Replies

“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

I thought we were debating past each other and now I'm sure of it. You are stuck on the single issue of whether it was possible that the manuscript could have started in another language. I am arguing from the standpoint that saying it "may have been" or that "it was with x degree of certainty" Does not intuit into fact or existance the original manuscript for our parusal. The basis of my argument is to say that while it may be convenient to some to say that it is possible, their reason for doing so is largely to try and introduce into evidence a modern translation in place of a translation that doesn't exist factually whether one ever prior existed or not. The form doesn't beg a prior translation; but, that isn't exactly
a formal dismissal either.

I've drawn on the debate over word use to try and illustrate my position. Many would very much like to replace both Petra and Petros with Kephas. The Result is then to emasculate the meaning of two separate words and render them gender neutral and nearly meaning neutral in order to support a claim that heretofore has been absolutely unsupportable because the language in the greek is so clear. In essence, it's like arguing that the US constitution was written originally in piglatin in order to try and do away with freedom of speach through supplanting a less specific word or phraseology in the prior claimed language to skewer the freedom and allow abridgement of it.

Now, That Peter was not exclusively given the Keys is demonstrable in two ways. Peter was not the one that opened the door to the Gentiles, that was Paul. And Paul did so not only without consulting Peter; but, via a consultation with Christ that took place before Peter or anyone else was ever filled in. This demonstrates Paul using the keys to the kingdom without so much as a "let me lend you these" from Peter. If they were given exclusively to Peter, how then does Paul open the door to the Gentiles?
Now secondly, All the apostles were assigned the judaic office of binding and loosing - judicial interpretation over scriptural doctrine. This happened in Matthew 16:18 and is remarked on elsewhere. So the declaration in Matthew 16:18 is plural indicating the you is the group, not Peter. The only people bothered by this are those trying to raise Pete up on a platform above the others against such warnings by paul to the contrary in Corinthians. It is the error of Unum Sanctum - in Paul's language, Was the Pope crucified, was he divided, Are men saved in the Pope's name. This is an affront to some; but, this is the very thing Paul warned against. One wonders if Paul should not be the next person claimed to be written prior in Aramaic to undo some things he said.. But I'll leave that for another day.

So now I digress and address the point again re Kephas and the question of petros and petra. Petros and petra in the Greek have different meanings. Petros being of different Gender also is a different state of being. Petra throughout the entire NT is always used to denote immovable rock structures. Petros as a word is moveable rock on a smaller scale - as I've remarked before, boulders and rocks that can be lifted by hand - up to and including major moveable slabs. It isn't rocket science to understand the difference being drawn. If I have a lump of steel that weighs 1 pound and call it one thing and I have an 80ton steel hunk that I call another, simply calling it steel removes the differentiation of what it is. You don't take the 1 pound hunk and substitute it for the 80ton upright column when raising a structure the size of the empire state building. Neither do you point at a mountain and say "petros" unless you're an idiot or ignorant of the Greek language. The point made is that Christ points to Peter's testimony of who Christ is as the Bedrock foundation of the Church.. not peter. The church isn't founded on Peter, it is founded on belief in Christ as the Messiah - and that is the testimony of all the apostles including Peter without fail. The church wasn't founded on a rock, it was founded on the spilled blood of God's only son.

Does Kephas fit both by saying it is generic for rock in general, not really. Kephas has a prim root from which it is a direct rip in Chaldee. A one for one meaning as it were and that meaning is translatable to petros; not to petra. In literal sense, all the things petra represents are representable in more proper forms using the aramaic words for Mountain, Cliff, etc. How specific is aramaic? You can go out on the web and see for yourself. There are english to Aramaic translation tools and dictionaries web published that will show you. The Chaldee has forms for Mountain, cliff, etc as well, and more of them. The actual translation of cephas is an interesting one from the chaldee. But to say that an aramaic original had christ stating 'you are rock and upon this rock' is erroneous at best and an irresponsible lie at worst. This is not what was being related. Even the english translation we have is dubious given the difference in the type; but, it is something relented to out of habit from earlier translation. 'you are petros and upon this petra' doesn't literally work for the language either in greek or in english because it isn't what's being said. The words petra and petros are differentiations. I'm not going to by fiatt demand or suggest a change but merely what the language gives us. The word translated "and" is a conjunctive that can also mean a number of other things - among them "but". One has to wonder if it was motive or proper usage that drove the translation. let's look at it with the literal terminology plugged in.
'you are moveable stone and upon this immoveable mountain (,bedrock, cliff,..)' Now let's look at it another way: 'you are moveable stone; but, upon this immoveable mountain..' The underlying meaning isn't lost using the conjunctive and - which is likely why it was agreed to. Using the alternative 'but' punctuates the point and dissallows any mistake in what's being said, just as injecting the word meanings does. Absent the word meanings, a lot of error can be sold and has been. Along with a lot of nonsensical argumentation that could have been saved and a lot of bad will.