"POLITARXAS'' could be big blow for Aramaic Primacy in Acts

[Mike Kar]

Steve, I did indeed read your post. you make a very good point. Thank-you for your reply. Let me look at it a little bit closer. But are you saying that "Tanana" and "Kanana" are the same term? <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://WWW.Dukhrana.com">http://WWW.Dukhrana.com</a><!-- w --> defines "Kanana" as Cananite in the Matthew and Mark lists that you gave. I will check that again. BTW, in my opinion my point of Uriah still holds. Now I can not be sure of this but Uriah was married to Bethsheba and according to Jewish Law Bathsheba would be in violation of the law if Uriah (at that time) was not Jewish. I believe we are dealing with possibilites here as well as probabilites. David, being in speaking terms with Hiram and even some of the Gentile kings as you mentioned is one thing. Fighting for the Jewish army on behalf of Jehovah is quite another. Uriah had to be also following the Jewish ordinances for Jews fighting in battle at that time. He, still being a gentile is quite unlikely. How could he be anything but Jewish at this time of the narrative between David & Bathsheba's adultery. Thank-you.

Also on Acts 2:24. The word "loosed" being tied in with "held" , and paired together does make sense. The first part of the verse with "having loosed" flew right by my mind. This would lean pretty good for an Aramaic Primacy proof for Luke-Acts.

Mike Karoules