09-25-2021, 03:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2021, 04:01 PM by Charles Wilson.
Edit Reason: left out a word
)
Your Post has been sitting here without reply for a long time now.
1. Yes, I wish PY would return and take an active part in the Forum as he used to, but I don't understand his situation so I can't comment on that.
Miss you Paul Younan!
2. There is a different matter that is at work here as well.
I will use a bit of short-hand here and it is in NO WAY intended as a Pejorative. There are some deeply intelligent people who have studied language all their life and they are True Believers when it comes to the NT. Jesus walked and talked in the Jewish Culture of his time and the Languages used were Hebrew and Aramaic.
"Wouldn't that imply that the NT was written in the Language Jesus used?"
This Site gives Testimony to this idea and be prepared - really prepared - to argue against it if you will. (Funny how Latin is seldom brought up...)
2. At some point, some Greekies and others appeared - some with Attitudes - who directed arguments against even the Basic Thesis. Rather than seek Knowledge, theirs was a "Told-ya'-so", "So's yer old man" type argument.
Their arguments were less than persuasive but it didn't matter. It became a draining bit-of-a-drag thing.
3. When I came along, there were those who suggested that I just didn't get it. Thirdwoe complained that I always brought the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer". I still do but, as elsewhere, when you bring in these Types of ideas eventually people simply don't comment anymore. There was a diversity of opinion arising that was diverting attention from the Central Point - "Time to move on" was the feeling I guess.
4. I bring in a problem that I was exploring and was about to Post when the Site slowed down:
https://archive.org/details/literaryoriginof00teep
Howard Teeple, certified Greekie, obtained photographs of "all" the early Manuscripts of John and noticed that, in John, the Greek Definite Article appeared in front of names some of the times but not all. There were identifiable Patterns in the Text of John that led him to assign Authors to these Sections: an S - "Source", a G - "Gnostic", an E - "Editor" and an R - "Redactor". There were a few smaller identifiable Patterns.
On examination this is a massive Project. It leads to the heart of the Thesis. If the Book of John follows this Outline - and David Ford certainly argues against much of this - then the sheer level of agreement in detail between the Peshitta and the Greek version would argue for Greek Primacy, yes?
No!
There is another alternative but if I'm at the limit of my knowledge here and if no one comments, what good is done?
There may have been a Nicholas of Damascus who could have been an Author of a Greek Story that became the NT. He was in Herod's Court for decades and could have understood Aramaic. There were the Priests who survived, who knew what had happened. Zakkai at Yavneh, given permission to live by Vespasian, as if out of the goodness of Vespasian's heart.
In short, there's a tremendous amount of work left to do.
I hope that interest will increase here again.
CW
1. Yes, I wish PY would return and take an active part in the Forum as he used to, but I don't understand his situation so I can't comment on that.
Miss you Paul Younan!
2. There is a different matter that is at work here as well.
I will use a bit of short-hand here and it is in NO WAY intended as a Pejorative. There are some deeply intelligent people who have studied language all their life and they are True Believers when it comes to the NT. Jesus walked and talked in the Jewish Culture of his time and the Languages used were Hebrew and Aramaic.
"Wouldn't that imply that the NT was written in the Language Jesus used?"
This Site gives Testimony to this idea and be prepared - really prepared - to argue against it if you will. (Funny how Latin is seldom brought up...)
2. At some point, some Greekies and others appeared - some with Attitudes - who directed arguments against even the Basic Thesis. Rather than seek Knowledge, theirs was a "Told-ya'-so", "So's yer old man" type argument.
Their arguments were less than persuasive but it didn't matter. It became a draining bit-of-a-drag thing.
3. When I came along, there were those who suggested that I just didn't get it. Thirdwoe complained that I always brought the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer". I still do but, as elsewhere, when you bring in these Types of ideas eventually people simply don't comment anymore. There was a diversity of opinion arising that was diverting attention from the Central Point - "Time to move on" was the feeling I guess.
4. I bring in a problem that I was exploring and was about to Post when the Site slowed down:
https://archive.org/details/literaryoriginof00teep
Howard Teeple, certified Greekie, obtained photographs of "all" the early Manuscripts of John and noticed that, in John, the Greek Definite Article appeared in front of names some of the times but not all. There were identifiable Patterns in the Text of John that led him to assign Authors to these Sections: an S - "Source", a G - "Gnostic", an E - "Editor" and an R - "Redactor". There were a few smaller identifiable Patterns.
On examination this is a massive Project. It leads to the heart of the Thesis. If the Book of John follows this Outline - and David Ford certainly argues against much of this - then the sheer level of agreement in detail between the Peshitta and the Greek version would argue for Greek Primacy, yes?
No!
There is another alternative but if I'm at the limit of my knowledge here and if no one comments, what good is done?
There may have been a Nicholas of Damascus who could have been an Author of a Greek Story that became the NT. He was in Herod's Court for decades and could have understood Aramaic. There were the Priests who survived, who knew what had happened. Zakkai at Yavneh, given permission to live by Vespasian, as if out of the goodness of Vespasian's heart.
In short, there's a tremendous amount of work left to do.
I hope that interest will increase here again.
CW