Chris Weimer

Not quite. Yuri is to some degree, but not what we have written. His claim is the "proto-gospel" was written in Aramaic and the Four written in Greek based off the proto-gospel. I am unaware whether he asserts they translated the Aramaic or were using a Greek translation already.

Judge, on the other hand, has adopted the Church of the East opinion that the entire NT corpus was written in Aramaic and is preserved fully in the Peshitta.

Chris Weimer

Here's one I use: http://www.bible-researcher.com/

judge

Protestants and Catholics tend to believe the NT was written in greek.
Aramaic speaking christians on the other hand may tell you it was written in Aramaic.

Don't believe the nonsense you may hear though (here or elsewhere ).

This is still an open question. It has never been subjected to peer review or any serious scholastic analysis.
Until it is examined in a scholarly way and the arguments are peer reviewed we really don't know which is true.

One thing is certain though the NT sure looks like a translation, in the same way the LXX (the greek OT) is a translation.
See here Was Mark written in Aramaic

Evacuate

Thanks for all the input.

No scholastic review? Wow, that seems strange, you would think that someone or some group would want to put this subject under a microscope. Maybe I am missing the point, but it would seem to be pretty important in "proving" the validity of the text.

judge

There has been a little research from a handful of scholars.

Aramaic speaking believers have always thought that the NT was penned in Aramaic whilst western christians have just assumed the greek came first.

Protestant christians used greek copies for their english and german translations and since these times they just assumed they were correct. These assumptions have never been put to the test in any "scientific" way.


Probably not fundamentalists as their tradition has become too entrenched, and is ultimately tied in with thier assumptions about god guiding the true church, and preserving the texts etc..
To someone who thinks that the bible is the "word of god" the meaning of this or that greek word can take on disproprtionate importance.
If it is the "word of god" then a particular greek word may have been specially chosen by god itself.

There is probably not incentive for sceptics to test this theory either as all the arguments against the integrity of the NT are based upon the greek texts, so these would have to be revised as well.

People who commit time money and energy in favor of a greek NT are hardly going to want to find they have just been studying a translation.
If you spent 10 years studying NT greek and publicly arguing and putting out papers and maybe making a living as well then it might be hard to admit that you may have been better off looking at the Aramaic texts instead.


Well from what I can see most of those intent on "proving" the validity of the text are already committed, and committed regardless of the arguments.


IMO there is absolutely zero to be gained by proving the validity of a text intellectually. Either the teachings of Christ bring life or they don't.
One can verify this for oneself.

Newton's Cat

Mark 1,29-31 originally read:

'And immediately out of the synagogue going forth they came into the house of him. Now the mother-in-law of him was laid aside fever-stricken ...

Later it was altered to read:

'And immediately out of the synagogue going forth they came into the house of Simon and Andrew (with James and John [possibly added even later]). Now the mother-in-law of Simon was laid aside fever-stricken ...

The original text was carefully constructed according to a formula designed to prevent corruption and falsification.

Over half of Mark, as we have it today, is fraudulent ... deliberate, calculated alteration mainly by someone opposed to the teachings of the original.

In the original story Jesus was married. Also ... in the original story it wasn't Jesus on the cross!

It's title was 'The Gospel of Jesus' ... Christ was inserted later.

The voice that spoke to Jesus "out of the heavens" in verse 11 was not supposed to be understood as the voice of God but the voice of his deceased father.

In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was praying at his father's tomb.

Mark's gospel was subjected to VERY cunning and calculated alteration by someone who was in no way "holy".

A late 2nd century work by a non-Christian Roman author describes a religion which, whilst its founder was alive, was perfectly acceptable to the authorities - but when the founder died a single individual took over, altered the sacred texts, wrote others of his own, and made himself very wealthy.

The founding of Catholicism?

It's my opinion that the original story was a work of fiction - and was meant to be read as as such. It was an attack on contemporary Judaism by a Helenistic Jew. The readers needed to be very clued-up to follow the nuances of the author's criticisms ... so it must have had a limited circulation.

The evidence seems to point to the original being written sometime in the late 30s ad, just after the death of the Emperor Tiberius.

Ruhan

Interesting read. Do you have any sources or suggested reading in regards to this theory?

RvV

Jack the Bodiless

When talking about the "original language" of the various parts of the Bible, it's probably worth mentioning that even though the Old Testament would originally have been written in Hebrew, one particular Greek translation of it (known as the LXX, or the Septuagint) was in wide circulation at the "time of Christ", and there is good evidence that it was used by NT authors such as Matthew (his OT quotes incorporate Septuagint mistranslations).

Thus, at this key period, "the Bible" (Old Testament) was basically Greek.

Later the Masoretic Text was assembled (by Jews IIRC) in an attempt to "get back to the original Hebrew" (presumably from still-extant Hebrew documents, as it isn't just a translation of the LXX back into Hebrew). This was what the King James Version was later translated from, mostly.

Equinox

ECW and EJW mentioned earlier are great places to check. A good resource too are the short college courses on tape available at http://www.teach12.com. Course #656 and course #6299 are probably just what you are looking for (use the search function in the top right). Both these courses describe how the bible was put together, when, by whom and what we can guess about the original texts (since none of the original texts exist any longer). The courses are inexpensive and you can listen to them in your car.

-Equinox

Chris Weimer

Many have tried to prove Aramaic primacy, including judge, and have failed miserably. Just do a search for posts containing "spin", "Chris Weimer", and "judge" to get a good glimpse of them.