The Original Language of the New Testament?

[lpetrich]

The conventional wisdom is that it was written in contemporary Koine Greek, and I wonder what the usual arguments for it are.

Half a millennium ago, Erasmus argued on stylistic grounds that the Greek version is the original version; I wonder what his arguments were. Yes, the Erasmus that put together the Textus Receptus version of the GNT.

Also, the Greek version quotes from the Septuagint several times; that is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. If the NT's original language was not Greek, then its translators must have been very careful to put in the Septuagint's exact words.

And the earliest references to its contents by the Church Fathers are references to the Greek version's contents.

Is that reasonable?

[judge]

Also, the Greek version quotes from the Septuagint several times; that is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. If the NT's original language was not Greek, then its translators must have been very careful to put in the Septuagint's exact words.

The greek version agrees with the massoretic text at times too, and at other times it agrees with Aramaic targums.

And the earliest references to its contents by the Church Fathers are references to the Greek version's contents.

Is that reasonable?

I dont believe so. The earliest references by the Aramaic speaking church fathers are of the peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html)

Most of here,and definitely the scholarly world comes from the west where we are products of the Catholic Church and protestantism, so we adopt thier traditions.

There is an entirely different tradition which alleges the NT was penned in Aramaic.

The evidence for the primacy of the peshitta has never been subject to thourough analysis.

Therefore we should not just blindly accept the tradition of the protestants and RCC.

[judge]

The conventional wisdom is that it was written in contemporary Koine Greek, and I wonder what the usual arguments for it are.


The usual argument is that the surviving greek fragments or mss are older than the survivng peshitta mss.

There doesn't seem to be much more.

On the other hand the ammount of evidence favoring the peshitta seems large.

Aramaic Peshitta (http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/)

[Doug Shaver]

The conventional wisdom is that it was written in contemporary Koine Greek, and I wonder what the usual arguments for it are.
I haven't seen any arguments one way or the other. From what I understand, though, at that time and in that part of the world, if you were literate, you wrote in Greek unless you were a Roman writing for a Roman readership, in which case you wrote in Latin. On grounds of parsimony if nothing else, then, I think we should suppose by default that the NT documents were originally written in Greek.

I think anyone arguing for a language other than Greek needs to propose a specific alternative and produce some facts inconsistent with the default supposition.
Also, the Greek version quotes from the Septuagint several times; that is a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
It is not apparent to me how quotations from the Septuagint can give us any useful clues to what language the remainder of the documents were written in.

[lpetrich]

I think anyone arguing for a language other than Greek needs to propose a specific alternative and produce some facts inconsistent with the default supposition.
I agree about the burden of proof.

It is not apparent to me how quotations from the Septuagint can give us any useful clues to what language the remainder of the documents were written in.
To understand my argument, consider a tradition about the Septuagint. It got its name from it having been translated by 70 translators, and the tradition is that despite working independently, they had perfect 100% agreement. And this was interpreted as meaning that that translation was divinely inspired, otherwise its translators would not have had perfect 100% agreement with each other.

So if the NT had originally been in some other language, its translators must have been careful to use the exact words of the Septuagint, rather than translating the OT quotes on their own.

Also, as described in Euripides and Luke (http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html), the author of Acts was familiar with some well-known phrases and literary motifs; that article describes two.

Chains miraculously falling off of prisoners and doors miraculously opening were a common literary motif in the Greco-Roman world; however, the wording is somewhat variable, and does not tell us much.

But
And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' (Acts 26:14, NASB)
is perhaps more telling. Kicking against the goads/pricks/spurs (pros kentra laktizein) is famously found in Euripides's Bacchae:
Pentheus: Do not instruct me, but be content in your escape from prison. Or shall I bring punishment upon you again?
Dionysus: I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his spurs in anger, a mortal against a god.
(792-796, Buckley)
However, as Peter Kirby showed in that article, this phrase was a common way of describing an effort to resist a god -- and was often repeated word for word.

So either Acts was originally written in Greek or its translator had carefully put in that phrase when translating it from another language.

[Doug Shaver]

So if the NT had originally been in some other language, its translators must have been careful to use the exact words of the Septuagint, rather than translating the OT quotes on their own.
Hmm. Whereas, if the NT had originally been in Greek, its authors would have . . . . ?

[Malachi151]

There are a few points here.

1) The closeness of the texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, indicate that Matthew and Luke both copied directly from Mark or at least that these three copied from some third source, and that all of this copying was done in the same language, due to the exact word for word, punctuation mark for punctuation mark, closeness of the text. i.e. this argues against Matthews copying Mark from one language into another language. This means that to cover the synoptics, we only need to really figure out what language Mark was originally written in.

2) Mark clearly appears to have been written in Greek, if for no other reason than the fact that he "quotes Jesus" in Aramaic and then provides the translations into Greek, for example:

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[

To argue that Mark was originally written in Aramaic at this point one would need to find evidence that shows in every case where Mark does this ("Aramaic" - which means, "Greek"), that this was added later by some other writer, and there is no evidence for this, and furthermore, this is also copied into Matthew (and Luke I believe), indicating not only that it was there when when made their copies, but also that they wrote their in Greek because if they wrote their in Aramaic they wouldn't have copied such a statement, they would have re-phrased it since at that point there would have been no need to give a translation.

3) No one in history ever claimed that any text of the gospels was originally written in Aramaic except for Matthew, which no one had evidence of, they just said that they heard it from someone else.

4) All of the earliest fragments of the gospels are in Greek.

5) Many of the claimed phrases that work better in Aramaic don't. For example the supposed "eye of the needle" quote which, could be shown as a mistranslation of an Aramaic word that would render "It would be easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a rope to pass through the eye of a needle", except for the fact that "camel pass through the eye of a needle" was a real phrase that was used at the time, and is recorded in other texts that pre-date the gospels, indicating that there is no need to find a "better translation: for this phrase.

6) It seems that Aramaic the first language of the author of Mark, who nevertheless wrote in Greek, because the phrases and writing style of Mark indicates a poor grasp of Greek, using a very limited vocabulary, and Greek terms that were known to be used in the Aramaic speaking communities. Its likely that Mark was an Aramaic speaking Jew who wrote in Greek for an audience of "Jews and Gentiles" after the destruction of Judea by the Romans.

Mark was either written by a poor Greek writer or translated from Aramaic to Greek by a poor Greek translator, who then added text to Mark to say things like "Aramaic" - which means "Greek", however there is no evidence for this, and in either case, Matthew and Luke were defiantly copied from a Greek source into Greek.

There is no dispute at all that John was written in Greek, the language of John is considered high quality Greek and John uses Greek alliteration and colloquialisms.

And by the way, the early Christians WANTED the gospels to have been originally written in Aramaic, so they wouldn't have claimed they were written in Greek unless this was pretty irrefutable and widely known.

This is why they claimed that Matthew was written in Aramaic and that Matthew was written first, because Matthew was one of the longest gospels that had the most "details" about the life of Jesus and had the virgin birth story, thus they said this was written in Aramaic to give it prominence to make it seem "more authentic" since Aramaic would have been the "original language of Jesus".

So, the "Aramaic first" claims are based on two things, 1) a desire to show that the gospels were written in the "original language of Jesus, thereby supposedly making them more authentic and reliable, and 2) the desire of the churches of peshitta tradition to gain prominence and show they they are the "true Christians".

[No Robots]

Many of the claimed phrases that work better in Aramaic don't. For example the supposed "eye of the needle" quote which, could be shown as a mistranslation of an Aramaic word that would render "It would be easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a rope to pass through the eye of a needle", except for the fact that "camel pass through the eye of a needle" was a real phrase that was used at the time, and is recorded in other texts that pre-date the gospels, indicating that there is no need to find a "better translation: for this phrase.

Indeed, but the imagery is Jewish:

A man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle (because he never thinks of such things). --Berakoth 55b (http://www.comeandhear.com/berakoth/berakoth_55.html#PARTb).

Regardless of what language the Gospels were originally written in, they derive from a wholly Jewish cultural context.

[seebs]

Is it necessarily the case that all of it was in the same language originally?

[Malachi151]

Indeed, but the imagery is Jewish:

A man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle (because he never thinks of such things). --Berakoth 55b (http://www.comeandhear.com/berakoth/berakoth_55.html#PARTb).

Regardless of what language the Gospels were originally written in, they derive from a wholly Jewish cultural context.

I don't think there is any dispute about that (except perhaps the term "wholly"). Almost all of the gospels are quotes from the "OT" texts. You can almost reconstruct the whole gospel of Mark by cutting and pasting from the Septuagint i.e. "Old Testament".

[No Robots]

Regardless of what language the Gospels were originally written in, they derive from a wholly Jewish cultural context.

I don't think there is any dispute about that (except perhaps the term "wholly").

Indeed? Ever hear of a dude named Earl Doherty?

[Malachi151]

Indeed? Ever hear of a dude named Earl Doherty?

Doherty talks mostly about "Paul"...

[No Robots]

Doherty talks mostly about "Paul"...

Check this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2407351#post2407351):

New Testament scholarship has done it's best over the last 60 years or so to completely skewer the mainstream 'take' on the origins of Christianity *away from* its non-Jewish roots and precedents.

[No Robots]

Contrast the above with these statements from the self-avowed atheist Biblical scholar William Arnal in his book, The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity (http://books.google.ca/books?vid=ISBN1845530071&id=QuEZGAYilDcC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=inauthor:william+inauthor:arnal&sig=cx-B0rhFNg3Hl853gusedEGK31k):

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. (p. 5)

And:

In the case of critical scholarship on the New Testament, earliest Christianity, and especially the historical Jesus, thing have been improving for the last thirty years or so. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing to the present, numerous studies have appeared which not only acknowledge his identity as a Jew, but which emphasize it, and make it central to their reconstructions…. Thus is it a normal feature of the recent works emphasizing Jesus' Judaism that they tend to normalize him, make him an understandable and more ordinary figure among his contemporaries, comparable to other Jewish figures from the same time and place. (p. 15-16)

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Is it necessarily the case that all of it was in the same language originally?

That's a very sensible question...

In fact, one would naturally assume that the original documents were in more than one language.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

There are a few points here.

1) The closeness of the texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, indicate that Matthew and Luke both copied directly from Mark or at least that these three copied from some third source,


So this source could have been Semitic.


and that all of this copying was done in the same language,


Not necessarily.


due to the exact word for word, punctuation mark for punctuation mark,


LOL!

There was no punctuation marks!



[snip]

3) No one in history ever claimed that any text of the gospels was originally written in Aramaic except for Matthew, which no one had evidence of, they just said that they heard it from someone else.


Not true. Some church fathers claimed to have handled these texts.

Yuri.

[Malachi151]

LOL!

There was no punctuation marks!

True, I was thinking that there was based on Greek representations of the text I have seen, but these apparently have had the punctuations added since.

Still, the point remains the same.

Not true. Some church fathers claimed to have handled these texts.

As far as I know these also are tales of "so-and-so said that so-and-so told him that so-and-so had handled an original Aramaic version", etc., and again this only applied to Matthew. I've read one of these such accounts before, but I can't remember from whom, probably Irenaeus or something...

I've never seen an account of someone saying "I personally saw an Aramaic copy of Matthew", etc., its always a friend of a friend of a cousin.... (at least as far as I have seen)

Of course there wouldn't be anything odd about there being Aramaic translations of the gospel, its just that the Aramaic didn't come first.

[rlogan]

Isn't it odd to see judge posting on this? ;)


Ipetrich - this one has had quite a bit of discussion and there should be numerous threads in the archives on this. And they are pretty informative with linguistic experts in there.

[judge]

5) Many of the claimed phrases that work better in Aramaic don't.

Really?

What other phrases are you referring to here?

[judge]

2) Mark clearly appears to have been written in Greek, if for no other reason than the fact that he "quotes Jesus" in Aramaic and then provides the translations into Greek, for example:

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



.

Ok ok....this is just classic this is.

Someone argues for a greek original without even bothering to check the aramaic version.

Everyone already knows it was written in greek , right, so there is no need to even check the Aramaic, why waste our time?

This is exactly the problem...no one even bothers to check the Aramaic.

The Aramaic here contains a translation from one aramaic dialect into another aramaic dialect.
Gallileans spoke a different dialect to Judeans.

See here.

Mark 15 in Aramaic/english (http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf)

The greek translator kept one dialect and translated it into greek.

[spin]

Really?

What other phrases are you referring to here?
All the ones you've touted here. (See archives.)


spin

[Malachi151]

I took some advice and went to the archives. I'd like to comment on this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3017033#post3017033

The Israelites never wrote their sacred literature in any language but Aramaic and Hebrew, which are sister languages. The Septuagint was made in the 3rd century, B.C., for the Alexandrian Jews. This version was never officially read by the Jews in Palestine who spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. Instead, the Jewish authorities condemned the work and declared a period of mourning because of the defects in the version. Evidently Jesus and his disciples used a text which came from an older Hebrew original. This is apparent because Jesus' quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Peshitta text but do not agree with the Greek text. For example, in John 12:40, the Peshitta Old Testament and New Testament agree. This is not all. Jesus and his disciples not only could not converse in Greek but they never heard it spoken...


Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic, the language which the early Galileans had brought from the other side of the river Euphrates. 2 Kings 17:22-25. Mark tells us in his Gospel, 14:70 that Peter was exposed by his Galilean Aramaic speech.....

etc., etc.

This is the basis of the the "Aramaic supremacy" argument, i.e. "Jesus and his followers couldn't speak Greek, so doesn't it make more sense that the eye witness accounts of his existence were written in the language of Jesus and his community?"

Of course, if one realizes that the gospels weren't written by people living in and around Judea any time near when Jesus supposedly lived, but rather that they are fictional accounts written by diaspora Jews from places like Alexandria, Athens, and Rome, then this isn't such an issue....

[Malachi151]

Ok ok....this is just classic this is.

Someone argues for a greek original without even bothering to check the aramaic version.

Everyone already knows it was written in greek , right, so there is no need to even check the Aramaic, why waste our time?

This is exactly the problem...no one even bothers to check the Aramaic.

The Aramaic here contains a translation from one aramaic dialect into another aramaic dialect.
Gallileans spoke a different dialect to Judeans.

See here.

Mark 15 in Aramaic/english (http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf)

The greek translator kept one dialect and translated it into greek.

This doesn't do much for me. This is, also, an Aramaic translation of something NOT WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC ORIGINALLY! :p lol.

The issue is, if Mark were originally written in Aramaic (which would have the be the case here, and which no one from the early history has ever said or gave any reason to believe) then why would that author write originally, in several places, something in Aramaic and then give a translation into a different dialect of Aramaic?

This just does not seem like any reasonable way to write the story originally, you write it in one dialect of Aramaic for an Aramaic audience of a different dialect, and then you give translations? Can you see how tried that is?

That's like saying that I wrote a story in "Australian English", about an American person, and then when I quote that person I have him speak American English, and then I provide a translation to Australian English.

I mean, get real.

And furthermore, why wouldn't this person have simply written the entire gospel in same dialect that Jesus supposedly spoke in the first place, thus eliminating the need for translation between dialects?

To add to this, we have the fact that Mark and Matthew BOTH clearly quote and reference from the Septuagint, because they also quote and reference the mistranslations in the Septuagint.

So, here is what you have to overcome:

1) All of the early fathers say that Mark, Luke, and John were written in Greek, and they say that Matthew was supposedly written in Aramaic, but they all really only know of Greek versions, and their claim that Matthew was in Aramaic is for the same reason that modern Christians claim, to make it closer to being "believable".

2) All of the earliest fragments of the gospels are in Greek.

3) The Matthew and Luke both copy word for word from Mark or a common source with Mark, meaning that they all had to have been written in the same language, meaning that you need to prove that they were all three written in Aramaic, not just any one of them.

4) Mark and Matthew both have Jesus say things in Aramaic, and then say "which means" and translation into the same wording that is used by the rest of the gospel, and in some cases the Greek "translations" are word for word copies from the Septuagint.

So, what again is the evidence that they were written in Aramaic? Its "the language Jesus spoke" so it must be?

[spin]

Ok ok....this is just classic this is.
Yep, so's this:

The Aramaic here contains a translation from one aramaic dialect into another aramaic dialect.
Gallileans spoke a different dialect to Judeans.
The two versions in the Peshitta read:
)YL )YL LMN) $BQTNY
)LHY )LHY LMN) $BQTNY
The only difference is the transparent means of referring to god. This fudging that one is a translation of the other is ridiculous. The only meaningful explanation for these two extremely similar forms is that they were derived from the Greek source, the second form being a translation from the Greek.

The greek translator kept one dialect and translated it into greek.
It's interesting that the one "kept" by Mk is basically the same as the translation given in the Peshitta, not the original as preserved in the Peshitta, which one would expect if Mk was translated from the Peshitta.

Even more fun is the Mt version which is obviously derivable from the Mk version (the only difference being the Hebrew version of Ps 22:1), but the Peshitta of Mt 27:46 merely gives )YL )YL LMN) $BQTNY, the original found in Mk 15:34, yet without a so-called translation. A Mt derived from Mk fits into all the linguistic evidence from a comparison between the two Greek gospels. A Mt derived from the Peshitta is much more difficult to argue for.

The parsimonious approach says Greek Mk is the source of Greek Mt. The historical approach says as the earliest documents are in Greek they have a better prospect of being the primary language for the texts.


spin

[Roger Pearse]

I dont believe so. The earliest references by the Aramaic speaking church fathers are of the peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html)


This may mislead some people. Here's what I know: others may know more about Syriac versions of the bible than I do.

There are no "Aramaic speaking church fathers" who have left works in that language. The Peshitta is in Syriac.

But Syriac is the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, of course, a literary language from the 2nd-13th centuries, and in a minor way later than that. (The decline follows the Arab invasions in the 7th century).

The Syriac fathers are all rather later than the Greek fathers. Indeed the remains of Syriac prior to the 4th century -- the age of Ephraim Syrus and Aphrahat -- are limited. I'm afraid that I don't know much about biblical quotations in that period. The peshitta Old Testament is a second century production, possibly some of it of Jewish origin, if I understand correctly?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

As far as I know these also are tales of "so-and-so said that so-and-so told him that so-and-so had handled an original Aramaic version", etc., and again this only applied to Matthew. I've read one of these such accounts before, but I can't remember from whom, probably Irenaeus or something...

I've never seen an account of someone saying "I personally saw an Aramaic copy of Matthew", etc., its always a friend of a friend of a cousin.... (at least as far as I have seen)


Well, you're wrong, Malachi.

For example, Eusebius gives us the following testimony,

Church Fathers' Witnesses on the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew
http://www.angelfire.com/id/nasrani/pb/HebMatthew.html

[quote]

And he (Hegesippus) wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. (Historia Ecclesia, Book IV, Chapter 22)

[unquote]

And so, Eusebius is talking here about some specific "passages in the Hebrew tongue". This is clearly a lot more than second-hand testimony.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

To add to this, we have the fact that Mark and Matthew BOTH clearly quote and reference from the Septuagint, because they also quote and reference the mistranslations in the Septuagint.


Dear Malachi,

You clearly know very little about the ancient Semitic gospel manuscripts. Because they don't quote and reference from the Septuagint. Rather, they quote Semitic versions of the Tanakh.


4) Mark and Matthew both have Jesus say things in Aramaic, and then say "which means" and translation into the same wording that is used by the rest of the gospel


Again, this is not the case with the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels, for example. Being in Aramaic, they don't have to translate the Aramaic words of Jesus, and they don't.

So what you're doing is using the Greek text to criticise the Aramaic text as inadequate. Rather, you should read the Aramaic text first, and then criticise it.

Regards,

Yuri.

[Malachi151]

Well, you're wrong, Malachi.

For example, Eusebius gives us the following testimony,

Church Fathers' Witnesses on the original language of the Gospel according to Matthew
http://www.angelfire.com/id/nasrani/pb/HebMatthew.html

[quote]

And he (Hegesippus) wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. (Historia Ecclesia, Book IV, Chapter 22)

[unquote]

And so, Eusebius is talking here about some specific "passages in the Hebrew tongue". This is clearly a lot more than second-hand testimony.

Yuri.

That's one I haven't seen before, but as I said, there is no problem with there having been an Aramaic or Hebrew translation of Matthew from the original Greek, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw an Aramaic version and thought it was an original.

Ultimately, however, this is again a friend of a friend tale, written by a 4th century church historian....

[Malachi151]

Dear Malachi,

You clearly know very little about the ancient Semitic gospel manuscripts. Because they don't quote and reference from the Septuagint. Rather, they quote Semitic versions of the Tanakh.

So says the person who claims that they were written in Aramaic :p The problem is that mistranslations in the Septuagint are reflected in the gospels, most notably in the virgin birth story of Matthew.

Again, this is not the case with the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels, for example. Being in Aramaic, they don't have to translate the Aramaic words of Jesus, and they don't.

So what you're doing is using the Greek text to criticise the Aramaic text as inadequate. Rather, you should read the Aramaic text first, and then criticise it.

Well, that's not going to happen. I was addressing the Aramaic text that was presented here.

The exact same device is used in both Mark and Matthew, so you have to argue that Mark was written in Aramaic first, and Matthew was copied from Mark in Aramaic (presumably), and then both were translated into Greek, and both translations were basically the exact same, since the Greek version of Mark and Matthew still essentially mirror one another, and that both translators decided to use the "Aramaic" - which means "Greek" device in all the exact same places. (Perhaps they were both translated by the same person in parallel?), and that furthermore, no one ever had any knowledge of the original Aramaic Mark....

Err....

[judge]

This may mislead some people. Here's what I know: others may know more about Syriac versions of the bible than I do.

There are no "Aramaic speaking church fathers" who have left works in that language. The Peshitta is in Syriac.

Syriac is a form of Aramaic

[hatsoff]

The conventional wisdom is that it was written in contemporary Koine Greek, and I wonder what the usual arguments for it are.

Half a millennium ago, Erasmus argued on stylistic grounds that the Greek version is the original version; I wonder what his arguments were. Yes, the Erasmus that put together the Textus Receptus version of the GNT.

Also, the Greek version quotes from the Septuagint several times; that is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. If the NT's original language was not Greek, then its translators must have been very careful to put in the Septuagint's exact words.

And the earliest references to its contents by the Church Fathers are references to the Greek version's contents.

Is that reasonable?

Hi, lpetrich.

What you've touched on is all true, but it's only a very small part of the body of evidence pointing to Greek originals. The manuscript evidence is particularly compelling. Moreover, the idea of Aramaic primacy has great problems, and with the exception of Hebrew hypotheses for Matthew and Hebrews there's no other serious candidate (to my knowledge) for any other language as the original. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Peshitta is written in a Syriac dialect not spoken in the first century AD.

The synoptic relationships constitute extremely strong evidence for Greek interdependency. Although "anything is possible," as the saying goes, it is practically inconceivable to suppose the synoptics were written in any other language than Greek.

As far as I can tell, Aramaic primacy is a rebellious-flavored movement led by few if any true New Testament scholars. The main arguments I've seen for advancing the idea can usually be divided into two categories: (1) Collections of cherry-picked factoids which when taken together offer the illusion of logical coherence; or (2) Christian arguments which use infallibility of the canon and traditional authorship ascriptions as springboards for other conclusions.

[Malachi151]

This reminds of an evolution vs. creationism discussion, where somehow the whole discussion is about evolution with the creationists poking sticks and the evolutionists defending.

Now, how about this case FOR Aramaic....

[spin]

Well, you're wrong, Malachi.

For example, Eusebius gives us the following testimony,

[..snip..]

And so, Eusebius is talking here about some specific "passages in the Hebrew tongue". This is clearly a lot more than second-hand testimony.
The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark, which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek. Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew. It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.


spin

[judge]

The only meaningful explanation for these two extremely similar forms is that they were derived from the Greek source, the second form being a translation from the Greek.


spin

Well I know we like to imagine the solution we oursleves propose is the "only meaningful" one but somehow I doubt this to be the case in this instance. ;)

That is why the evidence needs peer review.

Of course it would be quite meaningful for the writer, in Aramaic, to translate the cry into the dialect of his hearers.

Particularly in view of the fact you yourself argue this would be done by an allged translator from greek anyway.

All the best

[judge]

This reminds of an evolution vs. creationism discussion, where somehow the whole discussion is about evolution with the creationists poking sticks and the evolutionists defending.

Now, how about this case FOR Aramaic....

Except creationsists don't call for peer review...they believe things without peer review. Which is precisely what the grek primacists do.

Creationists don't exmine the evidence first either..which ironically is what you did in this very thread, failed to even so much as look at the Aramaic of Mark before you gave your argument.

[Malachi151]

Yeah, nice polemic, good job at evading presenting any evidence :rolleyes:

[hatsoff]

The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark, which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek. Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew. It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

To say they are "anonymous" doesn't seem entirely fair. The Gospel of John has a cryptic signature, which, though probably pseudepigraphical, does establish an alleged identity for its author. The Gospel of Luke likely was signed by its author in its original form. That signature may have been converted to the more formulaic "Gospel according to..." standard. Matthew and Mark, too, may have originally included Matthean and Markan signatures.

Also, Papias statement about GMatt was almost certainly mistaken, but that doesn't mean he wasn't talking about the Gospel we know today. It's just that his description is so spartan as to allow for some doubt about what he may have been describing.

[spin]

To say they are "anonymous" doesn't seem entirely fair. The Gospel of John has a cryptic signature, which, though probably pseudepigraphical, does establish an alleged identity for its author.
Cryptic, huh? You mean it's not there, but you can put it there.

The Gospel of Luke likely was signed by its author in its original form.
Uh-huh. In its original form!? Ie you have no evidence whatsoever.

That signature may have been converted to the more formulaic "Gospel according to..." standard. Matthew and Mark, too, may have originally included Matthean and Markan signatures.
They may have been signed by Josephus for all you know.

Also, Papias statement about GMatt was almost certainly mistaken, but that doesn't mean he wasn't talking about the Gospel we know today.
That's your epistemological quandary, isn't it?

It's just that his description is so spartan as to allow for some doubt about what he may have been describing.
I'm sorry, Hatsoff, but you have nothing in your hands, nothing up your sleave, nothing to offer for your desires. WHy should anyone listen to what you say about this?


spin

[spin]

Well I know we like to imagine the solution we oursleves propose is the "only meaningful" one but somehow I doubt this to be the case in this instance. ;)
As the dialect translation approach is an obvious crock, you need something a little more convincing.

That is why the evidence needs peer review.
It's been peer reviewed several times since the KJV.

Of course it would be quite meaningful for the writer, in Aramaic, to translate the cry into the dialect of his hearers.
But a "translation" is unnecessary.

Particularly in view of the fact you yourself argue this would be done by an allged translator from greek anyway.
It makes sense to translate something into a different language, not from one dialect to another. If you watched a Scottish TV show, would you need a translation?? Unless the dialect is obscure, the listener usually understands it. As I have shown there is nothing obscure about the text, as two of the three different words are the same in both statements, so the translation is useless.

Pipple kn ken yrrr minning withoot nidding uxplanneshunz oor trensleshunz. (Say it.)


spin

[judge]

It's been peer reviewed several times since the KJV.

Would you be so kind as to indicate by when and by whom?

I would be most aprreciative, unless you have made an error here?

We can then just examine the exact arguments and reasons, can't we?

We can see for ourselves why the greek came first according to peer review.

[spin]

Would you be so kind as to indicate by when and by whom?

I would be most aprreciative, unless you have made an error here?

We can then just examine the exact arguments and reasons, can't we?

We can see for ourselves why the greek came first according to peer review.
Most mainstream translations after the KJV have been done by the top scholars of the field of the time.


spin

[Malachi151]

I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek.

So far I've seen a bunch of noise about claims that we shouldn't believe that the gospels were written in Greek, yet I've not seen any case be made that they were written in another language.

Once again, sounds like ID "theory" to me...

[Doug Shaver]

I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek.
Lemme give it a try, since nobody else will.

There is a scholarly consensus that they were written in Greek. To say that therefore they were written in Greek is a fallacious Argument from Authority. Therefore they probably were not written in Greek. Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.

How'd I do?

[spin]

Lemme give it a try, since nobody else will.

There is a scholarly consensus that they were written in Greek. To say that therefore they were written in Greek is a fallacious Argument from Authority. Therefore they probably were not written in Greek. Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.

How'd I do?
Well, you could throw in the line about Jesus speaking Aramaic as a throwaway. What does he say to the little girl? "Talitha Kumi." Obviously Jesus spoke Aramaic and some of it is preserved in the gospels. This is because the gospels were written in Aramaic.


spin

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

So says the person who claims that they were written in Aramaic :p


I didn't say that.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,


How does it acknowledge its derivation?


which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek.


But maybe it was based on something else?


Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew.


Why not?


It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

spin

The original names were not the same as later names.

Yuri.

[Solo]

Originally Posted by judge
I dont believe so. The earliest references by the Aramaic speaking church fathers are of the peshitta



This may mislead some people. Here's what I know: others may know more about Syriac versions of the bible than I do.

There are no "Aramaic speaking church fathers" who have left works in that language. The Peshitta is in Syriac.

But Syriac is the Aramaic dialect of Edessa, of course, a literary language from the 2nd-13th centuries, and in a minor way later than that. (The decline follows the Arab invasions in the 7th century).

The Syriac fathers are all rather later than the Greek fathers. Indeed the remains of Syriac prior to the 4th century -- the age of Ephraim Syrus and Aphrahat -- are limited. I'm afraid that I don't know much about biblical quotations in that period. The peshitta Old Testament is a second century production, possibly some of it of Jewish origin, if I understand correctly?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger, The Peshitta, I am told, no longer figures to be the oldest Syriac Manuscript nor originates in the 2nd century as previously held. B.M.Metzger ("The Early Versions of the New Testament", in Peake's Commentary) states that two fragmentary manuscripts discovered at a Mt.Sinai monastery in 1892and by William Cureton in 1950's are the earliest translations of the gospel into Syriac. He refers to them generically as "The Old Syriac Version". Even though this gospel probably dates from the 2nd century (the MSs are from the 5th, and 6th century), Metzger points to a number of Greek transliterations as evidence that the earliest known Syriac gospel was also translated.

Jiri

[hatsoff]

Cryptic, huh? You mean it's not there, but you can put it there.

No, I mean it's signed as a disciple of Jesus. The question is, does he mean the disciple last spoken about prior to the signature, or another, unknown disciple? In any case, it is signed, so it is not anonymous.

Uh-huh. In its original form!? Ie you have no evidence whatsoever.

Sure I do. All complete extant mss. I've seen include the heading. In fact, it takes more speculation on your part to assume the originals did not include any such headings. Now, that speculation is not without merit, but it is impossible to say with any certainty that the originals were unsigned, anonymous scrolls. In my opinion, it seems likely that GLuke, which included a lengthy salutation, also sported a signature of some kind. Of course, that's just speculation, too, but my point remains: It's unfair to say that the Gospels were anonymous. A better statement would be to note all of the synoptics may have been anonymous.

They may have been signed by Josephus for all you know.

And if they were, they wouldn't be anonymous.

That's your epistemological quandary, isn't it?

No; why would you think that?

I'm sorry, Hatsoff, but you have nothing in your hands, nothing up your sleave, nothing to offer for your desires. WHy should anyone listen to what you say about this?

Because I'm correct. And if that doesn't satisfy you, go look to those who are more qualified than I, and they'll usually tell you the same thing (with a few exceptions, of course--but not many). Or of course you could just re-evaluate the evidence for yourself.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Christianity orginated in Palestine. Palestinians spoke Aramaic. Thefore the gospels were likely written in Aramaic.


Now, here's an argument even a child would understand... But the NT professors are still having trouble understanding this!

:Cheeky:

Yuri.

[Amaleq13]

Because I'm correct. And if that doesn't satisfy you, go look to those who are more qualified than I, and they'll usually tell you the same thing (with a few exceptions, of course--but not many).

It is my understanding that the current consensus of modern scholarship is that they were originally anonymous.

[Malachi151]

There is discussion about a potential signing of Luke.

[hatsoff]

It is my understanding that the current consensus of modern scholarship is that they were originally anonymous.

Indeed--although I wouldn't quite call it a "consensus," but rather a "majority"--however, it is my understanding that even those who believe they were anonymous realize it is reasonably possible one or more were not. Also, as Malachi noted I think even that majority might be waning for Luke.

[judge]

Most mainstream translations after the KJV have been done by the top scholars of the field of the time.


spin

Come on Spin ;) you have claimed that the evidence for the peshitta has been peer reviewed.

Who did it?

What arguments did they examine?

Do I sense you wish to avoid the details here?

[Malachi151]

Indeed--although I wouldn't quite call it a "consensus," but rather a "majority"--however, it is my understanding that even those who believe they were anonymous realize it is reasonably possible one or more were not. Also, as Malachi noted I think even that majority might be waning for Luke.

Except that it is thought that it wasnt signed by anyone named Luke :p

[Chris Weimer]

Now, here's an argument even a child would understand... But the NT professors are still having trouble understanding this!

:Cheeky:

Yuri.

You hit it perfectly this time, Yuri. You're absolutely correct: it's an argument that children understand, but not college-trained professionals, because, unlike children, professors can easily see the fallacy in the statement. It's a non-sequitur, pure and simple. Just because Christianity started in Palestine, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the gospels, written decades after the events are purpoted to have happened, were written there as well.

Was Lucretius writing in Greek because that's where Epicureanism was started? The argument is shallow and insipid. Sorry Doug, try again.

[Malachi151]

Not only that, but we dont really know if Christianity really started in Palestine anyway, thats just the claim of the writers of the story....

[hatsoff]

Except that it is thought that it wasnt signed by anyone named Luke :p

Ha ha, very funny. I meant "GLuke" for anyone seriously confused by my statement.

[judge]

Just because Christianity started in Palestine, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the gospels, written decades after the events are purpoted to have happened, were written there as well..

Chris you don't know when the gospels were written.

It always amazes me how supposed skeptics are never skeptical about their own beliefs

[spin]

How does it acknowledge its derivation?
By improving the text.

But maybe it was based on something else?
How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?

Why not?
It's dependence on Mk.

The original names were not the same as later names.
That's right. Take Matthew for example.


spin

[spin]

Come on Spin ;) you have claimed that the evidence for the peshitta has been peer reviewed.
You have misread what I said.


spin

[spin]

No, I mean it's signed as a disciple of Jesus. The question is, does he mean the disciple last spoken about prior to the signature, or another, unknown disciple? In any case, it is signed, so it is not anonymous.
Actually it's not signed. There's a third person singular note at the end which is not a part of the fabric of the document, so when was it added, by whom?

Sure I do. All complete extant mss. I've seen include the heading.
When do they date from? :rolleyes:

And if they were, they wouldn't be anonymous.
It still wouldn't say who actually wrote them.

No; why would you think that?
You have no way of showing the position your claims reflect.

Because I'm correct.
That sounds like my Helpmabob. The fellow who can't show he's any different from a paranoid schizophrenic.

And if that doesn't satisfy you, go look to those who are more qualified than I, and they'll usually tell you the same thing (with a few exceptions, of course--but not many).
So, nothing up your sleeve, but go look up someone else bigger's.

Or of course you could just re-evaluate the evidence for yourself.
Nothing you've said has shown me the need to do so. We are left with four documents whose authorship only comes from tradition and there is no way to get beyond tradition to a past reality.


spin

[judge]

You have misread what I said.


spin

Ok so when was the passage from Mark peer reviewed WRT to the primacy of the peshitta or the greek text?

Who did it?
What arguments were examined?
When did they do it?

[Malachi151]

Okay, enough of this.

Stop talking about the Greek texts and put forward your full case for whatever other language you think the gospels were written in, case by case for each gospel.

If you can't put forward your own case then stop whining about the Greek view.

[Chris Weimer]

Chris you don't know when the gospels were written.

It always amazes me how supposed skeptics are never skeptical about their own beliefs

:banghead:

[hatsoff]

Actually it's not signed. There's a third person singular note at the end which is not a part of the fabric of the document, so when was it added, by whom?

When do they date from? :rolleyes:

It still wouldn't say who actually wrote them.

You have no way of showing the position your claims reflect.

That sounds like my Helpmabob. The fellow who can't show he's any different from a paranoid schizophrenic.

So, nothing up your sleeve, but go look up someone else bigger's.

Nothing you've said has shown me the need to do so. We are left with four documents whose authorship only comes from tradition and there is no way to get beyond tradition to a past reality.

I don't really feel like debating someone so rude. Besides, you don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.

[spin]

Actually it's not signed. There's a third person singular note at the end which is not a part of the fabric of the document, so when was it added, by whom?

When do they date from?

It still wouldn't say who actually wrote them.

You have no way of showing the position your claims reflect.

That sounds like my Helpmabob. The fellow who can't show he's any different from a paranoid schizophrenic.

So, nothing up your sleeve, but go look up someone else bigger's.

Nothing you've said has shown me the need to do so. We are left with four documents whose authorship only comes from tradition and there is no way to get beyond tradition to a past reality.I don't really feel like debating someone so rude.
Debating is about comparing information, not literary criticism.

If you cannot deal with the epistemological requirements of your position, how can you debate it? And what you may call "rude" may be asking you to provide more than what you seem willing to do.

Besides, you don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.
I don't think you have analysed what you are trying to tell me, because you appear to be making claims you cannot support.


spin

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

You hit it perfectly this time, Yuri. You're absolutely correct: it's an argument that children understand, but not college-trained professionals, because, unlike children, professors can easily see the fallacy in the statement. It's a non-sequitur, pure and simple. Just because Christianity started in Palestine, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the gospels, written decades after the events are purpoted to have happened, were written there as well.

Was Lucretius writing in Greek because that's where Epicureanism was started? The argument is shallow and insipid. Sorry Doug, try again.

You don't know where the gospels were written.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

By improving the text.


How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?


It's dependence on Mk.


That's right. Take Matthew for example.


spin

How am I expected to reply to this? This looks like total gibberish...

What we need here is 3 levels of quotation, in order to make the context clear. But then I'll need to go to 2 previous posts, in order to fill in the blanks.

Is there some software function at IIDB that I'm missing?

_______________

spin:
The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,

Yuri:
How does it acknowledge its derivation?

spin:
By improving the text.

Yuri:
He does not improve the text.

___________________

spin:
which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek.

Yuri:
But maybe it was based on something else?

spin:
How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?

Yuri:
The author was writing for a Latin audience.

____________________

spin:
Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew.

Yuri:
Why not?

spin:
It's [sic] dependence on Mk.

Yuri:
Which is highly debatable.

_____________________

spin:
It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

Yuri:
The original names were not the same as later names.

spin:
That's right. Take Matthew for example.

Yuri:
That's right.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

"Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness."
--- W. Allen

[Johann_Kaspar]

I'm still waiting for ONE person, just one, to present ANY evidence that any gospel was originally written in any language other than Greek.

So far I've seen a bunch of noise about claims that we shouldn't believe that the gospels were written in Greek, yet I've not seen any case be made that they were written in another language.

Once again, sounds like ID "theory" to me...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Ignorance is not an argument either.

So that you can do your homework, here are TWO persons presenting MANY evidences that the gospel was first written in Hebrew: Dubourg and Tresmontant. The evidence presented is overwhelming. :D :D :D

[Johann_Kaspar]

spin:
The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,

Yuri:
How does it acknowledge its derivation?

spin:
By improving the text.

Yuri:
He does not improve the text.
Quite right and even quite the contrary. He simplifies it a lot (censored). And he dit it from an Hebrew text not from a Greek text. As one of the first/oldest gospel text "Mt" was the most edited one and the latest...

[Malachi151]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Ignorance is not an argument either.

So that you can do your homework, here are TWO persons presenting MANY evidences that the gospel was first written in Hebrew: Dubourg and Tresmontant. The evidence presented is overwhelming. :D :D :D

LOL, this is a thread for presenting the cases for the language that the gospels were written in, yet we still haven't had ONE PERON make a case for any language other than Greek. I laid out a case for Greek, others have as well.

No one still has laid out a case for Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Ebonics, yet.

LOL, drop some names, LOL, that's a good one. :wave:

[Johann_Kaspar]

LOL, this is a thread for presenting the cases for the language that the gospels were written in, yet we still haven't had ONE PERON make a case for any language other than Greek. I laid out a case for Greek, others have as well.

No one still has laid out a case for Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Ebonics, yet.

LOL, drop some names, LOL, that's a good one. :wave:I despise people who dont' want to learn and who are happy with their ignorance. :wave:

[Toto]

Dubourg and Tresmontant do not seem to have written in English, nor have they been translated. Can you summarize this evidence?

I did find this:

"Midrashic assumption" (http://fr.freepedia.org/Hypoth%C3%A8se_midrachique.html)

Bernard Duborg is evidently a mythicist who believes that the New Testament is wholey based on midrash of the Hebrew Scriptures. Claude Tresmontant merely thinks that there were originally gospels in Hebrew.

[judge]

LOL, this is a thread for presenting the cases for the language that the gospels were written in, yet we still haven't had ONE PERON make a case for any language other than Greek. :

malachi, you seem to not have even read the opening post.

The conventional wisdom is that it was written in contemporary Koine Greek, and I wonder what the usual arguments for it are.

This is the opeing line. The author asks for the evidcne in favour of the greek.

If you wish to start another thread feel free.

I have posted a link to plenty of evidence for the peshitta (http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html) here...Aramaic Peshitta (http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/)

As anyone can see the ammount evidence in favour of the peshitta is very large.

By contrast as anyone can see from this post the evidence in favour of the greek is scanty.

Naturally people who spend years studying biblical greek would be threatened by the idea they have studied the wrong texts, so no doubt it will take time for another view to be accepted.

[Malachi151]

Yes, the typical nonsense:

"Christ, after all spoke in the language of His contemporaries. He offered the first sacrifice of the Eucharist in Aramaic, a language understood by all the people who heard Him. The Apostles and Disciples did the same and never in a language other than that of the gathered faithful." :rolleyes:

Another good one:

We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking.

Yeah, that's the ticket, yeah, they copied them, then threw away the originals...

This is why we don't take you seriously.....

I have yet to see anything convincing. If YOU want to make the case for it then YOU make the case, I'm not going to drag it out of you. I think its nonsense, and you links are weak at best. Here is the place to make the case, do so if you wish. If not, you make a thread, I don't care about it.

[judge]

I don't care about it.



Ok...all the best. :wave:

[Chris Weimer]

You don't know where the gospels were written.

Yuri.

Oi vey. This is entirely irrelevant, you know. But we have dated Mark to at least the early 60's, oh wait a minute, why the fuck am I arguing with you?

Two words, Yuri: Markan priority.

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Indeed--although I wouldn't quite call it a "consensus," but rather a "majority"--however, it is my understanding that even those who believe they were anonymous realize it is reasonably possible one or more were not.

Who?
Where do they realize this?


For reference, consider these mentions of the Gospels -



The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.


This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives NO NAMES.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.


This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - NO NAMES given.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.


This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel scroll - NO NAMES given.


The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - NO NAME given.


Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.


This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - NO NAMES given.



All these examples (and there are more), go to show the Gospels were originally anonymous works, with names only attached in late 2nd C.



Iasion

[judge]

Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.


This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - NO NAME given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.

IIUC correctly the words are ambiguous (and I stand to be corrected here)

IOW it does not necessarily say the gosple was new in that period

[Chris Weimer]

What every IIDBer should know about Yuri Kuchinsky.

a) He argued from authority here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.msg137#msg137) and then later dismissed the most authoritative person in textual criticism just a post of his later here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.msg164#msg164). He then dismisses all NT scholars here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=46.msg194#msg194).

We have to wonder to ourselves, why would Yuri flip flop sides? Either he respects the positions of NT scholars, or he doesn't. He's not even picking and choosing here, he's just flat out contradicting himself.

Why is this relevant? Because Yuri was slammed in a debate about Markan priority. Three persons dominated the scene - Yuri Kuchinksy, Walter Shandruk, and Stephen Carlson. Of the three, only one actually has a degree in a relevant field, Walter Shandruk, and another, though lacking the relevant degrees, is actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, Stephen Carlson. Yuri has neither. Yuri possesses neither the peer acceptance (which isn't always a bad thing) nor has he the rigorous training in the field. But more importantly, he hasn't demonstrated competency in anything related to textual criticism.

The debate, for the record, is recorded here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=43.0) and here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=63.0).

b) Yuri's argument is based on a misleading statement. He was prone to cite Neirynck's number of 750 minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. What he failed to specify was that the number was so inflated because he included all the omissions as well.

Sorry, WM, but you're wrong. At a minimum, the number of these "Minor Agreements" is 750 (as listed in F. Neirynck, THE MINOR AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE AGAINST MARK, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974). Please get yourself informed.

You can't agree with someone against someone else if neither of you have a position in the first place.

Despite Yuri's pseudo-erudition, Walter did go "inform" himself and took a serious look at Neirynck, which it appears that Yuri never did. His conclusions are found here (http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=172.msg1064#msg1064).

This is why, friends, that when you hear Yuri clamoring about Aramaic priority, or proto-Lukan priority, we need to only take what he says with a grain of salt, until he can show proper form and decorum with the exposition of his hypothesis.

His conclusions are based on too many assumptions. Scholar after scholar, people with degrees, with long research in this field, have come to the conclusion of Markan priority, with very little departure. Yuri's hypothesis fails to capture any one of those. His reasons were torn apart in the links I gave above. So who do we believe? Is Yuri really the sole light of reason in NT studies, or are his theories merely his flight of fancy.

I'll let the readers decide.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Dubourg and Tresmontant do not seem to have written in English, nor have they been translated. Can you summarize this evidence?

I did find this:

"Midrashic assumption" (http://fr.freepedia.org/Hypoth%C3%A8se_midrachique.html)

Bernard Duborg is evidently a mythicist who believes that the New Testament is wholey based on midrash of the Hebrew Scriptures. Claude Tresmontant merely thinks that there were originally gospels in Hebrew.Sorry, Toto, I will not summarize the evidence. Unless one will read several languages (English, German, French, Italian... beside Hebrew, Greek and Latin), it will be meaningless for him to try to study this field of knowledge. Many books and articles are not translated and won't be. Someone discarding/ignoring what was written in another language can't make progress.

By the way, the wiki presentation is very poor to say the least, crap to be blunt (would not be surprised if a mainstream xian wrote that). Both Dubourg (a non believer) and Tresmontant (a xian) are presenting lots of evidence for a gospel written first in Hebrew, the Greeks being mere translations.

And there is a proof that they are translations, it is right here in the texts like the nose in the middle of the face. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.seek, and ye shall find

[hatsoff]

Greetings,

Who?
Where do they realize this?

...

All these examples (and there are more), go to show the Gospels were originally anonymous works, with names only attached in late 2nd C.

Iasion

Hmm. I seem to remember reading otherwise, but now I can't find any such sources. I think you might be right, after all. I think I might also owe Spin an apology--though I do think he could have been a little more polite in his argumentation.

There is one quote on earlychristianwritings that suggests Luke may not have been initially anonymous, but that's far from a scholarly presence on the issue. Any help would be appreciated.

[spin]

How am I expected to reply to this? This looks like total gibberish...

What we need here is 3 levels of quotation, in order to make the context clear. But then I'll need to go to 2 previous posts, in order to fill in the blanks.

Is there some software function at IIDB that I'm missing?
I usually refer back to the actual post I am referring to in order to get the continuity.

spin:
The gospels as we have them are anonymous works, which give no clue to whoever wrote them. The text that became known as Matthew, acknowledges its derivation from the text we call by the Latin name Mark,

Yuri:
How does it acknowledge its derivation?

spin:
By improving the text.

Yuri:
He does not improve the text.
So you don't think that the Matthean text is often better Greek than Mk?

I should really have put "improved" in quotes, because improvements like making the blind men two and putting Jesus on two animals aren't really improvements. The correction of the Aramaic hlwi to the Hebrew hli is an improvement.


spin:
which certainly was not written in anything other than a Latin influenced Greek.

Yuri:
But maybe it was based on something else?

spin:
How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?

Yuri:
The author was writing for a Latin audience.
Yup, as I said, a Latin influenced Greek. This makes sense to a well-educated in Greek, Roman upper-class audience, but what other language did a Latin audience have access to?


spin:
Whatever the church fathers were referring to as written in Hebrew does not relate to our Matthew.

Yuri:
Why not?

spin:
It's [sic] dependence on Mk.

Yuri:
Which is highly debatable.
It doesn't seem to be in the literature. There is merely a vocal few.


spin:
It is also interesting to note that the Eusebius passage does not mention Matthew as being the Hebrew text Hegesippus referred to.

Yuri:
The original names were not the same as later names.

spin:
That's right. Take Matthew for example.

Yuri:
That's right.
If you care to elucidate your thought...


spin

[spin]

I think I might also owe Spin an apology--though I do think he could have been a little more polite in his argumentation.
No apology is necessary, hatsoff. In the struggle to write posts one can often not get the tone right or often go astray.


spin

[Malachi151]

I don't see any further point to this thread. We made the case for Greek. Most of the points in favor of Greek still haven't been addressed or certainly not refuted. No one has made the case for any other language, all we have been told is that we can't possibly talk intelligently about this subject unless we know like 5 other languages and read several dozen books that are only printed in one language and have never been referenced by anyone in English, and oh, by the way, unless we can read the oldest manuscripts ourselves in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Latin, then we should just never talk about this subject again, etc., etc.

Oh, and by the way, even though the persons making these claims know that others can't read all these languages, and have no way to reference any of these materials, they also refuse to summarize them as well :rolleyes:

Yeah, nice try, but this is a useless thread, and as I said, the case for Greek has never been refuted in this thread.

[Johann_Kaspar]

I don't see any further point to this thread. We made the case for Greek. Most of the points in favor of Greek still haven't been addressed or certainly not refuted. No one has made the case for any other language, all we have been told is that we can't possibly talk intelligently about this subject unless we know like 5 other languages and read several dozen books that are only printed in one language and have never been referenced by anyone in English, and oh, by the way, unless we can read the oldest manuscripts ourselves in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Latin, then we should just never talk about this subject again, etc., etc.

Oh, and by the way, even though the persons making these claims know that others can't read all these languages, and have no way to reference any of these materials, they also refuse to summarize them as well :rolleyes:

Yeah, nice try, but this is a useless thread, and as I said, the case for Greek has never been refuted in this thread.Go on <edit> and be happy!:wave:

[judge]

No one has made the case for any other language,


There isAramaic Peshitta (http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/) plent to refute here... good luck.;)


As the originateor of this thread aksed for the evidence in favor of the greek I have not hijacked his thread.

Hows this? I challenge to you to a debate on the topic..Aramaic vs Greek.

Waddya say?

[Malachi151]

There isAramaic Peshitta (http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/) plent to refute here... good luck.;)


As the originateor of this thread aksed for the evidence in favor of the greek I have not hijacked his thread.

Hows this? I challenge to you to a debate on the topic..Aramaic vs Greek.

Waddya say?

We've already looked at this site, its a pathetic joke. If that's your best evidence, no wonder you refuse to make the case for Aramaic.

We've been trying to debate Aramaic vs. Greek in this thread, but you and others refuse to do so. You can start whatever threads you want if you feel the need to do it in another thread, thats' fine, go make you case if you wish, just stop coming here and saying "No its not", and then posting links to crappy lame conspiracy theory Aramaic first websites which plainly make no sense.

[judge]

We've already looked at this site, its a pathetic joke. If that's your best evidence, no wonder you refuse to make the case for Aramaic.

.

I'm not refusing to make the case. I challenging you to a debate.

If you aren't willing to take me on then fine.

all the best

[Johann_Kaspar]

I'm not refusing to make the case. I challenging you to a debate.

If you aren't willing to take me on then fine.

all the bestA formal debate! Wow, great! But you will not get it... Too easy to smash down Malachi's prejudice on this subject.

[Malachi151]

I'm not refusing to make the case. I challenging you to a debate.

If you aren't willing to take me on then fine.

all the best

I see no reason for a formal debate. I've never had one here, and don't see their point. I'm not the authority on this, and its not about "you vs. me", its about the information. Why not just discuss the information in this thread or another one?

You have refused to present any case here, why not just present you case?

Debates are crap anyway. They are only good at determining who the better debater is, not which facts are correct.

[judge]

I see no reason for a formal debate. I've never had one here, and don't see their point. I'm not the authority on this, and its not about "you vs. me", its about the information. Why not just discuss the information in this thread or another one?

.

I invited you to start another thread earlier. Feel free to do so.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

So you don't think that the Matthean text is often better Greek than Mk?


Better Greek?

So how does it go? According to the 2ST version of reality, "Mark" wrote the first gospel. Presumably, he was inspired and empowered by Christ, the Son of God, the Ruler of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to write the first gospel for the Salvation of Souls and the Universal Enlightenment but... somehow they got the Greek grammar all wrong!

Still, undeterred by such difficulties, they seem to have spent the next 20 years taking an intensive Greek course, and finally did get it right with Matthew?! :angel:

Oh, yes, the version of history that only a University Professor can believe...

In real life OTOH, each of the gospels was a collective product -- the product of a community. So they simply used the dialect that was used by the community. It's a mistake to try to establish the directionality of dependence on this basis.

But if you _really_ want to believe that the community of Mark was a bunch of Aramaic speakers whose Greek was poor, then they should probably write the first version in their native Aramaic, and only then translate it (poorly) into Greek?

Welcome to the Aramaic priority camp then!


I should really have put "improved" in quotes, because improvements like making the blind men two and putting Jesus on two animals aren't really improvements.


That's right, "improvement" is a relative term...



RE: Mt dependence on Mk.

It doesn't seem to be [disputed] in the literature. There is merely a vocal few.


All literature that blindly accepts Markan priority, and never questions this premise, is pseudo-scientific.

Yuri.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Sorry, Toto, I will not summarize the evidence. Unless one will read several languages (English, German, French, Italian... beside Hebrew, Greek and Latin), it will be meaningless for him to try to study this field of knowledge.


Well, Johann, one doesn't really need to know all these languages and read 1000 books to understand how these things work.

There's lots of people who know all sorts of languages, but still they don't understand the first thing about history, and what's happening in real life...

The problem with formulating the Semitic priority theory is not really the linguistic abilities as such... There are two real problems, and they are the problems of NT scholarship in general -- not just in this particular area. It's a much bigger problem.

1. Resolving the Synoptic problem.

Because if you don't have a good understanding of this, then it's useless even to go into the Semitic priority theories. And the Synoptic problem is very far indeed from an accepted solution at this time.

The earliest proto-gospel was probably very short, and it's still embedded, in bits and pieces, in all 4 NT gospels. How can we reconstruct it? Is it even possible to do this?

2. Resolving the TC problem.

This is even a bigger problem than the previous. Because there's a lot more at stake.

The Hortian solution is a dead end IMHO. We need to go back to the Byzantine text, and then try to go even further back to Western/Peripheral texts.

So anyone's idea of a Semitic priority theory very much depends on how you perceive the Synoptic problem, and the TC problem.

Theorising about the Semitic priority can only be done _after_ the above two big problem areas are sufficiently clarified, and some sort of a consensus is reached.

Someone who comes along and tries to reconstruct "the Semitic originals" on the basis of the 4 Hortian Greek gospels -- which represent nothing more than a late 19th century idea of what the "originals" should have been, based on some pretty bad 4th/5th century manuscripts -- is most likely just wasting his own and everybody else's time.

As to the Peshitta Aramaic prioritists, they are still mostly in a pre-critical stage, I'm afraid... They tend to operate as if the last 200 years of biblical scholarship -- with all its admitted confusions and dead-ends, but also some real insights -- didn't really happen.

They have the Solution all right (their original Peshitta text), but still don't quite understand the problem that they were trying to solve. So it's the Solution in search of a problem, whereas it should have been the other way around.

Best regards,

Yuri.

[spin]

Better Greek?
Yup.

So how does it go? According to the 2ST version of reality, "Mark" wrote the first gospel.
Yup.

Presumably, he was inspired and empowered by Christ, the Son of God, the Ruler of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to write the first gospel for the Salvation of Souls and the Universal Enlightenment but... somehow they got the Greek grammar all wrong!
Waiting for content.

Still, undeterred by such difficulties, they seem to have spent the next 20 years taking an intensive Greek course, and finally did get it right with Matthew?!
Still waiting for content.

Oh, yes, the version of history that only a University Professor can believe...
Is there any content coming from you Yuri?

In real life OTOH, each of the gospels was a collective product -- the product of a community. So they simply used the dialect that was used by the community. It's a mistake to try to establish the directionality of dependence on this basis.
Guesswork as to the production of Mk won 't help you.

But if you _really_ want to believe that the community of Mark was a bunch of Aramaic speakers whose Greek was poor, then they should probably write the first version in their native Aramaic, and only then translate it (poorly) into Greek?

Welcome to the Aramaic priority camp then!
Nup, no content.

All literature that blindly accepts Markan priority,...
Not all literature accepts Marcan priority. And not all acceptance of Marcan priority is blind.

...and never questions this premise, is pseudo-scientific.
Positions that don't supply evidence are "pseudo-scientific". You haven't supplied any.


spin

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Yuri:
Presumably, he was inspired and empowered by Christ, the Son of God, the Ruler of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to write the first gospel for the Salvation of Souls and the Universal Enlightenment but... somehow they got the Greek grammar all wrong!

spin:
Waiting for content.


Well, I find it kinda amusing that the University Professors have failed the Son of God and the Holy Spirit on their Greek competence test! :cool:

Yuri.

[spin]

Well, I find it kinda amusing that the University Professors have failed the Son of God and the Holy Spirit on their Greek competence test!
And I find it amusing that you want to talk about anything but the topic. :(


spin

[Chris Weimer]

Yuri,

Do you think that most university-educated professors think that Mark "was inspired and empowered by Christ, the Son of God, the Ruler of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to write the first gospel for the Salvation of Souls and the Universal Enlightenment"? If so, you're terribly wrong.

[jgibson000]

Better Greek?

So how does it go? According to the 2ST version of reality, "Mark" wrote the first gospel. Presumably, he was inspired and empowered by Christ, the Son of God, the Ruler of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit to write the first gospel for the Salvation of Souls and the Universal Enlightenment but... somehow they got the Greek grammar all wrong!

Who said or espouses the idea that Mark got "the Greek grammar" (?) of his Gospel all wrong?

More importantly, what is your evidence that those who hold to Markan priority have ever assumed, as you claim they do, that Mark was -- or even felt or acknowledged and proclaimed himself to have been-- constrained by any inspiration at all, let alone one that comes from the sort of being you say the Christ is? Or that "inspiration" by any source precludes infelicities of grammar?

Can you say "straw man"?

Oh, yes, the version of history that only a University Professor can believe...


Seems to me that this is a version of history that only a self proclaimed, but in reality wholly unqualified, under-read, language lacking, agenda driven, guild hating, unpublished, uncredentialed, referee lacking, teaching job positionless, and demonstrably clueless, Canadian NT "scholar" would believe that university professors believe.

Would you care to give us the names of all these university professors who, according to you, accept the version of history you say they do?

Jeffrey Gibson

[rlogan]

Dubourg and Tresmontant do not seem to have written in English, nor have they been translated. Can you summarize this evidence?

I did find this:

"Midrashic assumption" (http://fr.freepedia.org/Hypoth%C3%A8se_midrachique.html)

Bernard Duborg is evidently a mythicist who believes that the New Testament is wholey based on midrash of the Hebrew Scriptures. Claude Tresmontant merely thinks that there were originally gospels in Hebrew.

Hmmm. I'd be interested in the midrash ideas of Duborg, but am wondering if wherever you got this observation from, Toto meant the septuagint instead of original Hebrew.

I know you've been around here watching closely enough to understand why that is more likely the case.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

And I find it amusing that you want to talk about anything but the topic. :(

spin

You're still missing the point, my dear friend. The whole point here is just how incorruptible, fair-minded, and totally dedicated to the Truth the Biblical Professors are...

"Yeah, sure, your daddy may be a multi-millionaire, and the big donor here at the University but, sorry, if you didn't do your homework, didn't put in your time at the library, I'm afraid you'll have to come back later (like 20 years later?), when you finally do master your Greek grammar!"

"No favouritism here -- no, Sir! We're objective scholars here."

That's the truly principled stand! Without fear or favour... Don't you think it should be warmly commended?

Yours,

Yuri.

[Chris Weimer]

The point is that you cannot deal with the actual texts or arguments, so you instead just say that the "guild" is keeping you down. Typical crackpot theorism.

[Clivedurdle]

Would a summary of probabilities help?

1 - are we looking at original documents, translations, expansions of something else or what?

2 - If we are looking at some form of later "editions" - what was the language (might there be more than one?) of the earlier edition or editions?

What are the possibilities, what are their probabilities?

Are Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic possibilities?

What outliers might there be? Persian? Indian? Egyptian?

[Toto]

Hmmm. I'd be interested in the midrash ideas of Duborg, but am wondering if wherever you got this observation from, Toto meant the septuagint instead of original Hebrew.

I know you've been around here watching closely enough to understand why that is more likely the case.

These particular scholars seem to assume that the midrash was of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, not the Septuagint. But I can't read enough of the article to know the basis of this.

[Yuri Kuchinsky]

Would a summary of probabilities help?

1 - are we looking at original documents,


Definitely not.


translations,


Possibly, for some passages.


expansions


Yes, plenty of them.


of something else or what?


The simple answer is that there are no simple answers in this area.

The world of mainstream NT scholarship is a cartoon-like world with everything in black-and-white. Mark was the earliest gospel, written in Greek, just like everything else. End of discussion.

But the reality was not in black-and-white. Time to grow up.

There are no simple global answers. Every passage must be examined separately, and every gospel must be examined separately. Every gospel presents a complex patch-work in its own right, with both late and early material intermixed.

Loisy knew this 100 years ago already.

Regards,

Yuri.

[jgibson000]

The world of mainstream NT scholarship is a cartoon-like world with everything in black-and-white. Mark was the earliest gospel, written in Greek, just like everything else. End of discussion.

But the reality was not in black-and-white. Time to grow up.

There are no simple global answers. Every passage must be examined separately, and every gospel must be examined separately. Every gospel presents a complex patch-work in its own right, with both late and early material intermixed.

Loisy knew this 100 years ago already

What ever else Loisy "knew" about the composition. tradition history, and alleged "patchwork" nature of GMark, one thing he did not dispute was that GMark was the earliest Gospel and that it was written in Greek. I guess Loisy too never grew up.

Now watch for the accusations to fly from Yuri that I don't know anything about Loisy.

Jeffrey Gibson

[Clivedurdle]

one thing he did not dispute was that GMark was the earliest Gospel and that it was written in Greek

The Latin-Greek is similar to the written language of Rome, (From a google search)

What language is Mark written in? What is this "Latin-Greek" allegedly used in Rome?

Methinks asserting "Greek" may be a bit simple and black and white.