NT in Aramiaic?

theseed said:

Thadman, do you think that the Epistles were written in Aramaic or Hebrew and translated right away and carried to thier destination?

Click to expand...

No I believe that they were translated upon arrival by the communities which received them, sometimes translated more than once (which would account for split words and variances).

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

theseed said:

Q document theory is widely accepted by biblical scholars. But, it is weird theory. However, they use it to explain the Synoptic Problem (I think this is what it means), such as how could the writers know when Jesus was praying by himself or when He was before the Sanhedrin since none of the Aposltes were there.

Click to expand...

They use it to explain why where in many places that Matthew and Luke don't have parallels in Mark that they quote eachother in a nearly identical fashion. In the places where all three say the exact same thing (word for word) they assume Markan primacy (that Luke and Matthew took it from Mark).

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Its not a matter of weirdness that bothers me... its the utter and complete lack of any... mark my words... ANY historical or physical evidence what so ever.

Q document theory is widely accepted by biblical scholars.

Click to expand...

I would have qualified that with "some" biblical scholars... and by some, I mean a tiny slim majority. However, it matters not to me whether 100% or 1% believe/teach this... it matters to me what they can bring to the table. So far, nothing exists to prove Q.

Funny thing that Justin made the joke about "J". There actually is another theory about the Torah that it was penned by anywhere from 3-150 authors (depending on which scholar you ask) and the Book of "J" is the original sliver of a manuscript that all of these authors added to.

bunk. complete and utter bunk.

You bring textual criticism or physical evidence to the table and maybe I'll consider it. Otherwise I know I'm talking to a Psuedoscholar.

Is Aramaic actually still spoken>?

Is there a complete Aramaic NT kept somewhere in the "church of the east"? I've heard that, is it true?

The Thadman said:

"these are the words which are most historically probable, given our set of criteria."

Click to expand...

Stevo-o,
That is exactly where the problem lies. Like I said before, their set of criteria has a lot of speculation in it and their application of such criteria is also subject to their own personal interpretation. In other words, it is anything but science (and yet they make it look like it's scientific).

All in all, they have done much more harm than good. Many people read their works and are impressed with their (so-called) 'research' (not knowing most of it lacks substantial foundation) and then those readers end up coming to the conclusion that the Brit Hadasha as we know it is a fabrication of Rav. Sha'ul and his followers.

In Messiah,
Ben Tsion

Christy4Christ said:

Is Aramaic actually still spoken>?

Click to expand...

Yes, in many villages in the middle east, and many Syrian and Assyrian communities here in the US.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Defens0rFidei said:

Is there a complete Aramaic NT kept somewhere in the "church of the east"? I've heard that, is it true?

Click to expand...

Yes it is true. I posted a blurb about it over in the Hermeneutics forum.

http://www.Peshitta.org and http://www.AramaicNT.org are good sites to investigate

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

BenTsion said:

Stevo-o,
That is exactly where the problem lies. Like I said before, their set of criteria has a lot of speculation in it and their application of such criteria is also subject to their own personal interpretation. In other words, it is anything but science (and yet they make it look like it's scientific).

All in all, they have done much more harm than good. Many people read their works and are impressed with their (so-called) 'research' (not knowing most of it lacks substantial foundation) and then those readers end up coming to the conclusion that the Brit Hadasha as we know it is a fabrication of Rav. Sha'ul and his followers.

In Messiah,
Ben Tsion

Click to expand...

Many people take their work and misapply it. It's not the end-all and be-all of scholarship. It's a simple criteria study.

It works out -beautifully-... provided you agree with the criteria (and I've already said where I stand on that)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman said:

Many people take their work and misapply it. It's not the end-all and be-all of scholarship. It's a simple criteria study.

It works out -beautifully-... provided you agree with the criteria (and I've already said where I stand on that)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a farce to begin with. The big assumption Jesus Seminar folk make is that if we find the same idea on the lips of Yeshua and anywhere else (such as in Rabbinic literature) then the saying is suspect and not from Yeshua. This is just stupid. (And I'm quoting my teachers). You have to subscribe to the worldview that the Rabbis invented Rabbinic Judaism in the second/third centuries CE. I can't tell you in how many ways this assumption is flawed.

On Q, the argument does not have one leg to stand on when you take into consideration linguistic data. New Testament scholars hardly have a good grasp on translation Koine Greek, much, much less on Hebrew and Aramaic. They just don't have a clue whatsoever. Their only argument against the plethora of Semitisms in Luke is that Luke is "Septuagintalizing" his Greek, never mind the fact that many of the Semitisms don't even occur once in the Septuagint.

The seed:

Ok, so many of the Jews did not know Greek that well. Am I right in quessing that Many Greeks did not know Aramaic?

HT:

Let's not forget about the Hellenic Jews that are mentioned in scripture. They had assumed the Greek culture and language.


Simchat said:

This is what I have affectionately termed as "PseudoScholarship"

You see, people who have these magical letters in front of their names "Dr." often can play fairy tale and label this fairy tale as a "theory". These "theories" typically don't need any verficaiton, fact, or any supporting material what so ever and people turn around quoting these 'theories' as fact.

We end up with a bunch of fairy tales, with absolutely no evidence what so freaking ever, being called facts.

It's really gross when you think about it.

HT:

That is exactly what I was trying to say about the "PseudoScholarship" on a Hebrew NT with out any real proof, but it was not received very well.

Cristy:
Is Aramaic actually still spoken?

Thadman:

Yes, in many villages in the middle east, and many Syrian and Assyrian communities here in the US.

HT:

I believe that it is a different dialect, it is script vs block, and a different alefbet than the Messiah would have known? Steve-o?

That is exactly what I was trying to say about the "PseudoScholarship" on a Hebrew NT with out any real proof, but it was not received very well.

Click to expand...

1) I don't really think anywhere near even half the books were Hebrew originals. I tend to lean towards a majority of manuscripts were originally penned in Aramaic. A few, yes, were in Hebrew.
2) Actually, its not "exactly" the same in any respect.
a) early christians spoke of certain books having Hebrew/Aramaic originals
b) textual criticism shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Aramaic was the original language of most of the manuscripts
c) there exist multiple manuscripts in Aramaic (some close to or surpassing in age that of the greek manuscripts)


The book of Q and the book of J have no evidence, only fanciful imaginations. Maybe you disagree with the evidence for Aramaic/Hebrew originals, but you can't say that this comparison is "the exact same thing". Sorry, no where near close.

peace,
yafet

Higher Truth said:

That is exactly what I was trying to say about the "PseudoScholarship" on a Hebrew NT with out any real proof, but it was not received very well.

Click to expand...

You talk like a scholar, but can you back it up? Can you tell the difference between Josephus's Greek and Luke's Greek? Speak Hebrew? Ok, if you do, we can discuss our "Pseudo-Scholarship".

koilias:

You talk like a scholar, but can you back it up?

HT:

Coming on a little strong, aren't we koilias? Show me your proof of a Hebrew original. I am all ears.

Higher Truth said:

HT:

I believe that it is a different dialect, it is script vs block, and a different alefbet than the Messiah would have known? Steve-o?

Click to expand...

It is a modernized dialect, but the dialects are as close as Shakespearian and Modern English (in my opinion). The Alphabet is also up to debate, seeing that the script (called "Estrangelo") was in use in Syria before the turn of the millenium, it is very likely he would have been exposed to it, and if not him, definately his disciples.

(Steve-o is my nickname at the dean's office here at Rutgers )

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Thadman said:

The Alphabet is also up to debate, seeing that the script (called "Estrangelo") was in use in Syria before the turn of the millenium, it is very likely he would have been exposed to it, and if not him, definately his disciples.

HT:

Let's take a look at the babylonian talmud, which was written after the time of Messiah and the apostles. What dialect and letter type was that written in?