The manuscripts we have are in Greek. That identifies one language. There are two possibilities for another: Aramaic and Hebrew. An expert can examine the Greek for indications that it is a translation from either language. Your apparent aversion even to examining that possibility is hardly scientific. The manuscript we have is in Greek. This is the only factual thing that exists in the argument. As you said earlier, it could be (solution x) but you can't say that to the exclusion of the possibility of error. The next issue is the verbiage used in any proposed original. That is the heart of this claim to begin with. Whether you establish that it is probable that it was written in Aramaic prior, that does not resolve the issue of the language used. Only an original manuscript can resolve that. Absent that, the Greek language must stand. Again, forest vs. tree.
I have no aversion to examining possibility. That is one thing. The aversion I have is to making statements of fact where no facts are establishable. The specific here is the notion that there may have been a prior Aramaic text. This is not proven; but, a possibility -unlikely however it may be. The question then begged is the big picture - the language of the prior text. This is not a given. Nor can it be handled as such. And absent the original text, the Greek must stand on it's own. That is the sticking point on the other side. This whole notion comes up as a matter of wishful and hopeful thinking that they can justify saying whatever they will about the prior text without it being present.
As a matter of Principle this is the stand that must be made. And this is the danger that arises when people start toying around with assuming facts instead of discovering them.
“The manuscript we have is in Greek. This is the only factual thing that exists in the argument.”
No, it isn’t. I have asserted that an expert judgment on indications that a text is a translation from a known second language rise to the level of fact, and that this can be demonstrated. Your continued insistence to the contrary, absent any evidence to support your contention, is hardly scientific.
“As you said earlier, it could be (solution x) but you can't say that to the exclusion of the possibility of error.”
The scientific method does not call on us to absolutely reject everything that cannot be demonstrated “to the exclusion of the possibility of error.” Science often adopts hypotheses when scientists only feel 90% or 70% sure of them. Based on the article Daijal posted, I’d rank the chances that at least parts of the Gospels are translations from a Hebrew original somewhere in that range.
“Whether you establish that it is probable that it was written in Aramaic prior, that does not resolve the issue of the language used. Only an original manuscript can resolve that.”
Actually, references to originals in other languages would also be accepted, just as it is accepted that other ancient authors produced works of which no copy survives. Further, it would be foolish to disregard a 90% certainty and insist on an alternative hypothesis on the grounds that 90% is not 100%.
“Absent that, the Greek language must stand.”
There is nothing implicit in the survival of Greek MSs that necessarily shows the surviving texts to be the originals. There are other ancient texts of which only later translations survive, while we know that there were earlier versions that did not. It is therefore illogical and unscientific to say, “Because these MSs survived, they must be the originals,” or to reject evidence for alternative hypotheses on the grounds that the only surviving MSs are Greek.
“Again, forest vs. tree.”
Ease up on the self-congratulation, okay? From my standpoint, it appears that you are taking a narrow viewpoint and excluding evidence from consideration on specious grounds.
“The aversion I have is to making statements of fact where no facts are establishable.”
You are excluding from consideration facts that I know can be established.
“The specific here is the notion that there may have been a prior Aramaic text.”
Or Hebrew. As previously noted, Hebrew was the language of religion even among Aramaic-speaking Jews. It seems entirely plausible that the Apostles, who were Jews convinced that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, would write in their sacred language.
“And absent the original text, the Greek must stand on its own.”
As I discussed above, that assertion cannot be supported either logically or through evidence. The fact that only Greek MSs survived hardly proves that no other texts existed. Further, the survival of a prior version of an ancient text is not the only evidence accepted to show that a prior version once existed. And finally, you are rejecting an entire category of evidence on what appear to me invalid grounds.
You may very well be right. I don’t consider the proposition that the Gospels were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew to be proven. However, you have failed to make your case that they were not.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/nutsandbolts.html