- This topic has 713 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
t8, your last question:
Quote 2) Are there instances in the New Testament in our translations and the Greek where the word kurios is used of men? Yes.
Are there instances in the NT where YHWH is written as 'kurios' or translated from 'kurios' but not translated as Jehovah/YHWH but means Jehovah/YHWH?
LU. Apologies for not being on HN for a while.
My hands are full at the moment with work and family commitments.
I definitely want to get to the heart of what you are teaching and why, so I am not giving up this topic.
Great thanks for your understanding.
Definitely wasn't shown the same grace when I debated with the Trinitarians.OK, I spent this morning looking around the web for people's views and ideas about the New Testament and the original languages likely used. Here is what I have gleaned.
Most believe that the NT books were written in Koine, or common, Greek which was the universal language spoken by many of the common people throughout the Roman Empire.
However, there is a case to be made for other languages depending on which book is being talked about.
We can at least by an indirect reference see that Mark did not write his book in Aramaic, unless the Greek version of Mark was changed substantially. Here is why:
Mark
Read carefully what Mark has to say. Ask yourself why he quotes in Aramaic and is obviously writing in a different language in explanation to the quotes.Mark 5:41
41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).Mark 7:34
34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”).Mark 15:34
34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).If the Book of Mark was written in Aramaic, then you would not see Aramaic being quoted and explained in an obvious different language would you.
John
John wrote his books after the fall of Jerusalem. He was in the territory of Greek-speaking peoples, i.e., Asia Minor and Ephesus. And Revelation was specifically to be sent to churches in seven Greek-speaking cities.Peter and Paul
Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome to “strangers scattered” abroad in five provinces of Asia Minor (1 Pet. 1:1). These people would have been fluent in the Greek language and it was in a neighboring province that Paul grew up. Paul even used this fact to explain why he knew Greek. See Acts 21:37-39.Peshitta
From what I have read, most believe that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek, not the other way around. However, such a topic is not my field of expertise although I am not sure that I have a field of expertise at all, I will likely from here use other evidence perhaps from scripture itself to challenge your view.
I am
http://aramaicnt.com/Research/The%20Name%20of%20God.pdfI am not sure if you referred the above document to me, but somehow I ended up there. Regardless, it's stance appears to be the same as yours.
In this document, his references to “I am” are absolutely wrong. He makes the claim that “I am” is an incomplete reference on its own and thus must be referring to the Old Testament “I am” to complete the thought.
He is wrong because:
“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. The mere utterance of “ego eimi” is not blasphemy, rather a common phrase spoken by many and any. The use of “ego eimi” does not identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM.
In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel”. In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi”. In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek”. Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.
ANd if you are fair in your judgement here, you will see that this is no different to the usage that Jesus applied to himself.
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep”. “I am whom you seek”. ““I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
The latter verse upset the Jews, not because of “Ego eimi”, rather it was the coming down from Heaven part that irked them. It is almost beyond doubt that utterances from Jesus saying “I am”, was never to be taken as him claiming to be YHWH. The Jews would have been the first to complain about that had he that been the case. And in Jesus trial they could have done him for blasphemy on this point alone. Instead, the evidence against him was trumped up alternative evidence with no reference that Jesus claimed to be God or YHWH.
Also notice that I use the words “I am” as the first words in the second paragraph. They are not incomplete and nor am I saying I am God.
If the guy who wrote this document can be wrong on this serious point, it doesn't lend much weight to the rest of the document.
t8,
I'm glad that you are looking into this Aramaic primacy issue. Hold on to your seat because it gets very interesting.you said:
Quote OK, I spent this morning looking around the web for people's views and ideas about the New Testament and the original languages likely used. Here is what I have gleaned. Most believe that the NT books were written in Koine, or common, Greek which was the universal language spoken by many of the common people throughout the Roman Empire.
However, there is a case to be made for other languages depending on which book is being talked about.
You can practically find someone to agree with any opinion that you have on the internet and depending what you put in the search box, you might get a lot of support for one side of an argument. If you flip what you put in the search box, you might get a lot of support for the other side of an argument. I just wanted to let you know that there is quite a bit of support for Jesus and the disciples speaking Aramaic as their mother tongue. The more that I consider what both sides have to say and see which side is saying, in the most clear and simple fashion, what I feel God has been telling me all these years, the more I am convinced that the Eastern Peshitta was the original NT. The Eastern Peshitta claims to be the original NT and that it was written in Aramaic. Therefore, unless I am swayed otherwise, I will be defending the primacy of the Eastern Peshitta as the original NT.
Let me ask you some questions:
First of all, do you agree that Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue?
LU, before we move on to your questioning, how about a wrap up of what I have said above. e.g., what about Mark who quotes Jesus in Aramaic, but is obviously writing in a different language.
Also, as to which version came first, those that refute that the Aramaic came first have nothing to gain from saying that as the Peshitta seems to have a Trinitarian stance of which many of these people also have.
But so far, what you have given me as far as links to defending the Peshitta, it appears as with yourself you are using this as a way to defend a doctrine that you hold to. Therefore there has to be an obvious bias whereas the opposite opinion doesn't seem to stem from doctrinal bias.
But as I said before, this is certainly not an area of expertise for me and likely yourself too. So I have argued from scripture itself, so how about we get some answers from that before we delve back into the history of the New Testament, which I am happy to do so after I get some answers to the above.
t8, I will address what you said about Mark and Talitha. It involves the language that Jesus and the disciples spoke. I will answer that in my next post and assume that you agree that the mother tongue of Jesus, according to his life as a man, and his disciples was Aramaic.
Quote
But so far, what you have given me as far as links to defending the Peshitta, it appears as with yourself you are using this as a way to defend a doctrine that you hold to. Therefore there has to be an obvious bias whereas the opposite opinion doesn't seem to stem from doctrinal bias.I will show you that there is reasonable proof for the Peshitta primacy apart from bias. Concrete proof can only come from the writers personally and since they are not accessible, we have to go with reasonable proof. You are correct in that, like yourself, this is not an area of expertise for me and I am wanting to defend the Peshitta primacy view from scripture and history. It may be interesting to you that I used to believe the originals were written mainly in Greek but have since changed my mind. So, I do change my opinion when I become convinced otherwise.
t8,
Quote Mark
Read carefully what Mark has to say. Ask yourself why he quotes in Aramaic and is obviously writing in a different language in explanation to the quotes.Mark 5:41
41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).Mark 7:34
34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means “Be opened!”).Mark 15:34
34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).If the Book of Mark was written in Aramaic, then you would not see Aramaic being quoted and explained in an obvious different language would you.
This could easily be explained as a scribe translating from an Aramaic text into the Greek. Picture the scribe that knows both Aramaic and Greek translating Mark's Gospel. He would be looking at the Aramaic text, translating the first part of this verse to Greek, then he actually copies what Jesus says as a quote, then translates that part in Greek also since he would be writing to a Greek audience.
LU.
I think you are trying to force this whole thing way too much. You have an agenda and you will clutch at any straw that will help this thing look like it floats.
A person translating from Aramaic to Greek does not and should not write Mark in that fashion if you were doing a faithful translation. You would just say, Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. Seen as how that is how the rest of the book is.
The fact that we find particular quotes in Aramaic is troublesome for your view.
Now you further have to argue that the translator chose such a method which is not faithful to Mark's text. Because you are now saying that the Book of Mark is not a translation, but a commentary.
When you have to stretch a theory in all sorts of contorted ways to fit the facts, it does not bode well for the theory.
Now what about John's books. He was in the territory of Greek-speaking people, i.e., Asia Minor and Ephesus. And Revelation was specifically sent to churches in seven Greek-speaking cities.
In addition to that, it is John who introduces us to the Logos. Logos was a Greek concept that was familiar with Greeks and John used that word because he was writing to Greek speaking people.
If you still refuse to accept the possibility that John wrote in Greek, then Origen acts as a third witness for you. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar (184/185 – 253/254), wrote about the use of the definite article in John 1:1:
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos.
So Origen an influential teacher of Greek Grammar believed that John wrote his book in Greek. Origen then goes into the finer detail of the use of the definite article in Greek in order to define the true meaning of what John was telling us in John 1:1.
LU, I believe that this evidence is also troublesome for your theory.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2012,00:40) LU. I think you are trying to force this whole thing way too much. You have an agenda and you will clutch at any straw that will help this thing look like it floats.
A person translating from Aramaic to Greek does not and should not write Mark in that fashion if you were doing a faithful translation. You would just say, Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. Seen as how that is how the rest of the book is.
The fact that we find particular quotes in Aramaic is troublesome for your view.
Now you further have to argue that the translator chose such a method which is not faithful to Mark's text. Because you are now saying that the Book of Mark is not a translation, but a commentary.
When you have to stretch a theory in all sorts of contorted ways to fit the facts, it does not bode well for the theory.
t8,
If you look at the various translations that go from Greek to English, you see sometimes quite a bit of variance although they all claim to be translations. Some translations are more literal than others and what I am suggesting the scribe did to his translation was an amplifying of sorts to that particular verse. When translating from one language to another, it is often impossible to use one word only to translate one word. The scribe could have been very accurately translating the meaning of the original text without it being a literal word for word translation for every sentence.Look at these two examples that I found today, both are from Greek texts and both are considered translations:
Heb 2:16
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham.Somewhere along the way, the translators chose different meanings for the words they were translating.
I say that to show you that translators take liberties. That is why many keep saying that God's word is inerrant in the “original manuscript”. It is the translations that might have errors. So, we need to find out what language the original manuscript was to have a better chance of getting a clearer understanding and more reliable message. If the original NT was written in Aramaic, then we ought to be focusing on understanding the Aramaic language more so than the Greek language even if it was eventually translated into the Greek from the original Aramaic manuscripts. The Greek can be helpful but our emphasis should be to study the Aramaic and the nuances of Aramaic grammar.
We do know that the OT was written in Hebrew with a little Aramaic originally and then the scribes or Rabbi's translated that into complete Aramaic years before Christ. It seems there is scholarly agreement that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. The words for God and YHWH should be the same in the Aramaic NT as they are in the Aramaic OT.
So, if it is shown that YHWH in the Aramaic OT is written as MarYah and is applied to a singular verb everytime, then when ever you see MarYah used with a singular verb, you can safely assume YHWH is who is referenced.
Also, finding quotes in Aramaic with translation of them can simply mean the Aramaic dialect that was spoken and quoted is not the same Aramaic dialect that the people speak who are being written to. Like English can have variances of dialect and what is spoken in the East a certain way may need to be explained. Sometimes I have to ask my teenager for a translation of their 'English' because it is unfamiliar to me. Some words in the states are different depending on what part of the country one lives in. Up North, they say 'pop' for carbonated beverages and in the South, we say 'soda.' See how this is possible?
This is not a stretch, t8, these are very real possibilities.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2012,00:58) Now what about John's books. He was in the territory of Greek-speaking people, i.e., Asia Minor and Ephesus. And Revelation was specifically sent to churches in seven Greek-speaking cities. In addition to that, it is John who introduces us to the Logos. Logos was a Greek concept that was familiar with Greeks and John used that word because he was writing to Greek speaking people.
If you still refuse to accept the possibility that John wrote in Greek, then Origen acts as a third witness for you. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar (184/185 – 253/254), wrote about the use of the definite article in John 1:1:
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos.
So Origen an influential teacher of Greek Grammar believed that John wrote his book in Greek. Origen then goes into the finer detail of the use of the definite article in Greek in order to define the true meaning of what John was telling us in John 1:1.
LU, I believe that this evidence is also troublesome for your theory.
t8,
It is quite likely that John whose mother tongue was Aramaic wrote his letters in Aramaic and handed them off to a scribe to translate into the language of Greek. If John spoke Greek yet it was not his mother tongue, it is very possible that he did not write Greek. Speaking a foreign language does not automatically mean that you can write that language. So if the Greek that Origen is analyzing is written to convey the 'niceties of the Greek tongue, it may very well be the 'translator's' Greek tongue that Origen is reading. If John couldn't write Greek, then he couldn't check what the scribe wrote in Greek for accuracy.I am saying all of this to show you that just because the letters were written to Greek speaking churches, they could have been written in Aramaic by John and given to his scribe to translate into Greek.
Now, regarding the article 'the.' Other Greek scholars will tell you that when two words are written in the nominative case in the same clause, the word that gets the article is the subject.
From what I can tell, you have not studied the fact that the name 'Word of God' was a common name as found in the targums and was familiar to Jews referring to YHWH when He presented Himself in a human way. Read this to see:
According to the Targums, which were at one time accepted as sacred Jewish beliefs, God's word is an entity; actually God himself. The Memra' is to be worshipped, served, obeyed, spoken to, and prayed to, as God. The Jewish apostle John (who's Hebrew name was Johanan), no doubt schooled in the Targums several years before he met Y'shua, opened his gospel with these words:
†.John 1:1-3…In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (NIV)
Modern Judaism accuses Johanan of borrowing his ideology from Greek philosophy. However, John 1:1-3 was a very Jewish belief back in Johanan's day, and nothing said in that verse would have raised a single objection from any of his peers and contemporaries because that passage reflects 100% Targum teachings that were commonly dispensed in the synagogues of his day.
The Targums taught that God's word, the Memra', reigns supreme upon The Almighty's throne.
¶.Deuteronomy 4:7…For what people so great, to whom the Lord is so high in the Name of the Word of the Lord? But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sits upon His throne high and lifted up, and hears our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions. (Targum Jonathan)
According to the Targums, Jacob, an important progenitor of the people of Israel, worshipped the Memra' as his God.
¶.Genesis 28:20-21…And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Word of Yhvh will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word of Yhvh be my God. (Targum Onkelos)
God's Word: A Sentient Being
Whenever the Targum orators came to passages where Yhvh is anthropomorphic (visible to humans) or where two or more Yhvhs are indicated by the text, the Turgemen often substituted “The Word of the Lord” for one of the Yhvhs.
For example in Gen. 19:23-24 the Tanakh has:
†.As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, Yhvh rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yhvh out of heaven. (WHV)
The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one Yhvh rained fire from another Yhvh who was up in heaven. The Targum substitutes “The Word of Yhvh” for the first of the two Yhvhs as follows:
¶.And the Word of Yhvh caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Yhvh in heaven. (Targum Jonathan)
Targumists paraphrased the text of Exodus 20:1 by substituting “the Word of Yhvh” in place of Yhvh.
¶.And the Word of the Lord spoke all the excellency of these words saying (Jerusalem Targum)
It was, according to another Targum, the Word of Yhvh whom Abraham trusted in:
¶.Genesis 15:6…And Abraham trusted in the Word of Yhvh, and He counted it to him for righteousness. (Targum Onkelos)
Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh:
¶.Genesis 22:14…And Abraham worshipped and prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh, and said, “You are Yhvh who does see, but You cannot be seen.” (Jerusalem Targum)
Although Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of Yhvh, his prayer was meant for the other one, the the untouchable Yhvh who cannot be seen. So the first Yhvh, the Memra', acted as a mediator between Abraham and the True God.
The Memra' has a significant role in Abraham's covenant.
¶.Genesis 17:7…And I will establish my covenant between My Word and between you (Targum Onkelos)
¶.Exodus 12:42… Night second; when the Word of the Lord was revealed unto Abraham between the divided parts; when Abraham was a son of a hundred years, and Sarah was a daughter of ninety years, (Targum Jerusalem)
According to another Targum, The Word of Yhvh created Man not only in the image of God, but also in the likeness of God's word.
¶.Genesis 1:27…And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them. (Jerusalem Targum)
The Memra' conversed with Moses and commissioned him to lead Isra
el to freedom.¶.Exodus 3:14…And the Word of Yhvh said to Moses: “I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be.” And He said: “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you.” (Jerusalem Targum)
A partial Targum also expresses that the Word of Yhvh was the Creator.
¶.Exodus 12:42…The first night, when the Word of Yhvh was revealed to the world in order to create it, the world was desolate and void, and darkness spread over the face of the abyss and the Word of the Lord was bright and illuminating and He called it the first night. (Fragmentary Targum)
The Memra' as Creator can also be seen in the Tanakh.
†.Psalm 33:6…By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, by the breath of His mouth, all their host. (1985 JPS Tanakh)
Noah's covenant was between the Memra' and all mankind.
¶.Genesis 9:17…And Yhvh said to Noah, “This is the token of the covenant which I have established between My Word and between all flesh that is upon the earth. (Targum Onkelos)
The Memra' is Israel's savior.
¶.Isaiah 45:17, 25…But Israel shall be saved by the Word of Yhvh with an everlasting salvation. By the Word of Yhvh shall all the seed of Israel be justified. (Targum Jonathan)
¶.Hosea 1:7…But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Word of Yhvh, their God. (Targum Jonathan)
According to the New Testament, Y'shua is a human manifestation of the Memra'. Somehow (and who can really understand this?) the Memra' became a Jewish human being who, though coming from God, and must be spoken to as God, and prayed to as God, and worshipped as God, and served as God, is itself subject to the real God.
†.John 1:14…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJ)
†.John 6:38…For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (NIV)
†.1John 1:1-3…That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word Of Life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Y'shua the Messiah. (WHV)
from here: http://cfbac.org/memra.htm
That is a stretch. Look how many words you needed to use to support the idea that it was OK or normal to add in whole sentences in scripture.
Most of the discrepancies between the KJV and more modern versions has little to do with writers adding in extra sentences like the instance you are now promoting, rather has more to do with the KJV using a not so old manuscript (textus receptus) while modern versions of the bible use older versions of manuscripts, multiple versions, and the addition of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a triple check. Also, King James English is not the same as English. Some words have different even opposite meanings to todays English. It is often old English that causes the problem.
Further, there are whole sentences that have been added in the KJV and these are well known. Given the diversity of manuscripts that were copied throughout the centuries independently of each other these sentences are easy to see when making comparisons with texts.
The most famous added in phrase or sentence is the The Comma Johanneum, (1 John 5:7–8) but there is a story about how that got in the KJV. But you are now trying to convince me that there are extra sentences that have been added that no one else seems to have noticed but yourself. Does that not smack of self-delusion. The only other option is that you are the only correct one on the planet. The latter is possible but highly unlikely. Self-delusion is way more probable here.
Finally, not even the preterist version itself supports your view here.
LU, Yes there is a Hebrew concept for Word and a Greek one. Tell me about the Aramaic concept for Logos or Word.
It is possible that John used scribes for his writings and that he didn't pen the books himself. But whatever the method, he was writing to a Greek speaking part of the world, so on that point alone it seems that I don't have to mention that you usually write in the language of your intended audience.
John wrote to the seven churches. All seven churches are in modern-day Turkey and back then the language was Greek. Also, he was on the Isle of Patmos in Greece when he wrote Revelation.
Wikipedia Quote
The mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600).
The New Testament Gospels and Epistles were only part of a Hellenistic Jewish culture in the Roman Empire, where Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem, and Greek was spoken by more Jews than spoke Hebrew[7]. Other Jewish Hellenistic writings include those of Josephus, Philo, Demetrius the chronographer, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus of Alexandria, Cleodemus Malchus, Aristeas, Hecatus of Abdera, Thallus, and Justus of Tiberias, Pseudo-Philo, many Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Septuagint itself.
Koine Greek remained the dominant language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, extending into the Byzantine Empire as Byzantine Greek. In the city of Rome, Koine Greek was in widespread use among ordinary people, and the elite spoke and wrote Greek as fluently as Latin.
After the Babylonian captivity, Aramaic replaced Biblical Hebrew as the everyday language in Palestine. The two languages were as similar as two Romance languages or two Germanic languages today. Thus Biblical Hebrew, which was still used for religious purposes, was not totally unfamiliar, but still a somewhat strange norm that demanded a certain degree of training to be understood properly. After Alexander, Palestine was ruled by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for almost two hundred years. Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews.
The last line here states that Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews.
So LU, you are making an argument that the writers of the NT did not write in the language of international communication, and further even though the mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean, you disagree. And why do you disagree, because your itchy ears like the idea that Jesus is YHWH and somehow this version as you say, supports that view.
I will be honest and say that I do not trust your opinion because you are clearly being driven by bias here and objectivity takes a back seat in many of your decisions. In other words, if it doesn't agree with your view, it is ignored or considered less. On the other hand, the consensus that the NT was written in Greek is not based on bias toward any doctrine at all, it is the conclusion thus far from those who study history and biblical texts.
Lastly, Origen lived much closer to John and Jesus time than us and he talks about John knowing the nicities of the Greek tongue and this is coming from a man who dedicated much of his life to teaching Greek, making commentaries on the biblical writers, and defending the faith. Nearly 2000 years later, LU says that he wrote in Aramaic. I am sure you can understand the doubt I hold toward your views when this evidence is weighed. Especially considering that the biggest evidence you have is your bias.
I need much more than your bias LU to be swayed toward your way of seeing this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
