Original New Testament languages

Sethproton

Well-known member
recently was told that New Testament books were written originally in Aramaic and Hebrew, later translated to Greek
in 50 years of listening to teachers, this is the first time I have heard that they were written in something other than Greek.
Does anyone know anything about these "original" documents?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
recently was told that New Testament books were written originally in Aramaic and Hebrew, later translated to Greek
in 50 years of listening to teachers, this is the first time I have heard that they were written in something other than Greek.
Does anyone know anything about these "original" documents?
There is no textual evidence that I am aware of that the New Testament books were originally composed in a language other than Greek.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Can you explain that? what are you saying and what have you seen about supposed original versions of gospels or letters?
“John Milton” thinks that the expression ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου violates a rule of Greek grammar because the apostle was woodenly translating something originally said in Hebrew .
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Thanks for chiming in John. Have you ever heard people say this and heard what it is based on?
I haven't heard people say things like that personally, and I don't know what the claim based on. If it were me, I would ask for their evidence and ignore them if they don't readily provide it. It's most likely a person simply making things up or repeating the untruths that they have heard.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Psalm 34:23 LXX sees ὁ θεός as a proper name of the Father, so the TSKTS does not apply. Do you wish to see ὁ θεός the same way in John 20:28?
You are assuming that ὁ θεός must function as a proper name in John 20:28. That assumption is flawed. They are two descriptions (titles) that are applied to Jesus. That would mean that John 20:28 is not a TSKTS construction either according to what you have said. Now go away ignorant troll.
 

cjab

Well-known member
They are two descriptions (titles) that are applied to Jesus.
But Jesus always taught he was one with the Father and that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father. How do you know the ascription in John 20:28 wasn't intended to reflect this?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
But Jesus always taught he was one with the Father and that anyone who had seen him had seen the Father. How do you know the ascription in John 20:28 wasn't intended to reflect this?
It was likely intended in whatever sense it was applied to the word in John 1:1. The author clearly had no qualms about referring to Jesus as God. I'm sorry that this fact makes you and RJM so uncomfortable.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You are assuming that ὁ θεός must function as a proper name in John 20:28. That assumption is flawed. They are two descriptions (titles) that are applied to Jesus. That would mean that John 20:28 is not a TSKTS construction either according to what you have said. Now go away ignorant troll.
No , silly. If ὁ θεός is NOT functioning as a proper name in John 20:28 then two individuals are in view. If ὁ θεός is functioning as a proper name, then again two individuals are in view, since ὁ θεός will then be a proper name of the Father and the TSKTS then irrelevant.

Either way your goose is cooked. Apostle John brilliantly discounted the “Deity” of Christ in this verse.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
We are dealing with biblical Koine, not that. And I bet at least one of the two there is the functional equivalent of a proper name.

Anyhow, show us an example from the GNT for your rule or hold your peace.
"Biblical Koine" is not a separate langauge, and at least 90% of the grammar and syntax is the same as Classical, so that JM's point is valid. And this is not the first time you have denied a perfectly valid rule, as when you accused me of making up the rule that a PN is normally anarthuous (something anyone who has actually studied the language knows). And if you could read Greek at all (and the citation from Plato is rather simple, actually) you would know that no proper name is in view.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Why can’t you just furnish an example from the Greek of the GNT ?




Rather desperate that you have to go to Attic. In any case, ὁ καθαίρων θεὸς ( “the purifying god,” yuck) certainly looks like the functional equivalent of a proper name, of Apollo. Nice attempt at distraction, by the way.
Thanks again for proving that you really don't know the language. Οἱ ἄφρονες ἔρχονται ὅπου οἱ ἄγγελοι φοβοῦντο φοιτᾶν...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Thanks again for proving that you really don't know the language. Οἱ ἄφρονες ἔρχονται ὅπου οἱ ἄγγελοι φοβοῦντο φοιτᾶν...
Nice “argument.”

By the way, lest I forget this gem:
And this is not the first time you have denied a perfectly valid rule, as when you accused me of making up the rule that a PN is normally anarthuous (something anyone who has actually studied the language knows).
That’s not your “rule.” Your “rule” is that the only reason why the PN is anarthrous is to distinguish it from the S. A silly rule, to be sure.

Bold above is actually a variation of a statement I made in the old Carm. I said then that most PNs are indefinite ( at least in the GNT), that is the reason why most are anarthrous.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Nice “argument.”

By the way, lest I forget this gem:

That’s not your “rule.” Your “rule” is that the only reason why the PN is anarthrous is to distinguish it from the S. A silly rule, to be sure.

Bold above is actually a variation of a statement I made in the old Carm. I said then that most PNs are indefinite ( at least in the GNT), that is the reason why most are anarthrous.
I never said it was the only reason, but that it is the usual reason, and makes perfect sense in John 1:1. As for PN's normally being indefinite, that's something only context can determine. But this is why I left the list -- the constant sniping over and rehashing the same things over and over is extremely tedious.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I never said it was the only reason, but that it is the usual reason, and makes perfect sense in John 1:1.


It is NEVER the “reason” silly, it is rather a feature of S-PN constructions that an indefinite substantive is never the S . Think about what I just said, carefully, and the ramifications thereof, before responding.

Why is it that what I know instinctively and intuitively about biblical Koine grammar you still can’t grasp after over 40 years of study ?

As for PN's normally being indefinite, that's something only context can determine. But this is why I left the list -- the constant sniping over and rehashing the same things over and over is extremely tedious.

Are you denying that most PNs in the GNT are indefinite? You just have no natural knack for the language.
 
Top