84 Sabbaths in the Book of Acts

[John317]

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

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.

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

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.

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

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?

Studying the Bible for Myself and

Looking for the Truth to the Best of My Ability

Dear John 3:17,

If the Aramaic MSS of Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 both agree that the last words of Yeshua on the cross were (as transcribed) “Eil, Eil, lmana schwaqthani” and if Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 27:46 is providing the original words as being “Eli, Eli, lamah azavtani” I see no reason for the original Hebrew of Mark 15:34 not also being “Eli, Eli, lamah azavtani,” do you?

True, I must remind myself always that, until an actual transcript of the Hebrew is made available, that is my own conjecture re the original Hebrew words of Mark 15:34 and that for now the closest I can come to the original Hebrew of the last words of Yeshua per Mark 15:34 is the Aramaic Peshitta rendering.

Yet, until proof or stronger evidence is put forth for another rendering, I have no reason for believing that the Hebrew Mark 15:34 should disagree with the Hebrew Matthew 27:46, do you? After all, I have no evidence or proof that the Holy Scriptures ever disagrees with it self. Whenever such agreement seems apparent I always have reason for questioning my own understanding and for considering all the available sources more carefully until more light is shed over the questions I may have…

Shalom,

Tree of Life©

[TreeOfLife]

Originally Posted By: TreeOfLife

Re the Originator, and the Quality, of the Greek in Luke and Acts

Dear John 3:17,

Now, if the available evidence indicates that Luke authored both Acts and the Gospel of Luke while writing in the Hebrew Language, then we do not even have proof that Luke knew Greek, do we?

What we do have is proof that whoever made the translations of Acts and of the Gospel of Luke into Greek was indeed skilled enough to produce manuscripts “written in excellent Koine Greek and show[ing'] a mastery of that language.”

Accordingly, if I were to re-write your original words (as found in your original post) while staying as close to your own wording as possible, I might write as follows [all within brackets are additions or modifications of mine:]

Quote:

“…There is [little or] no reason to believe that [the translator of] Luke[‘s writings] didn't use those Hebrew idioms intentionally. Anyone who knew Greek as well as [said translator of] Luke did was [most likely] aware of those idioms. [The Greek] writing [of Luke and Acts] is by far and away the most literary of all the books of the [Greek] NT, above those written by [the scribes used by] the Apostle Paul…”

I hope that answers your question and that my answer is helpful and of some value to you – whomever you may be that reads this post of mine?

Shalom,

Tree of Life©

[True-believer]

Thanks Tree of Life...

Excellent post.

[TreeOfLife]

Thanks Tree of Life...

Excellent post.

Thanks True-believer!

Your returns of thanks are highly valued and highly appreciated every time!

May the peace of our Creator rest over you and yours,

Tree of Life©

[TreeOfLife]

{GC 471:3-473:2}