The apostle Paul the writer of the church epistles was from Tarsus which is present day Turkey. And Paul was probably born in Tarsus also, although I want to double check this. Tarsus was part of the Greek empire or nation and not part of Israel or the Jewish nation. The people from Tarsus, for the most part would have spoken Greek. Even when Tarsus became part of the Roman empire, people born in Tarsus would have spoken Greek and this would have been their primary language. Tarsus as part of the Roman empire by, in general, military conquest tells us why Paul was a Roman citizen. Below is some information on the city of Tarsus. When I find more I will post it.
Here is another link. From this link it looks like Paul was born in Tarsus, but as a youth was sent to live in Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This points to Paul learning Greek as an infant, but being schooled in Jerusalem under the Jewish law and learning this in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Another thing to consider regarding Paul is who were Paul's parents and where were they from?
Here is another link which says there was a colony of Jews in Tarsus. The reason being since "Tarsus was an important trading center, it gathered a colony of Jews which grew and prospered." Since trade was going on between nations, this tells me they would not have been isolated by language and would have likely known both Aramaic and Greek.
Paul was a great writer and I think very highly of not only his spiritual insights, but his overall skills. And yes, his overall skills included his knowledge of not only all Aramaic and Hebrew, but Greek as well. But then many of us have been trying to explain to you that historically, many people used Greek as a second language and this is simple to comprehend and does not take a great deal of research. But then you are going to hear what you want to hear.
The chart is based upon extensive documented evidence presented in my book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament http://www.lulu.com/nazarene
It is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament
books date back to the 4th century C.E..... The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproved by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.
The point is not just that there is an utter lack of any actual Hebrew texts of NT books until the 13/14th century... But instead there are literally thousands of Greek copies (whole or partial) of NT books. And many of these were produced in places like Syria and Israel (the famous bishop Eusebius who had Greek NTs produced was bishop of Caesarea), where Trimm imagines everyone spoke Aramaic.
If in fact the early church was full of Hebrew/ Aramaic speakers and had a complete lack of Greeks, as Trimm imagines, the opposite would be true. We're looking at actual textual evidence here, not speculation.
The point is not just that there is an utter lack of any actual Hebrew texts of NT books until the 13/14th century... But instead there are literally thousands of Greek copies (whole or partial) of NT books. And many of these were produced in places like Syria and Israel (the famous bishop Eusebius who had Greek NTs produced was bishop of Caesarea), where Trimm imagines everyone spoke Aramaic.
If in fact the early church was full of Hebrew/ Aramaic speakers and had a complete lack of Greeks, as Trimm imagines, the opposite would be true. We're looking at actual textual evidence here, not speculation.
There are some fundamental problems with your argument. To begin with we could say almost the same thing about the Book of Esther. The oldest Hebrew copy of Esther dates only to the Middle Ages (9th century C.E.) and by far the oldest copies are Greek LXX copies from the 4th century CE. Also prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which no copies of Esther were found) this was true of the entire "Old Testament". But everyone agrees on a Hebrew origin for Esther and the rest of the "Old Testament". Interestingly there are 1,500 years between the events of Ester and the oldest Hebrew copy... same as Matthew.
A similar situation occurs with the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the oldest Hebrew copy of Tobit was published in the 1500's by a guy named Munster who claimed to have obtained it from among the Jews. Soms scholars actually argued that Tobit had been originally written in Greek and that Munster's Hebrew was just a late Hebrew translation from a Greek or Latin source... and then Hebrew Tobit turned up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, settling the issue. Funny thing is that this same Munster is the one that published the Munster editions of Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Hebrews which he claimed to have obtained from the Jews in the 1500's.
Now there are over 5,000 Greek mss. but few of them are ancient (BTW there are over 10,000 Latin mss. but that does not mean the NT was written in Latin)
Of the Ancient Greek mss there are a handful (less than 10) of fairly complete Greek codecies which date back to the 4th to 6th century and there are a comparable number of ancient Aramaic mss. from about this same time periods.
Now there are about 100 Greek Papri fragments which date from the second century to the 7th century. Several of these predate the 4th century.
Now lets discuss these Papri fragments for a moment... these are all (or almost all) found in Egypt, where hot dry conditions contributed to their preservation. Egypt was the center of Hellenism in this part of the world. The Egyptian Christians used Greek texts, just as the Egyptian Jews used the Greek LXX "Old Testament". So the mss. that we find there are Greek. In fact even mss. of books of the Old Testament that we KNOW were written in Hebrew are found in the Papyri fragments only in Greek and never in Hebrew.
There are some fundamental problems with your argument. To begin with we could say almost the same thing about the Book of Esther. The oldest Hebrew copy of Esther dates only to the Middle Ages (9th century C.E.) and by far the oldest copies are Greek LXX copies from the 4th century CE. Also prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which no copies of Esther were found) this was true of the entire "Old Testament". But everyone agrees on a Hebrew origin for Esther and the rest of the "Old Testament". Interestingly there are 1,500 years between the events of Ester and the oldest Hebrew copy... same as Matthew.
A similar situation occurs with the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the oldest Hebrew copy of Tobit was published in the 1500's by a guy named Munster who claimed to have obtained it from among the Jews. Soms scholars actually argued that Tobit had been originally written in Greek and that Munster's Hebrew was just a late Hebrew translation from a Greek or Latin source... and then Hebrew Tobit turned up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, settling the issue. Funny thing is that this same Munster is the one that published the Munster editions of Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Hebrews which he claimed to have obtained from the Jews in the 1500's.
Now there are over 5,000 Greek mss. but few of them are ancient (BTW there are over 10,000 Latin mss. but that does not mean the NT was written in Latin)
Of the Ancient Greek mss there are a handful (less than 10) of fairly complete Greek codecies which date back to the 4th to 6th century and there are a comparable number of ancient Aramaic mss. from about this same time periods.
Now there are about 100 Greek Papri fragments which date from the second century to the 7th century. Several of these predate the 4th century.
Now lets discuss these Papri fragments for a moment... these are all (or almost all) found in Egypt, where hot dry conditions contributed to their preservation. Egypt was the center of Hellenism in this part of the world. The Egyptian Christians used Greek texts, just as the Egyptian Jews used the Greek LXX "Old Testament". So the mss. that we find there are Greek. In fact even mss. of books of the Old Testament that we KNOW were written in Hebrew are found in the Papyri fragments only in Greek and never in Hebrew.
Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not addressed in previous pastes - obviously a condescending response. Johnj's post was not addressed previously, yet James posted a paste that didn't even address Johnj's post. Apparently, James can't address thoughts outside his own box - or even recognize them.
No, although I had stated many of those facts before, that was a newly composed post which i typed one letter at a time. I might have restated facts because they are still true.
Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not addressed in previous pastes - obviously a condescending response. Johnj's post was not addressed previously, yet James posted a paste that didn't even address Johnj's post. Apparently, James can't address thoughts outside his own box - or even recognize them.
Could somebody please synthesise the arguments or post a synopsis or give bite-sized chunks?
I'm all for rooting out Weirwille rubbish and misdirection, but I need something accessible that is of interest, before my eyes glaze over with excess of words. It's excess of words that got us all into trouble in the first place.
Every time I read James' posts the phrase "straining at gnats" keeps going through my head. It is a lot of wordsmithing with no apparent real understanding of how to live and love. It is exactly as it was in TWI. Make oneself sounds scholarly and intellectual by arguing about words. Its a shell game.
Every time I read James' posts the phrase "straining at gnats" keeps going through my head. It is a lot of wordsmithing with no apparent real understanding of how to live and love. It is exactly as it was in TWI. Make oneself sounds scholarly and intellectual by arguing about words. Its a shell game.
Ummm... the topic of the thread is Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament Origins, not "how to live and love" although I can discuss that topic in another thread. Typically my answer would be one word "Torah" but that is my doctrine. And although a moderator moved this discussion to "doctrinal" it is intended as an academic rather than doctrinal discussion.
James, I am a long time poster here at the cafe, though I do not post often anymore. I am also Jewish. I have read your posts since you first arrived here. While others attacked you, I maintained an open mind. For a brief period I was excited that there might actually be another poster here who understands Torah from a Jewish perspective. Clearly, I was mistaken. It is apparent from your posts that you like to appear intellectual, educated, and scholarly, but you most certainly do not get Torah at all.
In fact, I would say most of our Christian and Pagan regulars here in the doctrinal forum get Torah better than you do.
The oldest Hebrew copy of Esther dates only to the Middle Ages (9th century C.E.) and by far the oldest copies are Greek LXX copies from the 4th century CE. Interestingly there are 1,500 years between the events of Ester and the oldest Hebrew copy... same as Matthew.
The point is not just the lack of Hebrew texts of New Testament books until the 13th century (and then only 2 of the 26 books of the NT), but that instead there are literally thousands of Greek copies (whole or partial). Many of these were produced in places like Syria and Israel (bishop Eusebius who had copies made of the Greek NT was from Caesarea)-- places where Trimm imagines most or all of the believers were Aramaic speakers.
If in fact the Churches were full of Aramaic speakers and had few Greek speakers (as Trimm imagines), the opposite would be true. We're looking here at what the actual evidence of the huge numbers of Greek copies and utter lack of Hebrew NT copies tells us about the nature of the Church at the time, rather than just speculating about what it was like.
would it be a dirty rotten shame if all English copies of PFAL and the Bible were burn by our President in 20 years from now and there was only Russia copies of both
Ummm... the topic of the thread is Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament Origins, not "how to live and love" although I can discuss that topic in another thread. Typically my answer would be one word "Torah" but that is my doctrine. And although a moderator moved this discussion to "doctrinal" it is intended as an academic rather than doctrinal discussion.
God bless you, Mr. Trimm,
I'm one of the long lost members of the Way International's research Fellowship. I studied with Arthur Voobus (Syriac) and Dennis Pardee (Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic) at the U of C and Dan M. and I were good friends. He is alive and well and is teaching Finance/ Economics in California (with this second PhD, BTW...a brillant man and believer). Via this thread I have made contact again with Mrs. Masterson and for that I thank you.
I find that many trying to make sense out of this complicated subject might better be served with examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is). Other nuanced lessons just don't make the grade.
I also find that those who cannot quite grasp the significance of an Aramaic/Hebrew original for both testaments tend to immediately chatise the work that you (and, of course, others) have done and just say you are a Pharisee of the first degree. Short sighted at best. Judgemental in the least. Don't let it bother you. Keep up the hard work of the text. Comments from some above are akin to the patient skewering the doctor for pouring his heart out in the classroom during medical school. As I allude...they want only the cure that helps them personally.
That being said, I'd like to get to know you and your academics better. Maybe we can talk off forum. Please send me a message via this site and I'll respond.
I find that many trying to make sense out of this complicated subject might better be served with examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is). Other nuanced lessons just don't make the grade.
I also find that those who cannot quite grasp the significance of an Aramaic/Hebrew original for both testaments tend to immediately chatise the work that you (and, of course, others) have done and just say you are a Pharisee of the first degree. Short sighted at best. Judgemental in the least. Don't let it bother you. Keep up the hard work of the text. Comments from some above are akin to the patient skewering the doctor for pouring his heart out in the classroom during medical school. As I allude...they want only the cure that helps them personally.
Greetings roberterasmus. Actually, that sounds like a good idea. I certainly found the the "examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is) that you, James, placed at the beginning of this thread rather enticing.
So congratulations James. You got yourself a disciple here afterall. So Robert, do you also think like James, namely that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did not know Greek?
I also find that those who cannot quite grasp the significance of an Aramaic/Hebrew original for both testaments tend to immediately chatise the work that you (and, of course, others) have done and just say you are a Pharisee of the first degree. Short sighted at best. Judgemental in the least. Don't let it bother you. Keep up the hard work of the text. Comments from some above are akin to the patient skewering the doctor for pouring his heart out in the classroom during medical school. As I allude...they want only the cure that helps them personally.
(snip)
You know, I'd almost forgotten what it was like to deal with the blanket
"I know more than you, I have all the answers, you know nothing" stuff endemic to twi.
It's been so long since I've lived in the real world where people are allowed to not have
all the answers, or to know some things but not others.
Of course, the idea that we actually looked at the evidence and made informed decisions
isn't even allowed to be CONSIDERED.
A) Even the Aramaic-Primacy people on this thread admit-in this very thread-
that there's no evidence for Aramaic texts of, say, the Epistles in the first 2 centuries AD.
B) There's increasing amounts of evidence of Greek texts in the first 2 centuries AD.
That includes in the places where, supposedly, the early Christians were Aramaic only-
but mysteriously, their Aramaic texts are missing, and their Greek texts-which would have
been useless to them, supposedly- have survived.
Granted, that's not necessarily the "smoking gun" of documentation. However, it's a HECK
of a case for Greek primacy of the Church Epistles.
The existence of Greek texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been PROVEN.
The existence of Aramaic texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been SPECULATED.
Embracing the SPECULATED and discarding the PROVEN is not responsible scholarship.
Turning around and accusing those who embrace the proven over the speculated
of being "judgmental" is not only notably "judgmental",
but it's also remarkably HYPOCRITICAL!
Accusing them of not "grasping" the issues is not only unproven, it's INFLAMMATORY.
Accusing them of being "short-sighted" because they looked at all the unearthed evidence
is not only an ERROR, it's DEMEANING. That's forgivable if it's true, even if rude.
When it's ERROR, like now, it's just an attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
And to "allude" to all sorts of analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion
while refusing to discuss the actual archeological evidence is little more than
ANOTHER attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
When one side of a discussion has to descend to
1) "I'm an expert and you dare not question me"
and
2) "Those who disagree with me are unable to grasp the issues"
while ducking the evidence,
that's the side desperately trying to hide the fact that the evidence supports
THE OPPOSITE SIDE. They'd rather be deceptive, live in denial, and forever BE wrong
so long as they and other people can THINK they're right.
For those who wonder why I bothered to analyze this and form a judgment, well,
THEY were the ones who were making the comparison...
So congratulations James. You got yourself a disciple here afterall. So Robert, do you also think like James, namely that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did not know Greek?
Hi, Mark,
Discipleship would indicate one has a good teacher, would it not? I have yet to see this in Mr. Trimm. I do, however, encourage anyone, to whom the Scriptures represent God's Word, to read the arguements on the Aramaic autograph of the Testaments.
I have not taken the time to read all his posts, but did do a google search on the man hiimself last night after my reply to him (probably should have done it before...). I find that he is a bit controversal (educationalally) and, according to others, a bit disengenuous (the Jewishness thing). But I'd like to hear from him however and I have yet to receive a reply to my missive.
As for Paul, I think it is fairly obvious (to most) that the "apostle to the Gentiles" would, of necessity, have been required to speak and write in Greek. Further, the paucity (note that I didn't say "absence") of evidence in his epistles to the underlying autograph has indicated to me over the years that he was a damn good translator as well.
You know, I'd almost forgotten what it was like to deal with the blanket
"I know more than you, I have all the answers, you know nothing" stuff endemic to twi.
It's been so long since I've lived in the real world where people are allowed to not have
all the answers, or to know some things but not others.
Of course, the idea that we actually looked at the evidence and made informed decisions
isn't even allowed to be CONSIDERED.
A) Even the Aramaic-Primacy people on this thread admit-in this very thread-
that there's no evidence for Aramaic texts of, say, the Epistles in the first 2 centuries AD.
B) There's increasing amounts of evidence of Greek texts in the first 2 centuries AD.
That includes in the places where, supposedly, the early Christians were Aramaic only-
but mysteriously, their Aramaic texts are missing, and their Greek texts-which would have
been useless to them, supposedly- have survived.
Granted, that's not necessarily the "smoking gun" of documentation. However, it's a HECK
of a case for Greek primacy of the Church Epistles.
The existence of Greek texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been PROVEN.
The existence of Aramaic texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been SPECULATED.
Embracing the SPECULATED and discarding the PROVEN is not responsible scholarship.
Turning around and accusing those who embrace the proven over the speculated
of being "judgmental" is not only notably "judgmental",
but it's also remarkably HYPOCRITICAL!
Accusing them of not "grasping" the issues is not only unproven, it's INFLAMMATORY.
Accusing them of being "short-sighted" because they looked at all the unearthed evidence
is not only an ERROR, it's DEMEANING. That's forgivable if it's true, even if rude.
When it's ERROR, like now, it's just an attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
And to "allude" to all sorts of analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion
while refusing to discuss the actual archeological evidence is little more than
ANOTHER attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
When one side of a discussion has to descend to
1) "I'm an expert and you dare not question me"
and
2) "Those who disagree with me are unable to grasp the issues"
while ducking the evidence,
that's the side desperately trying to hide the fact that the evidence supports
THE OPPOSITE SIDE. They'd rather be deceptive, live in denial, and forever BE wrong
so long as they and other people can THINK they're right.
For those who wonder why I bothered to analyze this and form a judgment, well,
THEY were the ones who were making the comparison...
Hi Word,
I also hate the "blanket" (good metaphor, BTW) and in no way intended to throw it (it's not just endemic to TWI either, as you probably well know). I merely wished to allow James to show real evidence in the face of some pretty stiff resistance (and there is evidence of mistranslation from the Aramaic into the Greek (a textual "smoking gun")). It can get real complicated and doesn't usually involve doctrinal issues so I rarely, if ever, engage in discussion with a hostile crowd. Not worth it. Much more important things between God and man, eh?
When it comes to textual issues that you don't have a text for it is also incumbent on the teacher to show at least one undeniable issue, IMHO. I know Pedangta Primacy People (the infamous PPP) throw a lot of s__t against the wall and if they'd just slow down and discuss (OMG!) it, it could be fun.
We'll see.
RE
I sure hope Robert reads the VPW thread started by James in the About the Way forum before he sends the Mr/Dr/Rabbi any cash. ;)
Agigail,
Nobody gets my cash these days (but thanks for your sentiment) and I'm not sure there is anything worthwhile in reading any more by anybody about VP.
However, the hypothesized Aramaic original helped fuel my love of textual studies many years ago. It continues to this day.
So far, his general method of posting has been to start a post and cut and paste his old work into the post to support his claim. He would watch the comments and cut and paste answers to people. I'm not sure he knows how to discuss things like a regular person. Maybe if you feed him, praise his work, he'll write you.
Lately he's taken to posting links without writing anything else at times. He can be funny but so far he seems to - just want to be right. And be seen as such by everyone. he doesn't like it that we don't all have one unifying belief,... That bothers him. so does mentioning times when he's been "wrong" so stay away from that if you want to be his "friend"
So far, his general method of posting has been to start a post and cut and paste his old work into the post to support his claim. He would watch the comments and cut and paste answers to people. I'm not sure he knows how to discuss things like a regular person. Maybe if you feed him, praise his work, he'll write you.
Lately he's taken to posting links without writing anything else at times. He can be funny but so far he seems to - just want to be right. And be seen as such by everyone. he doesn't like it that we don't all have one unifying belief,... That bothers him. so does mentioning times when he's been "wrong" so stay away from that if you want to be his "friend"
This is a pretty good recap on how things seem to be going so far.
==========================================
*puts the chair down* Ok, Robert E., you're sounding a lot more logical to me
now then you did a night ago. I hope the second impressions the correct one
(or at least closer) and the first impression was a fluke.
I do, however, encourage anyone, to whom the Scriptures represent God's Word, to read the arguements on the Aramaic autograph of the Testaments.
Where might they be found? Are they somewhere in this thread? I got lost somewhere along the way.
But I'd like to hear from him however and I have yet to receive a reply to my missive.
I'm not sure he knows how to discuss things like a regular person.
For what it is worth (it was worth something to me), I emailed James about the gender of the pronouns, "he" and "him," used for the word "Comforter" in John 14. I wanted to know what the Hebrew and Aramaic had to say about these verses. His response was quick, concise, considered, illuminating, and directly answered my question. Granted, much of it (not all) was a paste from his book. But, in view of the fact that it answered my question so well, that didn't bother me in the least. On the contrary, it impressed me.
Not only did he address considerations involved in translating between & among the languages involved, but also, he nicely addressed the literal, figurative, and grammatical language considerations involved.
It seemed a bit dense to me, but maybe I'm the one who is dense, or, at least, a novice to these languages. I figure I understood what he was saying, & replied to James, stating what I thought the application of his post meant to the verses I was considering. That was yesterday. I'm awaiting further response from him.
I very much appreciate his response, & it sparked interest in the whole field.
As for Paul, I think it is fairly obvious (to most) that the "apostle to the Gentiles" would, of necessity, have been required to speak and write in Greek. Further, the paucity (note that I didn't say "absence") of evidence in his epistles to the underlying autograph has indicated to me over the years that he was a damn good translator as well.
Do we know each other??
We agree completely on this. And we also have scriptural evidence of Greek being used as an important secondary language in the first century during the time period of Jesus and Paul in the Jewish provinces.
John 19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
KJV
And Robert to answer your question. We may not have known each other in past years. However, one of my roommates in college was Chuck Masterson, who later married the lady that did the New Testament Hebrew/Aramaic study for the Way magazine.
This is a pretty good recap on how things seem to be going so far.
==========================================
*puts the chair down* Ok, Robert E., you're sounding a lot more logical to me
now then you did a night ago. I hope the second impressions the correct one
(or at least closer) and the first impression was a fluke.
Tanks and missiles Wolf,
I'm, BTW, Bob Wassung (not hiding behind da silly avatar) and I do understand this Aramaic stuff pretty well. There are only a few places (in my experience) where the underlying substrate makes a real difference. Wrote some articles on it back in the day.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
49
Popular Days
May 29
23
May 25
19
May 30
16
Jun 13
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 15 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 17 posts
roberterasmus 16 posts
James Trimm 49 posts
Popular Days
May 29 2010
23 posts
May 25 2010
19 posts
May 30 2010
16 posts
Jun 13 2010
15 posts
Popular Posts
Abigail
Okay, well forwarned is forearmed, etc. Nevermind that he calls himself Rabbi. Nevermind that he is another huckster with a "doctorate" from a non-accredited college. Nevermind that he calls his "a
Twinky
This and some other of James Trimm's topics are very interesting - but need to be in Doctrinal, surely, not in About The Way?
Tom
Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not
James Trimm
Paul was only incidentally born at Tarsus. He was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Paul was a great writer and I think very highly of not only his spiritual insights, but his overall skills. And yes, his overall skills included his knowledge of not only all Aramaic and Hebrew, but Greek as well. But then many of us have been trying to explain to you that historically, many people used Greek as a second language and this is simple to comprehend and does not take a great deal of research. But then you are going to hear what you want to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
The point is not just that there is an utter lack of any actual Hebrew texts of NT books until the 13/14th century... But instead there are literally thousands of Greek copies (whole or partial) of NT books. And many of these were produced in places like Syria and Israel (the famous bishop Eusebius who had Greek NTs produced was bishop of Caesarea), where Trimm imagines everyone spoke Aramaic.
If in fact the early church was full of Hebrew/ Aramaic speakers and had a complete lack of Greeks, as Trimm imagines, the opposite would be true. We're looking at actual textual evidence here, not speculation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
There are some fundamental problems with your argument. To begin with we could say almost the same thing about the Book of Esther. The oldest Hebrew copy of Esther dates only to the Middle Ages (9th century C.E.) and by far the oldest copies are Greek LXX copies from the 4th century CE. Also prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which no copies of Esther were found) this was true of the entire "Old Testament". But everyone agrees on a Hebrew origin for Esther and the rest of the "Old Testament". Interestingly there are 1,500 years between the events of Ester and the oldest Hebrew copy... same as Matthew.
A similar situation occurs with the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the oldest Hebrew copy of Tobit was published in the 1500's by a guy named Munster who claimed to have obtained it from among the Jews. Soms scholars actually argued that Tobit had been originally written in Greek and that Munster's Hebrew was just a late Hebrew translation from a Greek or Latin source... and then Hebrew Tobit turned up in the Dead Sea Scrolls, settling the issue. Funny thing is that this same Munster is the one that published the Munster editions of Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Hebrews which he claimed to have obtained from the Jews in the 1500's.
Now there are over 5,000 Greek mss. but few of them are ancient (BTW there are over 10,000 Latin mss. but that does not mean the NT was written in Latin)
Of the Ancient Greek mss there are a handful (less than 10) of fairly complete Greek codecies which date back to the 4th to 6th century and there are a comparable number of ancient Aramaic mss. from about this same time periods.
Now there are about 100 Greek Papri fragments which date from the second century to the 7th century. Several of these predate the 4th century.
Now lets discuss these Papri fragments for a moment... these are all (or almost all) found in Egypt, where hot dry conditions contributed to their preservation. Egypt was the center of Hellenism in this part of the world. The Egyptian Christians used Greek texts, just as the Egyptian Jews used the Greek LXX "Old Testament". So the mss. that we find there are Greek. In fact even mss. of books of the Old Testament that we KNOW were written in Hebrew are found in the Papyri fragments only in Greek and never in Hebrew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Point to note here for those who think this argument is circular because James has pasted this reponse before: James said he would post something new (unpasted) if anyone would post an objection not addressed in previous pastes - obviously a condescending response. Johnj's post was not addressed previously, yet James posted a paste that didn't even address Johnj's post. Apparently, James can't address thoughts outside his own box - or even recognize them.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
No, although I had stated many of those facts before, that was a newly composed post which i typed one letter at a time. I might have restated facts because they are still true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Every time I read James' posts the phrase "straining at gnats" keeps going through my head. It is a lot of wordsmithing with no apparent real understanding of how to live and love. It is exactly as it was in TWI. Make oneself sounds scholarly and intellectual by arguing about words. Its a shell game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Trimm
Ummm... the topic of the thread is Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament Origins, not "how to live and love" although I can discuss that topic in another thread. Typically my answer would be one word "Torah" but that is my doctrine. And although a moderator moved this discussion to "doctrinal" it is intended as an academic rather than doctrinal discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
James, I am a long time poster here at the cafe, though I do not post often anymore. I am also Jewish. I have read your posts since you first arrived here. While others attacked you, I maintained an open mind. For a brief period I was excited that there might actually be another poster here who understands Torah from a Jewish perspective. Clearly, I was mistaken. It is apparent from your posts that you like to appear intellectual, educated, and scholarly, but you most certainly do not get Torah at all.
In fact, I would say most of our Christian and Pagan regulars here in the doctrinal forum get Torah better than you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
The point is not just the lack of Hebrew texts of New Testament books until the 13th century (and then only 2 of the 26 books of the NT), but that instead there are literally thousands of Greek copies (whole or partial). Many of these were produced in places like Syria and Israel (bishop Eusebius who had copies made of the Greek NT was from Caesarea)-- places where Trimm imagines most or all of the believers were Aramaic speakers.
If in fact the Churches were full of Aramaic speakers and had few Greek speakers (as Trimm imagines), the opposite would be true. We're looking here at what the actual evidence of the huge numbers of Greek copies and utter lack of Hebrew NT copies tells us about the nature of the Church at the time, rather than just speculating about what it was like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wonder what sort of conclusions will be drawn, two millennium from now, when several crates of Spanish translated PFAL collaterals are unearthed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
would it be a dirty rotten shame if all English copies of PFAL and the Bible were burn by our President in 20 years from now and there was only Russia copies of both
and today was 3027 AD
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
God bless you, Mr. Trimm,
I'm one of the long lost members of the Way International's research Fellowship. I studied with Arthur Voobus (Syriac) and Dennis Pardee (Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic) at the U of C and Dan M. and I were good friends. He is alive and well and is teaching Finance/ Economics in California (with this second PhD, BTW...a brillant man and believer). Via this thread I have made contact again with Mrs. Masterson and for that I thank you.
I find that many trying to make sense out of this complicated subject might better be served with examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is). Other nuanced lessons just don't make the grade.
I also find that those who cannot quite grasp the significance of an Aramaic/Hebrew original for both testaments tend to immediately chatise the work that you (and, of course, others) have done and just say you are a Pharisee of the first degree. Short sighted at best. Judgemental in the least. Don't let it bother you. Keep up the hard work of the text. Comments from some above are akin to the patient skewering the doctor for pouring his heart out in the classroom during medical school. As I allude...they want only the cure that helps them personally.
That being said, I'd like to get to know you and your academics better. Maybe we can talk off forum. Please send me a message via this site and I'll respond.
Regards,
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Greetings roberterasmus. Actually, that sounds like a good idea. I certainly found the the "examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is) that you, James, placed at the beginning of this thread rather enticing.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
So congratulations James. You got yourself a disciple here afterall. So Robert, do you also think like James, namely that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did not know Greek?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You know, I'd almost forgotten what it was like to deal with the blanket
"I know more than you, I have all the answers, you know nothing" stuff endemic to twi.
It's been so long since I've lived in the real world where people are allowed to not have
all the answers, or to know some things but not others.
Of course, the idea that we actually looked at the evidence and made informed decisions
isn't even allowed to be CONSIDERED.
A) Even the Aramaic-Primacy people on this thread admit-in this very thread-
that there's no evidence for Aramaic texts of, say, the Epistles in the first 2 centuries AD.
B) There's increasing amounts of evidence of Greek texts in the first 2 centuries AD.
That includes in the places where, supposedly, the early Christians were Aramaic only-
but mysteriously, their Aramaic texts are missing, and their Greek texts-which would have
been useless to them, supposedly- have survived.
Granted, that's not necessarily the "smoking gun" of documentation. However, it's a HECK
of a case for Greek primacy of the Church Epistles.
The existence of Greek texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been PROVEN.
The existence of Aramaic texts in the earliest centuries (for the NT) has been SPECULATED.
Embracing the SPECULATED and discarding the PROVEN is not responsible scholarship.
Turning around and accusing those who embrace the proven over the speculated
of being "judgmental" is not only notably "judgmental",
but it's also remarkably HYPOCRITICAL!
Accusing them of not "grasping" the issues is not only unproven, it's INFLAMMATORY.
Accusing them of being "short-sighted" because they looked at all the unearthed evidence
is not only an ERROR, it's DEMEANING. That's forgivable if it's true, even if rude.
When it's ERROR, like now, it's just an attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
And to "allude" to all sorts of analogies that have nothing to do with the discussion
while refusing to discuss the actual archeological evidence is little more than
ANOTHER attempt to fog the actual issues and evidence.
When one side of a discussion has to descend to
1) "I'm an expert and you dare not question me"
and
2) "Those who disagree with me are unable to grasp the issues"
while ducking the evidence,
that's the side desperately trying to hide the fact that the evidence supports
THE OPPOSITE SIDE. They'd rather be deceptive, live in denial, and forever BE wrong
so long as they and other people can THINK they're right.
For those who wonder why I bothered to analyze this and form a judgment, well,
THEY were the ones who were making the comparison...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I sure hope Robert reads the VPW thread started by James in the About the Way forum before he sends the Mr/Dr/Rabbi any cash. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hi, Mark,
Discipleship would indicate one has a good teacher, would it not? I have yet to see this in Mr. Trimm. I do, however, encourage anyone, to whom the Scriptures represent God's Word, to read the arguements on the Aramaic autograph of the Testaments.
I have not taken the time to read all his posts, but did do a google search on the man hiimself last night after my reply to him (probably should have done it before...). I find that he is a bit controversal (educationalally) and, according to others, a bit disengenuous (the Jewishness thing). But I'd like to hear from him however and I have yet to receive a reply to my missive.
As for Paul, I think it is fairly obvious (to most) that the "apostle to the Gentiles" would, of necessity, have been required to speak and write in Greek. Further, the paucity (note that I didn't say "absence") of evidence in his epistles to the underlying autograph has indicated to me over the years that he was a damn good translator as well.
Do we know each other??
Regards,
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hi Word,
I also hate the "blanket" (good metaphor, BTW) and in no way intended to throw it (it's not just endemic to TWI either, as you probably well know). I merely wished to allow James to show real evidence in the face of some pretty stiff resistance (and there is evidence of mistranslation from the Aramaic into the Greek (a textual "smoking gun")). It can get real complicated and doesn't usually involve doctrinal issues so I rarely, if ever, engage in discussion with a hostile crowd. Not worth it. Much more important things between God and man, eh?
When it comes to textual issues that you don't have a text for it is also incumbent on the teacher to show at least one undeniable issue, IMHO. I know Pedangta Primacy People (the infamous PPP) throw a lot of s__t against the wall and if they'd just slow down and discuss (OMG!) it, it could be fun.
We'll see.
RE
Agigail,
Nobody gets my cash these days (but thanks for your sentiment) and I'm not sure there is anything worthwhile in reading any more by anybody about VP.
However, the hypothesized Aramaic original helped fuel my love of textual studies many years ago. It continues to this day.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
So far, his general method of posting has been to start a post and cut and paste his old work into the post to support his claim. He would watch the comments and cut and paste answers to people. I'm not sure he knows how to discuss things like a regular person. Maybe if you feed him, praise his work, he'll write you.
Lately he's taken to posting links without writing anything else at times. He can be funny but so far he seems to - just want to be right. And be seen as such by everyone. he doesn't like it that we don't all have one unifying belief,... That bothers him. so does mentioning times when he's been "wrong" so stay away from that if you want to be his "friend"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is a pretty good recap on how things seem to be going so far.
==========================================
*puts the chair down* Ok, Robert E., you're sounding a lot more logical to me
now then you did a night ago. I hope the second impressions the correct one
(or at least closer) and the first impression was a fluke.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Where might they be found? Are they somewhere in this thread? I got lost somewhere along the way.
For what it is worth (it was worth something to me), I emailed James about the gender of the pronouns, "he" and "him," used for the word "Comforter" in John 14. I wanted to know what the Hebrew and Aramaic had to say about these verses. His response was quick, concise, considered, illuminating, and directly answered my question. Granted, much of it (not all) was a paste from his book. But, in view of the fact that it answered my question so well, that didn't bother me in the least. On the contrary, it impressed me.
Not only did he address considerations involved in translating between & among the languages involved, but also, he nicely addressed the literal, figurative, and grammatical language considerations involved.
It seemed a bit dense to me, but maybe I'm the one who is dense, or, at least, a novice to these languages. I figure I understood what he was saying, & replied to James, stating what I thought the application of his post meant to the verses I was considering. That was yesterday. I'm awaiting further response from him.
I very much appreciate his response, & it sparked interest in the whole field.
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
We agree completely on this. And we also have scriptural evidence of Greek being used as an important secondary language in the first century during the time period of Jesus and Paul in the Jewish provinces.
John 19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
KJV
And Robert to answer your question. We may not have known each other in past years. However, one of my roommates in college was Chuck Masterson, who later married the lady that did the New Testament Hebrew/Aramaic study for the Way magazine.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Tanks and missiles Wolf,
I'm, BTW, Bob Wassung (not hiding behind da silly avatar) and I do understand this Aramaic stuff pretty well. There are only a few places (in my experience) where the underlying substrate makes a real difference. Wrote some articles on it back in the day.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.