Marys Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Toten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rr1213 said:
I’m afraid that I don’t follow you. Are you saying that the Greek texts were not inspired? How can that be the case?
Click to expand...
He did not say that. By many of these NT manuscripts were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The originals were destroyed by unbelieving pagans because Roman Emperor issued an eddict to burn all Christian writings

The copies we have of the OT are Greek copies. The originals were destroyed during the early Christian persecution in the 1st Century.

If you look at the original if we have a copy, they were written in Aramaic. If we happen to have these originals, you would probably take note.

However, the only we one now are the Greek copies of these NT manuscript.
 
rr1213 said:
I don’t think this matters because the Scriptures were written in Greek, so it is the Greek rendering of the term that is inspired by God, not the Aramaic or Hebrew which was most probably spoken by Christ at the time.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it’s not even the “rendering of the terms” that are inspired by God but the meaning. Scripture does not mean, in a literalist fashion, that Abram and Lot are brothers of the same womb. But they are “brothers” in the Jewish meaning of brother, which is kinsman.
I call you my brother, which in Jesus the Christ you are, however the term “brother” does not infer we shared a common womb. Scripture does not reflect Mary being anything other than a virgin. As I pointed out, in Luke, it infers she was a virgin, and intended to remain a virgin after her marriage.
 
religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1940&C=1761 by Frederick C. Grant was Edwin Robinson Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York, and President of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Evanstaon Ill. He was a member of the Revision Committee for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Published by Abingdon Press, New York and Nashville, 1943. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
BrianH;1897064:
Did you know the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church has Aramaic speaking Catholics, who are in union with the Pope?
Click to expand...
Who cares? I do not know of a single Catholic scholar who agrees with what you are saying!!:confused:
Can you name…one?
Which books are you contending??
Click to expand...
 
BrianH said:
Mannyfit75;1897074:
Who cares? I do not know of a single Catholic scholar who agrees with what you are saying!!:confused:
Can you name…one?
Which books are you contending??
Click to expand...
Mark and Matthew were written in the original Aramaic language. The originals were destroyed, so there are no evidence of the Aramaic text. Second, the copies we have are the Greek translations of the NT manuscripts, and the original Greek themselves we have in historical records, are copies.

Well, then, the originals, as they came from the hand of Apostle and Evangelist, have totally disappeared. This is what infidels and sceptics taunt us with and cast in our teeth: ‘You cannot produce,’ they say, ‘the handwriting of those from whom you derive your religion, neither the Founder nor His Apostles; your Gospels and Epistles are a fraud; they were not written by these men at all, but are the invention of a later age; and consequently we cannot depend upon the contents of them or believe what they tell us about Jesus Christ.’ Now, of course, these attacks fall harmlessly upon us Catholics, because we do not profess to rest our religion upon the Bible alone, and are independent of it, and would be just as we are and what we are though there were no Bible at all. It is those who have staked their very existence upon that Book, and must stand or fall with it, that are called upon to defend themselves against the critics. But I shall only remark here that the argument of infidel and sceptic would, if logically applied, discredit not only the Bible, but many other books which they themselves accept and believe without hesitation. There is far more evidence for the Bible than there is for certain books of classical antiquity which no one dreams of disputing.

There are, for example, only 15 manuscripts of the works of Herodotus, and none earlier than the 10th century A.D.; yet he lived 400 years before Christ. The oldest manuscript of the works of Thucydides is of the 11th century A.D.; yet he flourished and wrote more than 400 years before Christ. Shall we say, then, ‘I want to see the hand*writing of Thucydides and Herodotus, else I shall not believe these are their genuine works. You have no copy of their writings near the time they lived; none, indeed, till 1400 years after them; they must be a fraud and a forgery’? Scholars with no religion at all would say we were fit for an asylum if we took up that position; yet it would be a far more reasonable attitude than that which they take up towards the Bible.

Why? Because there are known to have been many thousand copies of the Testament in existence by the 3rd century—i.e., only a century or two after St. John—and we know for certain there are 3000 existing at the present day, ranging from the fourth century downwards. The fact is, the wealth of evidence for the genuineness of the New Testament is simply stupendous, and in comparison with many ancient histories which are received without question on the authority of late and few and bad copies, the Sacred Volume is founded on a rock.

But let us pass on; enough for us to know that God has willed that the handiwork of every inspired writer, from Moses down to St. John, should have perished from amongst men, and that he has entrusted our salvation to something more stable and enduring than a dead book or an undecipherable manuscript—that is, the living and infallible Church of Christ: ubi Ecclesia, ibi Christus.
Click to expand...
 
Passages of the Old Testament written in the Aramaic language are called Biblical Aramaic. They occur in Ezra 4:8; 6:18 and 7:12-26. Daniel 2:4,7:28; and the gloss in Jer. 10:11 and Gen 31:47.

Various scholars have tried to show that the original language of a number of books from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, were written in Aramaic, and that they were later translated into Hebrew. This view has been presented in connection with Job, Koheleth, Daniel, Esther, 1 and 2 Chronicles, proverbs, and Ezekiel11

In the New Testament, various Aramaic words or expressions occur, e.g. “Talitha Cumi” (little girl, stand up) Mark 5:41; “Ephphata” (etphtah, be opened) Mark 7:34; “Eli, Eli, Lama Shabachthani” (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me) Matt.27:46, Mark 15:34; “Rabboni” (my Lord) Mark 10:51, John 20:16; “Maran Atha” (our Lord, come) Cor. 16:22.

Aramaic influence is apparent in personal names such as " Cephas" John 1:42, 1 Cor 1:12 and “Tabitha” Acts 9:36, 40, and in place names, including “Akeldama” (field of blood) Acts 1:19; "Gesthsemane (oil press) Matt 26:36, Mark 14:32; and “Golgotha” (skull) Mark 15:22
 
We possess an abundant number of inscriptions written in Aramaic. They constitute an extremely important source of information for our knowledge of Biblical Aramaic. With the earliest inscriptions dating as far back as the ninth century BC, from Zinjirli in north Syria; from Nineveh, Kouyunjik, Nimrud, Khorsabad (8 th to 7 th century BC; from Babylonia (6 th –4 th cent. BC); from Tello, bilingual in Aramaic and Greek (3 rd cent. BC); from Egypt (fifth to beginning of third cent. BC); the so-called stele of Sakhara, bilingual (Egyptian and Aramaic) dated the fourth year of Xerxes 482 BC; from Taima, north of Hijaz; Al-Hijr; Petra and Hauran; the Palmyrene inscriptions belong to the first three centuries of the Christian Era12 ; from the Sinaitic Peninsula; from Pakistan (3rd cent. BC); from the former Soviet Union (2nd cent. BC); and from Afghanistan (3 rd cent. BC).13
 
At the beginning of the Christian era, Aramaic, in various dialects was the dominant spoken language of Syria and Mesopotamia. It developed a number of literary dialects, known as Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic, Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic, Syriac, Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic, and Mandaic Aramaic. In Galilee14 and Samaria15 , Aramaic dialects became the day-to-day means of communication.

It is generally agreed that the inhabitants of Palestine, at the dawn of the first century, were acquainted in varying degrees with the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

Differences emerge, however, regarding the geographical and chronological limits of each language. Some scholars defend the theory that Jesus spoke in Greek, among those in favor of this is Vosius, in the seventeenth century, D. Diodati In the eighteenth century and Paulus, Hug and Credner16 in the nineteenth century. More recently, A.W Argyle argued that Jesus spoke Greek and that his audience understood it as easily as they did in Aramaic.17 Some welcomed this claim, but others were in opposition.18

Evidence of Hellenistic influence, is attested by numerous Greek inscriptions, graffiti, and correspondence, Greek Pseudepigrapha written in Palestine, the Greek fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Greek influence found throughout rabbinic literature.

Others have stressed the role of Latin, the language of the Roman administration19 , they argue that Latin left its mark on a number of public inscriptions as well as in a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Latin influence is manifested in certain aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew.

M. Wilcox, on the other hand, considers the Hebrew language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predominates over Aramaic, as an indication that Hebrew, in New Testament time, was not confined to rabbinical circles, but appears to be a "normal vehicle of expression."20 Along this, runs a similar view of H. Birkeland21 , who challenged the usual view that Aramaic was the regular spoken language of the first century Palestine. According to Dr. Birkeland, Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the language of the Jews and of Jesus.22

In an age of reason, one has to look at the facts surrounding the spread of the Aramaic language, especially the Galilean Aramaic. In the Synagogue, following the Babylonian Exile, Palestinian Jews had their public reading of the Scripture, rendered in vernacular Aramaic. That tradition was necessary due to the growing number of Jews who were more familiar with Aramaic than with Hebrew (Neh. 8:8).23 This oral interpretation began as a simple paraphrase, but later, it became more elaborate and the various explanations tended to become fixed and traditional, and finally, these Aramaic interpretations were reduced to writing, which is known as Targums (or Targumim).

Aramaic Targums exist for the Pentateuch.24 The oldest appears to be the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, which is available in its entirety through the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. It preserves the idiomatic Aramaic used in Palestine perhaps as early as the first centuries of the Christian era. The second is known as the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch (I and II), also known as the Pseudo-Jonathan Targums. The third is the Targum of Onkelos, which was the official Targum of the Synagogue. We might add another Aramaic Targum known as the Samaritan Targum. It was translated from Hebrew into the Aramaic dialect used by the Samaritans.

Not only the Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the Palestian Jews, there were other Aramaic translations also for the books of the Prophets. The official Targum on the Prophets is known as Targum Jonathan bar-Uzziel. It had its origin in Palestine. Aramaic translations are available for the Hebrew cannon of the Old Testament, known as Hagiographa (Heb. Ketubim).25,26

No one doubts the extent to which Aramaic had spread throughout the Levant from the middle of the first millennium BC, until Arabic supplanted it, in the seventh century. A more difficult question, which has led to a significant disagreement among scholars, has to do with differences among, and classification of the various dialects of Aramaic.

The most extreme theory is that during the Exile, the Jews lost their Hebrew language for Aramaic. Reserving Hebrew, already a dead language, for literature. This was Saadiah’s view, and also, in different forms, by a number of nineteenth- and-twentieth century scholars, including A. Geiger, A. Meyer, G.H. Dalman, A. Dupont-Sommer, and F. Altheim and R. Stiehl.

Meyer27 argued that Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic, and that most of the Testament writings were originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Dalman agrees with the fact that Aramaic was the spoken language of the Jews in New Testament time. He concluded that Jesus grew up in Aramaic environment, and that He had to use Aramaic in order to be understood by his disciples and the people.28
 
More recently too, Dupont-Sommer argued that, Aramaic was the only language current among ordinary people at the time of Jesus, and that it was the language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles.29 Similarly, Altheim and Stiehl30 argued that from the beginning of the Hellenistic era, Aramaic had completely supplanted Hebrew as a spoken language.

A more sophisticated approach distinguishes Middle Aramaic (from 300 BC), and Late Aramaic dialects. In the first group, E.Y. Kutscher placed Targum Onkelos31 and the Aramaic translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as insciptions from around Jerusalem, and Aramaic expressions in the New Testament.32 The later dialects, which belong to Western Aramaic, are classified as Galilaean, Samaritan, and Christian-Palestinian Aramaic. Of these, the Galilaean dialect is of particular interest, because, it was used, for example, in the Aramaic sections of the Palestinian Talmud33 , the Palestinian Targums34 , numerous midrashim35 , and various Synagogue inscriptions.

The evidence of the Aramaic language of Jesus is impossible to explain if Aramaic was not His spoken language. The Scriptures were provided with Targum for the Aramaic-speaking masses who could no longer understand Hebrew. In the Synagogue, following the Babylonian Exile, Palestinian Jews had their public reading of the Hebrew Scripture rendered in vernacular Aramaic. That tradition was necessary due to the growing number of Jews who were more familiar with Aramaic than with Hebrew (Neh.8:8). This oral interpretation began as a simple paraphrase, but later, it became more elaborate and the various explanations tended to become fixed and traditional, and finally, these Aramaic interpretations of the Scriptures were reduced to writing, known as Targums (or Targumim).

Targums exist for the Pentateuch.36 The oldest appears to be the Palestininan Pentateuch Targum, which is available in its entirety through the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. It preserves the idiomatic Aramaic used in Palestine perhaps as early as the first centuries of the Christian era. The second is known as the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch (I and II), also known as the Pseudo-Jonathan Targums.

Nowadays, there are few scholars who would disagree that in Galilee and Samaria, the spoken language of the time, was basically Aramaic. More controversial, though, is the extent of the use of Aramaic in Judea to the south.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Source: phoenicia.org/aramaicjesus.html
Click to expand...
I cannot believe a Catholic is using nonCatholic sources to argue with Catholics!!
St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew’s Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ’s sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew’s Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions.
newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
Click to expand...
 
Summary;

In conclusion, the NT were influenced by the Aramaic language. Even in the OT also contain Aramaic language. I don’t deny the fact that the Bible we were translated from Greek. I don’t doubt that, but the Greek translation of these Bibles were influence by the language of Jesus Christ.

How often do you find Paul address Peter Cephas in his letters? How often do you see My God, My God, why have you forsaken me written as Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? in Matthew 27:46 and again in Mark 15:34.

As speaking for myself, I do believe in my opinion the NT text were orginally written in Aramaic. It is not the Catholic Church position, so I don’t speak for the Church, but I have done some research in Aramaic language, which I plan to persue once I get out of the Armed Services, and persue my discernment in the priesthood. I based this on the Aramaic influence of the Bible.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Summary;

In conclusion, the NT were influenced by the Aramaic language. Even in the OT also contain Aramaic language. I don’t deny the fact that the Bible we were translated from Greek. I don’t doubt that, but the Greek translation of these Bibles were influence by the language of Jesus Christ.

How often do you find Paul address Peter Cephas in his letters? How often do you see My God, My God, why have you forsaken me written as Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? in Matthew 27:46 and again in Mark 15:34.

As speaking for myself, I do believe in my opinion the NT text were orginally written in Aramaic. It is not the Catholic Church position, so I don’t speak for the Church, but I have done some research in Aramaic language, which I plan to persue once I get out of the Armed Services, and persue my discernment in the priesthood. I based this on the Aramaic influence of the Bible.
Click to expand...
Still wating for ANY Catholic scholars that agree with you…
 
rr1213 said:
I think that a review of the various Scriptural references would reasonably lead most people to conclude that Jesus had brothers and sisters. However, these passages are not definitive because they do not explicitly say that these brothers and sisters were Mary’s children as opposed to, for instance, the children of Joseph by a former marriage perhaps. Also, while there was a definitive word for “cousin” in Greek, it apparently was the custom at the time to sometimes refer to cousins as brothers and sisters. The end result? The best reading of Scripture would indicate that there were other children, but we cannot say for certain. Catholic tradition teaches that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and that the references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters are references to half brothers, or cousins, or close friends.
Click to expand...
Our Parish had a Priest from Tanzania a few years ago. Father lived in what we would call a very “primitive” culture, as in modern comforts. He had never driven a car until he came to America. His village was a very close knit community, and he would often talk about life there. I can’t remember exactly the words he used now, but he would refer to the other children in his village as both his brothers and sisters, or that he was their uncle. We asked him about this and he said that no, he wasn’t related to them but that is how they referred to the other children in his village.
Growing up, we had some close friends of my parents, and we referred to them as ‘Uncle’ even though they were not related.
So even today you see this type of wording used for people that are not either closely related or related at all. With this in mind, I have no reason to doubt the thinking that the people which the bible called Jesus’ 'brothers and sisters’ were cousins or step brothers and step sisters. Never once does it say that they are the children of Mary.
 
BrianH said:
Still wating for ANY Catholic scholars that agree with you…
Click to expand...
frankly, many times people think they know it all, but when some great scholars say something, they say “Man’s made rule”. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top