show_no_mercy

It doesn't matter what Paul's first, second, third, or ninth language was. You didn't answer my question at all. I asked why would Paul write in Aramaic to the Gentile churches he founded? That has nothing to do with Paul's ability to write in Aramaic. If I can write in Greek, English, and Spanish, why would I write a letter in Greek to a person who lives in Argentina? They wouldn't be able to read it.

judge

I provided two reasons that he might have done so. You don't have to agree with them or even like the reasons. Thats up to you.

show_no_mercy

You didn't provide any reasons at all. Unless you're asserting that Gentiles would be fluent in Aramaic.

judge

Well as I didn't say that, there is no reason to jump to it.
Hoo nose why people who are on a mission from godde do what they do?
Why does the Assyrian church of the east send ecclesiatical lettrs to Chicago to this day in Aramaic? I dont know, but they do it in 2009.

Why did the RCC hold services in Latin till the 1960's?

That is why we should look and see what the internal evidence is rather than dismiss things prior to investigation.

show_no_mercy

This is the only issue at hand.

Paul wrote letters to his Gentile churches.
Gentiles wouldn't be fluent in Aramaic.
Thus Paul wouldn't have written to them in Aramaic, he'd write to them in common language of the area - the language that they would understand: Koine Greek.
Thus Paul's letters, the original autographs, would be in Greek.

Your trying to say that Paul wrote in a language to an audience that wouldn't understand the language he wrote in. That makes absolutely no sense. Unless Paul wrote letters to his Gentile churches that he didn't intend for them to understand.

judge

I am saying that rather than dismissing an idea before investigating it, because we think it makes no sense, as you are doing here, we should look at the evidence.
Obviously I am on the wrong forum. I need to go to the freethought forum not the religious dogma forum.
Where was that freethought forum again....?

Toto

Acts is not worth much if anything as a source for the historical Paul.

Since the Jews of the Diaspora learned Koine Greek, why would the Gentiles learn Aramaic?

Actually, they are not.

Please provide more than this. The letter are written in Koine Greek.

Repeat, Acts is not a historical source for Paul, especially when reporting supernatural events that didn't even happen.

judge

Did I say the gentiles learned Aramaic?

.

So, you are concluding the letters are written in koine greek because the letters are written in koine greek? Wow.

By that logic the letters are written in aramaic because the letters are written in Aramaic.

Or the letters are written in icelandic because the letters are written in icelandic.

We have versions in many languages, the question being asked here is which came first.

But even the koine greek versions of pauls epistles contain Aramaic (not hebrew BTW) words, the salutation maranatha being one example.


What you meant to say is that they are not, to you.

Did I say it was? Why do you think I prefaced my comment with the words for what it is worth?

Added in edit:
They are certainly an early source for what language people believed Jesus to have spoken in (which directly relates to the OP)

Toto

So what is your case? An unreliable fantasy says that Paul understood a few words in thr Hebrew language? Why mention it and then disown it?

judge

The idea of a greek speaking Jesus is a later invention. Our earliest sources, the gospels, the Acts of the apostles, have him speaking Aramaic. For what it is worth.
If one believes there was no Jesus then this thread is pretty much irrelevant.
If one believes there was then the earliest sources are relevant, rather than some regurgitated tripe from Bart Ehrman.(as per the OP)

Added in edit:
BTW I am not disowning it. I actually dont care whether Acts happened or didn't. But for the sake of the variety of positions held on this forum, I put the material forward.

Also I think I edited my post as you replied so you did not have the benefit of my further explanation. Sorry about that.