I'm skeptical of the Greek primacy theory. Greek mss. are valuable, in that they give a translation of the original Aramaic into the very precise Greek language.
I'm a Protestant non-denominational. I run in charismatic Catholic circles. If I were to become something, I'd probably become Eastern Orthodox; they pray for the dead in hell, which Catholics don't do.
Apparently there's something called 'Lapid Judaism,' and it likes Aramaic primacy. I imagine the Eastern Orthodox like their Greek OT and Greek NT. The Church of the East has its Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT, and believes that its Aramaic NT came before the Greek translation did, but they don't make a big deal of it.
That the Aramaic NT came first has apologetic value. Some people have been on the verge of losing their Christian faith in the face of the morass of conflicting Greek mss. variants, only to learn of the original Aramaic and its superior textual transmission.
Some 'Jews' have been reluctant to embrace Christianity and a Greek NT having contradictions, only to learn of the Aramaic NT lacking those internal contradictions.
=======================================================.
Are you aware of any evidence that Jesus (or for that matter, any of the 12) ever spoke Greek on any occasion?
John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 43-98, 43+
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAA...&q&f=false
It is the opinion of many scholars, that the Hebrew was the original language of man; that it was given to our first parents directly from heaven; first, in the oral form, and afterward, in the time of Moses, and not till then, in written characters. For this opinion they urge many sound reasons. But, be this as it may, we know that the Hebrew language was the vernacular of the ancient Israelites, and that the Old Testament Scriptures, some parts in prose and some in poetry, excepting a few fragmentary parts, were written in Hebrew.
The language of the Chaldeans, by whom the Jews were carried into captivity, about 600 years before Christ, was a branch of the same root, though it differed widely in both its oral and written form. In consequence of their long detention in the country of the Chaldeans, the pure Hebrew tongue of the Jews became corrupted, and after their return to Syria, it was still further corrupted by their subjugation to other nations, and by the importation of other races into their country: so that, at the commencement of the Christian era, their vernacular,-- though still retaining the general characteristics of the old Hebrew,-- had become what is called the Syro-Chaldaic, or Syriac language. This was divided into two principal dialects; the Eastern Aramean, which prevailed along the Southern and Eastern coasts of Syria; and the Western Aramean, which prevailed in the regions to the North and West. These dialects, however, were substantially the same language, differing more in the form of the written characters employed and in the pronunciation of the words, than in the words themselves.
After the conquest of this country by Alexander, in the fourth century before Christ, the Greek language was introduced, and came generally to prevail as the language of the learned and ruling classes, throughout Syria and all the surrounding regions. Still later, in the century before Christ, the Latin tongue was introduced by their Roman conquerors. Though it had some standing, as the language of their rulers and law-givers, it was never very extensively used in this part of Asia; but, after a time, it came to prevail to a considerable extent, to the West of Syria, and especially in Europe, as the language of the educated classes.
Thus, it will be seen that, at the beginning of the Christian era, there were three languages,-- not to notice others of minor importance,-- that prevailed to a greater or less extent, in Syria or Palestine: The Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the vernacular of the common people, of the synagogues and other public assemblies of the Jews; The Greek, which was the language of what are commonly called the upper classes, the educated and the refined; The Latin, which was the language of the government to which they were subject.
The state of things, with respect to diversity of tongues, in Palestine, in the time of Christ, was similar to that which now obtains in some of our larger cities, and especially, some of the cities and countries of the Old World. Take, for example, the city of Antwerp, in Belgium, with which,-- having resided there for several years,-- I am familiar. The basilar language of the people is Flemish, which is a corrupt form of the Dutch. Every citizen is supposed to be able to understand, and to use this language, both in its spoken and written form. The uneducated and laboring classes know no other. It is the vernacular of the streets, of the workshops, of the markets, and of most of the Churches. But the French also prevails very extensively. It is the language of business and trade among all the higher classes. It is taught in their schools, and is the ruling language of their higher seminaries of learning, of their literary, artistic, and social circles. No one makes any pretension to a fair education, who has not added to his native Flemish, a knowledge of the French also. The streets of the city have two names; one in Flemish, and the other in French. The daily papers, in each of these languages, circulate side by side, and men of affairs take and read both. Beside these, both the English and the German are used to a considerable extent, especially by the merchants. It is not difficult for an Englishman or an American, who is familiar with only his own tongue, to do business in most of the principal shops, and to make himself understood at the hotels of the city.
That our Lord, whose intercourse was chiefly with the common people, preached and taught in their own Syriac vernacular, there is no doubt. "The common people heard Him gladly." Indeed it is not certain that He ever used any other. He grew up among them as a laborer, and probably had no other education as a child, or mere man, than was common with the class to which He belonged. Of course, I am not speaking of His knowledge as a divine person. The same is true of His twelve Apostles, and His more immediate disciples. That all of them were familiar with the spoken Syriac, there is no question. How many of them were sufficiently educated to be able to read or write it, or whether any of them were familiar with the Greek, which would indicate a still higher education, and if so, which of them, must be a matter of conjecture. We know that most of them were taken from the lower walks of life, and those of them who were natives of Galilee, no doubt, spoke with the brogue, which was common in that region, and which differed from that of Judea, as perhaps that of Scotland differs from that of England. When Peter denied his Lord in Jerusalem, his speech betrayed his Galilean origin.
The inscription over the cross, The King Of The Jews, was written in the three prevailing languages; Hebrew (or Syriac), Greek, and Latin, that it might be read by all classes. Here, perhaps, we may see an unwitting prophecy of His future universal Kingship. When the chief priests would have had it changed to "He said, I am King of the Jews," Pilate showed a little of the firmness he so sadly lacked in giving Him over to their will, by replying, "What I have written, I have written."
That Paul, as an educated man, the divinely commissioned Apostle to the Gentiles, was familiar with both the Hebrew-Syriac and Greek languages, and perhaps also,-- aside from his supernatural endowments,-- with the Latin, and other languages is quite probable. But he expressly tells us that, when the Lord revealed Himself to him, on the way to Damascus, He spoke to him in the Hebrew (that is, in the Syro-Chaldaic) tongue. No doubt, also, Paul's missionary companions, such as Silas, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, and Timothy,-- none of whom, however, were of the twelve Apostles,-- were well educated for their work. When Paul had been rescued from the violence of the mob at Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, who had rescued him, not knowing his antecedents, seems to have been surprised that he could speak Greek, and was glad to confer, privately, with him in that tongue. Then, when he had permitted him to address the surging multitude, that were thirsting for his blood, Paul beckoned with his hand, and began to address them in their own vernacular; and when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence.
The foregoing remarks are introductory to the more interesting and important inquiry: _In what language, or languages, were the twenty-seven books of the New Testament first written?_ ....
I'm a Protestant non-denominational. I run in charismatic Catholic circles. If I were to become something, I'd probably become Eastern Orthodox; they pray for the dead in hell, which Catholics don't do.
Apparently there's something called 'Lapid Judaism,' and it likes Aramaic primacy. I imagine the Eastern Orthodox like their Greek OT and Greek NT. The Church of the East has its Aramaic OT and Aramaic NT, and believes that its Aramaic NT came before the Greek translation did, but they don't make a big deal of it.
That the Aramaic NT came first has apologetic value. Some people have been on the verge of losing their Christian faith in the face of the morass of conflicting Greek mss. variants, only to learn of the original Aramaic and its superior textual transmission.
Some 'Jews' have been reluctant to embrace Christianity and a Greek NT having contradictions, only to learn of the Aramaic NT lacking those internal contradictions.
=======================================================.
Are you aware of any evidence that Jesus (or for that matter, any of the 12) ever spoke Greek on any occasion?
John Hancock Pettingell, _Views and Reviews in Eschatology: A Collection of Letters, Essays, and Other Papers Concerning the Life and Death to Come_ (1887), 501pp., essay "The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament" pp. 43-98, 43+
https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZIAA...&q&f=false
It is the opinion of many scholars, that the Hebrew was the original language of man; that it was given to our first parents directly from heaven; first, in the oral form, and afterward, in the time of Moses, and not till then, in written characters. For this opinion they urge many sound reasons. But, be this as it may, we know that the Hebrew language was the vernacular of the ancient Israelites, and that the Old Testament Scriptures, some parts in prose and some in poetry, excepting a few fragmentary parts, were written in Hebrew.
The language of the Chaldeans, by whom the Jews were carried into captivity, about 600 years before Christ, was a branch of the same root, though it differed widely in both its oral and written form. In consequence of their long detention in the country of the Chaldeans, the pure Hebrew tongue of the Jews became corrupted, and after their return to Syria, it was still further corrupted by their subjugation to other nations, and by the importation of other races into their country: so that, at the commencement of the Christian era, their vernacular,-- though still retaining the general characteristics of the old Hebrew,-- had become what is called the Syro-Chaldaic, or Syriac language. This was divided into two principal dialects; the Eastern Aramean, which prevailed along the Southern and Eastern coasts of Syria; and the Western Aramean, which prevailed in the regions to the North and West. These dialects, however, were substantially the same language, differing more in the form of the written characters employed and in the pronunciation of the words, than in the words themselves.
After the conquest of this country by Alexander, in the fourth century before Christ, the Greek language was introduced, and came generally to prevail as the language of the learned and ruling classes, throughout Syria and all the surrounding regions. Still later, in the century before Christ, the Latin tongue was introduced by their Roman conquerors. Though it had some standing, as the language of their rulers and law-givers, it was never very extensively used in this part of Asia; but, after a time, it came to prevail to a considerable extent, to the West of Syria, and especially in Europe, as the language of the educated classes.
Thus, it will be seen that, at the beginning of the Christian era, there were three languages,-- not to notice others of minor importance,-- that prevailed to a greater or less extent, in Syria or Palestine: The Syriac or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the vernacular of the common people, of the synagogues and other public assemblies of the Jews; The Greek, which was the language of what are commonly called the upper classes, the educated and the refined; The Latin, which was the language of the government to which they were subject.
The state of things, with respect to diversity of tongues, in Palestine, in the time of Christ, was similar to that which now obtains in some of our larger cities, and especially, some of the cities and countries of the Old World. Take, for example, the city of Antwerp, in Belgium, with which,-- having resided there for several years,-- I am familiar. The basilar language of the people is Flemish, which is a corrupt form of the Dutch. Every citizen is supposed to be able to understand, and to use this language, both in its spoken and written form. The uneducated and laboring classes know no other. It is the vernacular of the streets, of the workshops, of the markets, and of most of the Churches. But the French also prevails very extensively. It is the language of business and trade among all the higher classes. It is taught in their schools, and is the ruling language of their higher seminaries of learning, of their literary, artistic, and social circles. No one makes any pretension to a fair education, who has not added to his native Flemish, a knowledge of the French also. The streets of the city have two names; one in Flemish, and the other in French. The daily papers, in each of these languages, circulate side by side, and men of affairs take and read both. Beside these, both the English and the German are used to a considerable extent, especially by the merchants. It is not difficult for an Englishman or an American, who is familiar with only his own tongue, to do business in most of the principal shops, and to make himself understood at the hotels of the city.
That our Lord, whose intercourse was chiefly with the common people, preached and taught in their own Syriac vernacular, there is no doubt. "The common people heard Him gladly." Indeed it is not certain that He ever used any other. He grew up among them as a laborer, and probably had no other education as a child, or mere man, than was common with the class to which He belonged. Of course, I am not speaking of His knowledge as a divine person. The same is true of His twelve Apostles, and His more immediate disciples. That all of them were familiar with the spoken Syriac, there is no question. How many of them were sufficiently educated to be able to read or write it, or whether any of them were familiar with the Greek, which would indicate a still higher education, and if so, which of them, must be a matter of conjecture. We know that most of them were taken from the lower walks of life, and those of them who were natives of Galilee, no doubt, spoke with the brogue, which was common in that region, and which differed from that of Judea, as perhaps that of Scotland differs from that of England. When Peter denied his Lord in Jerusalem, his speech betrayed his Galilean origin.
The inscription over the cross, The King Of The Jews, was written in the three prevailing languages; Hebrew (or Syriac), Greek, and Latin, that it might be read by all classes. Here, perhaps, we may see an unwitting prophecy of His future universal Kingship. When the chief priests would have had it changed to "He said, I am King of the Jews," Pilate showed a little of the firmness he so sadly lacked in giving Him over to their will, by replying, "What I have written, I have written."
That Paul, as an educated man, the divinely commissioned Apostle to the Gentiles, was familiar with both the Hebrew-Syriac and Greek languages, and perhaps also,-- aside from his supernatural endowments,-- with the Latin, and other languages is quite probable. But he expressly tells us that, when the Lord revealed Himself to him, on the way to Damascus, He spoke to him in the Hebrew (that is, in the Syro-Chaldaic) tongue. No doubt, also, Paul's missionary companions, such as Silas, Barnabas, Mark, Luke, and Timothy,-- none of whom, however, were of the twelve Apostles,-- were well educated for their work. When Paul had been rescued from the violence of the mob at Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, who had rescued him, not knowing his antecedents, seems to have been surprised that he could speak Greek, and was glad to confer, privately, with him in that tongue. Then, when he had permitted him to address the surging multitude, that were thirsting for his blood, Paul beckoned with his hand, and began to address them in their own vernacular; and when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence.
The foregoing remarks are introductory to the more interesting and important inquiry: _In what language, or languages, were the twenty-seven books of the New Testament first written?_ ....