Thank you, Kevin, for a good comprehensive presentation on this subject. Thank you too, Reasonable Faith Adelaide, for this recording of the address and discussion and for uploading it, so enabling me to view it when I was unable to attend the event.
I usually use the ESV or NIV but I am not an expert on which is the best translation. NT Wright has said that reading the NT in English is like drinking wine through a tea bag. I agree. If you are keen (and I hope you are), it is not all that hard to look up the Greek text and the meaning of the Greek words using online tools, such as Bible Hub. Eg go to biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm. This is the interlinear bible. This link is just for John 1:1. This will give you the Greek, a transliteration, and an English translation of each Greek word. However, you can click on links and get an in depth explanation of the meaning of each Greek word. It can be quite enlightening and enriching. You can do this without knowing Greek. Often English translations a pretty good, but sometimes they do aim at English readability rather than a full rendition of the meaning of the Greek text. Have fun.
@@rokitman5753 That sounds a little odd. There is a claim by Papias that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but the copies that we have are in Greek. The talk was on the NT manuscripts. Other than the question over Matthew, the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic and probably knew Hebrew and Greek as well, but why would Hebrew be better than Greek? I have been learning Greek and I mainly read the NT in Greek. NT Wright has said that "Reading the NT in English is like drinking wine through a teabag." I think I know what he means. I find it a very enriching experience.
Most Hebrew bible scholars say that the worst thing to happen to the bible is that it got translated it to english. An old bible scholar said while looking at bibles in a christian book store the lady working there said "we have the KJV and its half off " the old scholar looked at her and said "atleast". True story
@@rokitman5753 It is interesting to read it in Greek and then read the English. Most of the English is pretty good but there are many instances where there is a richness that is difficult to reflect in English and so there is something lost in the translation. That is why preachers should be trained in Greek so that they can explain these things. I have not studied Hebrew yet, but the same probably applies.
I don't know if you can answer this one but at 1:00:50 the speaker says the Church fathers quote the NT except for 11 verses. Do we know which verses those are?
Kevin Rogers Thank you for your reply. Is that also true (not necessarily 11 verses) if we include the works of later fathers such as Augustine, John Chrysostom, Athanasius (and other Coptic/OO fathers)?
Kevin Rogers I get your point re the 11 verses reference. I'd never heard it before and it did sound too good to be true which is why I wanted specifics :D I am more interested in the wider notion of cross referencing manuscripts available to scholars today with what the Church fathers (particularly pre Chalcedonian schism) had available to them. Thanks once more for clarifying the matter, I'll do some googling now :)
Very Greek centered presentation. Not complete since the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic - yes, all of it. And the earliest manuscript is dated 78 AD - much earlier than any extant Greek fragment.
I submitted the following question to chatGPT: Was the new testament written in aramaic? Here is the reply: The New Testament of the Bible was primarily written in Greek, not Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean and was widely understood and used during the time when the New Testament was written, which is believed to be in the first century AD. However, it is possible that some of the sayings of Jesus and a few other portions of the New Testament may have originally been spoken in Aramaic, which was the common language spoken by Jesus and many people in the region at that time. These Aramaic sayings might have been later translated into Greek by the authors of the New Testament. There is also a hypothesis known as the Aramaic Primacy theory, which suggests that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. However, this theory is not widely accepted by scholars, and the consensus among biblical scholars is that the New Testament was primarily written in Greek. chatGPT says says the following about Aramaic Primacy theory: The Aramaic Primacy theory is a controversial hypothesis that suggests that the original language of Jesus and the early Christian community was Aramaic, rather than Greek or Hebrew. According to this theory, the New Testament writings were originally composed in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Supporters of the Aramaic Primacy theory argue that Aramaic was the common language spoken in the region of Palestine during Jesus' time, and it was the language in which Jesus would have preached and communicated with his disciples. They claim that the Greek texts of the New Testament contain Aramaic idioms and linguistic elements that suggest a translation from an Aramaic source. One of the key pieces of evidence cited by proponents of the Aramaic Primacy theory is the existence of the Peshitta, a Syriac translation of the Bible that includes the New Testament. They argue that the Peshitta represents an early Aramaic version of the New Testament and provides evidence for the original Aramaic text. However, the majority of biblical scholars and linguists do not support the Aramaic Primacy theory. They argue that there is no direct evidence to support the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek, and the vast majority of the text is linguistically consistent with Greek literary style and vocabulary. Scholars point out that it is not uncommon for translations to incorporate idiomatic expressions and linguistic features from the target language. The presence of Aramaic elements in the Greek text can be attributed to the influence of Aramaic-speaking communities and the use of Aramaic as a spoken language in the region, rather than indicating an Aramaic source for the New Testament. In conclusion, while the Aramaic Primacy theory has some proponents, it is not widely accepted among biblical scholars and linguists. The prevailing consensus is that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek, although Aramaic would have been the spoken language of Jesus and his immediate followers. My comments: There are some sections in the gospls that reflect Aramiac sources and the Greek looks as though it is a translation from Aramic. Luke infers that he used prior written sources, some of which could be written in Aramaic and are since lost. However, Luke was primarily writing for the gentiles and he was highly proficent in Greek, so he had no reason to write his gospel or Acts in Aramaic. The letters were mainly written to gentiles so that is good reason to use Greek. There is a possibility that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. All the earliest muanscripts are Greek. There are no early Aramaic manuscripts.
@@ReasonableFaithSA Oh you did, did you? Lol. ChatGPT is full of false information. I makes things up. I've tested it with many facts and it can't even cite publications correctly. It makes them all up. If you are trying to disprove what my comment said, nice try. I actually have the published book from 1719 where it is listed.
niv 1 Cor 14:20, "Brothers stop thinking like children". Mt 18:3, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. One of the verses has to be wrong or both are lies. Mt 19:17, "Why do you ask me what is good?". "There is only one who's good". But Jesus speaks of his chosen or those given him by God as "my holy, perfect, righteous people! So, how can Christians be holy and not good at the same time?
Verses llike these should be considered sympathetically within their context. An analogy can be used in different ways. In Matt 18 Jesus says we should be humble, inquisitive and teachable like children. In 1 Cor 14, Paul is saying we shouldn't be childish. These are 2 different aspects of children. Some childish behaviour is good and some is bad, so we should copy the good and reject the bad. This is obvious within the context. Likewise with goodness. Study them carefully within their context and they are are not hard to resolve. Sometimes contrasts are used deliberately. A classic is Proverbs 26:4-5 which says, 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. Here are 2 verses that are directly contradictory, but are right next to each other. You can react and say, "There you go, the bible contradicts itself", but if you think carefully about what the author is really saying, then it is brilliant.
OBVIOUSLY you have a problem with christianity, if you have no faith , you lack discernment, only true followers of christ TRUELY FEEL WHAT HE SAID, IT IS LTERALLY THE LIVING WIORD, for the faithful, this is god we are dealing with, he is not going to give people that just want to scoff and mock the blessing to understand. I am sure you will not understand what i am saying, and simply write it off as some religious nut blabbering, but if you only realized how close to the most important truth in THE WORLD OR THE NEXT LIFE IS TO YOU..., but because you choose not to have faith, you simply see words. I really hope you decide to take it serious one day, obviously you maybe interested if you are here..EITHER DIVE IN HEAD FIRST CAUTION TO THE WIND AND FOLLOW, OR SADLY YOU WILL CONTINUE THIS ATTITUDE AND MISS OUT..I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY..I USED TO THINK PEOPLE THAT TALKED LIKE THIS WERE WEAK AND USING REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY FOR THEIR WEAKNESSES..BUT IT YOU TRUELY OBEY WITH PURE FAITH..I PROMISE, YOU WILL NEVER GO BACK TO NOT LIVING FOR CHRIST.
bob if you read the bible with faith, and or under guidance of the spirit, which cannot be done in the carnal mind..you will understand it is a more than established fact he is saying they are not thinking as (godly)men(thoroughly, comprehensive, diigently, in alignment with the way they were taught by gods word etc)...the next verse has a known and clearly defined by character context , to become like children, innocent, trusting, loving, open, unconformed to traditions of the world/carnal mnd etc etc..it is truely very conceptualized.
John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/BurgonAlexandrian
Mark was written around 40 by Cornelius, the Roman centurion featured in Acts 10, after he was debriefed for 3 days by Peter and was the source for what has become the Gospel of Peter, a version of which began to circulate in the Roman legions before Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. It is not unlikely that Cornelius is the centurion in Mark 15:39 and clearly the centurion who Jesus justifies by faith in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. This Romann soldier's version of the Gospel of Peter had bubbled up the Roman chain of command to Tiberius by 37 with sufficient veracity that Tiberius proposed to the Senate that Jesus be made a legal diety and the Christians be unmolested, The Senate rejected the idea because it wasn't their idea. This event is cited by Turtillian in his Apology, Chapter 5, around 180 and tends to indicate that the term "Christians" was coined by Roman soldiers immediately, as is the wont of soldiers universally to attach labels characteristic of their subject. For example, Druid warriors were called "Britons" because they painted their bodies blue to go into battle, American soldiers call the Buddhist monk who burned himself alive in Saigon in 1963 to protest the Diem government "Zippo Monks" in the same spirit as Romans called followers of Jesus "Christians", a Greek word meaning "Messiah". Mark begins at the moment Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent and and the Roman intelligence services began to maintail an intelligence file on His activities. Whatever Jewish theology in Mark is captured coincidental to the details of the spy reports collected. These spy reports are represented in the narrative of Mark by the 41 pericopes that begin "Immediately", which was a literary device Cornelius employed to insert this intelligence product into the narrative. These intelligence products were collected by routine surveillance before Jesus was arrested. Mark was written after Peter's visit with Cornelius, which is reflected in Mark 7: 1 - 20, especially the verse "...thus all foods were declared pure". This opened the door to bringing gentiles into covenant membership with Jewish Christians. Mark is organized as a military report, detailing who Jesus was, where His authority originated, what his order of battle looked like, what resources he could mobilize and the threat He represented to Rome. The evidence is that He was sufficiently benign that neither Pilate nor Herod considered Him a threat, Pilate having no idea who He was and Herod only interested in His entertainment value. As a military report, the autograph was forwarded from Palestine to the Praetorian Guard in Rome (which Acts suggests Cornelius was associated with by birth) as additional intelligence support to Tiberius' proposal (although he was now dead). The Praetorian Guard vetted the original intelligence coming to Tiberius and was probably the intended recipient of Paul's epistle to the Romans, which is a legal argument outlining the continuity of the Law of Moses in the ninistry of Jesus. When Paul reaches Rome, the Praetorian Guards is one of the gentile groups he preaches to. Luke/Acts seems to have been commissioned by a member of the Equistrian class to expand upon Mark's version of events, which is to say, the Praetorian Guards sought additional information about this strange creature who rose from the dead, Luke/Acts has been prepared as an amicus brief in support of Paul's pending defense in Rome and tends to reflect that a completed version of Mark was available to Luke by 59, which Paul was imprisoned at Caeserica by Felix. As a Greek physcian, Luke probably had a ob/gyn practice with Jewish women, because he did not consider their natural body processes to be defiling in any manner. Sura 19: 1 - 33 in the Quran tends to reflect Luke's version of the nativity. Romans and Luke/Acts should be seen as companions in Paul's lobbying efforts in Rome. John Mark, the name sake of the Gospel of Mark, has a bit part in Mark: he is the youth who runs away naked from the Temple guards in Gethsemene and he is the source of Jesus's passion in the garden: remember, Peter et all fell asleep while Jesus was praying, three times. John Mark was probably no older than 15 and may be the child in Mark 9:37, which is the statement of core values in the economics of Jesus and triangulates with the Baby Jesus and Romans 3:21. After John Mark abandons Paul's missionary, he goes to Alexandria and establishes the first Christian publishing house (according to Dan Wallace, 90% of manuscipts produced before the 4th Century came out of Alexandria). John Mark is also the author of the Gospel of John and is the Disciple Jesus loved, The Gospel of John is a companion to the Gospel of Mark, nearly doubling the narrative portrait of Jesus initiated by Cornelius. The narratives of Mark and John converge at Mark 11 and John 11, the morning of Palm Sunday occuring in Mark and the evening occuring in John after Jesus has surveyed the Temple. Jesus gets His final marching orders from the Holy Spirit in John 11:35. For those interested in the blatant activity of the Holy Spirit, the doubling of the salutation of Marth and Mary “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”. The doubling of the cock's crow in Mark 14 is another place where the Holy Spirit is blatantly manifest. While Mark draws a portrait of the Jesus insurgency largely from an exterior perspective, John provides the conversational side of Jesus. Matthew connects all the theological dots Mark leaves dangling (Cornelius is acquainted with Jewish traditions, but being a pagan God Fearer, his aquaintance is from a distance. In the final analysis, all the Romans recognize the God of Romans 11:22 as being the same as their experience). Matthew's purpose was to justify Jesus to the Jews of the 2nd Temple. However, the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Gospel of Matthew was in anticipation of Mohammad and to provide The Prophet a tool to bring the Children of Ismael back into convenant membership with Abraham and to bring them to Jesus. Sura 74:30 "Above it is 19" establishes the divine origins of the Quran while it simultaneously abrogates everything in the Quran. "19" is the numerological symbol for Jesus Christ, Son of God and the Alpha and the Omega. The transliteration of Sura 74:30 is "Come to Jesus". A computer analysis of the Quran was done in 1974 that used 19 as a common denominator and a great deal of the Quran came to be seen as a function of 19 in some way (such as the Arabic phrases "There is no God but God and Mohammad is his messenger"). While this analysis does establish the divine origins of the Quran, the message Gabril brought to Mohammad was "Come to Jesus" and the entire Quran a parable with the same meaning. Matthew was written as the gateway Gospel to help Mohammad lead Muslims to Jesus. In particular, Sura 12 Yusef is the only complete narrative from the Bible included in the Quran and was dictated to Mohammad to console him after the death of his wife Khadija, Sura 12 is meant to be a prologue to Matthew, Matthew, itself, is composed of 28 chapters, the same number of chapters as what were to become letters in the Arabic alphabet. The chapters are organized by the phases of the moon, with the birth of Jesus and the escape from Herod to Egypt occuring in the dark of the moon, while the New Moon signals the beginning of Ramadan after a discussion of fasting by Jesus in Chapter 7. Islam is stuck, intellectually, in the 12 century because of Hamid Al-Ghazali, who declared mathematics evil and consigned Muslim apologetics to the boundaries and conventions of Aristotle. The path of Muslim reform, as escape from the intellectual cul-de-sac of Hamid Al-Ghazali, is through the Gospel of Matthew..
This an interesting view and you have obvoiusly put a lot of thought and effort into it. However, is there much scholarly support for this view? The traditional authorship of the gospels is universally supported by the early church fathers. There is no dissenting view, such as this. Critical scholars may challenge the traditional authorship but I am not aware of any that would support your alternative.
Well, we will see. There is a certain shift taking place in Christian criticism that has come to realize that the elements of Christianity came together much faster than has been the conventional wisdom until now. For example, Gary Habermas advances a theory that a statement of Christian doctrine emerged much faster than formerly consider: he (and I) believe that what amounts to the Apostle's Creed emerged as early as 6 months after the cross. I'm inclined to believe it was pretty much settled by the First Penatcost. Now, two things I just learned from Bruce Gore's various lectures on Biblical history is that the Emperor Tiberius proposed that the Senate elevate Jesus to the status of legal Roman diety, with the Senate ignored. Tiberius died in 37 and Pilate was relieved of his position in Palestine in 36, after 10 years in place. This doesn't sound like a failed assignment, on Pilate's part, and one of the legends I stumbled across somewhere was that PIlate petitioned Rome to deify Jesus. I have found nothing to support this legend directly, but Turtillian's citation in his Apology, Chapter 5, in 180, from Roman archives indicates that something came up the chain of command to Tiberius to prompt this proposal, The second thing from this citation is that it is evident that the term "Christian" was coined by Roman soldiers almost immediately in the way that soldiers universially label the environment around them as it appears to them. Vietnam vets called the Buddhists who burned themselves alive in Saigon starting in 1963 "Zippo Monks". This falls into the same category as "Christian", And the term was being used in Rome at about the same time Paul was still in Araby digesting his encounter with Jesus. There is the old saw that there is no atheists in a firefight/fox holes. I grew up in the Army and all the Chaplains who came through my life were combat vets, including one who gave me communion on a muddy fire base in a slight drizzle waiting for Slicks to come pick me and my platoon up to begin a patrol. The question I have for all the conventional wisdom: how many combat vets are in the scholarship mix? I've heard more than once from Evangelical pastors who are heavily invested in 'spiritual warfare" that a battlefield conversion is not valid justification. But if you are familiar with Romans 11:22, so were the Romans of the Praetorian Guard who recognized that they were talking about the same Jewish God that is associated with the Cross. But more important than that, they saw themselves in Romans 3:21 in its triangulation with John 15:13: in a combat culture, you are surrounded by people who share John 15:13 as a core value. All this candy-ass Spiritual Warfare shit coming out of the Evangelical pastors is the product of people who have led very sheltered lives. In the fullness of time, this efete spiritual warfare conceit will yield to the moral clarity submission to the Profession of Arms requires.
But 'evidence' of WHAT? We know the book exists. By the way, the originals are in the Vila Papyri, but they will never allow their excavation. We'd find out the truth. People, watch Abelard Reuchlin.
Jimmy, There are heaps of people out there who come up with crazy ideas, that contradict others with other crazy ideas and yet gain a following. Reuchlin is not taken seriously by scholars.. See www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.php (apologetic view) and rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roman_Piso (sceptical view). We get sick of wasting our time considering crazy ideas. Can you give any justification why we should investigate Reuchlin?
@@ReasonableFaithSA the bereans looked into scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was Biblical...they set aside their preconcieved ideas and biases and looked at valid authiritative documentation (scripture in this case). Conspiracies are a dime a dozen but most lack real evidence and objective reasearch. I asked a facebook friend what evididence he could offer me for his particular conspiracy....all he could say was...."cant you see?". I also challenged a flat earther to perform a simple experiment to confirm or invalidate the flat earth model...not a word....in fact ive tossed out that challenge to a number if flat earthers on youtube and facebook and not one has taken up the challenge....its a very basic experiment using a camera and a solar lens to take pics of the sun from sunrise..high noon to sun down to confirm if indeed the apparent size of the sun drastically changes from earth perspective (as it must with the flat earth model) or whether the apparent size of the sun remains constant as it must with the globe model......no takers lol God and Objective reality must of necessity agree for God created reality....therefore science...logic...sound doctrine and hermeneutics are 100% compatible......in fact without objective research...we are in conflict with biblical principles
Alas, if God exists and he had people write for him his word, why had not god make sure that it will last forever? Or failing to do that, noticed it was gone and, then, had it rewritten exactly as was the original? This proves that a Christian God does not exist, let alone about 40k.
bob are you not "thinking like a man, and you obviously have not become like a little child..you know the bible says clearly their is and adversary to him and his followers, and the world in general is not for him and his people..i think that alone without going into furher detail clears up your obvious content filled railing
Bob Balkas The message of the Gospel remains intact so you can choose to accept or reject it. I think that was Gods main purpose so that we could all know about Jesus and his Gospel so that we could come to know him personally I invite you to know Jesus personally my friend :)
Thank you, Kevin, for a good comprehensive presentation on this subject.
Thank you too, Reasonable Faith Adelaide, for this recording of the address and discussion and for uploading it, so enabling me to view it when I was unable to attend the event.
What can I read closest to the truth in English
I usually use the ESV or NIV but I am not an expert on which is the best translation. NT Wright has said that reading the NT in English is like drinking wine through a tea bag. I agree.
If you are keen (and I hope you are), it is not all that hard to look up the Greek text and the meaning of the Greek words using online tools, such as Bible Hub.
Eg go to biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-1.htm. This is the interlinear bible. This link is just for John 1:1. This will give you the Greek, a transliteration, and an English translation of each Greek word. However, you can click on links and get an in depth explanation of the meaning of each Greek word. It can be quite enlightening and enriching. You can do this without knowing Greek.
Often English translations a pretty good, but sometimes they do aim at English readability rather than a full rendition of the meaning of the Greek text. Have fun.
The hebrew is the more acurate translation greek is only close but close to The Truth isnt good enuf
@@rokitman5753 That sounds a little odd. There is a claim by Papias that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but the copies that we have are in Greek. The talk was on the NT manuscripts. Other than the question over Matthew, the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic and probably knew Hebrew and Greek as well, but why would Hebrew be better than Greek?
I have been learning Greek and I mainly read the NT in Greek. NT Wright has said that "Reading the NT in English is like drinking wine through a teabag." I think I know what he means. I find it a very enriching experience.
Most Hebrew bible scholars say that the worst thing to happen to the bible is that it got translated it to english.
An old bible scholar said while looking at bibles in a christian book store the lady working there said "we have the KJV and its half off " the old scholar looked at her and said "atleast".
True story
@@rokitman5753 It is interesting to read it in Greek and then read the English. Most of the English is pretty good but there are many instances where there is a richness that is difficult to reflect in English and so there is something lost in the translation. That is why preachers should be trained in Greek so that they can explain these things. I have not studied Hebrew yet, but the same probably applies.
The audio is screwed up. One channel only.
I didn't notice, you are right. I will tell the editor, but I am not sure whethr it can be fixed.
I don't know if you can answer this one but at 1:00:50 the speaker says the Church fathers quote the NT except for 11 verses. Do we know which verses those are?
Kevin Rogers Thank you for your reply. Is that also true (not necessarily 11 verses) if we include the works of later fathers such as Augustine, John Chrysostom, Athanasius (and other Coptic/OO fathers)?
Kevin Rogers I get your point re the 11 verses reference. I'd never heard it before and it did sound too good to be true which is why I wanted specifics :D
I am more interested in the wider notion of cross referencing manuscripts available to scholars today with what the Church fathers (particularly pre Chalcedonian schism) had available to them. Thanks once more for clarifying the matter, I'll do some googling now :)
the black letter 'b' is actually a medieval gothic Papal script, a "P"
Does it matter? Is it a conspiracy or is it just a convenient convention for classifying things?
Very Greek centered presentation. Not complete since the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic - yes, all of it. And the earliest manuscript is dated 78 AD - much earlier than any extant Greek fragment.
I submitted the following question to chatGPT: Was the new testament written in aramaic?
Here is the reply:
The New Testament of the Bible was primarily written in Greek, not Aramaic. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean and was widely understood and used during the time when the New Testament was written, which is believed to be in the first century AD.
However, it is possible that some of the sayings of Jesus and a few other portions of the New Testament may have originally been spoken in Aramaic, which was the common language spoken by Jesus and many people in the region at that time. These Aramaic sayings might have been later translated into Greek by the authors of the New Testament.
There is also a hypothesis known as the Aramaic Primacy theory, which suggests that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. However, this theory is not widely accepted by scholars, and the consensus among biblical scholars is that the New Testament was primarily written in Greek.
chatGPT says says the following about Aramaic Primacy theory:
The Aramaic Primacy theory is a controversial hypothesis that suggests that the original language of Jesus and the early Christian community was Aramaic, rather than Greek or Hebrew. According to this theory, the New Testament writings were originally composed in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
Supporters of the Aramaic Primacy theory argue that Aramaic was the common language spoken in the region of Palestine during Jesus' time, and it was the language in which Jesus would have preached and communicated with his disciples. They claim that the Greek texts of the New Testament contain Aramaic idioms and linguistic elements that suggest a translation from an Aramaic source.
One of the key pieces of evidence cited by proponents of the Aramaic Primacy theory is the existence of the Peshitta, a Syriac translation of the Bible that includes the New Testament. They argue that the Peshitta represents an early Aramaic version of the New Testament and provides evidence for the original Aramaic text.
However, the majority of biblical scholars and linguists do not support the Aramaic Primacy theory. They argue that there is no direct evidence to support the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek, and the vast majority of the text is linguistically consistent with Greek literary style and vocabulary.
Scholars point out that it is not uncommon for translations to incorporate idiomatic expressions and linguistic features from the target language. The presence of Aramaic elements in the Greek text can be attributed to the influence of Aramaic-speaking communities and the use of Aramaic as a spoken language in the region, rather than indicating an Aramaic source for the New Testament.
In conclusion, while the Aramaic Primacy theory has some proponents, it is not widely accepted among biblical scholars and linguists. The prevailing consensus is that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek, although Aramaic would have been the spoken language of Jesus and his immediate followers.
My comments:
There are some sections in the gospls that reflect Aramiac sources and the Greek looks as though it is a translation from Aramic. Luke infers that he used prior written sources, some of which could be written in Aramaic and are since lost. However, Luke was primarily writing for the gentiles and he was highly proficent in Greek, so he had no reason to write his gospel or Acts in Aramaic. The letters were mainly written to gentiles so that is good reason to use Greek. There is a possibility that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. All the earliest muanscripts are Greek. There are no early Aramaic manuscripts.
@@ReasonableFaithSA Oh you did, did you? Lol. ChatGPT is full of false information. I makes things up. I've tested it with many facts and it can't even cite publications correctly. It makes them all up.
If you are trying to disprove what my comment said, nice try. I actually have the published book from 1719 where it is listed.
niv
1 Cor 14:20, "Brothers stop thinking like children". Mt 18:3, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
One of the verses has to be wrong or both are lies.
Mt 19:17, "Why do you ask me what is good?". "There is only one who's good". But Jesus speaks of his chosen or those given him by God as "my holy, perfect, righteous people!
So, how can Christians be holy and not good at the same time?
Verses llike these should be considered sympathetically within their context. An analogy can be used in different ways. In Matt 18 Jesus says we should be humble, inquisitive and teachable like children. In 1 Cor 14, Paul is saying we shouldn't be childish. These are 2 different aspects of children. Some childish behaviour is good and some is bad, so we should copy the good and reject the bad. This is obvious within the context.
Likewise with goodness. Study them carefully within their context and they are are not hard to resolve. Sometimes contrasts are used deliberately. A classic is Proverbs 26:4-5 which says,
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Here are 2 verses that are directly contradictory, but are right next to each other. You can react and say, "There you go, the bible contradicts itself", but if you think carefully about what the author is really saying, then it is brilliant.
Bob Balkas it's all about the context you can't isolate verses
OBVIOUSLY you have a problem with christianity, if you have no faith , you lack discernment, only true followers of christ TRUELY FEEL WHAT HE SAID, IT IS LTERALLY THE LIVING WIORD, for the faithful, this is god we are dealing with, he is not going to give people that just want to scoff and mock the blessing to understand. I am sure you will not understand what i am saying, and simply write it off as some religious nut blabbering, but if you only realized how close to the most important truth in THE WORLD OR THE NEXT LIFE IS TO YOU..., but because you choose not to have faith, you simply see words. I really hope you decide to take it serious one day, obviously you maybe interested if you are here..EITHER DIVE IN HEAD FIRST CAUTION TO THE WIND AND FOLLOW, OR SADLY YOU WILL CONTINUE THIS ATTITUDE AND MISS OUT..I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY..I USED TO THINK PEOPLE THAT TALKED LIKE THIS WERE WEAK AND USING REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY FOR THEIR WEAKNESSES..BUT IT YOU TRUELY OBEY WITH PURE FAITH..I PROMISE, YOU WILL NEVER GO BACK TO NOT LIVING FOR CHRIST.
Bob Balkas you clearly don’t understand context.
bob if you read the bible with faith, and or under guidance of the spirit, which cannot be done in the carnal mind..you will understand it is a more than established fact he is saying they are not thinking as (godly)men(thoroughly, comprehensive, diigently, in alignment with the way they were taught by gods word etc)...the next verse has a known and clearly defined by character context , to become like children, innocent, trusting, loving, open, unconformed to traditions of the world/carnal mnd etc etc..it is truely very conceptualized.
John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away."
www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/BurgonAlexandrian
Mark was written around 40 by Cornelius, the Roman centurion featured in Acts 10, after he was debriefed for 3 days by Peter and was the source for what has become the Gospel of Peter, a version of which began to circulate in the Roman legions before Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. It is not unlikely that Cornelius is the centurion in Mark 15:39 and clearly the centurion who Jesus justifies by faith in Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
This Romann soldier's version of the Gospel of Peter had bubbled up the Roman chain of command to Tiberius by 37 with sufficient veracity that Tiberius proposed to the Senate that Jesus be made a legal diety and the Christians be unmolested, The Senate rejected the idea because it wasn't their idea. This event is cited by Turtillian in his Apology, Chapter 5, around 180 and tends to indicate that the term "Christians" was coined by Roman soldiers immediately, as is the wont of soldiers universally to attach labels characteristic of their subject. For example, Druid warriors were called "Britons" because they painted their bodies blue to go into battle, American soldiers call the Buddhist monk who burned himself alive in Saigon in 1963 to protest the Diem government "Zippo Monks" in the same spirit as Romans called followers of Jesus "Christians", a Greek word meaning "Messiah".
Mark begins at the moment Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent and and the Roman intelligence services began to maintail an intelligence file on His activities. Whatever Jewish theology in Mark is captured coincidental to the details of the spy reports collected. These spy reports are represented in the narrative of Mark by the 41 pericopes that begin "Immediately", which was a literary device Cornelius employed to insert this intelligence product into the narrative. These intelligence products were collected by routine surveillance before Jesus was arrested.
Mark was written after Peter's visit with Cornelius, which is reflected in Mark 7: 1 - 20, especially the verse "...thus all foods were declared pure". This opened the door to bringing gentiles into covenant membership with Jewish Christians. Mark is organized as a military report, detailing who Jesus was, where His authority originated, what his order of battle looked like, what resources he could mobilize and the threat He represented to Rome. The evidence is that He was sufficiently benign that neither Pilate nor Herod considered Him a threat, Pilate having no idea who He was and Herod only interested in His entertainment value. As a military report, the autograph was forwarded from Palestine to the Praetorian Guard in Rome (which Acts suggests Cornelius was associated with by birth) as additional intelligence support to Tiberius' proposal (although he was now dead).
The Praetorian Guard vetted the original intelligence coming to Tiberius and was probably the intended recipient of Paul's epistle to the Romans, which is a legal argument outlining the continuity of the Law of Moses in the ninistry of Jesus. When Paul reaches Rome, the Praetorian Guards is one of the gentile groups he preaches to.
Luke/Acts seems to have been commissioned by a member of the Equistrian class to expand upon Mark's version of events, which is to say, the Praetorian Guards sought additional information about this strange creature who rose from the dead, Luke/Acts has been prepared as an amicus brief in support of Paul's pending defense in Rome and tends to reflect that a completed version of Mark was available to Luke by 59, which Paul was imprisoned at Caeserica by Felix. As a Greek physcian, Luke probably had a ob/gyn practice with Jewish women, because he did not consider their natural body processes to be defiling in any manner. Sura 19: 1 - 33 in the Quran tends to reflect Luke's version of the nativity. Romans and Luke/Acts should be seen as companions in Paul's lobbying efforts in Rome.
John Mark, the name sake of the Gospel of Mark, has a bit part in Mark: he is the youth who runs away naked from the Temple guards in Gethsemene and he is the source of Jesus's passion in the garden: remember, Peter et all fell asleep while Jesus was praying, three times. John Mark was probably no older than 15 and may be the child in Mark 9:37, which is the statement of core values in the economics of Jesus and triangulates with the Baby Jesus and Romans 3:21. After John Mark abandons Paul's missionary, he goes to Alexandria and establishes the first Christian publishing house (according to Dan Wallace, 90% of manuscipts produced before the 4th Century came out of Alexandria). John Mark is also the author of the Gospel of John and is the Disciple Jesus loved, The Gospel of John is a companion to the Gospel of Mark, nearly doubling the narrative portrait of Jesus initiated by Cornelius. The narratives of Mark and John converge at Mark 11 and John 11, the morning of Palm Sunday occuring in Mark and the evening occuring in John after Jesus has surveyed the Temple. Jesus gets His final marching orders from the Holy Spirit in John 11:35. For those interested in the blatant activity of the Holy Spirit, the doubling of the salutation of Marth and Mary “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”. The doubling of the cock's crow in Mark 14 is another place where the Holy Spirit is blatantly manifest.
While Mark draws a portrait of the Jesus insurgency largely from an exterior perspective, John provides the conversational side of Jesus.
Matthew connects all the theological dots Mark leaves dangling (Cornelius is acquainted with Jewish traditions, but being a pagan God Fearer, his aquaintance is from a distance. In the final analysis, all the Romans recognize the God of Romans 11:22 as being the same as their experience). Matthew's purpose was to justify Jesus to the Jews of the 2nd Temple.
However, the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Gospel of Matthew was in anticipation of Mohammad and to provide The Prophet a tool to bring the Children of Ismael back into convenant membership with Abraham and to bring them to Jesus. Sura 74:30 "Above it is 19" establishes the divine origins of the Quran while it simultaneously abrogates everything in the Quran. "19" is the numerological symbol for Jesus Christ, Son of God and the Alpha and the Omega.
The transliteration of Sura 74:30 is "Come to Jesus". A computer analysis of the Quran was done in 1974 that used 19 as a common denominator and a great deal of the Quran came to be seen as a function of 19 in some way (such as the Arabic phrases "There is no God but God and Mohammad is his messenger"). While this analysis does establish the divine origins of the Quran, the message Gabril brought to Mohammad was "Come to Jesus" and the entire Quran a parable with the same meaning.
Matthew was written as the gateway Gospel to help Mohammad lead Muslims to Jesus. In particular, Sura 12 Yusef is the only complete narrative from the Bible included in the Quran and was dictated to Mohammad to console him after the death of his wife Khadija, Sura 12 is meant to be a prologue to Matthew, Matthew, itself, is composed of 28 chapters, the same number of chapters as what were to become letters in the Arabic alphabet. The chapters are organized by the phases of the moon, with the birth of Jesus and the escape from Herod to Egypt occuring in the dark of the moon, while the New Moon signals the beginning of Ramadan after a discussion of fasting by Jesus in Chapter 7.
Islam is stuck, intellectually, in the 12 century because of Hamid Al-Ghazali, who declared mathematics evil and consigned Muslim apologetics to the boundaries and conventions of Aristotle. The path of Muslim reform, as escape from the intellectual cul-de-sac of Hamid Al-Ghazali, is through the Gospel of Matthew..
This an interesting view and you have obvoiusly put a lot of thought and effort into it. However, is there much scholarly support for this view? The traditional authorship of the gospels is universally supported by the early church fathers. There is no dissenting view, such as this. Critical scholars may challenge the traditional authorship but I am not aware of any that would support your alternative.
Well, we will see. There is a certain shift taking place in Christian criticism that has come to realize that the elements of Christianity came together much faster than has been the conventional wisdom until now.
For example, Gary Habermas advances a theory that a statement of Christian doctrine emerged much faster than formerly consider: he (and I) believe that what amounts to the Apostle's Creed emerged as early as 6 months after the cross. I'm inclined to believe it was pretty much settled by the First Penatcost.
Now, two things I just learned from Bruce Gore's various lectures on Biblical history is that the Emperor Tiberius proposed that the Senate elevate Jesus to the status of legal Roman diety, with the Senate ignored. Tiberius died in 37 and Pilate was relieved of his position in Palestine in 36, after 10 years in place. This doesn't sound like a failed assignment, on Pilate's part, and one of the legends I stumbled across somewhere was that PIlate petitioned Rome to deify Jesus. I have found nothing to support this legend directly, but Turtillian's citation in his Apology, Chapter 5, in 180, from Roman archives indicates that something came up the chain of command to Tiberius to prompt this proposal,
The second thing from this citation is that it is evident that the term "Christian" was coined by Roman soldiers almost immediately in the way that soldiers universially label the environment around them as it appears to them. Vietnam vets called the Buddhists who burned themselves alive in Saigon starting in 1963 "Zippo Monks". This falls into the same category as "Christian", And the term was being used in Rome at about the same time Paul was still in Araby digesting his encounter with Jesus.
There is the old saw that there is no atheists in a firefight/fox holes. I grew up in the Army and all the Chaplains who came through my life were combat vets, including one who gave me communion on a muddy fire base in a slight drizzle waiting for Slicks to come pick me and my platoon up to begin a patrol.
The question I have for all the conventional wisdom: how many combat vets are in the scholarship mix? I've heard more than once from Evangelical pastors who are heavily invested in 'spiritual warfare" that a battlefield conversion is not valid justification. But if you are familiar with Romans 11:22, so were the Romans of the Praetorian Guard who recognized that they were talking about the same Jewish God that is associated with the Cross.
But more important than that, they saw themselves in Romans 3:21 in its triangulation with John 15:13: in a combat culture, you are surrounded by people who share John 15:13 as a core value. All this candy-ass Spiritual Warfare shit coming out of the Evangelical pastors is the product of people who have led very sheltered lives. In the fullness of time, this efete spiritual warfare conceit will yield to the moral clarity submission to the Profession of Arms requires.
Interesting
But 'evidence' of WHAT? We know the book exists. By the way, the originals are in the Vila Papyri, but they will never allow their excavation. We'd find out the truth. People, watch Abelard Reuchlin.
Jimmy,
There are heaps of people out there who come up with crazy ideas, that contradict others with other crazy ideas and yet gain a following. Reuchlin is not taken seriously by scholars.. See www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.php (apologetic view) and rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roman_Piso (sceptical view). We get sick of wasting our time considering crazy ideas. Can you give any justification why we should investigate Reuchlin?
@@ReasonableFaithSA lol exactly .....myths n fables vs objective research like Bereans :)
@@interpretingscripture8068 What objective research are you referring to?
@@ReasonableFaithSA the bereans looked into scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was Biblical...they set aside their preconcieved ideas and biases and looked at valid authiritative documentation (scripture in this case).
Conspiracies are a dime a dozen but most lack real evidence and objective reasearch.
I asked a facebook friend what evididence he could offer me for his particular conspiracy....all he could say was...."cant you see?". I also challenged a flat earther to perform a simple experiment to confirm or invalidate the flat earth model...not a word....in fact ive tossed out that challenge to a number if flat earthers on youtube and facebook and not one has taken up the challenge....its a very basic experiment using a camera and a solar lens to take pics of the sun from sunrise..high noon to sun down to confirm if indeed the apparent size of the sun drastically changes from earth perspective (as it must with the flat earth model) or whether the apparent size of the sun remains constant as it must with the globe model......no takers lol
God and Objective reality must of necessity agree for God created reality....therefore science...logic...sound doctrine and hermeneutics are 100% compatible......in fact without objective research...we are in conflict with biblical principles
@@interpretingscripture8068 Flat Earth model is supported way more by physical evidence then the globe theory. Also it's supported Biblically
Alas, if God exists and he had people write for him his word, why had not god make sure that it will last forever? Or failing to do that, noticed it was gone and, then, had it rewritten exactly as was the original?
This proves that a Christian God does not exist, let alone about 40k.
Yes, I think that you have proven that a God who meets all of your conditions does not exist.
bob are you not "thinking like a man, and you obviously have not become like a little child..you know the bible says clearly their is and adversary to him and his followers, and the world in general is not for him and his people..i think that alone without going into furher detail clears up your obvious content filled railing
ReasonableFaithSA Epic :D love it!
Bob Balkas The message of the Gospel remains intact so you can choose to accept or reject it. I think that was Gods main purpose so that we could all know about Jesus and his Gospel so that we could come to know him personally
I invite you to know Jesus personally my friend
:)