09-13-2008, 11:07 AM
shlom lokh oH Ryan,
In regards to the Catholic Church, they have the following position in regards to the Aramaic text, here it is:
Matthew:
-The Aramaic Matthew was composed around 50AD
-When Saint Paul went to Rome in 60AD he had access to the Aramaic Matthew.
-The Aramaic Matthew got translated to Greek around 70-80AD
-The Greek Matthew was either translated by St Matthew's himself or some other Christian
-Since they believed that the Aramaic Matthew was lost, as such the Greek Matthew became canonical; because they believe it to be very similar to the Aramaic Matthew.
-The Catholic Church has never questioned the fact that Matthew was originally in Aramaic.
Luke:
-Church considers that Luke was written in an elegant Greek
-They base this on the preface/prologue, as it seems not to be based on other sources but his own
-They say that his use of technical terms for cures and medicines shows his knowledge of Greek
-They believe that it was written around 63AD
Mark:
-The Greek Mark was based on St Mark travelling with St Peter
-He uses simple sentence-structure
-He uses parataxis style
-He translates direct speeches literally from the Aramaic into Greek
-He uses the present tense 150 times in an unexpected way jumping from one tense into another within the same passage.
-He is considered to offer more details than others on some of the events.
-Written around 64AD
John:
-It's a spiritual Gospel
-The text is Greek and written in 98AD
I obviously don't agree with the logic behind the Greek Matthew (we'll have to send them a copy of the Peshitta), Greek Luke (technical terms LOL! ), Greek Mark (sounds Aramaic to me), and Greek John (no proofs for the Greek)
push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
In regards to the Catholic Church, they have the following position in regards to the Aramaic text, here it is:
Matthew:
-The Aramaic Matthew was composed around 50AD
-When Saint Paul went to Rome in 60AD he had access to the Aramaic Matthew.
-The Aramaic Matthew got translated to Greek around 70-80AD
-The Greek Matthew was either translated by St Matthew's himself or some other Christian
-Since they believed that the Aramaic Matthew was lost, as such the Greek Matthew became canonical; because they believe it to be very similar to the Aramaic Matthew.
-The Catholic Church has never questioned the fact that Matthew was originally in Aramaic.
Luke:
-Church considers that Luke was written in an elegant Greek
-They base this on the preface/prologue, as it seems not to be based on other sources but his own
-They say that his use of technical terms for cures and medicines shows his knowledge of Greek
-They believe that it was written around 63AD
Mark:
-The Greek Mark was based on St Mark travelling with St Peter
-He uses simple sentence-structure
-He uses parataxis style
-He translates direct speeches literally from the Aramaic into Greek
-He uses the present tense 150 times in an unexpected way jumping from one tense into another within the same passage.
-He is considered to offer more details than others on some of the events.
-Written around 64AD
John:
-It's a spiritual Gospel
-The text is Greek and written in 98AD
I obviously don't agree with the logic behind the Greek Matthew (we'll have to send them a copy of the Peshitta), Greek Luke (technical terms LOL! ), Greek Mark (sounds Aramaic to me), and Greek John (no proofs for the Greek)
push bashlomo,
keefa-morun