Hell Needs Clarification

[SavedOnebyGrace]

The "Good News" was given to the Jews first, then the Gentiles.  So it is quite likely that the earliest NT works, Mark's Gospel for example, were written in the common language of the Jewish nation.  We know that some of the later Apocryphal books of the OT were translated into Greek and later into Latin.  They were not written in Greek to start with and they do not appear in the Hebrew OT.  That Paul's epistles were mostly written in Greek is quite probable, especially since he was preaching to a Greek people.  Since we don't have one original fragment, all this is speculation at best.

Would you please give me a list of books from the New Testament that you believe were written originally in Aramaic?  

Shiloh summed up my understanding very well.  There are some Biblical scholars who believe there is a "Q" gospel that the first three Gospel writers used as source material.  The problem with this is evidence.  There is no evidence a Q document ever existed.  Some other Gospel scholars believe Mark's Gospel was first and the source for Matthew and maybe Luke.  But each Gospel has a uniqueness to it than makes it stand alone, in my opinion. 

It's quite likely that Paul's epistles were written in Greek.  Now the Epistle to the Hebrews raises some questions.  We don't know for sure who the author was, but we do know who the audience it was directed to.  (I believe it was Paul but there's only circumstances to support the argument.)  Whoever it was, it may well have been written in Aramaic.  We must remember, these letters were to be read to an audience and passed between home churches.  A believer could not just take a copy home to study it.  Undoubtably, copies were made, translations made, and errors introduced.  Fortunately, we have over 10,000 fragments in Latin, 5000 fragments in Greek, plus additional fragments in other languages.  We have so many fragments we are able to arrive at an error-proor New Testament.  Dr. Bock is a good source as to how the New Testament was arrived at. 

We do know that Hebrew was the common language of the people, spoken in the market place and in the places of worship.  As the Gospel spread, it had to be translated to the people it was being preached to.  Over 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.  As I've said repeatedly, we do not have any original fragment, only copies.

Thank you forthe clear response.  The writer of Hebrews quotes the Greek Septuagint.  I see no reason to believe it was written in Aramaic for the retranslation of the material would have been seen in the process.

Marks gospel also has evidence to suggest it couldn't have been written in Aramaic for the writer felt the need more than once to use a transliterated Aramaic word then interpret it for the readers.  If he was writing it in Aramaic then there would be no reason to interpret.

Thanks for helping me study!

You are welcome with that left-handed compliment of yours.  Your problem still exists.  The Septuagint was a translation of the OT into Koine Greek from the original language of the OT.  There is no fragment existing to support a claim with respect to the NT.  The oldest fragment I believe is from 350 AD, or thereabouts.

Septuagint

It's pure speculation to believe that the writer of Hebrews quotes from the Greek Septuagint.  The fragments we have of the Book of Hebrews are from many centuries after Hebrews was written and could include multiple translations before reaching it's final form.

The Epistle to the Hebrews

"Traditional scholars  have argued the letter's audience was Jewish Christians, as early as the end of the 2nd century (hence its title, "The Epistle to the Hebrews"). Other scholars have suggested that Hebrews is part of an internal New Testament debate between the extreme Judaizers (who argued that non-Jews must convert to Judaism before they can receive the Holy Spirit of Jesus' new covenant) versus the extreme Antinomians (who argued that Jews must reject God's commandments and that Jewish law was no longer in effect). James and Paul represent the moderates of each faction, respectively, and Peter served as moderator. The Epistle emphasizes that non-Jewish followers of Jesus do not need to convert to Judaism to share in all of God's promises to Jews. American Baptist theologian Edgar Goodspeed claims, "But the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood"."

Continue your studying my brother in Christ.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[gdemoss]

The "Good News" was given to the Jews first, then the Gentiles.  So it is quite likely that the earliest NT works, Mark's Gospel for example, were written in the common language of the Jewish nation.  We know that some of the later Apocryphal books of the OT were translated into Greek and later into Latin.  They were not written in Greek to start with and they do not appear in the Hebrew OT.  That Paul's epistles were mostly written in Greek is quite probable, especially since he was preaching to a Greek people.  Since we don't have one original fragment, all this is speculation at best.

Would you please give me a list of books from the New Testament that you believe were written originally in Aramaic?  

Shiloh summed up my understanding very well.  There are some Biblical scholars who believe there is a "Q" gospel that the first three Gospel writers used as source material.  The problem with this is evidence.  There is no evidence a Q document ever existed.  Some other Gospel scholars believe Mark's Gospel was first and the source for Matthew and maybe Luke.  But each Gospel has a uniqueness to it than makes it stand alone, in my opinion. 

It's quite likely that Paul's epistles were written in Greek.  Now the Epistle to the Hebrews raises some questions.  We don't know for sure who the author was, but we do know who the audience it was directed to.  (I believe it was Paul but there's only circumstances to support the argument.)  Whoever it was, it may well have been written in Aramaic.  We must remember, these letters were to be read to an audience and passed between home churches.  A believer could not just take a copy home to study it.  Undoubtably, copies were made, translations made, and errors introduced.  Fortunately, we have over 10,000 fragments in Latin, 5000 fragments in Greek, plus additional fragments in other languages.  We have so many fragments we are able to arrive at an error-proor New Testament.  Dr. Bock is a good source as to how the New Testament was arrived at. 

We do know that Hebrew was the common language of the people, spoken in the market place and in the places of worship.  As the Gospel spread, it had to be translated to the people it was being preached to.  Over 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.  As I've said repeatedly, we do not have any original fragment, only copies.

Thank you forthe clear response.  The writer of Hebrews quotes the Greek Septuagint.  I see no reason to believe it was written in Aramaic for the retranslation of the material would have been seen in the process.

Marks gospel also has evidence to suggest it couldn't have been written in Aramaic for the writer felt the need more than once to use a transliterated Aramaic word then interpret it for the readers.  If he was writing it in Aramaic then there would be no reason to interpret.

Thanks for helping me study!

You are welcome with that left-handed compliment of yours.  Your problem still exists.  The Septuagint was a translation of the OT into Koine Greek from the original language of the OT.  There is no fragment existing to support a claim with respect to the NT.  The oldest fragment I believe is from 350 AD, or thereabouts.

Septuagint

It's pure speculation to believe that the writer of Hebrews quotes from the Greek Septuagint.  The fragments we have of the Book of Hebrews are from many centuries after Hebrews was written and could include multiple translations before reaching it's final form.

The Epistle to the Hebrews

"Traditional scholars  have argued the letter's audience was Jewish Christians, as early as the end of the 2nd century (hence its title, "The Epistle to the Hebrews"). Other scholars have suggested that Hebrews is part of an internal New Testament debate between the extreme Judaizers (who argued that non-Jews must convert to Judaism before they can receive the Holy Spirit of Jesus' new covenant) versus the extreme Antinomians (who argued that Jews must reject God's commandments and that Jewish law was no longer in effect). James and Paul represent the moderates of each faction, respectively, and Peter served as moderator. The Epistle emphasizes that non-Jewish followers of Jesus do not need to convert to Judaism to share in all of God's promises to Jews. American Baptist theologian Edgar Goodspeed claims, "But the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood"."

Continue your studying my brother in Christ.

Left handed comliment?  My thank you for your clarity and help in my study is genuine.  If by left handed you mean that in the end I don't side with your belief then yes that is true but by engaging me in discussion you send me in the direction I need to go for understanding.  And that is a great help to me.

As far as Hebrews goes,  my deduction was not speculation but a word for word side by side comparison of that which is commonly accepted as the Septuagint and Greek Manuscript of Hebrews.  My deduction is only as authentic as the materials presented so I concede to any debate concerning that.  It is only my trust that what is being presented to me as the Septuagint and Greek text of Hebrews is correct.  House of cards?  I don’t know.  I have enjoyed our discussion though.  

I leave the conversation with a stronger position that the originals were in Greek not Aramaic.  

Peace, and yes, I will keep studying.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

The "Good News" was given to the Jews first, then the Gentiles.  So it is quite likely that the earliest NT works, Mark's Gospel for example, were written in the common language of the Jewish nation.  We know that some of the later Apocryphal books of the OT were translated into Greek and later into Latin.  They were not written in Greek to start with and they do not appear in the Hebrew OT.  That Paul's epistles were mostly written in Greek is quite probable, especially since he was preaching to a Greek people.  Since we don't have one original fragment, all this is speculation at best.

Would you please give me a list of books from the New Testament that you believe were written originally in Aramaic?  

Shiloh summed up my understanding very well.  There are some Biblical scholars who believe there is a "Q" gospel that the first three Gospel writers used as source material.  The problem with this is evidence.  There is no evidence a Q document ever existed.  Some other Gospel scholars believe Mark's Gospel was first and the source for Matthew and maybe Luke.  But each Gospel has a uniqueness to it than makes it stand alone, in my opinion. 

It's quite likely that Paul's epistles were written in Greek.  Now the Epistle to the Hebrews raises some questions.  We don't know for sure who the author was, but we do know who the audience it was directed to.  (I believe it was Paul but there's only circumstances to support the argument.)  Whoever it was, it may well have been written in Aramaic.  We must remember, these letters were to be read to an audience and passed between home churches.  A believer could not just take a copy home to study it.  Undoubtably, copies were made, translations made, and errors introduced.  Fortunately, we have over 10,000 fragments in Latin, 5000 fragments in Greek, plus additional fragments in other languages.  We have so many fragments we are able to arrive at an error-proor New Testament.  Dr. Bock is a good source as to how the New Testament was arrived at. 

We do know that Hebrew was the common language of the people, spoken in the market place and in the places of worship.  As the Gospel spread, it had to be translated to the people it was being preached to.  Over 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.  As I've said repeatedly, we do not have any original fragment, only copies.

Thank you forthe clear response.  The writer of Hebrews quotes the Greek Septuagint.  I see no reason to believe it was written in Aramaic for the retranslation of the material would have been seen in the process.

Marks gospel also has evidence to suggest it couldn't have been written in Aramaic for the writer felt the need more than once to use a transliterated Aramaic word then interpret it for the readers.  If he was writing it in Aramaic then there would be no reason to interpret.

Thanks for helping me study!

You are welcome with that left-handed compliment of yours.  Your problem still exists.  The Septuagint was a translation of the OT into Koine Greek from the original language of the OT.  There is no fragment existing to support a claim with respect to the NT.  The oldest fragment I believe is from 350 AD, or thereabouts.

Septuagint

It's pure speculation to believe that the writer of Hebrews quotes from the Greek Septuagint.  The fragments we have of the Book of Hebrews are from many centuries after Hebrews was written and could include multiple translations before reaching it's final form.

The Epistle to the Hebrews

"Traditional scholars  have argued the letter's audience was Jewish Christians, as early as the end of the 2nd century (hence its title, "The Epistle to the Hebrews"). Other scholars have suggested that Hebrews is part of an internal New Testament debate between the extreme Judaizers (who argued that non-Jews must convert to Judaism before they can receive the Holy Spirit of Jesus' new covenant) versus the extreme Antinomians (who argued that Jews must reject God's commandments and that Jewish law was no longer in effect). James and Paul represent the moderates of each faction, respectively, and Peter served as moderator. The Epistle emphasizes that non-Jewish followers of Jesus do not need to convert to Judaism to share in all of God's promises to Jews. American Baptist theologian Edgar Goodspeed claims, "But the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood"."

Continue your studying my brother in Christ.

Left handed comliment?  My thank you for your clarity and help in my study is genuine.  If by left handed you mean that in the end I don't side with your belief then yes that is true but by engaging me in discussion you send me in the direction I need to go for understanding.  And that is a great help to me.

As far as Hebrews goes,  my deduction was not speculation but a word for word side by side comparison of that which is commonly accepted as the Septuagint and Greek Manuscript of Hebrews.  My deduction is only as authentic as the materials presented so I concede to any debate concerning that.  It is only my trust that what is being presented to me as the Septuagint and Greek text of Hebrews is correct.  House of cards?  I don’t know.  I have enjoyed our discussion though.  

I leave the conversation with a stronger position that the originals were in Greek not Aramaic.  

Peace, and yes, I will keep studying.

May the Holy Spirit lead us both to a better understanding of Holy Scriptures.  God bless you.