I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. (1 Cor. 16:21)
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. (Gal. 6:11)
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. (Col. 4:18)
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write. (2 Thess. 3:17)
I, Paul, write this with my own hand. (Philemon 19)
And, in any case, we also know that Paul employed an amanuensis, as was customary. We even know the name of one: Tertius (Rom. 16:22). Whether Paul wrote entire letters with his own hand is nothing but a distraction from the real issue: If the New Testament was written in Hebrew originally, why are there thousands of Greek copies, but zero ancient Hebrew copies?
And in regard to the remainder of your post, there is no evidence that any of the other apostles could even speak Greek.
The books of Luke—his Gospel and Acts—are addressed to a "Theophilus." That is a Greek name. I wonder what language a man with a Greek name might have spoken.
Sure, anything is possible
See, this is why it's so difficult to take your arguments seriously. On the one hand, you want us to believe that it's possible, that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, even though you have no empirical evidence that was the case, only conjecture. On the other hand, the overwhelming number of Greek copies makes it not only possible but probable that the New Testament's original language was Greek. Yet while you admit that "anything is possible," you dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
...
And, in any case, we also know that Paul employed an amanuensis, as was customary. We even know the name of one: Tertius (Rom. 16:22). Whether Paul wrote entire letters with his own hand is nothing but a distraction from the real issue:
But STILL no evidence of Paul writing in the letters in Greek. Though I agree with you that this is a distraction from the real issue.
If the New Testament was written in Hebrew originally, why are there thousands of Greek copies, but zero ancient Hebrew copies?
In assuming you are using the term "New Testament" to mean any of the original texts, I offer that the same forces who were behind the crucifixion were likely engaged in destroying any and all written records of those events. That same effort may even continue to this very day.
The books of Luke—his Gospel and Acts—are addressed to a "Theophilus." That is a Greek name. I wonder what language a man with a Greek name might have spoken.
That's pretty flimsy evidence you present there my FRiend. Allow me to present the following:
Evidence Supporting Original Hebrew-Aramaic New Testament (by James S. Trimm )
See, this is why it's so difficult to take your arguments seriously.
Why not include my full statement, that we may see the context?
Sure, anything is possible I suppose but common sense tells us they would have first written down their accounts in their native tongue; one they were intimately familiar with. More so since these accounts happened in a land were Hebrew was the primary language.
I contend your statement: " See, this is why it's so difficult to take your arguments seriously.", is merely an attempt to deflect that which you can make no reasonable argument against due to an abundance of logic backing it.
Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
Scholars have been arguing this issue for centuries. Do you really expect either of us will win this one? lol