Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refutation to Aramaic primacists
If you examine the evidence, it becomes clear that there is a good case for Aramaic primacy. Sadly, q lot of Aramaic primacists are theologically motivated in believing in Aramaic primacy. There is nothing holy about languages, they are just languages through which God chose to reveal his word. Abraham most likely did not speak Hebrew, but Aramaic (which is older). Andrew Gabriel Roth 's theories that the Greek manuscripts are perverted just because they use titles used for Greek deities is stupid, but I respect most of his work.

Most Aramaic primacists do not mind calling the Messiah "Jesus". I am included in that number. People who claim that Jesus=Je-Zeus have no knowledge of Greek grammar or linguistics and are usually quite legalistic. Anyway, not all followers of the Aramaic primacy theories are Sacred-Namers or Hebrew Roots believers.

Syriac speakers and Galilean or Judean speakers would have very little issues with understanding each other. Aramaic dialects differed but not so much to where speakers of different dialects couldn't understand each other or even communicate (or even write in) different dialects.

The Talmud and other Eastern Jewish writings speak against the Septuagint. It was made for Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews. Most Jews in the Middle East used the Targums or the Hebrew if they could read it (as is the case with our Lord Jesus Christ). Why would you use the Greek if you were able to use Aramaic or Hebrew? While the Targums were paraphrases, they probably reach the meaning of the original Hebrew Tanach than the Septuagint.

The Judeans had a great hatred for the Gentiles, especially Romans and Greeks. Josephus mentions that the learning of foreign languages was not encouraged. Of course, that doesn't mean that some Jews did not learn Greek. The common people would not have spoken Greek fluently, but they probably knew enough to get by in conversation and commerce. The higher class people probably acquired a pretty good knowledge of Greek speech.

The real origin of the Peshitta is shrouded in mystery. Church fathers say that Paul wrote in "Hebrew" to Hebrews (maybe talking specifically about Hebrews, I don't know), that Matthew was written in "Hebrew", Luke was apparently a Syrian from Antioch, James was written to Jews in the diaspora, Peter wrote to Jewish Christians also. John's audience is never made clear in his writings, but at least it was partly Gentiles. Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's memoirs and was himself a Judean. The Assyrian Christians have claimed for several thousands of years that they received their New Covenant Writings from the Apostles themselves. Can this be proven? Of course not, but it is not implausible.

Until Westcott and Hort and Francis Crawford Burkitt the Peshitta was studied and revered by Western scholars, viewed as the most ancient version of the New Testament, and by some it was viewed as the original. They saw no issue with Syriac being understood by the Jewish Christians of old!
I wouldn't say that it means nothing. That tells us that the Peshitta has Apostolic authority behind it, therefore it makes it more textually pure than the Greek New Testament textual families. It doesn't really make a difference to me whether the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, but I have come to the conclusion that it was originally written in the Aramaic language. The Greek is still an important witness to the reliability of our current New Testament. If it is a translation, then it is likely the first translation (same goes for the Aramaic).
godparticle Wrote:It is very plausible that the Apostles done a translation of the original Greek so that Aramaic speaking Christians could also have access to the writings.

1. What makes you think that the Greek was first ("the original") and that the Aramaic version was the translation, and not the other way around ?

2. Why did you write your first message on the forum ?

What stands out from it for me is this:
"Spurious assertions purporting Aramaic primacy do not and will not sway me at all, and simply do not hold weight, because the evidence doesn't support it"
which is an absolutely closing statement for any sensible conversation and discussion.

From Forum Rules "The focus of the Forum is to demonstrate the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament."

If you have your opinion solidified and are saying "I will not listen to you, but your are wrong" why bother coming here? I do not understand the logic of your motives. There are many other places where you can say "Aramaic Primicists are stupid" (how about some Biblical forums or even better peer reviewed scholarly articles and books?). Do you think you can learn anything here at all? Do you know ANY Aramaic ? Have you done any research? What kind, where can I read about it? What are your credentials? Can you read a sentence from Peshitta?

I can address and discuss your statements one by one, they are full of superficial misconceptions, generalizations and lack properly quoting facts and the evidence (exactly that). But I'm not sure yet if I want to. If someone comes to a place where I'm enjoying a good conversation with friends and starts talking to me in a hostile manner I call the police or the owner of the establishment, and do not enter the discussion.

Just take this ...

> As for Aramaic, did you know that it was the language of the Babylonians, acquired by the Jews during their captivity, and this is why we have the Targums (portions of the OT in Aramaic, not Hebrew)?

If you have read even 1% of posts on this forum before writing your own you would know if your audience (I mean current forum members) know that. Your language, the tone and the form of your message is offensive (despite the opening "greetings brothers"). At least to me. If you want to have a discussion (at least with me, others may disagree) you need to be nicer, and not take the position of the one "who knows it all". And I'm even not sure yet if you want to have a discussion (or demonstrate anything) with anyone or just wanted to write what you believe ? Tell me something new that has NOT yet been discussed on this forum in any of the historical threads, and give new facts? How about that? Practically all your arguments are covered already, with many good discussions. Start with read and search ?

It is DEEPLY ironic that I am writing this on this site in response to what you Posted.
The short answer is that things are not as "easy" and "simple" as they appear and are much, MUCH different than you suppose.
Every point you make may be refuted in multiple ways and to different ends as well.
You would be wise to back off on the acid and vitriol and see if maybe there might be a reason to look at the language, the settlements, interactions with Empires and the like.

I cannot tell you that "Greek Analysis" is finished as a discipline for examining the NT. I can tell you that "Aramaic Analysis" is still bearing fruit and not just of the "low hanging variety".
Take a step back and look at what an "Aramaic Primacy" might mean. "Who would these people be? Where would they live? What would they write?"

You might end up in a place you never imagined, looking at people you never knew existed.

There was an Aramaic speaking diaspora among the Europeans up until the Bar-Kokhba revolt. Paul did not only write to churches in Europe, but also churches in Asia like Ephesus. Gentiles aren't just Greeks, but also non-Jewish Semites like the Assyrians and Arameans. Can you prove that these were primarily Greeks and Hellenistic Jews? I can't prove my beliefs on this either. Aramaic primacy has more than just manuscript numbers to back it up, but ancient testimony from Assyrian Christians, wordplays, poetry, polysemy and other things to back it up. The number of manuscripts doesn't prove much of anything, it just shows that the Greek versions were widely circulated among Western Christians.

Why does "godparticle" sound so upset? Maybe his cage got rattled? <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->
godparticle Wrote:ScorpioSniper2 are you being serious?? Lets keep this simple. Arameans and Assyrians are not Ephesians or Corinthians are they? Problem solved!

Quit being so rude about it. If you wish to convince me of your position, speak in a civil manner. No, Assyrians and Arameans were not the primary citizens of Ephesus and Corinth, but neither are Mexicans and Canadians the primary components of the United States' population. Don't put words in my mouth. In parts of Turkey, Aramaic was widely spoken. Ephesus is in modern day Turkey (so was Tarsus actually). Corinth was a port city, so you have various different ethnic groups with various different languages. Just like there was a Jewish diaspora (speaking Aramaic), there were also Assyrian and Aramean diasporas in Europe during the Apostolic period.

godparticle Wrote:So, was Aramaic the primary language of Corinth or Ephesus? I don't think so. Aramaic primacists are basically saying something akin to a person writing a letter to English speaking Americans in the Russian language. That is the exact equivalent of what they are saying. Yes their are Russian speaking people in America, yes there are Italian speaking people in America, but they all communicate on the whole in broader society in English, right?? Hello??

First of all, prove to me that Paul was writing only to Greeks in his letters. "Gentiles" are not just Greeks and Romans, but also Assyrians, Arameans, Arabs, Chaldeans, Elamites, and many other Semitic peoples. This Gentile audience was obviously at least part Greek, but Assyrians were also a big part of 1st century Christendom, being some of the first Gentiles to accept the Gospel message. Paul Younan told someone on here once that even today, high ranking priests in the Church of the East write letters to churches in the United States in Aramaic and have them translated for the benefit of those that don't speak Aramaic. This is quite possibly what happened in the early churches in Greek cities.

godparticle Wrote:Now here's some scriptural quotes to help you...

1: Acts 17.4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks A GREAT MULTITUDE, and of the chief women NOT A FEW.

Okay, this just proves that there were a lot of Greek Christians. This is not disputed by believers in Aramaic primacy.

thegodparticle Wrote:2: Acts 17.12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women WHICH WERE GREEKS, and of men, NOT A FEW.

Again, it just proves that there were a lot of Grecian believers.

thegodparticle Wrote:3: Acts 14.1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that A GREAT MULTITUDE both of the (Hellinest Greek SPEAKING) JEWS, AND ALSO OF THE GREEKS believed.

Ummm, the text does not actually say that these Jews were Hellenists. Don't read into the text. There were Jews in Greek nations that didn't use Greek in their everyday speech, just like it is with many foreigners in the United States. Yet again, this only shows that there were Greek Christians.

thegodparticle Wrote:4: Acts 18.4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and THE GREEKS.

See point 1!

thegodparticle Wrote:5: Acts 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that ALL THEY which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both (Hellinest Greek SPEAKING) JEWS AND GREEKS.

Quit adding to the text in order to support your beliefs, as it does not say that these were Hellenists. Aramaic was prevalent in parts of Turkey. As for the Greeks, see point 1!

thegodparticle Wrote:6: Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the (Hellinest Greek SPEAKING) JEWS, AND THE GREEKS.

See point 1 and 3.

thegodparticle Wrote:7: Acts 19:7 And this was known to ALL the (Hellinest Greek SPEAKING) JEWS, AND GREEKS also dwelling at EPHESUS; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

See points 1, 3, and 5.

thegodparticle Wrote:8: Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the GREEKS, and to the Barbarians.

Are you saying that Paul preached only to Greeks and Barbarians?

thegodparticle Wrote:9: 1 Cor 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and GREEKS, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Did Paul only preach to Jews and Greeks? The Aramaic Peshitta also says "Arameans" instead of "Greeks".

thegodparticle Wrote:There are times also in the New Testament that Paul refers to the Greeks as Gentiles; either way, the title of Pauls epistles clearly shows that the majority of the audience was Greek speaking Greeks, and (Hellinest Greek speaking) Jews, living in those provinces. Which begs the question, why on earth would anyone on this planet write an epistle to such people in Aramaic???????????????????????????????????????????? I rest my case, again! <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: -->

Your case is very weak and shallow. None of the Scriptures you cited really proved anything. We do not deny that Paul preached to Greeks as well as anyone else he got the opportunity to preach to. Paul's audiences could easily have been very diverse in both language and ethnicity. Considering that Greece had so many immigrants from the Middle East, it is not implausible that many of the churches in Greece and Asia consisted of Semitic Gentiles, as well as European Gentiles.
godparticle Wrote:What part of, "Textually speaking, there is little manuscript evidence to substantiate an Aramaic precedent over the Greek," didn't you understand??

Are you telling me that a handful of Aramaic primacists are more informed and more knowledgeable than 'several thousand' Western Biblical historians? Ummm... <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->

Thank you for a confirmation of what I thought and sensed. All the best with your studies. Control panel has got a fantastic feature, useful sometimes.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... an&f=false</a><!-- m --> The good stuff starts on p.563 although there is much more to offer in the book summary.

I made it as far as the settlement of "Jabnit":

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ns&f=false</a><!-- m --> Please see p. 415. godparticle, do you know who the "Hasmoneans" were? "Immer"? Do you know what happened to Immer? Why? Do you know who "Alexander Jannaeus" was? "Salome? Why the Pharisees were so hated in the NT? 'N if the NT was written in Greek, why not Latin? There are Latinisms in Mark, supposedly the earliest of the Gospels.

Acts 6: 7 (RSV):
[7] And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Hmmm...Priests in Jerusalem. "What language did they speak?..."
It's much more complicated than at first glance.

I don't have a problem understanding that the 1st century Church was 1st established among the Jews...and Aramaic speaking peoples both in Israel and in the diaspora. Why? Because that is what the New Testament clearly shows us.

Jesus commanded His Apostles to 1st go to the Jews and they did just that...we see this even with the Apostle Paul and Barnabas, who were sent out among the Gentiles to preach the Gospel...and, what do we see recorded being their pattern?

They are seen going into the Synagogue of the Jews each Sabbath and preaching the Gospel in each city they entered, and from the converts of these encounters they built the 1st assemblies among the Gentile lands in their Jewish homes...this was always with Jews 1st...then Gentiles converts were added in over time, while the 1st leaders of these home groups were clearly Jews.

Any historian who knows his stuff will tell you that the Church in the 1st century, even among the Gentile lands, were governed by Jewish men, who no doubt spoke Aramaic as their primary language, even in the diaspora.

Some folks seem to think that the Apostles wouldn't have originally written their Gospels, Acts, and Letters, in their own native language, then have them at once translated into Greek and perhaps Latin as well. Why not? It seems very reasonable to me.

Since the early Church was Jewish led, they being the 1st converts and the 1st leaders during the 1st isn't too hard to understand that these leaders could easily understand Aramaic, in which the Apostles wrote to their churches...translations were then made from them, under the Apostles authority. The book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke were written to the Jewish High Priest, Theophilus, some time before 70 A.D. at his request. I think it safe to say that it was given to him in the Aramaic language and was later translated.

What was given to The Church of the East, 1st in Edessa, would have been the original form of the Aramaic Gospels, Acts, and Letters of the Apostles, and this text, the Aramaic speaking Christians of the Eastern lands have always had since the time of the Apostles...unchanged in the Eastern form. It is neither a translation of the Greek Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean, or Western text form...but shows affinity with them all to some degree, it being the Parent text, from which all others have flowed from and have changed course to varying degrees, in this manner or that.
I believe the Peshitta and the Greek both have their origins in Apostolic times, but I believe the Peshitta is better preserved (probably because of its antiquity and originality?). The uniformity among the Eastern Peshitta manuscripts is shocking, especially when compared to the Greek. Even with the disunity of the textual readings in the Greek, the Greek should not be overlooked and mocked. It is a fantastic witness the the fact that the Word of God has been preserved even in other languages besides Hebrew and Aramaic.
godparticle Wrote:Definition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, is a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only', and not Hebrew or Aramaic <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes --> . NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

godparticle Wrote:Care to explain exactly why so many Jews of Jesus' day were keen to pack their bags and go live in Greece? (and thus, according to you, only spoke Aramaic)
Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation."
So there you have it. Jews wanted nothing to do with Gentiles and were not allowed to go anywhere near them. Thus, the Jews who were living in Greece were Jews of the dispersion, and thus HellenistsBig Grinefinition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, is a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew (or Aramaic). NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

So, if these Jews in the dispersion did not speak a word of Aramaic, why did Paul write to them with Aramaic words and phrases like Maran atha and Abba?

thegodparticle Wrote:Now do you see the absurdity of all your reasoning and fanciful delusions concerning Aramaic primacy? How many bloodline Jews live 'throughout' the world today and cannot speak a word of Aramaic? Answer: Millions. Same thing in Greece 2000 years ago <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Are you blind to the fact that Aramaic nearly ceased to be spoken among the Jews after the Bar-Kokhba revolt? Why does the supposedly Greek physician Luke use the word paskha in the Greek version of Acts for "passover"?

thegodparticle Wrote:It all boils down to this... Either they were Jews living in Greece who spoke no Greek at all (both you and I know this is totally untrue), or, they were Hellenists/Grecians who had been living in Greece since the dispersion of Israel AND THUS ONLY SPOKE GREEK, as the NAS Exhaustive Concordance affirms about Hellenists.

So, lets simplify, again. If the ones being converted were Greeks and Hellenists, which is historical Biblical fact seeing that Acts shows who were being converted (Greeks and Jews), then case closed, the epistles were written first in Greek, "a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks" / "and of Greeks, not a few". What constitutes the large majority of the New Testament? The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians/Corinthians/Galatians/Colossians/Thessalonians/Philippians/, and if you tell me Timotheus wasn't a Greek, then you need to hunt down the translator of the Peshitta and try him for willful heresy and changing God's word. And we know that II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John were not even part of the official Peshitta canon.

Seems pretty conclusive to me guys.

Entering into the synagogues of the Jews (Jews by bloodline and religion, but Hellenists:that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew or Aramaic. NAS Exhaustive Concordance.)

Jews and Hellenists are distinguished from one another in the New Testament. Did you notice that?

thegodparticle Wrote:Any other language is basically out of the equation, right? Concerning Aramaic primacy. No argument there.
So as you so dubiously maintain, if Paul wrote the originals in Aramaic, then such assertions infer that Paul considered the Gentile Greeks of no importance and that very few Greeks were converted (which we know is not the case) and that Paul was somehow expecting the Jewish Christians to do a translation of it for the benefit of the Greeks (ummm :loot likely)

Jewish priests converting to the faith in Jerusalem, well that is of no consequence, because the epistles were not addressed to recipients in that region except for maybe the epistle to the Romans.

But, even then it is wrong to believe that Jews in Rome spoke only Aramaic, it is a fact of history that the general language used for public communication in Rome was Greek among the general populace, and also it is interesting to note this Acts 21:37 the commander replied to Paul about him wanting to address the crowd of Jews who were just prior trying to kill him: "And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? And the chief captain said, Canst thou speak Greek?"

An observant read of the book of Acts will show you that most Jews living in the Greek territories continued to reject the 'gospel of Yashua' (Good news about Yashua). Left right and centre the Jews were rejecting the gospel, thus the majority of converts were Greeks, as Acts so plainly reveals.

Some verses for you to consider.

The Jews in Thessalonia rejected the gospel... Acts 17:13: "But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people."
Acts 17:11: "These Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

So we can clearly deduce here that the epistles in the New Testament to the Thessalonians, both I & II were written in Greek, since the Thessalonian Jews had rejected the gospel message and thus only Greeks were converted.

In Antioch-Acts 13:46: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

Again we see the Jews rejecting the gospel.

So based on the fact that many Jews were rejecting the gospel, just like in Corinth - Acts 19:9: "But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, Paul departed from them."

Which leaves the two most likely scenarios.

As evidenced by the book of Acts, many Jews were rejecting the gospel and refusing to believe, which means the majority of converts were Greeks, and thus logical evidence for Greek-penned epistles.

Secondly, we know as a fact of History that the large majority of Jews living in Greek regions were Hellenists... Definition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew (or Aramaic). NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

Both scenarios prove that Greek was the original, both by logical common sense and historical fact, for there can be no other conclusion by any sane man.

None of these scenarios prove that the Greek was the original. As a matter of fact, you put words into our mouths by implying that we said that the Jews in Greek and Roman regions spoke only Aramaic. I'm sure there are some that didn't learn Greek and Latin (think about some of the Mexican immigrants that don't learn a word of English when coming over here). Also, Luke does not tell us in these verses from Acts that ALL of the Jews in these synagogues rejected the Gospel message. As for the Gentiles, I state again that not all Gentiles are Greek and Latin speakers. There are many Aramaic-speaking Gentiles. I also never said that there were only a few Greek believers. A large part of the church was Greek. But there was also a large amount of Assyrians and Jews that were Christians back then. Did you know that Antioch was in Syria, where Syriac (the Aramaic dialect of the Peshitta) would have been spoken along with Greek? Just because we don't have the Aramaic originals of those five Epistles does not mean that the original Aramaic versions never existed. Jude, Peter, and John were all Aramaic speaking Galileans. There is a lot of phenomenon in Revelation that shows an Aramaic original underlying our current Greek versions. Scholars have referred to the Greek grammar of Revelation as being "grammatical anarchy". The Church of the East closed off it's canon when the John the Apostle died and the Western Five were not known among most of these Christians until later. They were also not received in the canon of the Western churches for a long time!

thegodparticle Wrote:By the way, my friend is a Greek-speaking Greek, and when i asked him if the name Theophilus (whom Luke addressed Acts to) is a Greek name, my friend said, "Of course it's a Greek name, what else do you think it is?" Theophilus is as Greek as they come.

I rest my case.

Ummm, Aramaic speaking people use Greek names quite a bit. "Andrew" is a Greek name, and he was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from Galilee.

thegodparticle Wrote:Guys, it's time to shut down this website, repent to God for the damage you have done, tell Andrew Gabriel Roth to scrap the AENT and cease sales of it, and all of you come home to the original GREEK!! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

Just give thanks to God our father YAHWEH that he sent me here to solve this enigma for you, give praise to Him. I welcome you back to the Greek.

How are we sinning in believing that the Aramaic New Testament is the original? How are we doing any damage at all to Christendom? The Peshitta is revered among scholars as an important version of the New Testament, eve among those that don't believe it to be the original. If the Greek is the original, then the Peshitta would be the earliest translation. If the Peshitta is the earliest version, the Greek would be the earliest translation. Either way, the versions we have are products of Apostolic authority. How about you repent of your arrogance?
Maybe this person can tell us which Greek text one should believe is the original form of the New Testament?

The Alexandrian? The Byzantine, The Caesarean? The Western?

Does this one know that these don't have the same content in every place, with some having more verses and some having less verses? Some having this reading, some having that reading?

And what English translation of these various Greek texts does this one say we should believe represents the original form of the New Testament?

The King James Version, The New International Version, The English Standard Version, The New Revised Version, The New American Standard Version. These don't all have the same content, so which one represents the original Greek text?

Which version does this one believe is the right one, and which Greek textual family of the variant ridden Greek manuscripts does this one say contains the real and authentic text, as was 1st written by the Apostles? I'd like to know which one this one might say we should embrace with full assurance when we find so many variants and omissions and additions in the various Greek versions of the New Testament.

Should we repent for telling the truth? Or should we repent for embracing a pure text of the New Testament which hasn't been changed since it was given by the Apostles to The Church of the East in the 1st century? many "I rest my case" statements is this one going to make? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

This one sounds a lot like a certain person I have had a long talk with before. Do you think they will tell us their real name?

- Chuck
No, Mr./Ms. Anonymous will remain so. All he/she is doing is rehashing the same old tired arguments we've seen on this forum for decades, while pretending to give us new revelation. The main reason I've left the posts up (besides the fact that they don't really break any forum rules), is to show everyone how truly shallow their "evidence" really is. "Thousands of scholars" - my foot. Bring a real one here so we can have fun with him/her. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I'd like for Mr./Ms. Anonymous to explain some examples from the text itself, like the Janus Parallelism in James 3:18 that is only possible using the Aramaic language.

But, I have a feeling that the only language the "anonymous one" knows is English. So I don't expect a lesson in Greek here (let alone, Aramaic.)


PS - as soon as you ask them to explain something like James 3:18, and how that could have been constructed in anything other than Aramaic, they quickly flee like cockroaches. You no longer hear the lame "but the Corinthians were ethnic Greeks" excuse. Because that's all they have.

As if Jews and Assyrians in Chicago (or Moscow, or Athens for that matter) don't speak Aramaic with each other today.
Are you talking about the Ivan Panin numeric text, which some think is flawless. If so, since the Aramaic New Testament doesn't match Mr. Panin's complied text, then it simply can't be the original form, they think. It's all about the numerics you see. Please.



Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)