[metmom]

I already have, and you know it. All you have to do is explain those tiny little Hebrew (and Aramaic) word puns hidden beneath the Greek..

That's not proof. That's speculation and opinion.

Proof is texts, physical fragments of ancient writings.

[roamer_1]

I already have, and you know it. All you have to do is explain those tiny little Hebrew (and Aramaic) word puns hidden beneath the Greek..

That's not proof. That's speculation and opinion.

No, it is proof positive of strong Hebrew and Aramaic influences upon the text.

Proof is texts, physical fragments of ancient writings.

No, it isn't. As I have said elsewhere on this thread, the same was said of the Masoretic Text. The Greek/Latin tradition was older by a long shot. Yet the proofs within textual criticism were strong enough for all of Protestantism to adopt the Masoretic tradition instead.

And now, archaeology and anthropology have largely proved the Masoretic, primarily through the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kochba letters. By your standard, until the DSS apeared, you should have been fighting for the Roman church wrt the Old Testament. Older is not necessarily better. Nor is it necessarily proof.