prosopography, burial insciptions, and other concerns (like Josephus having to translate his Jewish War into Greek so that Roman Jews could read it) regarding the Hellenization of Roman Jews in the 60s, which Roman Jews did?

Jeffrey

Kosh

Well if nothing else, at least they had gotten better at closing Mathew's loopholes by then!

Vicki

Hey, OF, I come here to read about the current scholarship in BC&H and you're recommending "Aramaic Peshitta Primacy for Dummies"??!!

Furthermore, you give us a bio from an obscure website that has had 2704 hits since July of the year 2000?

Get serious!

ISVfan

The one thing that keeps us from exploring more is the simple fact the most of the NT except maybe Mark don't show signs of being a translation (into Greek). But I have heard many times Mark may have been Aramaic.

NOGO

Totally unconvincing!
Let me explain why.

When Mark wrote his gospel and told us that a virgin conceived he did not leave it at that. He felt compelled to tell us that Joseph was surprized and doubted the honesty of his wife to be. He was going to denounce her until he received a message in a dream that this young woman was true blue and that the son she was to conceive was from the holy spirit.

Joseph's reaction is totally normal and expected.
In fact not having it there would be strange and one would ask if the author really meant virgin?

Joseph's reaction confirms the abnormality of the situation.

What is missing from from Isaiah 7 (among other things) is any indication that the author considers this an abnormal situation with an equally unusual, and also missing, explanation (ie conceived by the holy spirit).

The conclusion is not hard to see.
The word in the Hebrew Bible is 'almah and not b'thuwlah


Been there, done that.
Nothing new under the sun.

Thinking is not the forte of Orthodox Christian.
They are trained from birth to believe what they are told, against all evidence.

gregor

um, mark wrote about doubting Joseph?

jgibson000

Where in Mark is this story told? You are confusing Matthew with Mark.

As getting straight who wrote what in the NT is yours?

May I ask for your evidence that supports this claim?

Jeffrey Gibson