Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Seriously, godparticle, i mostly come here to read stuff, and in all the years i've done so, no one managed to write such consistently useless garbage. i enjoy all view points, and entertain any possibility, but what you do here is not presenting facts or even good reason or logic. You are just blabbering. It is annoying. i suppose it is a problem for you to see your world view challenged, as the arguments that Aramaic Primacy provides are far superior to the intellectual hogwash that is Greek Primacy.

You are askeing for proof. Proof comes by evidence. Anyone that seeks Truth allows best evidence to constitute proof. Tell me then, what evidence do you provide for your position? See, it is unfit for a person to ask for proof, if a person understands neither the nature of evidence, nor the nature of history. We could provide all kind of evidence, and you would still not accept it (as you do).

If you could conclusively show what happened on 9/11, when the WTC fell, and had 10.000 pages of "evidence", plus video records here and there, you would still convince no one. Everybody imagines they would have evidence. For example, you seem to imagne that numerology can serve as evidence, whereas it is just fantasy. You can make up number theories based on anything. Just lokk at the Bible code people, it is essentially the same thing. They look for "codes" in many different translations and manuscripts. And "of course" even versions like the KJV "contain code", aka statistically speaking sufficient data to make up anything. Numbers don't work the way most people think. Too often, numerology is the opposite of evidence. It is in fact the evidence of how ridiculous people's ideas of the nature of numbers and statistics are.

Look, this actually constitutes evidence:

Concerning the language of Paul's letters:
He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.? ? Jerome (4th Cent.); Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V

Concerning the language of "Hebrews":
The epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist.6:14:2)

Concerning the language of Matthew:
Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39)

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Ireneus, 170 CE, Against Heresies 3:1)

The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Now all you have to do is find evidence that is more explicit than this to support Greek primacy, and we would have a reason to talk about these issues. However, all the best evidence is in support of Aramaic Primacy. That constitutes proof to those that seek Truth.

Can you prove Greek primacy? Can you show your actual, irrefutable proof? Your 1st century manuscripts, signed by the apostles own hands?
Here is my collection of Aramaic primacy evidence:

1. The language of first century Israel, according to the historian Josephus, was not Greek but Aramaic. The countrymen did not encourage the learning of foreign languages. He actually translated for the Romans. Shouldn't the Jews have been able to speak to the Romans themselves? Josephus lived in Rome and even stated that he could not speak Greek very well. He composed The Wars of the Jews in the Aramaic language and later translated it into Greek. This does not mean that Jesus and the apostles did not speak any Greek, but that they were not fluent in it. The New Testament also affirms that the language of Israel during the time of the Messiah and the apostles was Aramaic:

"And this was known to all that dwelt at Jerusalem; so that the field was called, in the language of the country, Aceldama, which is interpreted Field of Blood."- Acts 1:19, Murdock's Translation of the Peshitta

2. The Septuagint was not popular among Jews in Israel. In fact, a time of mourning was declared by them when the Septuagint's version of the Torah was completed because they felt that the Torah could not be captured adequately in other languages. While sometimes the Septuagint appears to be quoted, sometimes it appears that the New Testament writers are quoting the Targums or simply paraphrasing on their own. The quotes that match the Septuagint could easily be a proto-Masoretic text that matches it. Paul Younan analyzes New Testament quotes of the Tanach and compares them to the Septuagint.

3. The Greek New Testament itself testifies of an Aramaic speaking audience to the Epistles. Aramaic words and phrases such as satana (Satan/the Accuser), amen (truly), maran ata (Our lord, come) appear in the Pauline Epistles.

4. Luke is said in the early church histories to have been a Syrian from Antioch, which was a bilingual city that primarily spoke Aramaic and Greek. Luke's Greek is said to be very good, but the Greek versions of Luke and Acts also have Aramaic words appear in them like mammona (wealth), Beelzebub (lord of the flies), korin (dry measure), Patzkha (Passover), shikera (strong drink).

5. Matthew and Hebrews are agreed by the church fathers to have been written in "the Hebrew dialect", which would be the Aramaic language spoken among the Jewish people in Israel.

6. Peter ministered primarily to Jews in the East. I Peter was written from Babylon (I Peter 5:13) , which not only had the largest Jewish population outside of Israel but also was an Aramaic speaking city. John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, was also with Peter (I Peter 5:13 again). Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs, which would have been mostly in Aramaic. So why wouldn't Aramaic be the language of Mark's Gospel?

7. The Semitic style of the Greek New Testament hints at an Aramaic original underlying it.

8. There are places where it seems like an Aramaic word was mistaken for another, resulting in multiple (or just odd) readings in the Greek manuscripts, or places where the Aramaic appears to have simply been mistranslated.

9. The Diatessaron of Tatian (AD 175) matches the Peshitta. It is more logical to say that the Diatessaron was based on the Peshitta instead of the other way around.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)