Nothing you've said changes the fact that Jesus (which is his English name, and since I'm an American speaking English, it is no sin to call him Jesus, nor saintly to call him Yeshua--I just want every one to know we're talking about the same Messiah, or in Greek, Christ) wasn't speaking Greek, so he didn't word play between Petros and Petra, which was my original point.
Jesus could certainly speak Hebrew, and any language if He wanted to, but not every disciple was as versed in formal Hebrew as Jesus—take Simon, later Cephas, whom we now call Saint Peter and his brother Saint Andrew, who were simple fishermen, for example.
If you have any scholarship that shows He did not speak Syriac or Aramaic, but only Hebrew, please enlighten me with a link, Brother. But whatever, believe anything you want. I'm certain one day we'll all know, when we stand before Him in all His Glory.
No, it was not.
Aramaic was a Hebrew based dialect anyway.
But a direct translation from the Greek back into Hebrew reveals Hebrew word puns which are otherwise hidden - And those puns make no sense in Aramaic either.
A better linguist than me could probably take the verse in Aramaic AND Hebrew, side by side, and they'd be a lot closer in both words and grammar than the later Greek, which was my original point. :-)
A point not lost on me... Similar, but not the same. Your defense of Petros/Petra is not the point I was making - It is your comment that Yeshua spoke Aramaic that goaded me to a reply.
Since I will not accept the idea that a single verse (taken out of context, btw) is sufficient to build the unHoly Roman Empire upon, not to mention various and sundry authorities supposedly granted to the 'christian' nobility of popery, your original point is without standing wrt your defense, as far as I am concerned.
While much of the New Testament was WRITTEN in Greek [...]
No it was not. The New (renewed) Covenant was necessarily written in Hebrew.
[...] that was not the spoken language it later translated from.
Right. The original language was Hebrew.
Nothing you've said changes the fact that Jesus (which is his English name, and since I'm an American speaking English, it is no sin to call him Jesus, nor saintly to call him Yeshua I just want every one to know we're talking about the same Messiah, or in Greek, Christ)[...]
So when you meet a native Mexican named Juan, do you call him John because you are speaking English?
[...] wasn't speaking Greek, so he didn't word play between Petros and Petra, which was my original point.
See above wrt my take on your original point.
Jesus could certainly speak Hebrew, and any language if He wanted to, but not every disciple was as versed in formal Hebrew as Jesus—take Simon, later Cephas, whom we now call Saint Peter and his brother Saint Andrew, who were simple fishermen, for example.
Right. Both Hebrews. The coin of the realm is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Temple (and synagogue) scrolls were written and spoken in Hebrew... Even the bloody gravestones are (in the lion's share) HEBREW. How exactly were Simon-Peter and Andrew supposed to understand what was being said when they sojourned to the temple three times a year? The whole idea that they didn't know their native tongue is simply a ludicrous western myth.
If you have any scholarship that shows He did not speak Syriac or Aramaic, but only Hebrew [...]
I did not say ONLY. My point is that Hebrew was spoken in the main. It would be unfortunate to suggest that then, like now, Aramaic was not common too - One would suppose that most folks thereabouts were at least bi-lingual... At least as unfortunate as to suggest that Hebrews weren't as bull-headed then as they are now about preserving their unique tongue.
please enlighten me with a link, Brother.
This report, while not scholarship in and of itself, backs up it's position quite nicely with the sort of books you might be interested in. The Jerusalem School, and Hebrew University are without peer in this sort of thing.
And the report (which I don't fully agree with btw), is a nice, easy read. Not knowing the investment you would require for your interest, the main talking points are reasonably fleshed out therein in a rather concise form.
But whatever, believe anything you want. I'm certain one day we'll all know, when we stand before Him in all His Glory.
Amen to that, FRiend.
Hebrew was the only language that any of the disciples could speak. Aramaic was the language of the descendents of Shem’s eldest son Aram, and spoken by the upper classes of Babylon, but never was used by any of the Hebrews that exited Babylon, although they did add aramaic words that had no counterpart in Hebrew to their vocabulary.
It is utterly illogical to think that the original manuscripts of NT books were written in anything but Hebrew. Who would have educated the disciples to write that language?