Gods word only in Aramaic? Any Comment KJVO?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ben W, Oct 22, 2004.

  1. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus spoke Aramaic, The Book of Matthew was written in Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament in NT Greek.

    Why does Gods word have to be changed into English, into the 1611 KJV? Where do we have the right to change the languge of the Bible into English?

    If the original Texts are in Aramaic, NT Greek or Hebrew, are not those the languages that the Bible should be published in only. Those are the true accounts of what happened. Where do christians have the right to change the sentance structures or to add or subtract words to make these writings correspond to english spoken in 1611?

    If people want to study the Bible, should it not rightly be in the uncorrupted form that it was written?
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There is zero evidence that Matthew was ever written in Aramaic. Being written in Aramaic is the opinion of a man that started that nonsense years ago.
     
  3. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, gb, that's not so. Papias wrote in AD 130 that "Matthew compiled the Logia in the Hebrew speech (e.g. Aramaic), and every one translated them as best he could." (F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable , 1960, p.38).
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    That's what Papias wrote. But still there is not a manuscript that supports that. It's the same argument that has been around for sometime. It is being resurrected again by some though. But I don't know of any scholars that take it seriously.
     
  5. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Norman Geisler does. F.F. Bruce seemed to as well.

    You'd have to have sufficient reason to discount Papias in order to repudiate the argument. The usual repudiation is that Papias wasn't a true historian, he basically repeated what had been handed down from elsewhere, e.g. he repeated heresay. Speaking now from my history degree and my training in historiography, I have to point out that there's a bit of a double standard from that. Technically, most of the history we have regarding the preChristian Western cultures can be called "heresay," but we nevertheless accept it. Additionally, in New Testament study, we generally seem to have no problem acknowledging that Mark was Peter's stenographer, and Papias also said this, so it's actually somewhat inconsistent to discount what he says regarding Matthew being written in Aramaic.

    The repudiation of what Papias says in relationship to Matt. has more to do with the argument for the priority of Mark, as most persons in the past interpreted what he wrote about Matthew as affirming that the gospel itself was written first. (However, that's not exactly what he wrote. He simply says that he wrote it in Aramaic and everybody translated it). In other words, those that reject an Aramaic origin seem to do so because they reject Matthean priority itself, since this was the way people in the past interpreted and applied the statement.

    Now, I must also point out that we do not accept, by and large, what Papias writes about the two Johns (John the Apostle having written the Gospel and John the Elder having written the epistles). (Actually, keep in mind we're always rejecting what Eusebius wrote that Papias said, anyway, but I digress...). At any rate, we do this based on the similarity in writing style and the repetition of language forms, not because of anything about Papias or Eusibeus that we consider suspect.

    All this is to say that, while it is inconsistent to accept what Papias says on some things and what he does not say on others, it is important to point out the reasons those things are done.

    The allegation that because there is no extant that supports what Papias said about Matthew is, in fact, an argument from silence.
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    There are no manuscripts in Hebrew at all. It is always a possibility that Papias is right. But again there are no manuscripts other than those in Greek that have Matthew.

    Most of the NT uses Jewish phraseology so that would not leave Matthew alone as the only book that would use Aramaic phrases. Yet all of the other books are in Greek. Plus Greek was the scholarly langauge and trade language among nations just like English is today.

    Remember what F.F. Bruce's background is. It is not the NT. Geisler I don't think anyone that I know of who flies in those circles consider him much of a scholar in that area. Geisler is more of an apologist and has written some books on theology. But I don't think of him as much of a scholar in the area of textual criticsm and manuscript evidence.
     
  7. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are no manuscripts in Hebrew at all. It is always a possibility that Papias is right. But again there are no manuscripts other than those in Greek that have Matthew.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Which is my entire point. You wrote that there is "zero evidence" that Matthew was written in Aramaic. I am merely pointing out that is not the case. You are asserting that it is best to not accept what Papias said based on the lack of manuscripts. That's simply an argument from silence.

    In fact Iraneus affirms Papias. Moreover, Eusebius quotes Origen on the subject. Yes, I know, we repudiate some of what some of these guys believed on some things, but, to repudiate him on the basis of theology is KJVO logic ;) .

    It is possible that Papias was correct. Matthew could have originally written in Aramaic and the Greek manuscripts that are extant are copies of the translations from Aramaic into Greek. Maybe he was wrong. Regardless, the existence of Papias statements and those of others in centuries past is a far cry from there being "absolutely no evidence." That's all I'm trying to point out.

    The real question is why do we accept what he says about Mark and Peter and why do we reject what he says about Matthew?
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    It don't think it matters.

    What is codified as Scripture is the Greek New testament including the Book of Matthew.

    However, if an ancient aramaic version of Matthew were discovered, I for one would be fascinated to know its content but I don't think I would call it the originally inspired text.

    Which raises a good question, what do others think? Would you prefer it over the koine?

    Which would be the God-breathed inspired text?
    The Aramaic or the Greek koine or both?


    HankD
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    For the same reason we all accept some things Augustine or Spurgeon (for instance) said concerning a certain topic and not others.

    HankD
     
  10. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting question. My personal opinion? I think the "all scriptures God-breathed" is telling us something about the process God used as he worked within the authors to produce their written work. So yes, if Matthew first wrote his gospel in aramaic (a big if, IMHO) those aramaic writings are God breathed into existence.
     
  11. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still no answer to the original question?
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    If we lived in a perfect world that would be the obvious answer.

    There is no commandment to translate the Scriptures as such.

    In the Book of Acts God Himself provided a miracle to cross the language barrier (which barrier He Himself built at Nimrod's ("Gate to heaven").

    That miracle no longer exists where men receive the ability to speak a known language instantly. So gifted men have to step out by faith and translate the Scriptures for their brethren who, for whatever reason, are not able to learn the original languages of the Scriptures for themselves.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...