Nazarene Space

If we we're to believe Smart then the catholic and protest myth that the entire NT was written in Greek and that in 2nd Temple times all of Israel were hellinized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue.

Let's see what historic accounts have to say about the Israeli-Greek relations?

41 The king then issued a proclamation to his whole kingdom that all were to become a single people, each nation renouncing its particular customs. 42 All the gentiles conformed to the king's decree, 43 and many Israelites chose to accept his religion, sacrificing to idols and profaning the Sabbath. 44 The king also sent edicts by messenger to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, directing them to adopt customs foreign to the country, 45 banning burnt offerings, sacrifices and libations from the sanctuary, profaning Sabbaths and feasts, 46 defiling the sanctuary and everything holy, 47 building altars, shrines and temples for idols, sacrificing pigs and unclean beasts, 48 leaving their sons uncircumcised, and prostituting themselves to all kinds of impurity and abomination, 49 so that they should forget the Law and revoke all observance of it. 50 Anyone not obeying the king's command was to be put to death. (book of Maccabees)

 

** How can anyone state that Jews after those atrocities commited against Israel and the Temple suddenly just accepted the language of the ones comitting those atrocities as the national language??!! I mean, why do you think Smart that Jews celebrate Hanukkah?? To celebrate that they spook greek as a nation or to celebrate that the Greeks and their hellenization was fought off by Israel??


 

But Smart is now thinking (this is the NT we're talking about and the Apostles lived in a place with a lot of greeks that's why they wrote in Greek..) that i'm full of it and so i'll leave him with a couple of verses from the precious Greek NT;

 

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (Corinthians 13)

so greek paul promotes human offerings, no wonder alot of people opening their mind to Judaism reject him..

 

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. (Romans 5)

... what ?? ... greek paul was drunk when writing this, right ?

 

25 It is easier for a camel (this word in greek is kamelon but the Aramaic NT has Gamlo) to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mark 10)

However, gamlo', has a double meaning. As Aramaic evolved separately from Hebrew, it picked up new idioms and meanings to it's vocabulary. gamlo' is a perfect example, for Aramaic speaking peoples fashioned a rough, thick rope from camel's hair that had a very decent tensile strength, and after a while, it became to be known as, you guessed it, gamlo'.

 

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

thahahahaha.. too funny to even comment on!!

 

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship.. (Acts 8)

* So eunuchs were allowed to worship in the Temple eventhough Devarim 23:1 forbids this explicitly?? What year did that happen, the summer of 69 or sumtin ?? thaha

 

30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. (Mark 13)

ummm.. hey jesus, i think that your generation has passed since like 2000 years ago..

 

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9) + 9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22)

* Can you spell contradiction?? :-) Greek luke was drunk too or what ?? 

 

28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11)

again, so luke can't even tell the difference between the world or the Land of Israel ?? xD yep Smart, he was a greek if it is so!

 

44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

He is to show himself to one priest yet it it's a testimony to "them".. eazy on the booze there luke man, those greeks you never can tell can ya ? xD

 

 

And to close, if you (Smart) would have really studied the Peshitta you would have to learn Aramaic and read it for yourself and then you can say that you "studied" it and not just relying on what other people say about it, in the Aramaic all the Apostles and the Messiah himself show themselves to be quite the poets in numerous occasions yet in the greek it does not show at all..

Views: 100

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>If we we're to believe Smart then the catholic and protest myth that the entire NT was written in Greek and that in 2nd Temple times all of Israel were hellinized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue.

1. There is no myth. We have Irenaeus in 180AD telling us that the Apostles WROTE DOWN the Scriptures for us. What was he referring to? what was he quoting? GREEK. And this individual is in Apostolic Succession., which means his predesscesors like Papias or Polycarp, also accepted a Greek revelation. (with the exception of the Matthei Authenticum, which Papias calls the "oracles of Matthew" in Hebrew). So you can create your conspiracy theory, but the facts are, all of the earliest records we have are to a Greek New Testament.
2. It was not their mother tongue, that was Hebrew. However their second language, was Greek. This was absolutely necessary for living in Judea and the surrounding regions. You can not be under Roman authority and not be Greek-speaking. We have the Apostles in Acts speaking in Greek and preaching in Greek. the Apostle James, Peter, Paul, etc all are speaking in Greek in most of their preaching. However, we also have in Acts a few instances of Hebrew. Yet no Aramaic? What a shame.

>** How can anyone state that Jews after those atrocities commited against Israel and the Temple suddenly just accepted the language of the ones comitting those atrocities as the national language??!! I mean, why do you think Smart that Jews celebrate Hanukkah?? To celebrate that they spook greek as a nation or to celebrate that the Greeks and their hellenization was fought off by Israel??

Considering I have celebrated the Feast of Dedication every year of my life. This is not even a valid question. We expelled the Syrians in a glorious victory. the Hellenization did not come until about 100BC. (Look at the King's names! They took Greek Names!!!!!)

Anyways, Greek only became a dominant language in Judea after the Romans. 66BC. However, we do have Greek texts coming out of Judea at the time. even prior to the Romans.
2/3/4 Maccabees are all written in Greek. They were written at this time. Very interesting if Greek was essentially non-existing in Judea.

Corinthians 3:13
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
-- This is speaking about martyrdom, not human offerings---

Romans 5:7
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
-- No problem with this verse---

In reference to Mark 10, this one gets brought up often. Apparently because of your Aramaic bias you forget that this works fine with Hebrew.
gamal (Hebrew for camel)--> kamelon (Greek for camel). This is proof of Hebrew/Greek translation, disproving any Aramaic spins.

Matthew 19:12 ------- there is no issue with this.

Acts 8:27 ---- Are you assuming that he was going to worship, IN THE TEMPLE? Or could he just be there, as part of the Ethiopian envoy? You do know the Greek word for worship here can simply mean "prostrated/bowing before". Meaning one could take this to mean he was going to worship Yah facing the Temple? I'm sure there are commentaries on this. And if you dare say the Aramaic changes his status as eunuch, then you have no clue. All court officials at this time and before were eunuchs in most areas.

Mark 13:30 - generation = era. No problem here.

Acts 9 + 22 - This can easily be reconciled. In both instances they see a light but not the figure in the light (the man), in both cases they HEAR a voice, but the latter explains they did not understand what was being said. They simply heard noise. No contradiction. Light+Noise/Sound.

Acts 11:28 - One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.

World here = Israel-Syria (46-47AD). I can provide documentation if necessary. You can google this famine though.

Your quotation is from Mark. Not Luke. Mark 1:44
and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

>And to close, if you (Smart) would have really studied the Peshitta you would have to learn Aramaic and read it for yourself and then you can say that you "studied" it and not just relying on what other people say about it, in the Aramaic all the Apostles and the Messiah himself show themselves to be quite the poets in numerous occasions yet in the greek it does not show at all..

And how would you know my current knowledge of Aramaic? (in this case, Syriac). The Aramaic translators purposefully mangled the text to display poetry. Go look at the Coptic, it was done there also.
i would like to see you respond to the post of Jim in another topic :-)
it's hilarious to see that you actually believe all Jewry of Second Temple times in eretz Israel spoke Hebrew as a mother tongue if so then how do you explain the Targumim (which is something the Yemenite Jews still uphold) ??

Smart said:
>If we we're to believe Smart then the catholic and protest myth that the entire NT was written in Greek and that in 2nd Temple times all of Israel were hellinized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue.

1. There is no myth. We have Irenaeus in 180AD telling us that the Apostles WROTE DOWN the Scriptures for us. What was he referring to? what was he quoting? GREEK. And this individual is in Apostolic Succession., which means his predesscesors like Papias or Polycarp, also accepted a Greek revelation. (with the exception of the Matthei Authenticum, which Papias calls the "oracles of Matthew" in Hebrew). So you can create your conspiracy theory, but the facts are, all of the earliest records we have are to a Greek New Testament.
2. It was not their mother tongue, that was Hebrew. However their second language, was Greek. This was absolutely necessary for living in Judea and the surrounding regions. You can not be under Roman authority and not be Greek-speaking. We have the Apostles in Acts speaking in Greek and preaching in Greek. the Apostle James, Peter, Paul, etc all are speaking in Greek in most of their preaching. However, we also have in Acts a few instances of Hebrew. Yet no Aramaic? What a shame.

>** How can anyone state that Jews after those atrocities commited against Israel and the Temple suddenly just accepted the language of the ones comitting those atrocities as the national language??!! I mean, why do you think Smart that Jews celebrate Hanukkah?? To celebrate that they spook greek as a nation or to celebrate that the Greeks and their hellenization was fought off by Israel??

Considering I have celebrated the Feast of Dedication every year of my life. This is not even a valid question. We expelled the Syrians in a glorious victory. the Hellenization did not come until about 100BC. (Look at the King's names! They took Greek Names!!!!!)

Anyways, Greek only became a dominant language in Judea after the Romans. 66BC. However, we do have Greek texts coming out of Judea at the time. even prior to the Romans.
2/3/4 Maccabees are all written in Greek. They were written at this time. Very interesting if Greek was essentially non-existing in Judea.

Corinthians 3:13
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
-- This is speaking about martyrdom, not human offerings---

Romans 5:7
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
-- No problem with this verse---

In reference to Mark 10, this one gets brought up often. Apparently because of your Aramaic bias you forget that this works fine with Hebrew.
gamal (Hebrew for camel)--> kamelon (Greek for camel). This is proof of Hebrew/Greek translation, disproving any Aramaic spins.

Matthew 19:12 ------- there is no issue with this.

Acts 8:27 ---- Are you assuming that he was going to worship, IN THE TEMPLE? Or could he just be there, as part of the Ethiopian envoy? You do know the Greek word for worship here can simply mean "prostrated/bowing before". Meaning one could take this to mean he was going to worship Yah facing the Temple? I'm sure there are commentaries on this. And if you dare say the Aramaic changes his status as eunuch, then you have no clue. All court officials at this time and before were eunuchs in most areas.

Mark 13:30 - generation = era. No problem here.

Acts 9 + 22 - This can easily be reconciled. In both instances they see a light but not the figure in the light (the man), in both cases they HEAR a voice, but the latter explains they did not understand what was being said. They simply heard noise. No contradiction. Light+Noise/Sound.

Acts 11:28 - One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.

World here = Israel-Syria (46-47AD). I can provide documentation if necessary. You can google this famine though.

Your quotation is from Mark. Not Luke. Mark 1:44
and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

>And to close, if you (Smart) would have really studied the Peshitta you would have to learn Aramaic and read it for yourself and then you can say that you "studied" it and not just relying on what other people say about it, in the Aramaic all the Apostles and the Messiah himself show themselves to be quite the poets in numerous occasions yet in the greek it does not show at all..

And how would you know my current knowledge of Aramaic? (in this case, Syriac). The Aramaic translators purposefully mangled the text to display poetry. Go look at the Coptic, it was done there also.
the Targums date to approximately 200AD. Long after this.

Serkan said:
i would like to see you respond to the post of Jim in another topic :-)
it's hilarious to see that you actually believe all Jewry of Second Temple times in eretz Israel spoke Hebrew as a mother tongue if so then how do you explain the Targumim (which is something the Yemenite Jews still uphold) ??

Smart said:
>If we we're to believe Smart then the catholic and protest myth that the entire NT was written in Greek and that in 2nd Temple times all of Israel were hellinized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue.

1. There is no myth. We have Irenaeus in 180AD telling us that the Apostles WROTE DOWN the Scriptures for us. What was he referring to? what was he quoting? GREEK. And this individual is in Apostolic Succession., which means his predesscesors like Papias or Polycarp, also accepted a Greek revelation. (with the exception of the Matthei Authenticum, which Papias calls the "oracles of Matthew" in Hebrew). So you can create your conspiracy theory, but the facts are, all of the earliest records we have are to a Greek New Testament.
2. It was not their mother tongue, that was Hebrew. However their second language, was Greek. This was absolutely necessary for living in Judea and the surrounding regions. You can not be under Roman authority and not be Greek-speaking. We have the Apostles in Acts speaking in Greek and preaching in Greek. the Apostle James, Peter, Paul, etc all are speaking in Greek in most of their preaching. However, we also have in Acts a few instances of Hebrew. Yet no Aramaic? What a shame.

>** How can anyone state that Jews after those atrocities commited against Israel and the Temple suddenly just accepted the language of the ones comitting those atrocities as the national language??!! I mean, why do you think Smart that Jews celebrate Hanukkah?? To celebrate that they spook greek as a nation or to celebrate that the Greeks and their hellenization was fought off by Israel??

Considering I have celebrated the Feast of Dedication every year of my life. This is not even a valid question. We expelled the Syrians in a glorious victory. the Hellenization did not come until about 100BC. (Look at the King's names! They took Greek Names!!!!!)

Anyways, Greek only became a dominant language in Judea after the Romans. 66BC. However, we do have Greek texts coming out of Judea at the time. even prior to the Romans.
2/3/4 Maccabees are all written in Greek. They were written at this time. Very interesting if Greek was essentially non-existing in Judea.

Corinthians 3:13
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
-- This is speaking about martyrdom, not human offerings---

Romans 5:7
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
-- No problem with this verse---

In reference to Mark 10, this one gets brought up often. Apparently because of your Aramaic bias you forget that this works fine with Hebrew.
gamal (Hebrew for camel)--> kamelon (Greek for camel). This is proof of Hebrew/Greek translation, disproving any Aramaic spins.

Matthew 19:12 ------- there is no issue with this.

Acts 8:27 ---- Are you assuming that he was going to worship, IN THE TEMPLE? Or could he just be there, as part of the Ethiopian envoy? You do know the Greek word for worship here can simply mean "prostrated/bowing before". Meaning one could take this to mean he was going to worship Yah facing the Temple? I'm sure there are commentaries on this. And if you dare say the Aramaic changes his status as eunuch, then you have no clue. All court officials at this time and before were eunuchs in most areas.

Mark 13:30 - generation = era. No problem here.

Acts 9 + 22 - This can easily be reconciled. In both instances they see a light but not the figure in the light (the man), in both cases they HEAR a voice, but the latter explains they did not understand what was being said. They simply heard noise. No contradiction. Light+Noise/Sound.

Acts 11:28 - One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.

World here = Israel-Syria (46-47AD). I can provide documentation if necessary. You can google this famine though.

Your quotation is from Mark. Not Luke. Mark 1:44
and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

>And to close, if you (Smart) would have really studied the Peshitta you would have to learn Aramaic and read it for yourself and then you can say that you "studied" it and not just relying on what other people say about it, in the Aramaic all the Apostles and the Messiah himself show themselves to be quite the poets in numerous occasions yet in the greek it does not show at all..

And how would you know my current knowledge of Aramaic? (in this case, Syriac). The Aramaic translators purposefully mangled the text to display poetry. Go look at the Coptic, it was done there also.
yeah great answer :-) lol that's all i can say to most of your claims certainly about Hebrew in those days :-)
so can i have some evidence please for greek being spoken by kol am Israel in those days ? eventhough the most respected and smartest Jewish historian of that time who lived in eretz Israel says the exact opposite of all your claims

Smart said:
the Targums date to approximately 200AD. Long after this.

Serkan said:
i would like to see you respond to the post of Jim in another topic :-)
it's hilarious to see that you actually believe all Jewry of Second Temple times in eretz Israel spoke Hebrew as a mother tongue if so then how do you explain the Targumim (which is something the Yemenite Jews still uphold) ??

Smart said:
>If we we're to believe Smart then the catholic and protest myth that the entire NT was written in Greek and that in 2nd Temple times all of Israel were hellinized and spoke Greek as their mother tongue.

1. There is no myth. We have Irenaeus in 180AD telling us that the Apostles WROTE DOWN the Scriptures for us. What was he referring to? what was he quoting? GREEK. And this individual is in Apostolic Succession., which means his predesscesors like Papias or Polycarp, also accepted a Greek revelation. (with the exception of the Matthei Authenticum, which Papias calls the "oracles of Matthew" in Hebrew). So you can create your conspiracy theory, but the facts are, all of the earliest records we have are to a Greek New Testament.
2. It was not their mother tongue, that was Hebrew. However their second language, was Greek. This was absolutely necessary for living in Judea and the surrounding regions. You can not be under Roman authority and not be Greek-speaking. We have the Apostles in Acts speaking in Greek and preaching in Greek. the Apostle James, Peter, Paul, etc all are speaking in Greek in most of their preaching. However, we also have in Acts a few instances of Hebrew. Yet no Aramaic? What a shame.

>** How can anyone state that Jews after those atrocities commited against Israel and the Temple suddenly just accepted the language of the ones comitting those atrocities as the national language??!! I mean, why do you think Smart that Jews celebrate Hanukkah?? To celebrate that they spook greek as a nation or to celebrate that the Greeks and their hellenization was fought off by Israel??

Considering I have celebrated the Feast of Dedication every year of my life. This is not even a valid question. We expelled the Syrians in a glorious victory. the Hellenization did not come until about 100BC. (Look at the King's names! They took Greek Names!!!!!)

Anyways, Greek only became a dominant language in Judea after the Romans. 66BC. However, we do have Greek texts coming out of Judea at the time. even prior to the Romans.
2/3/4 Maccabees are all written in Greek. They were written at this time. Very interesting if Greek was essentially non-existing in Judea.

Corinthians 3:13
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
-- This is speaking about martyrdom, not human offerings---

Romans 5:7
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
-- No problem with this verse---

In reference to Mark 10, this one gets brought up often. Apparently because of your Aramaic bias you forget that this works fine with Hebrew.
gamal (Hebrew for camel)--> kamelon (Greek for camel). This is proof of Hebrew/Greek translation, disproving any Aramaic spins.

Matthew 19:12 ------- there is no issue with this.

Acts 8:27 ---- Are you assuming that he was going to worship, IN THE TEMPLE? Or could he just be there, as part of the Ethiopian envoy? You do know the Greek word for worship here can simply mean "prostrated/bowing before". Meaning one could take this to mean he was going to worship Yah facing the Temple? I'm sure there are commentaries on this. And if you dare say the Aramaic changes his status as eunuch, then you have no clue. All court officials at this time and before were eunuchs in most areas.

Mark 13:30 - generation = era. No problem here.

Acts 9 + 22 - This can easily be reconciled. In both instances they see a light but not the figure in the light (the man), in both cases they HEAR a voice, but the latter explains they did not understand what was being said. They simply heard noise. No contradiction. Light+Noise/Sound.

Acts 11:28 - One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.

World here = Israel-Syria (46-47AD). I can provide documentation if necessary. You can google this famine though.

Your quotation is from Mark. Not Luke. Mark 1:44
and He said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

>And to close, if you (Smart) would have really studied the Peshitta you would have to learn Aramaic and read it for yourself and then you can say that you "studied" it and not just relying on what other people say about it, in the Aramaic all the Apostles and the Messiah himself show themselves to be quite the poets in numerous occasions yet in the greek it does not show at all..

And how would you know my current knowledge of Aramaic? (in this case, Syriac). The Aramaic translators purposefully mangled the text to display poetry. Go look at the Coptic, it was done there also.
During the period of Assyrian domination, the language was used for the administration of the empire. This practice was continued by the Babylonian and Persian empires which ruled from Ethiopia to India. The Jews who returned to Israel from Babylonian captivity and established the Second Jewish Commonwealth in the 4th century BCE brought Aramaic with them. During this time, Hebrew lost its place as an everyday language amongst Jews, who adopted Aramaic instead. Hebrew was known as the Lashon Hakodesh, or the "Holy Tongue," and was reserved for matters such as prayer, and not for ordinary social and commercial activities. (A similar situation developed centuries later with Yiddish.)

During this period, knowledge of Hebrew was limited amongst the masses to the extent that the public reading of the Scripture in Hebrew had to be accompanied by a translation in Aramaic. Some of these targums, as they were known, also incorporated interpretation. Aramaic was so dominant in Jewish life that both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds are dominated by Aramaic.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1051040/jewish/Aramai...

Smart said:
the Targums date to approximately 200AD. Long after this.

Serkan said:
Hi Smart -

Josephus was there.

Josephus wrote that he was one of just a few Jews in the entire nation of Judah who understood Greek - he wrote that Jewish parents would rather feed their children swine that let them learn Greek.

Aramaic was the language of the entire region for more than 300 years prior to the birth of Yeshua, and it is absolutely inconceivable that the Aramaic was translated from the Greek - the evidence is overwhelming.

All the Greek Texts are loaded with incorect grammer and have many words where the Greek translators had no word Greek word and were forced to transliterate the Aramaic word into Greek letters.

In the Peshitta the only words which are transliterated fro Greek are proper names.

Hebrew was essentialy a dead language that ony the most educated to spoke, and then only in the Temple or Synagogue, this is why so many of The Dead Sea Scrolls were Aramaic - and the reason why Jesus quoted Aramaic versions of the Old Testament - His dying words in Matthew 27.46 is a letter for letter, word for word quote of The Aramaic OT (The Targum) for Psalms 22.1:


I don't think you understand how close Aramaic is to Hebrew, or the situation in Jesus' day.

Saying that Jesus spoke Hebrew in daily life is comparable to someone speaking Old English today - it just doesn't happen.

And the relationship between Aramaic and Hebrew is just as close as Modern English and Old English.

But people today simply do not go around speaking and writing the way they did 400 years ago.

The Church of the East had the entire Peshitta prior to 70 AD - the earliest Church writers were quoting the Peshitta in 100 AD, before any Greek translations were even made.

It is just how it is.

The same people who claim the Greek primacy are the same people who changed the Sabbath and introduced idolatry:

http://www.lumberguy.net/359Satansnumber.html

Jesus called them the Synaogue of Satan:

http://www.lumberguy.net/FAQ3.html

There is no truth in them:

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3.4

Blessings -

Jim
can you show me the qoutings of the Church fathers when they qouted Peshitta and not greek manuscripts ??

Jim Wright said:
Hi Smart -

The Church of the East had the entire Peshitta prior to 70 AD - the earliest Church writers were quoting the Peshitta in 100 AD, before any Greek translations were even made.

. 1 John 3.4

Blessings -

Jim
Actually what we would expect is for them to quote the Old Syriac, or if writing in Greek or Latint, to quote the Western Type of Text, and this is in fact generally what we do see in almost every case, except for the Alexandrians Clement and Origen who quote teh Greek Alexandrian text. Also the Syrian and Assyrian "Church Fathers" quote the Old Syriac. This is all documented in my book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament at http://www/lulu.com/nazarane

Serkan said:
can you show me the qoutings of the Church fathers when they qouted Peshitta and not greek manuscripts ??

Jim Wright said:
Hi Smart -

The Church of the East had the entire Peshitta prior to 70 AD - the earliest Church writers were quoting the Peshitta in 100 AD, before any Greek translations were even made.

. 1 John 3.4

Blessings -

Jim
Hi Smart -

I beleive that a careful reading of Ignatious, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement and Polycarp's writings show they quote scripture they were translating from Aramaic (especially Ignatious - he was writing to non-Greek speakers in Antioch and died in 110 AD), and the entire history of The Church of the East shows that the Aramaic came first:
************************************
At Edessa, capital of the principality of Osrhoëne (in eastern Syria), and western Mesopotamia neither Latin nor Greek was understood. Therefore, the native language Syriac (a Semitic language related to Aramaic) was used in Christian writings. The political fortunes of Edessa present a remarkable contrast to those of other centers of Christianity. Until 216 CE in the reign of the Emperor Caracalla, Edessa lay outside the Roman Empire. Christianity seems to have reached the Euphrates valley about the middle of the 2nd century, that is, while the country was still an independent state. Since its people did not speak Greek, like their neighboring Syrians in Antioch, it is not surprising that the Christianity of Edessa began to develop independently, without the admixture of Greek philosophy and Roman methods of government that at an early date modified primitive Christianity in the West and transformed it into the amalgam known as Catholicism.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml
*******************************

Irenaeus quotes Papias, fragments of Papias' writings are Aramaic quotes.

The Church of the East was quite a bit larger than the Catholics and the few in the west who held fast to the truth into the Middle Ages. At their height they had a 100,000,000 million members and Churches streching from Egypt to the far side of China, and from Azerbaijan to southern India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ES_Exterior_Provinces.jpg

The Gospel was in Mesopotamia and India before it was in Rome, thanks to the work of Peter (1 Peter 5.13) and Thomas.

And Thomas is an Aramaic name BTW:

The Aramaic Tau'ma: the name "Thomas" itself comes from the Aramaic word for twin: T'oma (תאומא). Thus the name convention Didymus Thomas thrice repeated in the Gospel of John is in fact a tautology that could potentially be interpreted as omitting the Twin's actual name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

And Greek was never the secondary language in Judea until after the Jews were expelled in 70 AD - Hebrew was the secondary language and had been since 500 BC:
*****************************************
Aramaic, as a Semitic language, was a common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722 BC – 330 BC). Aramaic remained a common language of Israel in the first century AD, despite the subsequent Macedonian-Greek (331 BC) and Roman (63 BC) invasions.

Most of the apostles from the Galilee region also spoke Aramaic. The message of Christianity spread (primarily among Jewish Aramaic-speaking enclaves) throughout Canaan, Syria and Mesopotamia, and even to Kerala, India in Aramaic (or Syriac; Aram is the Hebrew word for Syria).[5]

It is generally accepted that Jesus was born a Jew, and grew up in a Jewish family in Galilee. For over a half-millennium, one language for Jews was Aramaic, stemming from the Neo-Assyrian Empire's invasion of the Northern Kingdom (722 BC) and the Babylonian captivity of the Kingdom of Judah (586 BC). This became a western-Aramaic dialect, a version of standard Aramaic (which had originally been the language of Damascus), and a number of Hebrew words and some Hebrew-inspired grammar were often mixed into Jewish usage. However, for some Jews, Hebrew remained a primary colloquial language, until the 3rd century AD.[6] Specifically, in the first century A.D., Aramaic was already dominant in the regions of Samaria and Galilee, where Jesus came from, but a late form of spoken Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, was still used as a vernacular in Judaea[7][8], especially in the rural areas, outside of Jerusalem.[9][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

Like it or not Aramaic was the primary language in the area and had been for many years.

As I wrote before Josephus was there and he wrote he was one of the few people in the entire nation who knew Greek at all - and he could barely write it:


The reason you believe Greek primacy is because the Cathlolics have spent 1700 years covering up the truth.

There is only two books that do show show clear internal evidence of Aramaic primacy, Jude and 2 John and that is beause they are so short.

There is no internal evidence of Greek primacy - none.

Blessings -

Jim








Serkan said:
can you show me the qoutings of the Church fathers when they qouted Peshitta and not greek manuscripts ??

Jim Wright said:
Hi Smart -

The Church of the East had the entire Peshitta prior to 70 AD - the earliest Church writers were quoting the Peshitta in 100 AD, before any Greek translations were even made.

. 1 John 3.4

Blessings -

Jim
From The Jewish Encyclopedia on Aramaic:

In point of fact, at the time of the Second Temple, both languages were in common use in Palestine: the Hebrew in the academies and in the circles of the learned, the Aramaic among the lower classes in the intercourse of daily life. But the Aramaic continued to spread, and became the customary popular idiom; not, however, to the complete exclusion of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, while Hebrew survived in the schools and among the learned—being rooted, as it were, in the national mind—it was continuously exposed to the influence of Aramaic. Under this influence a new form of Hebrew was developed, which has been preserved in the tannaitic literature embodying the traditions of the last two or three centuries before the common era. So that even in those fields where Hebrew remained the dominant tongue, it was closely pressed by Aramaic. There is extant an almost unique halakic utterance in Aramaic ('Eduy. viii. 4) of Yose b. Joezer, a contemporary of the author of Daniel. Legal forms for various public documents, such as marriage-contracts, bills of divorce, etc., were then drawn up in Aramaic. Official messages from Jerusalem to the provinces were couched in the same language. The "List of the Fast-Days" (nullMegillat Ta'anit), edited before the destruction of the Temple, was written in Aramaic. Josephus considers Aramaic so thoroughly identical with Hebrew that he quotes Aramaic words as Hebrew ("Ant." iii. 10, § 6), and describes the language in which Titus' proposals to the Jerusalemites were made (which certainly were in Aramaic) as Hebrew ("B. J." vi. 2, § 1). It was in Aramaic that Josephus had written his book on the "Jewish War," as he himself informs us in the introduction, before he wrote it in Greek. That he meant the Aramaic is evident from the reason he assigns, namely, that he desired to make this first attempt intelligible to the Parthians, Babylonians, Arabs, the Jews living beyond the Euphrates, and the inhabitants of Adiabene. That the Babylonian diaspora was linguistically Aramaized is shown by the fact that Hillel loved to frame his maxims in that language.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1707&letter=A&...


The Targum, as an institution, reaches back to the earliest centuries of the Second Temple. Ezra may not have been, as tradition alleges, the inaugurator of the Targum; but it could not have been much after his day that the necessity made itself felt for the supplementing of the public reading of the Hebrew text of Scripture in the synagogue by a translation of it into the Aramaic vernacular. The tannaitic Halakah speaks of the Targum as an institution closely connected with the public Bible-reading, and one of long-established standing. But, just as the translation of the Scripture lesson for the benefit of the assembled people in the synagogue had to be in Aramaic, so all addresses and homilies hinging upon the Scripture had to be in the same language. Thus Jesus and his nearest disciples spoke Aramaic and taught in it (see Dalman, "Die Worte Jesu").

When the Second Temple was destroyed, and the last remains of national independence had perished, the Jewish people, thus entering upon a new phase of historical life, had become almost completely an Aramaic-speaking people. A small section of the diaspora spoke Greek

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1707&letter=A&...

Greek primacy is a Catholic lie

Blessings -

Jim
"1. There is no myth. We have Irenaeus in 180AD telling us that the Apostles WROTE DOWN the Scriptures for us. What was he referring to? what was he quoting? GREEK."

that the apostles wrote down the scriptures for us it doesn't mean the greek speaking "us" but for us here means for all the people who may have found edification from the writings, i.e. the early Church (composed of diverse tongues). for all you know Iranaeus spoke, preached and wrote in old latin also in his see of Lyons but i do not misconstrue him as to mean for us as quoting in latin from the pen of the apostles. that is a very weak fallacy to use.

"And this individual is in Apostolic Succession., which means his predesscesors like Papias or Polycarp, also accepted a Greek revelation. (with the exception of the Matthei Authenticum, which Papias calls the "oracles of Matthew" in Hebrew)."

*acceptance* of any translation is not a proof against the original.

today your diocesan bishop accepted an english translation of the scriptures; what if your great grandsons will someday make a post claiming that the apostles wrote in english because it was the translation *accepted* by the bishops of his grandpa? that's ridiculous.

"So you can create your conspiracy theory, but the facts are, all of the earliest records we have are to a Greek New Testament."

there was obviously a conspiracy. even Dr. Bart Ehrman a greek supremacist turned agnostic advanced the theory that it was no less than the *orthodox Church* that altered many things in the bible to *support their preferred views*.

this is something i tried to avoid saying here, but please allow me to present this with qualms:

a) corruption of manuscripts in the eastern tongue was part of antisemitic madness in the west; if they had the will to destroy lives of Jews why not burn a simple writing in their tongue? (i mean here both aramaic and hebrew scripts, either or both the west did not understand then).

b) it was the tendency of the west to destroy not only religion of the east (Titus did against the Temple) but also the *culture* of the east (1st Maccabees), except only at times when these --religion and culture, served some practical values to their effective dominance over and above the easterners.

c) the vicious attitude of the west to replace the eastern civilization in the latter's historical and cultural preeminence: this is shown in some corny books written by people flaunting *Ph.Ds* in their names, advancing silly theories, like, claiming that the persians (whites) were descended from the northern aryans who migrated to the east; or that the neanderthal man was found in northern europe --though in truth they abounded in mt. carmel of the aretz of much earlier dating; or that gun powder and porcelain were inventions of the west --but not by china! or that numbers were invented by the greeks --but not the arabs! or that apostle Kefa who was recorded to have preached among the Jews in babylonia (chaldia) was buried in Rome!? --because the romans had to take precedence also over and above the eastern churches, or of the violent destruction of the sphinx in Egypt becaue its nose did not appear like that of the westerners?, we can go on almost forever listing these bald faced claims of liars pretending to be acadamic authorities but to the contrary the more they suppress evidence the more they manifest their own ignorance.

[it is not actually a matter of 'east vs. west', history is not a matter of compass that only finds four main directions. everything that civilization offers is for all men, without necessarily oppressing one another's culture or pride. pardon me, but it is just the way things happened before and i don't know when will this end. feel free to shout back at this post]

"2. It was not their mother tongue, that was Hebrew. However their second language, was Greek. This was absolutely necessary for living in Judea and the surrounding regions. You can not be under Roman authority and not be Greek-speaking."

for practical purposes to please the brutal invaders, yes, i'd strive to learn a little to let them hear me say some Alpha, Betah, Kappah, Delta, Lambdah in the market or streets, rather than die. but NOT when i speak to my people nor for any religious matters.

"We have the Apostles in Acts speaking in Greek and preaching in Greek."

why, were you there listening when they *spoke*? (you are a liar)

i have here evidence that Paul in Israel spoke in Hebrew in order to be understood! -Acts 21:28,40

"...the Apostle James, Peter, Paul, etc all are speaking in Greek in most of their preaching."

*..in most...*? can you substantiate this claim with evidence that not only *some* but *most*?

"However, we also have in Acts a few instances of Hebrew. Yet no Aramaic? What a shame."

at your first post i thought you were a scholar. but this time you are telling us the truth: that you did not know, that whatever your greek advocates call *Hebrew* was something his father and mother were not able to differentiate which of it was Aramaic and which of it was pure classical Hebrew, because all that the common greek people knew is that it was not greek. can you readily tell which is indonesian and which is malaysian speech? if you can't then it was like that for a simple greek in the west that time: talking about something that they did not even understand in the first place.

"Considering I have celebrated the Feast of Dedication every year of my life. This is not even a valid question. We expelled the Syrians in a glorious victory. the Hellenization did not come until about 100BC. (Look at the King's names! They took Greek Names!!!!!)"

their names were of course Jewish, but these names were suppressed in the records in favor of the western similitudes. why not? a greek translators (redactor) struggling over choices, of course he prefers to render it in his favor.

"Anyways, Greek only became a dominant language in Judea after the Romans. 66BC. However, we do have Greek texts coming out of Judea at the time. even prior to the Romans. 2/3/4 Maccabees are all written in Greek. They were written at this time. Very interesting if Greek was essentially non-existing in Judea."

wrong. they did not come out from Judea. these records were stories as related by familiar jews in the diaspora: these records came from Alexandrian Jewry not from aretz, that's why in these materials you will find some anachronistic particles compared to the 1st Maccabees. anyway we do not treat the book as authoritative. they are only part of historical records, and you know, history is often bent and even twisted at times depending on the intention of the writer.

"And how would you know my current knowledge of Aramaic? (in this case, Syriac)."

wrong again: there was no *syriac* until the greeks coined that word. throughout the ancient history the tongue always takes its name from the ancestors: Aramaic for the sons of Aram, Ivrit for the sons of Iver [the son of Shem].


"...the Targums date to approximately 200AD. Long after this."

wrong. Dead Sea Scrolls offered some targumim that could date back to the pre-christian era. in fact tradition has it that the practice of targum is traced back to Ezra when he had to employ aramaic in the synagogue because when the people returned from exile he found out that it was necessary to do so.
great posts and thanks for showing Smart how wrong he is.. but as you can all see, he's become silent and we all know why :-)

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service