12-16-2013, 09:09 PM
Nice list, Dylan...though most of this is also assumption and speculation, but, if the GPs can use these type of logical deductions on their end, so can the APs. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
But, the AP does not only have to rely on this type of thing to show an Aramaic original NT.
Dylan can you provide the statement made by Jerome, which says that Paul wrote in Hebrew?
The 1st letter of Peter, clearly states that he was writing to those who were "scattered" or sown into the nations of Asia minor, which sounds to me that these were not native to the lands where they were living. Potted plants...Jewish Christians living in the diaspora, outside of the Land.
I think that Assemane mentions that it was seen by another, not himself, but he makes mention of what the witness described seeing...if I'm not mistaken. We need to check this out and make that clarification if so.
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->But, the AP does not only have to rely on this type of thing to show an Aramaic original NT.
Quote:9. Ancient testimony tells us that many of the many of the New Testament Books were written in Aramaic. According to church tradition, Matthew and Hebrews were written in "Hebrew" (as in Judean Aramaic). Jerome says that Paul was a Hebrew and wrote in "Hebrew".
Dylan can you provide the statement made by Jerome, which says that Paul wrote in Hebrew?
Quote:11. Since Peter was sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews, it is logical to assume that he wrote the two Petrine Epistles to Jews.
The 1st letter of Peter, clearly states that he was writing to those who were "scattered" or sown into the nations of Asia minor, which sounds to me that these were not native to the lands where they were living. Potted plants...Jewish Christians living in the diaspora, outside of the Land.
Quote:14. JS Assemane claims to have seen a manuscript of the four Gospels written in Aramaic from 78 AD.
I think that Assemane mentions that it was seen by another, not himself, but he makes mention of what the witness described seeing...if I'm not mistaken. We need to check this out and make that clarification if so.