A historical logic

[Paul Younan]

From a historical perspective, imagine if the following was the case: (this is a reversal of the history)

Imagine if the Messiah and the Apostles, and their immediate followers were ethnic Greeks living in an empire controlled by Babylon. Imagine if the Gospel was originally preached in Greek, but in an Aramaic-speaking empire. And imagine if the Apostles wrote epistles to congregations in Babylon, Hatra, Nineveh and Ur of the Chaldeans, instead of the current situation. Imagine that the first converts in those congregations where ethnic Greeks in exile, right from the temples of Zeus and Aphrodite. Imagine the Apostles went to their own people, the Greeks, first. And made them the leaders of the congregation, with ethnic Arameans as a later addition to the fold.

Now imagine that the NT fragments, the oldest ones, were in Aramaic. But with a Greek syntax, and errors showing that they must have been translated from Greek. Word plays that only make sense in the Greek. A/B word scenarios (polysemy), etc.

What language do you suppose those Gospels and Epistles would have been written in? The language of the empire they were sojourners in (Aramaic), or the language of their own people (Greek) ?

Of course, any reasonable person who would bother to examine the evidence and cast aside any prejudice, would conclude that the NT must have been originally written in Greek. Right ?

+Shamasha

this makes PERFECT SENSE!
<!-- shocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="hocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- shocked: --> I KNEW you were a sleeper agent for Greek Primacy, akhi Paul (or should i say 'adelphe Paulos?' <!-- sly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="ly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sly: --> )!!! all this time, the Peshitta.org site was a front to reign in us Aramaic Primacy nutjobs, wasn't it?? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Ha! You found me out!

In all seriousness, imagine if the oldest fragments were in Aramaic, but the last words on the Cross were preserved in the original Greek.

What if the oldest Aramaic fragments of Paul's epistles contained the Greek refrain for "Come, our Lord", right there at the end of the Aramaic fragment?

And, if the introduction of James was "to the scattered remnant of the 300 six-pack-abs ones in Mesopotamia, greetings" ?

What if Paul told everyone that his conversion on the Road to Arbela involved our Lord speaking to him in Greek?

I could go on with the more compelling linguistic arguments, but you get my point with just these silly examples.

Would there be as much controversy and ridicule to those who might be brave enough to suggest that all of it must've been penned in Greek? (the oldest fragments being in Aramaic, notwithstanding)

Somehow, our position is outrageous, amateurish and uninformed to those more "learned" than us.

+Shamasha

PS - as we all know, history is written by the victors. We are nothing but a tiny remnant that has somehow clung on to this identity despite enormous odds. 99.9% of Christendom owes its existence to Byzantium, and finds its roots in that milieu.