05-04-2013, 07:26 AM
Hi Mona Lisa,
That's a valid question, but the question shouldn't necessarily be why he wouldn't have written to them in Greek, nor whether or not he could speak (or, write) Greek. I'm sure he was quite capable of doing both.
The question should be, who was the audience he was writing to in Corinth? Who were the first converts and leaders of that congregation? (Acts 18 answers that definitively) And why did he end his epistle with an Aramaic phrase that even the Greek NT today preserves intact ?
The fact that you attended an Aramaic-speaking Church in California, near the Mexican border, demonstrates that the Church in Corinth could also have been an Aramaic-speaking congregation, despite its location in a non-Aramaic speaking majority area. I'm sure that less than .0001 % of the San Diego area speaks Aramaic. But I guarantee you that the Patriarch and other bishops send epistles to that particular parish in Aramaic, not in English nor in Spanish. In fact, the congregations in India (which do not speak Aramaic at all) still receive the same epistles in Aramaic, and they are translated into the Indian vernacular by those few Indians who are learned in Aramaic.
The primary factor in what language a document is written in is the audience, not the geography. Otherwise, if the geography theory is taken to its logical conclusion, then Paul should have written his Epistle to the Romans in Latin ... right?
Most importantly, when you compare the GNT to the ANT, it is clear that the Greek is a translation of a Semitic source, in every single book (the Epistles of Paul included.)
+Shamasha
monalisa Wrote:Why wouldn't Paul have written to the Corinthian church in Greek?
That's a valid question, but the question shouldn't necessarily be why he wouldn't have written to them in Greek, nor whether or not he could speak (or, write) Greek. I'm sure he was quite capable of doing both.
The question should be, who was the audience he was writing to in Corinth? Who were the first converts and leaders of that congregation? (Acts 18 answers that definitively) And why did he end his epistle with an Aramaic phrase that even the Greek NT today preserves intact ?
The fact that you attended an Aramaic-speaking Church in California, near the Mexican border, demonstrates that the Church in Corinth could also have been an Aramaic-speaking congregation, despite its location in a non-Aramaic speaking majority area. I'm sure that less than .0001 % of the San Diego area speaks Aramaic. But I guarantee you that the Patriarch and other bishops send epistles to that particular parish in Aramaic, not in English nor in Spanish. In fact, the congregations in India (which do not speak Aramaic at all) still receive the same epistles in Aramaic, and they are translated into the Indian vernacular by those few Indians who are learned in Aramaic.
The primary factor in what language a document is written in is the audience, not the geography. Otherwise, if the geography theory is taken to its logical conclusion, then Paul should have written his Epistle to the Romans in Latin ... right?
Most importantly, when you compare the GNT to the ANT, it is clear that the Greek is a translation of a Semitic source, in every single book (the Epistles of Paul included.)
+Shamasha