Replies

I remember reading about a linguist who was translating the Gospel of Matthew from Greek into Hebrew. He was astonished to discover that the Greek rendered into Hebrew of a poetic form common to Scripture, indicating that the Greek was actually translated originally from Hebrew! That would most certainly date Matthew within 70 years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

"...indicating that the Greek was actually translated originally from Hebrew!"

That's very interesting. I didn't know that.

"That would most certainly date Matthew within 70 years of Jesus' death and resurrection."

And now the Dead Sea Scrolls have pushed it back to AD 40.

I'm beginning to believe that the 20th century was one in which Satan was particularly strong, but that now his power is waning.

You should go read Michael Crichton's recent article on junk science. There is not a shred of supportable evidence of any factual kind that supports Matthew having been written originally in anything other than greek. Nor was there a need for it to be written in other than Greek. The claim that it was written in Aramaic arose out of a need to support another claim that has since been surrendered. It also arose out of an ignorance of Chaldee. Marvelling about poetic nature is cute; but, it isn't science nor is it factual. I'll underscore that it's cute cause it's just the sort of thing you say when you want someone to buy something without support or make it more likely that they may. And this is exactly the sort of thing that Crichton attacked and attacked with clarity.

Responsibility and credibility go hand in hand. The earliest known texts found have all been in Greek. No first century text has ever been found in Chaldee. And the point that was trying to be made by saying it was is lost in the facts surrounding the language. Some people need to do a better job on homework.