hand, is attested by nothing but
assumptions and suppositions by
people who clearly have no clue
about the science of
I think you're right E-S:
"[Some] Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be"
Time to shake of the dust for sure...
The Hebrews despised anything Greek and would not have allowed Greek texts inside their Holly places.
This is not evidence, it is a supposition.
We have witness testimony that the original texts were indeed written in the Hebrew as listed upstream.
People like Eusebius and Papias were writing centuries after the fact, and are not "witnesses" to any Hebrew autographs.
Thousands and thousands of Hebrew texts (likely many original Hebrew texts) were burned by the church, as evidenced by E-S above.
Since this "proof" defies proof, by definition, it, too, is mere supposition.
After the crucifixion, common sense would dictate the Pharisees would launch a campaign to destroy any written record of Yeshua's teachings.
Ditto.
Basing your theory on a few fragments of Greek texts, that everything documented was documented ONLY in the Greek language, is a ludicrous assumption.
There are not, of course, a "few fragments," but thousands, in whole or in part, discovered all over the known world. The Greek New Testament is better attested by at least an order of magnitude than any other ancient work.
A hypothetical original Hebrew New Testament, on the other hand, is attested by nothing but assumptions and suppositions by people who clearly have no clue about the science of textual criticism.
I think you're right E-S:
"[Some] Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be"
Time to shake of the dust for sure...