04-11-2004, 11:30 PM
shlomo,
In regards to Matthew, there's a problem with what they said. It's a scholarly consensus that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
Saint Papias in the year 130AD said that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, and that the various Greek translation have errors.
poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
hkoehli Wrote:Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks,
Harrison
In regards to Matthew, there's a problem with what they said. It's a scholarly consensus that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
Saint Papias in the year 130AD said that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, and that the various Greek translation have errors.
poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon