Orthodox_Freethinker

For this particular thread, Aramaic primacy is only important for the Gospel of Matthew. If Matthew were written originally for Hebrew Christians, why would it be in Greek?

Diogenes the Cynic

Your patristic evidence is garbage. Papias was not talking about Canonical Matthew which is a GREEK composition and is not a sayings Gospel. And it shouldn't even have to be said, but GMatt also could not have been written by an apostle.
The only evidence that any of the sayings were written down in Aramaic comes from Eusebius quotation of Papias which is pretty much worthless as evidence and does not refer to any extant text iny case.

And if you're willing to admot that the Peshitta is not primal, then your entire OP is defeated because you have no other claim to any "original Aramic" source for genea.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I hold to Peshitta primacy in that it is the closest to the original text. Even if this is not so, the Peshitta still corroborates that in the Greek of Matthew 24:34, "GENEA" should be understood as "race" or "tribe":

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was written for Hebrew Christians. It copies extensively from at least two and probably three Greek sources (Mark, Q and LXX). Matthew's original narratives arewritten in a distinct literary Koine which betrays no artifacts of translation. No one in NT scholarship but a handful of cranks buys into Aramaic primacy.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, the original Greek is the closest to the original text because it IS the original text.
Huh?

Are you actually trying to use the Peshitta to corroborate itself? Are you kidding me?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Not only do we have the testimony of the early Church, but Matthew's intent to prove that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Though the other Gospels hold to Jesus' role of Messiah, Matthew places the most emphasis on the Christian faith's connection to Judiasm.

There is no evidence that Q ever existed. The similarities between Matthew and Luke are explained by Luke's utilization of Matthew as an Apostle of Christ.

"The Peshitta, lightly revised and with missing books added, is the standard Syriac Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Mar Thoma Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta

Scholars in support of Aramaic supremacy are not 'cranks'. George Lamsa, for example, was respected by even those who disagreed with him.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Are you actually paying attention? In the Greek version, as already explained to you, "generation" is not the only possible meaning of "GENEA", one of them being "race" or "tribe".

Perhaps you could actually take a gander at the Catholic Encyclopedia article I've shown you:

Generation
"This word, of very varied meaning, corresponds to the two Hebrew terms: dôr, tôledôth. As a rendering of the later, the Vulgate plural form, generationes, is treated in the article GENEALOGY. As a rendering of the former, the word generation is used in the following principal senses.
It designates a definite period of time, with a special reference to the average length of man's life. It is in this sense, for example, that, during the long-lived patriarchal age, a "generation" is rated as a period of 100 years (Genesis 15:16, compared with Genesis 15:13, and Exodus 12:40), and that, at a later date, it is represented as of only 30 to 40 years.
The word generation is used to mean an indefinite period of time: of time past, as in Deut., xxxii, 7, where we read: "Remember the days of old, think upon every generation", and in Isaias, lviii, 12, etc.; of time future, as in Ps. xliv (Heb. xlv), 18, etc.
In a concrete sense, generation designates the men who lived in the same period of time, who were contemporaries, as for instance in Gen., vi, 9: "Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations"; see also: Num., xxxii, 13; Deut., i, 35; Matt., xxiv, 34; etc.
Independently of the idea of time, generation is employed to mean a race or class of men as characterized by the same recurring condition or quality. In this sense, the Bible speaks of a "just generation", literally "generation of the just" [Ps. xiii (Heb., xiv), 6; etc.], a "perverse generation", equivalent to: "generation of the wicked" [Deut., xxxii, 5; Mark, ix, 18 (Gr., verse 19); etc.].
Lastly, in Is., xxxviii, 12, the word generation is used to designate a dwelling place or habitation, probably from the circular for of the nomad tent. Whence it can be readily seen that, in its various principal acceptations, the word generation (usually in the Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament: genea) preserves something of the primitive meaning of "circuit", "period", conveyed by the Hebrew term dôr."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06412c.htm

Diogenes the Cynic

You have no such testimony regarding Canonical Matthew. One more time- Papias was not talking about Canonical Matthew.
By completely distorting the definition of the Jewish Messiah and misusing Jewish scripture to support his Heretical (by Jewish standards) viewpoint, He's also anti-Jewish in his polemic.
And he does so dishonestly and in ways which could not fool informed Jews but were quite serviceable in manipulating gentiles who were naive and uneducated as to what the Jewish Messiah actually was and what Matthew's misquoted Scrioture actually pertained to.
The author of GMatt was no apostle.

The evidence of a common written source between Matthew and Luke is all but undeniable. You can try to argue that Luke copied GMatt (if you try to assert that Luke personally interviewed Matthew as a "witness" I will mock you ) but you would then have to explain why Luke shows no awareness of GMatt's Nativity as well as why Luke alters the order of the Q sayings. You would still be stuck with the fact that what Luke copied was GREEK, not to mention the fact that GMatt still copied almost all of Mark (in Greek) and extensively utilized the Greek Septuagint.
What is this supposed to prove?
Lamsa belonged to a church which believed in Aramaic Primacy. His religious beliefs led his conclusions. I think it might be instructive to point out that Lamsa also believed that the Masoretic text of the Hebew Bible was translated from the Peshitta- an extremely oddball view which found no traction among scholars and, in fact, was decisively disproven after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Then what exactly was he speaking of?

Whether or not you agree with Jesus being the Messiah, most scholars would agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew and for a Jewish audience.

Luke was a historian and considered his Gospel an improvement on Matthew.

Mark wrote down the testimony of Saint Peter. If Matthew utilized Mark, he would have been expanding upon the testimony of a fellow Apostle with his own eye witness. Furthermore, in the Aramaic Peshitta, the Gospels reference Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.

I doubt that all the scholars of these churches who hold to Aramaic primacy could be 'cranks'.

As do I. Like Lamsa, I also observe that the Peshitta provides a clearer rendering of Jesus' actual words. For example, while the Greek translates as "camel through the eye of a needle", the Aramaic Peshitta contains "rope through an eye of a needle." Which one would you say makes better sense?

There are also historical proofs in favor of Aramaic primacy:
"I have discussed many of the linguistic proofs of Peshitta primacy, which is perhaps the best proof we can have, as it is internal evidence. There is however much external evidence also, such as quotes from Church fathers, and simple (yet little-known) facts about Jesus’ time (and language), that also make a strong case for Peshitta primacy.
This article will deal with some historical proofs of Peshitta primacy, and will also touch on other issues, such as the Septuagint, and the other Aramaic Bible versions...
That the OT was written in Hebrew is uncontested. After all, it was written by Hebrew-speakers, for Hebrew-speakers, and tells the stories of Hebrew-speakers. So why is Aramaic primacy of the NT (New Testament) contested? Does it not make sense that the NT, written by Aramaic-speakers, for Aramaic-speakers, telling the stories of Aramaic-speakers, be written in Aramaic? According to “scholarly consensus� (i.e. the shared beliefs of many scholars, lacking in any real evidence), it makes more sense that it was written in the non-Semitic language of Greek..."
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Onlin...cal_proofs.htm

I recommend that you read the sections entitled "What the ancient religious authorities said of the original Bible" and "What the modern authorities say".

Chris Weimer

A set of Hebrew sayings attributed to Jesus.

Very wrong! First of all, only a minority of scholars would contend that Matthew is a Jew writing for a Jew. This appears to be the mainstream "Christian" thought post-Holocaust. Many scholars today would agree that Matthew was Jewish-Christian, and either his community still considered themselves a part of Judaism or recently broke from them. Try:

Try Donald Senior's article "Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel." Catholic Biblical Quaterly 61 (1999): 1-23 for more details on the debate.

I myself am almost finished with my paper addressing this issue directly. In the paper, I argue for Matthew being wholly Christian and writing against the Jews. If you want, I can give some key examples.

Conjecture.

Proof?

No, but I would call them "mistaken".

Jeez, I've already said too much. Time for a little button that makes this problem go away.