08-20-2008, 06:56 PM
In Greek NT of Acts 17:6,8 Luke uses a word that is found only in this context in the entire New Testament. It is a Greek title for the "rulers" in Thessalonikka, which is "POLITARXAS." For centuries scholars could not figure out Luke's source for using this particular word because there was no record of any official person in leadership that was assigned this exact title. Therefore you had many New Testament skeptics that used this text to cast doubt on either the authenticity of Luke or the reliability of the New Testament. But "lo" and behold in the last century , or 19th century, an archaeological excavation or "dig" in that area discovered some pieces of stone or marble that included an inscription with this very title. You can see this and read some of the backround of this story at:
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.LarryOverton.com">http://www.LarryOverton.com</a><!-- w -->
Click at "Berean Fact Sheet" and then scroll down to No.15 - "Politarchs of Thessalonicca." Scroll down a little further and you will see the full inscription in Greek. But there is no photo of the original stone. "Politarxas" is the very first word of the inscription you will see if you can read Greek. I looked up the corresponding word for this title in the Aramaic New Testament (Acts 17:6,8) to see if this was also used exclusively in the Aramaic NT and would probably give credance to Aramaic Primacy if found only in Acts 17:6,8. The search for this word I conducted found several locations of the same Title. Acts 19:31 is just one. Observing that this word is unique for the title of an government official only in Thessalonicca it only makes sense to me that a "Greek writing" Luke would only include this in this Thessalonikkan narrative and nowhere else and, then, later on when the letter (Acts) was translated from Greek to Aramaic that the copiest, not familiar with the uniqueness of the word, would write it in several locations. A problem for Aramaic Primacy?? This needs to be considered.
I realize that this would only be one in several "battles" between Aramaic Primacy supporters and Greek Primacy supporters for the orignal language of Luke-Acts. In the back of my mind someone is telling me that this "challenge" in Acts 17 may well has been dealt with before. But I don't know. Maybe someone can help me out with this or maybe I am on to something. To me this would be both an external and internal clue for Greek Primacy for Luke-Acts. I would love to hear any "no-brainers" for Luke-Acts that would obviously support Aramaic Primacy. Hey. Just a thought! :blush
Thank you
Sincerely,
Mike Karoules
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.LarryOverton.com">http://www.LarryOverton.com</a><!-- w -->
Click at "Berean Fact Sheet" and then scroll down to No.15 - "Politarchs of Thessalonicca." Scroll down a little further and you will see the full inscription in Greek. But there is no photo of the original stone. "Politarxas" is the very first word of the inscription you will see if you can read Greek. I looked up the corresponding word for this title in the Aramaic New Testament (Acts 17:6,8) to see if this was also used exclusively in the Aramaic NT and would probably give credance to Aramaic Primacy if found only in Acts 17:6,8. The search for this word I conducted found several locations of the same Title. Acts 19:31 is just one. Observing that this word is unique for the title of an government official only in Thessalonicca it only makes sense to me that a "Greek writing" Luke would only include this in this Thessalonikkan narrative and nowhere else and, then, later on when the letter (Acts) was translated from Greek to Aramaic that the copiest, not familiar with the uniqueness of the word, would write it in several locations. A problem for Aramaic Primacy?? This needs to be considered.
I realize that this would only be one in several "battles" between Aramaic Primacy supporters and Greek Primacy supporters for the orignal language of Luke-Acts. In the back of my mind someone is telling me that this "challenge" in Acts 17 may well has been dealt with before. But I don't know. Maybe someone can help me out with this or maybe I am on to something. To me this would be both an external and internal clue for Greek Primacy for Luke-Acts. I would love to hear any "no-brainers" for Luke-Acts that would obviously support Aramaic Primacy. Hey. Just a thought! :blush
Thank you
Sincerely,
Mike Karoules