spin

Actually it's not signed. There's a third person singular note at the end which is not a part of the fabric of the document, so when was it added, by whom?

When do they date from?

It still wouldn't say who actually wrote them.

You have no way of showing the position your claims reflect.

That sounds like my Helpmabob. The fellow who can't show he's any different from a paranoid schizophrenic.

So, nothing up your sleeve, but go look up someone else bigger's.

Nothing you've said has shown me the need to do so. We are left with four documents whose authorship only comes from tradition and there is no way to get beyond tradition to a past reality.


spin

judge

Ok so when was the passage from Mark peer reviewed WRT to the primacy of the peshitta or the greek text?

Who did it?
What arguments were examined?
When did they do it?

Malachi151

Okay, enough of this.

Stop talking about the Greek texts and put forward your full case for whatever other language you think the gospels were written in, case by case for each gospel.

If you can't put forward your own case then stop whining about the Greek view.

Chris Weimer

:banghead:

hatsoff

I don't really feel like debating someone so rude. Besides, you don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

spin

Debating is about comparing information, not literary criticism.

If you cannot deal with the epistemological requirements of your position, how can you debate it? And what you may call "rude" may be asking you to provide more than what you seem willing to do.

I don't think you have analysed what you are trying to tell me, because you appear to be making claims you cannot support.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

You don't know where the gospels were written.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

How am I expected to reply to this? This looks like total gibberish...

What we need here is 3 levels of quotation, in order to make the context clear. But then I'll need to go to 2 previous posts, in order to fill in the blanks.

Is there some software function at IIDB that I'm missing?

_______________

spin:
The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,

Yuri:
How does it acknowledge its derivation?

spin:
By improving the text.

Yuri:
He does not improve the text.

___________________

spin:
which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek.

Yuri:
But maybe it was based on something else?

spin:
How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?

Yuri:
The author was writing for a Latin audience.

____________________

spin:
Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew.

Yuri:
Why not?

spin:
It's [sic] dependence on Mk.

Yuri:
Which is highly debatable.

_____________________

spin:
It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

Yuri:
The original names were not the same as later names.

spin:
That's right. Take Matthew for example.

Yuri:
That's right.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

"Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness."
--- W. Allen

Johann_Kaspar

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Ignorance is not an argument either.

So that you can do your homework, here are TWO persons presenting MANY evidences that the gospel was first written in Hebrew: Dubourg and Tresmontant. The evidence presented is overwhelming.

Johann_Kaspar

Quite right and even quite the contrary. He simplifies it a lot (censored). And he dit it from an Hebrew text not from a Greek text. As one of the first/oldest gospel text "Mt" was the most edited one and the latest...