Refutation to Aramaic primacists

[ScorpioSniper2]

Definition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, is a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only', and not Hebrew or Aramaic <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s --> . NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Care to explain exactly why so many Jews of Jesus' day were keen to pack their bags and go live in Greece? (and thus, according to you, only spoke Aramaic)
Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation."
So there you have it. Jews wanted nothing to do with Gentiles and were not allowed to go anywhere near them. Thus, the Jews who were living in Greece were Jews of the dispersion, and thus Hellenistsefinition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, is a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew (or Aramaic). NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

So, if these Jews in the dispersion did not speak a word of Aramaic, why did Paul write to them with Aramaic words and phrases like Maran atha and Abba?

Now do you see the absurdity of all your reasoning and fanciful delusions concerning Aramaic primacy? How many bloodline Jews live 'throughout' the world today and cannot speak a word of Aramaic? Answer: Millions. Same thing in Greece 2000 years ago <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Are you blind to the fact that Aramaic nearly ceased to be spoken among the Jews after the Bar-Kokhba revolt? Why does the supposedly Greek physician Luke use the word paskha in the Greek version of Acts for "passover"?

It all boils down to this... Either they were Jews living in Greece who spoke no Greek at all (both you and I know this is totally untrue), or, they were Hellenists/Grecians who had been living in Greece since the dispersion of Israel AND THUS ONLY SPOKE GREEK, as the NAS Exhaustive Concordance affirms about Hellenists.

So, lets simplify, again. If the ones being converted were Greeks and Hellenists, which is historical Biblical fact seeing that Acts shows who were being converted (Greeks and Jews), then case closed, the epistles were written first in Greek, "a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks" / "and of Greeks, not a few". What constitutes the large majority of the New Testament? The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians/Corinthians/Galatians/Colossians/Thessalonians/Philippians/, and if you tell me Timotheus wasn't a Greek, then you need to hunt down the translator of the Peshitta and try him for willful heresy and changing God's word. And we know that II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John were not even part of the official Peshitta canon.

Seems pretty conclusive to me guys.

Entering into the synagogues of the Jews (Jews by bloodline and religion, but Hellenists:that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew or Aramaic. NAS Exhaustive Concordance.)

Jews and Hellenists are distinguished from one another in the New Testament. Did you notice that?

Any other language is basically out of the equation, right? Concerning Aramaic primacy. No argument there.
So as you so dubiously maintain, if Paul wrote the originals in Aramaic, then such assertions infer that Paul considered the Gentile Greeks of no importance and that very few Greeks were converted (which we know is not the case) and that Paul was somehow expecting the Jewish Christians to do a translation of it for the benefit of the Greeks (ummm :loot likely)

Jewish priests converting to the faith in Jerusalem, well that is of no consequence, because the epistles were not addressed to recipients in that region except for maybe the epistle to the Romans.

But, even then it is wrong to believe that Jews in Rome spoke only Aramaic, it is a fact of history that the general language used for public communication in Rome was Greek among the general populace, and also it is interesting to note this Acts 21:37 the commander replied to Paul about him wanting to address the crowd of Jews who were just prior trying to kill him: "And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? And the chief captain said, Canst thou speak Greek?"

An observant read of the book of Acts will show you that most Jews living in the Greek territories continued to reject the 'gospel of Yashua' (Good news about Yashua). Left right and centre the Jews were rejecting the gospel, thus the majority of converts were Greeks, as Acts so plainly reveals.

Some verses for you to consider.

The Jews in Thessalonia rejected the gospel... Acts 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."
Acts 17:11: "These Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

So we can clearly deduce here that the epistles in the New Testament to the Thessalonians, both I & II were written in Greek, since the Thessalonian Jews had rejected the gospel message and thus only Greeks were converted.

In Antioch-Acts 13:46: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

Again we see the Jews rejecting the gospel.

So based on the fact that many Jews were rejecting the gospel, just like in Corinth - Acts 19:9: "But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, Paul departed from them."

Which leaves the two most likely scenarios.

As evidenced by the book of Acts, many Jews were rejecting the gospel and refusing to believe, which means the majority of converts were Greeks, and thus logical evidence for Greek-penned epistles.

Secondly, we know as a fact of History that the large majority of Jews living in Greek regions were Hellenists... Definition: a Hellenist/Grecian Jew, a Greek-speaking Jew, that is one who can speak Greek 'only' and not Hebrew (or Aramaic). NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

Both scenarios prove that Greek was the original, both by logical common sense and historical fact, for there can be no other conclusion by any sane man.

None of these scenarios prove that the Greek was the original. As a matter of fact, you put words into our mouths by implying that we said that the Jews in Greek and Roman regions spoke only Aramaic. I'm sure there are some that didn't learn Greek and Latin (think about some of the Mexican immigrants that don't learn a word of English when coming over here). Also, Luke does not tell us in these verses from Acts that ALL of the Jews in these synagogues rejected the Gospel message. As for the Gentiles, I state again that not all Gentiles are Greek and Latin speakers. There are many Aramaic-speaking Gentiles. I also never said that there were only a few Greek believers. A large part of the church was Greek. But there was also a large amount of Assyrians and Jews that were Christians back then. Did you know that Antioch was in Syria, where Syriac (the Aramaic dialect of the Peshitta) would have been spoken along with Greek? Just because we don't have the Aramaic originals of those five Epistles does not mean that the original Aramaic versions never existed. Jude, Peter, and John were all Aramaic speaking Galileans. There is a lot of phenomenon in Revelation that shows an Aramaic original underlying our current Greek versions. Scholars have referred to the Greek grammar of Revelation as being "grammatical anarchy". The Church of the East closed off it's canon when the John the Apostle died and the Western Five were not known among most of these Christians until later. They were also not received in the canon of the Western churches for a long time!

By the way, my friend is a Greek-speaking Greek, and when i asked him if the name Theophilus (whom Luke addressed Acts to) is a Greek name, my friend said, "Of course it's a Greek name, what else do you think it is?" Theophilus is as Greek as they come.

I rest my case.

Ummm, Aramaic speaking people use Greek names quite a bit. "Andrew" is a Greek name, and he was an Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from Galilee.

Guys, it's time to shut down this website, repent to God for the damage you have done, tell Andrew Gabriel Roth to scrap the AENT and cease sales of it, and all of you come home to the original GREEK!! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

Just give thanks to God our father YAHWEH that he sent me here to solve this enigma for you, give praise to Him. I welcome you back to the Greek.

How are we sinning in believing that the Aramaic New Testament is the original? How are we doing any damage at all to Christendom? The Peshitta is revered among scholars as an important version of the New Testament, eve among those that don't believe it to be the original. If the Greek is the original, then the Peshitta would be the earliest translation. If the Peshitta is the earliest version, the Greek would be the earliest translation. Either way, the versions we have are products of Apostolic authority. How about you repent of your arrogance?