84 Sabbaths in the Book of Acts

[TreeOfLife]

Dear Brethren and Sisters,

There is no reason for being afraid to ask honest questions in the pursuit of answers of truth! Cf. Genesis 21:17; Psalms 34:7; Matthew 1:20; 28:5; Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10.

Adamah Republic Defined

You’ll find the name Adamah used once in the Scriptures. In Joshua 19:36 you’ll find it being used for one of the fenced cities in Palestine. That is, one of the cities within the Promised Land.

Strong’s Dictionary has three entries for the word ‘Adamah.’ Cf. H126, H127, & H128. Strong’s H127 provides:

Quote:

“From H119; soil (from its general redness) [KJV:] - country…”

In Jonah 4:2 (KJV) you’ll find H127 translated “country.”

Quote:

Bovier’s Dictionary has this definition for the word ‘country:’ “By country is meant the state of which one is a member…” and the same dictionary defines the word ‘state:’ “…the state means the whole people…”

Black’s Law Dictionary provides: “Country… In the primary meaning “country” denotes the population… having possession and dominion over a territory…”

The root of ‘Adamah’ is ‘Adam.’

Quote:

Strong’s Dictionary #H119 provides: “adam… To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy.”

Thus Adamah is a name for the People of Adam now living. Yeshua called Himself “the Son of Man,” or actually, as is made clear from Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew [a 14th century transcript of an original Hebrew MS of Matthew,] Yeshua referenced Himself as “the Son of Adam.”

…

Adding the word ‘Republic:’

Quote:

“Republic… 1 : COMMONWEAL…,”

“commonweal… 1: the general welfare… 2 archaic: COMMONWEALTH…;”

“commonwealth… 1 : public welfare : wealth held in common… 3 a : a community of beings… usu. characterized by a general equality among members…”

- Webster’s New International Dictionary

The word Republic is intended to be used in reference to the Sons and Daughters among God’s People and in contradistinction from the words ‘state’ and ‘democracy’ when used as follows:

Quote:

“state… 1 a : a mode or condition of being… b… (2) : a condition of abnormal tension of excitement (as from anger or fear)… c archaic : … ACME, CRISIS – usu. used of a disease…

“democracy… 1 a (2) : a form f government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority…”

- Webster’s New International Dictionary

In a nut shell:

Adamah Republic is a reference to the Sons and Daughters of God, the Creator. In a secondary sense it is also intended as a reference to the territory in their possession and under their dominion. The word ‘alodium’ describes such territory: “

Quote:

“alodium… 2…: land that is the absolute property of the owner : real estate held in absolute independence without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior” (ibid)

Thus, an alodium is not subject to property taxes, building permits, or other claims by external “authorities.”

…

It is up to each among God’s Sons and Daughters, where ever located, to properly claim and realize any and all of these blessings intended for us by our Father, “him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” (Revelation 14:7.)

Notice the words of our Saviour:

Quote:

Matthew 17:26 “Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. “

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

John the Baptist:

Matthew 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Yeshua:

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Daniel:

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Thusly, the stewardship over a little corner stone, an alodium in the midst of the Scandinavian peninsula, is granted unto me and my family “to dress it and to keep it” for the purpose of furthering the reality of the Kingdom of God among His People.

Tree of Life©

[John317]

Shalom

BTW John317, I attended LLU 80-82, just missed meeting you it would seem.

Were you on the La Sierra campus? I was. I lived in Loma Linda most of my life up to that point, but all of my classes were on the other campus.

In the days I grew up in Loma Linda, it was a wonderful place, kind of a taste of heaven in many ways. The only policeman we had in those years was a man named Mr. Law, who had been a body guard for FDR. He had become SDA and carried no weapon. His work entailed such things as running young boys like me out of the corn fields owned by the University. He would give me rides in his old police car sometimes. Very nice man.

[John317]

.... the NT was written in the Greek Language and not Hebrew. Again thanks for your reply.

pk

Yes, you are right about this. There is no good evidence that the letters of Paul, for instance, were originally written in any other language besides koine Greek.

It is possible that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it is by no means certain. All of the earliest copies of the NT are in Greek and there is very good evidence that that is the original language in which it was written. Naturally, since most of the writers were Jews and spoke Hebrew-- and since Jesus spoke His own words in Aramaic-- it should not be surprising if we see some influences of those languages in the NT. But that of itself is no compelling reason to believe the documents themselves were originally written in Hebrew.

When reading the book of Revelation in the original, it becomes apparent that it was not written by someone who was accustomed to writing in Greek. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews was obviously written by someone who knew Greek extremely well. Same with Luke's writings.

[John317]

The unique Hebraism kai egeneto is found 8 times in Acts:

A typical Hebraism found in the Greek MSS is “kai egeneto.” If I am not misinformed, this phrase makes little or no sense in the Greek, nor does its counterpart in Aramaic make any more sense. I find that Greek phrase [using my e-Sword GNT-TR (Greek New Testament – 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus)] being used 7 times each in Matthew and Mark. The Luke MS is using the same phrase no less than 30 times and the Acts MS is using said phrase 8 times.

So far as I know this is very strong evidence that Acts was indeed originally written in Hebrew and not in either Aramaic or Greek.

“Footnote #37: For example, kai egeneto “and it was” appears at Matthew 7:28, Mark 1:9; Luke 1:23; etc.”

"Kai egeneto" makes good sense in Greek. It means "And it came to pass" or "it happened" or "it came to be." Any modern Greek-speaking person could comprehend it, and there is no reason to think that a Greek-speaker of Paul's day would have been confused by the phrase.

It's from the lexicon form "yinomai" and means "it happened or came about," etc. It occurs often in Greek literature outside of the New Testament and is well documented in such standard references as p. 126 of The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1930, 1976.

[TreeOfLife]

This tells us that Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, but the fact that Paul tells his audience that the Lord said these words in Aramaic…

[John317]

I hope you won’t mind me asking you a couple of questions re your above quoted statements:

Question #1:

What’s your basis for claiming 1) that it is a “fact that Paul tells his audience that the Lord said these words in Aramaic” and 2) that “Jesus spoke His own words in Aramaic?” Are these claims of yours based upon the obviously bad NIV translation of the Greek word “Hebraidi” into the English word “Aramaic” (Acts 26:14) or do you have some other stronger support for your claim?

Quote:

Acts 26:13-14 About noon… as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun… and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [NIV]

Act 26:13-14 At midday… I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun… And… I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [KJV]

Check out a good source of info on the language of Jesus--

http://markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesuslanguage.htm

[John317]

Question #2:

In view of the facts previously stated re the Greek words “kai egeneto” “being used 7 times each in Matthew and Mark…” and in “Luke… no less than 30 times and [in] Acts 8 times,” and as well 9 times in Revelation, I find it remarkable that those same words are not found more than once in all of the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John, including also the Gospel of John, most especially if those last mentioned writings were indeed written in Greek.

The one exception in Paul’s epistles is found in 1 Thessalonians 3:4. Considering Acts 17:13, especially the phrase “the Jews of Thessalonica” and Paul’s prior experience with some of those Jews (cf. Acts 17:1-11) it would come as no surprise to me if Paul wrote at least 1 Thessalonians in the Hebrew language in order to better get the attention of said “Jews of Thessalonica,” or don’t you agree? For clearly Paul too knew and spoke Hebrew, didn’t he? Cf. Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2!

Quote:

Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

You bring up some interesting points and observations. It will be fun to talk about this after I get back from church.

Where do you go to church anyway? You still live around LLU? I still do.

[Robert]

To all:

One thing that I've found is that most SDA keep the Sabbath out of tradition. They make up rules (what not to do and what to do) and call it "resting". I say you all are confused!

My opinion (and a strong one at that),

Robert H.

[phkrause]

Not sure if I agree with all that you've written about Adamah, it seems your trying to stretch the word a bit. According to the SDA Bible Dictionary it says:

"Adamah [Heb. 'Adamah, "red (land)."] A fenced city in Naphtali (Jos 19:36) in northeastern Galilee; identified by some with Hagar ed-Damm, about 2 1/2 mi. (c. 4 km.) northwest of where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee."

pk

[Woody]

To all:

One thing that I've found is that most SDA keep the Sabbath out of tradition. They make up rules (what not to do and what to do) and call it "resting". I say you all are confused!

My opinion (and a strong one at that),

Robert H.

In some sense you are right Robert H.

We each have our own 'traditions' on how we keep the day Holy.

I am glad that we don't set aside a list of rules or laws on how to keep the day holy. It is left up to each individual. And the way it is kept is as varied as there are individuals. This is cool.

How do you honor God. How would you honor your wife on your anniversary? I am sure your wife would rather that you initiate how to honor her ... rather than her having to tell you specifically. Sure she may make some general suggestions. But Rob ... give her some individual thought filled inititive.

[Robert]

I'm not married.

[phkrause]

I guess he has already forgotten.

pk

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

Question #1:

What’s your basis for claiming 1) that it is a “fact that Paul tells his audience that the Lord said these words in Aramaic” and 2) that “Jesus spoke His own words in Aramaic?” Are these claims of yours based upon the obviously bad NIV translation of the Greek word “Hebraidi” into the English word “Aramaic” (Acts 26:14) or do you have some other stronger support for your claim?

Quote:

Acts 26:13-14 About noon… as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun… and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [NIV]

Act 26:13-14 At midday… I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun… And… I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [KJV]

Check out a good source of info on the language of Jesus--

http://markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/jesuslanguage.htm

[TreeOfLife]

Not sure if I agree with all that you've written about Adamah, it seems your trying to stretch the word a bit. According to the SDA Bible Dictionary it says:

"Adamah [Heb. 'Adamah, "red (land)."] A fenced city in Naphtali (Jos 19:36) in northeastern Galilee; identified by some with Hagar ed-Damm, about 2 1/2 mi. (c. 4 km.) northwest of where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee."

pk

Dear P Krause,

Thanks for the particulars you are adding to my prior insights re the word Adamah! I had not previously looked it up in my SDA Bible Dictionary.

Re agreeing and stretching the word:

You are certainly free to perceive and understand the word Adamah from your point of view and to apply it accordingly as well, to the extent you wish to use it for your self in your own life. I can say nothing about that except when and if I perceive either that you are trespassing upon that which is mine to keep or else when and if I perceive that I can offer you something of greater value. In the latter case you’d be free to accept or refuse my offer according to you whim.

Naturally the same applies the other way around. I am choosing to apply this word, this name, for a purpose within the dominion I am given responsibility for.

Regardless how either one of us uses a word or any tool there will necessarily be unique features and unique aspects to each of our use. That’s as it should be. That’s the only way it can be. That’s how our universe is created by God for each of us.

We owe it to one another as well as to our God to respect one another for each other’s differences even where we do not necessarily understand or cannot comprehend where the other one is coming from. God’s People is a peculiar People and that’s as it should be.

Remember God’s name: “I am whom I am. I shall be whom I shall be.” Exodus 3:14. Let’s apply that name to each our uniquenesses and respect one another accordingly and our planet will soon be a more heavenly place for all of us.

Peace over your home,

Tree of Life©

[TreeOfLife]

...it seems your trying to stretch the word a bit...

pk

Dear P Krause,

On second thought, if you expand somewhat upon the particulars you are thinking of and expressing by your above quoted words, perhaps that will prove of value to me and mine and further blessings of God upon our pursuit?

Thanks,

Tree of Life©

[John317]

Why do you call the link to Mark D. Roberts “a good source of info on the language of Jesus?”

Mark D. Roberts is proposing a number of apparently reasonable hypotheses, which apparently he has derived from the sources he is citing, but I see little or nothing of substance

What reason do you have for disbelieving the following paragraphs from Mister Robert's post:

Quote:

Jesus' spoke Aramaic, the common language of Galilee during his lifetime. Aramaic was an ancient Semitic language related to Hebrew much as French is related to Spanish or as Cantonese is related to Mandarin. (Thanks to Prof. Zev bar-Lev for help with these analogies.) Though Jews had once spoken Hebrew as their primary language, this changed when Israel was overthrown, first by the Assyrians in the eight-century B.C. and then by the Babylonians in the sixth-century B.C. By the time of Jesus Aramaic was so common among Jews that the reading of the Hebrew Scripture in the synagogue was accompanied by translation into Aramaic. (For a helpful overview of Aramaic, see the "Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon" website of Hebrew Union College.)

In addition to the strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language, we find direct evidence for this theory from the New Testament gospels. Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha cum" (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians.

These passages and others from the gospels, combined with the predominance of Aramaic in Palestine in the first century A.D., make it virtually certain that Aramaic was Jesus' primary language.

[John317]

.... the use of those Aramaic words constitutes very strong evidence, if not proof, that the Greek MSS where those Aramaic words are found are based upon an Aramaic text.

What is your strongest evidence that the original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic?

What importance does this have for you, that you believe the NT was originally written in a language other than the Koine Greek?

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

.... the NT was written in the Greek Language and not Hebrew. Again thanks for your reply.

pk

Yes, you are right about this. There is no good evidence that the letters of Paul, for instance, were originally written in any other language besides koine Greek.

It is possible that Matthew was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it is by no means certain. All of the earliest copies of the NT are in Greek and there is very good evidence that that is the original language in which it was written. Naturally, since most of the writers were Jews and spoke Hebrew-- and since Jesus spoke His own words in Aramaic-- it should not be surprising if we see some influences of those languages in the NT. But that of itself is no compelling reason to believe the documents themselves were originally written in Hebrew.

When reading the book of Revelation in the original, it becomes apparent that it was not written by someone who was accustomed to writing in Greek. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews was obviously written by someone who knew Greek extremely well. Same with Luke's writings.

[John317]

In addition to my post of yesterday re my Question #2 (Post #236055) and the Greek words “kai egeneto” I wish to focus your attention for a moment also on some statements from The New Testament Greek Grammar by M. Whittaker. Please notice especially the words under the Chapter heading Semitisms and as well the specific examples of such Semitisms under item #2 in said Grammar! Please press the link to see what I am referring to!

Re your words “the book of Hebrews was obviously written by someone who knew Greek extremely well. Same with Luke's writings,” please notice the footnote on page 150 of the above linked Grammar:

Quote:

“The only longer passages in the NT consistently showing distinctly Hebrew idiom are Luke 1-2 and parts of Revelation.”

Thanks for the link. I did read it and take note of what was said there. The fact that Luke has some evidence showing "distinctly Hebrew idiom" doesn't change that fact that both Luke and Acts are written in excellent Koine Greek and show a mastery of that language. There is no reason to believe that Luke didn't use those Hebrew idioms intentionally. Anyone who knew Greek as well as Luke did was aware of those idioms. His writing is by far and away the most literary of all the books of the NT, above those written by the Apostle Paul. The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for gentile or non-Jewish Christians.

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

.... the use of those Aramaic words constitutes very strong evidence, if not proof, that the Greek MSS where those Aramaic words are found are based upon an Aramaic text.

What is your strongest evidence that the original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic?

What importance does this have for you, that you believe the NT was originally written in a language other than the Koine Greek?

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

Why do you call the link to Mark D. Roberts “a good source of info on the language of Jesus?”

Mark D. Roberts is proposing a number of apparently reasonable hypotheses, which apparently he has derived from the sources he is citing, but I see little or nothing of substance

What reason do you have for disbelieving the following paragraphs from Mister Robert's post:

Quote:

Jesus' spoke Aramaic, the common language of Galilee during his lifetime. Aramaic was an ancient Semitic language related to Hebrew much as French is related to Spanish or as Cantonese is related to Mandarin. (Thanks to Prof. Zev bar-Lev for help with these analogies.) Though Jews had once spoken Hebrew as their primary language, this changed when Israel was overthrown, first by the Assyrians in the eight-century B.C. and then by the Babylonians in the sixth-century B.C. By the time of Jesus Aramaic was so common among Jews that the reading of the Hebrew Scripture in the synagogue was accompanied by translation into Aramaic. (For a helpful overview of Aramaic, see the "Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon" website of Hebrew Union College.)

In addition to the strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language, we find direct evidence for this theory from the New Testament gospels. Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha cum" (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians.

These passages and others from the gospels, combined with the predominance of Aramaic in Palestine in the first century A.D., make it virtually certain that Aramaic was Jesus' primary language.

Finding and Accepting Added Light and a Firmer Foundation

An attempt at an analysis of the above quoted statements of Pastor Mark D. Roberts (Please note that no doubt Pastor Mark D. Roberts did his best, based on his training and the insights available to him. Lacking a more solid foundation for his deductions, he did his best in pursuing the truth of a matter, but, lacking the necessary data, the correct conclusions remained elusive and unattainable for him at the time:)

1. Authoritative claim: “Jesus' spoke Aramaic”

2. Apparent support for said claim: “[Aramaic was] the common language of Galilee during his lifetime.”

3. Prof. Zev bar-Lev is here placed in an apparent position of authority for said claim: “Aramaic was an ancient Semitic language related to Hebrew much as French is related to Spanish or as Cantonese is related to Mandarin. (Thanks to Prof. Zev bar-Lev for help with these analogies.)”

4. Appeal to the reader’s sense of reasoning power without any attempt at providing a firm basis of the arguments provided: “Though Jews had once spoken Hebrew as their primary language, this changed when Israel was overthrown, first by the Assyrians in the eight-century B.C. and then by the Babylonians in the sixth-century B.C. By the time of Jesus Aramaic was so common among Jews that the reading of the Hebrew Scripture in the synagogue was accompanied by translation into Aramaic.”

5. Here an Hebrew institution and an Aramaic lexicon is placed in a position where it gives the impression of adding authoritative support to said reader’s sense of reasoning: “(For a helpful overview of Aramaic, see the "Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon" website of Hebrew Union College.)”

6. Next Pastor Mark D. Roberts is making a plain statement of truth re the nature of his above stated claims:

a. “[There is only] circumstantial evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic as his primary language”

b. “this theory [as here presented]”

7. The apparent basis for the theory that fails the test of truth once viewed in the light available from the facts re Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew (but which until then clearly may have seemed like a valid argument:) “…we find direct evidence for this theory from the New Testament gospels. Though these gospels were written originally in Greek, at several points Jesus' words are given in Aramaic, for example: "Talitha cum" (Mark 5:41, "Little girl, get up!"); "Abba" (Mark 14:36. "Father"); "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" (Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). In these cases the actual Aramaic words of Jesus were remembered and passed on even by Greek-speaking Christians.”

8. Attempt at adding more weight to that which previously may have seemed a valid basis, but which doesn’t necessarily hold up by itself: “These passages and others from the gospels, combined with the predominance of Aramaic in Palestine in the first century A.D.,…”

9. A conclusion, which, after being viewed in the greater light of the facts re Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, is shown to be based on nothing but sand: “…make it virtually certain that Aramaic was Jesus' primary language.”

What proof or evidence overthrows the apparent basis of the above arguments (item #7 above?

1. The linguistic proof for Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew being a transcript of an original Hebrew text and not a mere translation from a Greek MS is overwhelming.

2. Specifically the words of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 27:46: “Yeshua cried with a loud voice, saying in the holy language, Eli, Eli, lama ‘azavtani’?” are proof that the Aramaic words of Mark 15:34 “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?” transcribed into the Greek MSS are not original writing. Why? Because 1) “the holy language” is certainly not a reference to Aramaic, but can only be a reference to Hebrew, and 2) ‘azavtani’ is a Hebrew word, not an Aramaic word. If Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew was a late translation from the Greek such a translation would certainly have used other words. On the other hand, a translator translating the Hebrew original into Aramaic literally and word for word would have been forced to make a choice of either 1) removing the words “the holy language” while translating ‘azavtani’ to ‘sabachtani,’ or else 2) retaning the words “the holy language” while retaining also the Hebrew word ‘azavtani’ while in so doing foregoing a translating of the latter word into Aramaic. Obviously the translator chose #1 of the above, didn’t he?!

. . . . . . .

Again, please notice that no offence is intended against Pastor Mark D. Roberts, whom I have no doubt was in an honest pursuit of truth while yet more firm data remained elusive to him. Being in the pursuit of truth is always a most admirable occupation and such a man is always worthy of the highest respect – even while he has not as yet attained his desired goals. What is not admirable is when, after having been given greater light and insights, perhaps for reasons of expedience or the temporary avoidance of certain inconveniences, or for reasons of jealously guarding one’s prestige, one refuses to accept or admit the reality of such greater light and insights.

Also, I have no doubt but that others could have done a better job at analyzing the above claims of Mark D. Roberts than that which I have attempted above. Even so, hopefully this analysis of mine will serve the purpose of shedding light upon the differences between an apparent basis for what may seem for a time a valid argument, and, on the other hand, a more firm basis that, by the grace of God, has become available to us thanks to those that eagerly and persistently are seeking for ever more solid foundations and for the light of Him that created light on the First Day of creation as recorded in Genesis 1:3.

I wish to give special acknowledgment to Nehemia Gordon for his work The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, which made me aware of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew and of George Howard’s publications of the actual text of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew.

Shalom,

Tree of Life©

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

In addition to my post of yesterday re my Question #2 (Post #236055) and the Greek words “kai egeneto” I wish to focus your attention for a moment also on some statements from The New Testament Greek Grammar by M. Whittaker. Please notice especially the words under the Chapter heading Semitisms and as well the specific examples of such Semitisms under item #2 in said Grammar! Please press the link to see what I am referring to!

Re your words “the book of Hebrews was obviously written by someone who knew Greek extremely well. Same with Luke's writings,” please notice the footnote on page 150 of the above linked Grammar:

Quote:

“The only longer passages in the NT consistently showing distinctly Hebrew idiom are Luke 1-2 and parts of Revelation.”

Thanks for the link. I did read it and take note of what was said there. The fact that Luke has some evidence showing "distinctly Hebrew idiom" doesn't change that fact that both Luke and Acts are written in excellent Koine Greek and show a mastery of that language. There is no reason to believe that Luke didn't use those Hebrew idioms intentionally. Anyone who knew Greek as well as Luke did was aware of those idioms. His writing is by far and away the most literary of all the books of the NT, above those written by the Apostle Paul. The consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek or Syrian for gentile or non-Jewish Christians.

[John317]

I do not believe, and I didn’t state, “that the original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Aramaic!” What I did state is “that the Greek MSS where those Aramaic words are found are based upon an [intermediary] Aramaic text.”

The Aramaic text serving as the basis for the Greek MSS is an obviously intermediary translation between an original Hebrew text and the Greek tertiary translation – at least so far as the Gospel of Matthew is concerned. The linguistic evidence indicates that this is true also for Mark, Luke, Acts and Revelation – and probably 1 Thessalonians also as previously mentioned - even though we do not presently have access to those latter original MSS.

…

I believe it is very likely that some of the disciples took notes of what Jesus said during the time Jesus was teaching, especially during the last year or so, and it is almost certain these notes would have been written in Aramaic. If this were the case, the authors of the Gospels would have used the Q manuscript (assuming this was it) as the basis of much of the teaching and sayings.

This is theory but I believe it is consistent with the facts as we know them.

[John317]

Re the importance I see in recognizing the language of the original Holy Writ

The importance of knowing the original is of the same significance as a firsthand witness in court vs. such as is only second hand evidence or hearsay. Second hand evidence can never be as reliable as a firsthand witness.

Likewise, the difference between what is primary vs. secondary is comparable to the working hypothesis of a researcher vs. the eventual proof or disproof arrived at by the careful researcher.

When studying the Scriptures as I do while doing research with a focus upon Scriptural chronology, differences between that which is primary vs. that which is secondary do make a considerable difference. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the extant Greek MSS do retain very much re times and dates of NT events, most of which is, however, not carried over into modern language translations.

You've certainly brought up many good and even fascinating things about the NT.

Is there any possibility that your view of the relationship between the Greek and Aramaic would lead you to put little confidence in the Greek and more in what you believe was written in the original Aramaic? In other words, you could get to the point where you discount the Greek in favor of something you conjecture may have been what the author "really wrote." If so, I think that would be unfortunate.

On the other hand, I would not deny that it could prove to be worth while to consider the possibility of an underlying Aramaic text. But how practical?

Yet I am aware of Lamsa's work, which certainly brings out some interesting meanings, as for instance, "rope" instead of "camel," etc.

[John317]

What proof or evidence overthrows the apparent basis of the above arguments (item #7 above?

1. The linguistic proof for Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew being a transcript of an original Hebrew text and not a mere translation from a Greek MS is overwhelming.

2. Specifically the words of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 27:46: “Yeshua cried with a loud voice, saying in the holy language, Eli, Eli, lama ‘azavtani’?” are proof that the Aramaic words of Mark 15:34 “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?” transcribed into the Greek MSS are not original writing. Why? Because 1) “the holy language” is certainly not a reference to Aramaic, but can only be a reference to Hebrew, and 2) ‘azavtani’ is a Hebrew word, not an Aramaic word. If Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew was a late translation from the Greek such a translation would certainly have used other words. On the other hand, a translator translating the Hebrew original into Aramaic literally and word for word would have been forced to make a choice of either 1) removing the words “the holy language” while translating ‘azavtani’ to ‘sabachtani,’ or else 2) retaning the words “the holy language” while retaining also the Hebrew word ‘azavtani’ while in so doing foregoing a translating of the latter word into Aramaic. Obviously the translator chose #1 of the above, didn’t he?!

What do you believe is the Hebrew of Mark 15: 34?