Steven Avery

Hi Diogenes. This is a small bit of an overstatement. Some of this we have discussed before, so here goes again..

There are three books in particular that have some indications of non-Greek originality. The simplest is the situation with Mark, where there are various evidences, internal and external (emphasis on internal), that it was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin. Herman Hoskier wrote about this in depth, and we discussed it on a thread some.

Hebrews is a book that has some of its own unusual aspects, such as being the epistle of anonymous authorship. Jerome discusses various possiblities, including Paul speaking in Hebrew and Luke, Barnabas or another writing/translating it in Greek. While this would not contradict "written in Greek" it is worth noting in this discussion.

With Matthew you have indications of a "dual track" Gospel, one in Hebrew or Aramaic and one in Greek. However here it is pretty clear that we do not today have the semitic Matthew. One marker is Jerome's indications that the semitic Gospel had stories not in ours today. Another is the internal translations, which are extremely strong evidence of Greek authorship.

One can see a possibilty there though that the Gospel was sent out very early in the same three languages as the sign over Jesus at Calvary.

Beyond the books mentioned above, evidences of non-Greek original authorship are between extremely slim and none. I have gone over a lot of the peshitta primacy position and it is essentially smoke and mirrors, and I think that is an agreement with Chris. In addition a lot of their more feasible arguments apply only in comparision to the alexandrian text position, and fall apart when one is comparing it to the Byzantine primacy position which is my view.

Excepting those words and phrases where we have Hebrew or Aramaic embedded in the Greek text. Also in some cases one might be able to back-translate a semitic spoken sub-stratum with some degree of accuracy and inaccuracy And who knows, on occasion that might match the Peshitta text, notwithstanding the dialect differences.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Orthodox_Freethinker

From the beginning of my participation of this forum, I have advocated that the original Aramaic should be given priority over the Greek. The Aramaic Peshetta is the official canonical text of the Church which I belong to.

Orthodox_Freethinker

They are relying on a Greek mistranslation rather than the Aramaic original.

Saint Peter does not at all suggest that Jesus taught the early Christians to expect the Second Coming within the first century. In fact, he is reiterating what Jesus spoke in that the day and the hour are unknown:

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out.

Matthew 24:43
Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour of night when the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and not let his house be broken into.

Orthodox_Freethinker

"Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke ... . Lastly, John ..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)

"the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ - Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it ... Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts ... Last of all came John's." (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).

JoeWallack

JW:
Well, well, look what the Cathechism dragged in:


JW:
My response here is probably unnecessary as I have Faith, that the Ever-vigilante Pearse, Bede, Schmuel El-All in their Crusade to Exorcise all Misleading/Dishonest Polemics from the Web, would SOON be on this one like Lechner on Miggs anyway but, in the meantime:

Here is the definition of the offending word "γενεα" from BDAG (It's my BDAG baby):

"γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol C 13:7; TestJob, Test12Patr; GrBar 10:3; Philo, Joseph., SibOr, Just., Tat.) a term relating to the product of the act of generating and with special ref. to kinship, frequently used of familial connections and ancestry. Gener. those descended fr. a common ancestor, a ‘clan’ (Pind., P. 10, 42 the Hyperboreans are a ἱεÏ?á½° γενεά; Diod. S. 18, 56, 7; Jos., Ant. 17, 220), then
�* those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind gener. as in Lk 16:8 εἰς τὴν γ. τὴν ἑαυτῶν the people of the world are more prudent in relation to their own kind than are those who lay claim to the light (difft. GBeasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mk 13, ’57, 99–102).
â‘¡ the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and freq. defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries (Hom. et al.; BGU 1211, 12 [II b.c.] ἕως γενεῶν Ï„Ï?ιῶν); Jesus looks upon the whole contemp. generation of Israel as a uniform mass confronting him ἡ γ. αὕτη (cp. Gen 7:1; Ps 11:8) Mt 11:16; 12:41f; 23:36; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 7:31; 11:29–32, 50f; 17:25; 21:32 (EGraesser, ZNW Beih. 22,2 ’60). S. also 1 above. This generation is characterized as γ. ἄπιστος καὶ διεστÏ?αμμ�*νη Mt 17:17; Mk 9:19 D; Lk 9:41; ἄπιστος Mk 9:19; πονηÏ?ά Mt 12:45; 16:4 D; Lk 11:29; πονηÏ?á½° κ. μοιχαλίς Mt 12:39; 16:4; μοιχαλὶς καὶ á¼?μαÏ?τωλός Mk 8:38 (JGuillet, RSR 35, ’48, 275–81). Their contemporaries appeared to Christians as γ. σκολιὰ καὶ διεστÏ?αμμ�*νη (the latter term as Mt 17:17; Mk 9:19 v.l.; Lk 9:41, the former Ac 2:40; cp. Ps 77:8) Phil 2:15 (Dt 32:5).—Cp. Wsd 3:19. A more favorable kind of γ. is mentioned in Ps 23:6; 111:2; 1QS 3:14.—The desert generation Hb 3:10 (Ps 94:10). ἰδίᾳ γ. ὑπηÏ?ετήσας after he had served his own generation Ac 13:36; γ. ἡμῶν 1 Cl 5:1; αἱ Ï€Ï?ὸ ἡμῶν γ. 19:1; Ï€Ï?ώτη γ. the first generation (of Christians) Hs 9, 15, 4 (Paus. 7, 4, 9 τετάÏ?τῃ γενεᾷ=in the fourth generation).
③ the time of a generation, age (as a rule of thumb, the time between birth of parents and the birth of their children; since Hdt. 2, 142, 2; Dionys. Hal. 3, 15; Gen 50:23; Ex 13:18; 20:5; EpJer 2; Philo, Mos. 1, 7; Jos., Ant. 5, 336; SibOr 3, 108). Here the original sense gradually disappears, and the mng. ‘a period of time’ remains.
â“? of periods of time defined in terms of a generation: age, generation Mt 1:17 (a similar list of numbers in Hellanicus [400 b.c.]: 323a, Fgm. 22a Jac. á¼?νν�*α γενεαῖς ὕστεÏ?ον … ἓξ γενεαῖς ὕστεÏ?ον … Ï„Ï?ισὶ γενεαῖς ὕστεÏ?ον; Just., D. 92, 5 γενεαὶ ἀνθÏ?ώπων; Tat. 41, 1 μιᾷ τῶν ΤÏ?ωϊκῶν Ï€Ï?ογεν�*στεÏ?ος … γενεᾷ [of Heracles]); Lk 1:48; 1 Cl 50:3; á¼?ν γενεᾷ καὶ γ. (Ps 44:18; 89:1) in one generation after the other 7:5.
â“‘ of an undefined time period period of time gener. εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς (Ps 48:12; 88:2 al.; Just., D. 92, 2 μετὰ τοσαÏ?τας γ.) to all ages Lk 1:50 (v.l. εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν and εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν); cp. 1 Cl 61:3; εἰς πάσας Ï„á½°Ï‚ γ. (Ex 12:14) to all generations Eph 3:21; ἀπὸ τῶν γ. from earliest times Col 1:26 (for the combination αἰῶνες and γενεαί cp. Tob 1:4; 8:5 S; 13:12; Esth 10:3k). á¼?κ γενεῶν á¼€Ï?χαίων fr. ancient times Ac 15:21 (cp. Sir 2:10); ἀπὸ γενεᾶς εἰς γ. (Ex 17:16; Ps 9:27) fr. generation to g. Lk 1:50 v.l.; MPol 21; á¼?ν πάσαις ταῖς γ. in all generations 1 Cl 60:1; GJs 6:2; 7:2; cp. 1 Cl 11:2; á¼?ν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς τῆς γῆς GJs 12:1 (TestJob 4:6); ἑτ�*Ï?αις γ. at other times Eph 3:5 (cp. Jo 1:3; Ps 47:14); á¼?ν ταῖς παÏ?ῳχημ�*ναις γ. in past ages Ac 14:16.
④ in the quot. fr. Is 53:8 τὴν γ. α�τοῦ τίς διηγήσεταὶ Ac 8:33; 1 Cl 16:8 γ. is prob. to be taken in the sense of family history.—MMeinertz, ‘Dieses Geschlecht’ im NT, BZ n.F. 1, ’57, 283–89.—DELG s.v. γίγνομαι p. 222. M-M. TW. Sv."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
The OP article cites Strong's Concordance but the main Strong's Concordance is based on the KJV, which is putting the Horse's Ass before the Cart. I've increasingly come to see BDAG Lexicon as a Christian Lexicon but even so we can see that included in here in BDAG is exactly the High Definition that OF is looking for :

"those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind gener. as in"

If this is the meaning of Matthew 24:34 than there is no reason to try and appeal to a supposed mistranslation of an Original Aramaic word to avoid apparent Error in the Christian Bible. An Acceptable definition of the word would include a group of people with a common belief, such as believers in Jesus. The proper definition of "γενεα" here is determined based on CONTEXT. Note that based on Context BDAG has classified "γενεα" here as the current generation:

"â‘¡ the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and freq. defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries (Hom. et al.; BGU 1211, 12 [II b.c.] ἕως γενεῶν Ï„Ï?ιῶν); Jesus looks upon the whole contemp. generation of Israel as a uniform mass confronting him ἡ γ. αὕτη (cp. Gen 7:1; Ps 11:8) Mt 11:16; 12:41f; 23:36; 24:34;"

Modern Christian Bible scholarship has classified "γενεα" here the same way. OF, before you try to convince Skeptics here, why don't you first try to convince Modern Christian Bible scholarship.

Chris, I assume the author of this nonsense is also the source of Judge's confusion?

OF, considering that the Author you site apparently doesn't even know that the Greek word he is trying to avoid includes a definition making avoidance unnecessary and is unable to give a Source for his supposed UnderLieing Aramaic (other than the same Horse's Ass he is putting in front of the Ala Carte) you and I may have more Agreement than you think. We both would agree that this Exercise is a Wonderful example of what believing in Jesus has done for you and Steve.



Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Orthodox_Freethinker

I have not provided 'catechism' but the proper understanding that when the Greek is in divergence from the Aramaic, the Aramaic should be given priority. This is becasue not only did Jesus speak Aramaic but the original Gospel of Matthew was written in this language.

Steven Carr

Which family tree was Jesus talking about?

Out of interest , what is the Aramaic translation in your canonical text for the 'I am' sayings in John's Gospel?

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Jewish people, I would presume

I am not sure of all of the 'I am' sayings but John 8:58 is probably the most popular.

This is Dr. George Lamsa's famous Peshitta New Testament English translation (click here for OT). I believe it is the best complete translation of the Peshitta. From "The Deluxe Study Edition of the Modern New Testament from the Aramaic", by Dr. George M. Lamsa.
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama...amsa_bible.htm

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.

Murdock Translation - John
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama...rdock_john.htm

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.

Though it is "I was" rather than "I am", the meaning is still essentially the same in that Jesus has existed from eternal past:

"IN the beginning was the Word,* and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself. This was in the beginning with Aloha. Every thing by his hand was made; and without him also was not one thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of the sons of man; and the Light himself in the darkness shineth, and the darkness perceived him not."
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama...ridge_john.htm

countjulian

No, a very different logia document known to Papias was attributed to Matthew. He did not know canonical Matthew, both from the way he describes it, and the stories he tells. Matthew says of Judas,

But according to Papias (who, of course, comes to us only through Eusebius)

Cleary, Papias did not know the canonical Matthew. Any attempt to argue otherwise ignores the evidence.

Orthodox_Freethinker

When did I mention Papias? :huh: