hatsoff

Hi, lpetrich.

What you've touched on is all true, but it's only a very small part of the body of evidence pointing to Greek originals. The manuscript evidence is particularly compelling. Moreover, the idea of Aramaic primacy has great problems, and with the exception of Hebrew hypotheses for Matthew and Hebrews there's no other serious candidate (to my knowledge) for any other language as the original. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Peshitta is written in a Syriac dialect not spoken in the first century AD.

The synoptic relationships constitute extremely strong evidence for Greek interdependency. Although "anything is possible," as the saying goes, it is practically inconceivable to suppose the synoptics were written in any other language than Greek.

As far as I can tell, Aramaic primacy is a rebellious-flavored movement led by few if any true New Testament scholars. The main arguments I've seen for advancing the idea can usually be divided into two categories: (1) Collections of cherry-picked factoids which when taken together offer the illusion of logical coherence; or (2) Christian arguments which use infallibility of the canon and traditional authorship ascriptions as springboards for other conclusions.

Malachi151

This reminds of an evolution vs. creationism discussion, where somehow the whole discussion is about evolution with the creationists poking sticks and the evolutionists defending.

Now, how about this case FOR Aramaic....

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, which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek. Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew. It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.


spin

judge

Well I know we like to imagine the solution we oursleves propose is the "only meaningful" one but somehow I doubt this to be the case in this instance.

That is why the evidence needs peer review.

Of course it would be quite meaningful for the writer, in Aramaic, to translate the cry into the dialect of his hearers.

Particularly in view of the fact you yourself argue this would be done by an allged translator from greek anyway.

All the best

judge

Except creationsists don't call for peer review...they believe things without peer review. Which is precisely what the grek primacists do.

Creationists don't exmine the evidence first either..which ironically is what you did in this very thread, failed to even so much as look at the Aramaic of Mark before you gave your argument.

Malachi151

Yeah, nice polemic, good job at evading presenting any evidence

hatsoff

To say they are "anonymous" doesn't seem entirely fair. The Gospel of John has a cryptic signature, which, though probably pseudepigraphical, does establish an alleged identity for its author. The Gospel of Luke likely was signed by its author in its original form. That signature may have been converted to the more formulaic "Gospel according to..." standard. Matthew and Mark, too, may have originally included Matthean and Markan signatures.

Also, Papias statement about GMatt was almost certainly mistaken, but that doesn't mean he wasn't talking about the Gospel we know today. It's just that his description is so spartan as to allow for some doubt about what he may have been describing.

spin

Cryptic, huh? You mean it's not there, but you can put it there.

Uh-huh. In its original form!? Ie you have no evidence whatsoever.

They may have been signed by Josephus for all you know.

That's your epistemological quandary, isn't it?

I'm sorry, Hatsoff, but you have nothing in your hands, nothing up your sleave, nothing to offer for your desires. WHy should anyone listen to what you say about this?


spin

spin

As the dialect translation approach is an obvious crock, you need something a little more convincing.

It's been peer reviewed several times since the KJV.

But a "translation" is unnecessary.

It makes sense to translate something into a different language, not from one dialect to another. If you watched a Scottish TV show, would you need a translation?? Unless the dialect is obscure, the listener usually understands it. As I have shown there is nothing obscure about the text, as two of the three different words are the same in both statements, so the translation is useless.

Pipple kn ken yrrr minning withoot nidding uxplanneshunz oor trensleshunz. (Say it.)


spin

judge

Would you be so kind as to indicate by when and by whom?

I would be most aprreciative, unless you have made an error here?

We can then just examine the exact arguments and reasons, can't we?

We can see for ourselves why the greek came first according to peer review.