Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek?

[Mr E]

Yup, and there it is. The same insults as all the rest. It always devolves to the same thing.

Maybe you’re just overly sensitive? Maybe you aren’t cut out for Forum interaction. Thin-skinned folks never do well when their ideas are challenged.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Maybe you’re just overly sensitive? Maybe you aren’t cut out for Foru interaction. Thin-skinned folks never do well when their ideas are challenged.

LOL LOL LOL. You've been proven wrong right from scripture. You've disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.

 

[Mr E]

LOL LOL LOL. You've been proven wrong right from scripture. You've disqualified yourself from being taken seriously.

Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you....

 

[Grailhunter]

Maybe you’re just overly sensitive? Maybe you aren’t cut out for Forum interaction. Thin-skinned folks never do well when their ideas are challenged.

You are right. If he keeps up here he is going to find a lot of rejection and could easily take it that people do not like him and that is not it. He has serious issue with understanding the scriptures and he comes up with some klondike ideas. He needs to find a good church that praises the Lord and has a good Bible study so he can study with others.

 

[Mr E]

You are right. If he keeps up here he is going to find a lot of rejection and could easily take it that people do not like him and that is not it. He has serious issue with understanding the scriptures and he comes up with some klondike ideas. He needs to find a good church that praises the Lord and has a good Bible study so he can study with others.

It's a difficult thing. When folks are so deeply entrenched in their own ideas and completely invested in them-- they become blind to alternative thought. They won't entertain another perspective, so they cling desperately to whatever nonsense they come up with despite any evidence to the contrary. This thread is a perfect example. Look at the progression. EES proposes an idea-- 'that Paul is quoting from some written source-- presumably a gospel account, written in Hebrew- before he writes his letters.' Fine idea. Does it hold up to scrutiny? No, it falls to the side, because Paul himself identifies his source for us. But EES can't let it go. He becomes angry and upset.

Maybe some of Paul's letters, but not all of. Paul quotes some source for his discussion of the Last Supper.

So you think that Paul would have to have a Gospel to know of the Last Supper?

Which ones do you think came after the gospel accounts?

Paul’s letters were written sometime between AD 48 to AD 64. They almost certainly predate the Gospels and Acts and so are the earliest existing writings that we have concerning Jesus’ teachings and the doctrinal and organizational development of the early Church.

The majority of scholars hold to a late-dating of the Gospels, placing them in the range of AD 70-100. Since Paul died by AD 67 under the reign of Emperor Nero, we can date his letters from AD 48-67. Therefore, Paul’s writings existed decades before the Gospels existed.

As I said, Paul quotes the very words that Jesus spoke during the Last Supper (I Corinthians 11). So he is using some then available source. The Gospels and the various letters can very easily have occurred within the same time frame.

Appealing to the "majority of scholars" doesn't actually hold as much weight as you might think. Scholars are wrong about a great many things. Those scholars you are referring to are usually not Christians at all. The reason why they think the Gospels were written between 70-100AD is because they have to have them after 70 AD and the destruction of the temple. No one could possibly have predicted events in the future - is what they think so it must be after the fact. When actually the Gospels were all written BEFORE 70 AD and very likely well before. The first one probably within 10 years of Messiah's death in 31 AD. And Paul most likely wrote Hebrews anonymously within 15 years (he could not sign his name because it took a while for his past reputation to be forgiven).

Paul himself cites his source (in that 1 Cor 11 passage)>>>

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...

I do agree with you regarding "scholars" who often share opinions as fact and who super-impose things that "must be" because of those facts they base upon their opinions. I don't think many opinions aside from my own, count for much.

But if the gospels had already been written and were in some form of circulation-- wouldn't Paul refer to them often? Wouldn't Paul repeatedly cite them when writing to all these clusters (churches) of believers, agreeing with those gospels when he did, and correcting the writers of them when he didn't?

Paul claims to have met the Lord in spirit, to have conversed with him and to have been instructed directly by him.

Read how Paul opens his first letter to the Galatians. Does it sound like he learned by reading the gospels?

From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)...



Could it be written any more clearly for you than this? Now you are just embarrassing yourself. -but thanks for playing.

Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Mr E]

One page of actual conversation, followed by 3 pages of childish retort, because his idea was challenged. If a person can't tolerate having their ideas challenged, they shouldn't present them on a discussion forum. Instead, write them down and find a quiet closet at home where they can read them to themselves by candlelight.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This is NOT the purpose of this thread. Take it elsewhere.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

One page of actual conversation, followed by 3 pages of childish retort, because his idea was challenged. If a person can't tolerate having their ideas challenged, they shouldn't present them on a discussion forum. Instead, write them down and find a quiet closet at home where they can read them to themselves by candlelight.

You are the one who can't seem to shut up and keep spouting your wrong reading of very plain words. Time after time I proved you wrong and you just won't accept correction. People like you are why these threads lose focus and become childish arguments. I'm looking for people who want to discuss the meat of Scripture. Not people like you who can't even read properly.

You've ruined this thread. Moving on.

 

[Mr E]

You are the one who can't seem to shut up and keep spouting your wrong reading of very plain words. Time after time I proved you wrong and you just won't accept correction. People like you are why these threads lose focus and become childish arguments. I'm looking for people who want to discuss the meat of Scripture. Not people like you who can't even read properly.

You've ruined this thread. Moving on.

If you'd just take a chill pill, folks could explore some of your ideas and probably would. But you present yourself as unapproachable and consider yourself to be unchallengable I guess. Signs of a narcissist. There are others here who respond and react the same way you do toward anyone who might otherwise enjoy a discussion. I'm not sure you are capable of having one. You seek a platform, not a dialogue.

 

[Mr E]

Let's revisit your OP.... Isn't this what you wanted to present? It's nonsense. The document is not from 78 CE and it's not some hidden treasure secreted away from view at the Vatican Library. It's well documented.

A fictionalized account.....

The reality----

Codex Assemanius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grailhunter]

It's a difficult thing. When folks are so deeply entrenched in their own ideas and completely invested in them-- they become blind to alternative thought. They won't entertain another perspective, so they cling desperately to whatever nonsense they come up with despite any evidence to the contrary. This thread is a perfect example. Look at the progression. EES proposes an idea-- 'that Paul is quoting from some written source-- presumably a gospel account, written in Hebrew- before he writes his letters.' Fine idea. Does it hold up to scrutiny? No, it falls to the side, because Paul himself identifies his source for us. But EES can't let it go. He becomes angry and upset.

It kinda helps to understand the time period and circumstances. Most of the Apostles where not writers or their writings did not survive. And that follows to the next point....the Apostles did not have the luxury of writing something and sending it out on email or publish books or place calls on telephones....things moved at a slower pace. Writing something….copying something....was an expense….pretty much left to the scribes....a profession that would be equated to a doctor now a days. This is where Paul had an advantage, he had the intelligence and skills to write his own letters and people in his ministry to carry them to the congregations ....congregations....no Christian church buildings

Then on the other hand we do not know what other writings existed....from the Apostles or just people. There are examples of early pamphlets....just a few pages of Christian sayings held together with a single metal ring or metal rings....who knows who wrote them.



The Apostles were tasked with keeping the message...the Gospels....the Good News standardized. Lots of different beliefs running around in early Christianity....there were interests in mysticism and then you had the Gnostics as we call them. With the matter of distances and slow communications that was quite the task.

Then you have the question of the 13th Apostle....Paul....why was there a need for Paul? That is a discussion of its own. God so loved the world....not God so loved the Jews. Christ seems to say He was there for the Jews but really were they just given the first opportunity....He being the prophesied Jewish Messiah? That is actually a discussion. The Jews were looking for a human warlord messiah that would free them from their oppressors and place them in power and the temple and the Mosaic Law would be eternal....It is clear during the Maccabean Revolt that the Jews were looking at some of the Jewish military leaders as possible messiahs.

But that is not how it turned out. Christ was not a Jewish High Priest....Hebrews makes it clear that Christ was a High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek and there is nothing to say that Melchizedek was Jewish. So was it the plan all along to convert the Pagans? And again that is a discussion. Did the information that Paul received from Christ include additional information that was not given to the twelve Apostles? Christ told the Apostles that there was more He had to tell them but they could not bear it then. And Paul seems to indicate that he relied more on the information that Christ gave him directly which seems to indicate that the Law had little to do with Christianity both as a moral guide and in Spirit.

And was the information the Paul received complete? Paul seemed to believe that Christ's return would be soon which seemed to influence his attitude toward marriage and a focus on the family. Thinking that there was little time and importance for marriage and family? His support for marriage seemed to be a concession. Again that is a matter of discussion.

Then you have the matter of the Christian Greek application to the scriptures

Koiné Greek vs Christian Greek

The Christian Greek I have touched on this topic before but I am not sure if people understood it. And there is enough information about it to fill a book so I am only going to be able to give you some basic facts and if you are interested in it you will have to take it and look into it...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello

Maybe EES has some validity in what he writes. Others on this forum have presented ideas and explanations that are valid but goes against the normally accepted tradition of how a particular passage should be understood because 100's of years ago someone wrote how they understood the context of the passage was based on the evidence that he had at that time. With new evidence available now in our own time period, the traditional understanding is undone with the new evidence available but there are members on this forum that find change challenging for them to accept.

This topic may be just one of those topics where the engrained tradition of understanding needs to be shaken and that includes the engrained proposed new tradition of some members.

It is sometimes best to just withdraw and let God be God and to let Him handle the problems that we perceive in others. This is true for both sides of the disagreement.

This thread was not important enough for me to want to, or that I needed, to enter.

The biggest issues that I see are more in line with our ability to be able to discern the contextual message of the scriptural passages that we read.

Perhaps, everybody needs to step back and decide how important is it for our respective points of view to dominate in the discussion.

Does it really matter if what we write is not accepted. Letting go and letting God take over is often very hard for us to do.

Shalom

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Let's revisit your OP.... Isn't this what you wanted to present? It's nonsense. The document is not from 78 CE and it's not some hidden treasure secreted away from view at the Vatican Library. It's well documented.

A fictionalized account.....

The reality----

Codex Assemanius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's great that you are doing research. But you've posted false information. First, wikipedia is not a credible source. And second, that document is not the same as described in the presentation. It seems you haven't actually watched it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted that link which doesn't even resemble what is being talked about in that official catalog published by the Roman Catholic Vatican Library.

 

[Mr E]

It's great that you are doing research. But you've posted false information. First, wikipedia is not a credible source. And second, that document is not the same as described in the presentation. It seems you haven't actually watched it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted that link which doesn't even resemble what is being talked about in that official catalog published by the Roman Catholic Vatican Library.

You’ve softened your tone. Wonderful. I’ll do the same. I think you’ve done some terrific research and a great job of connecting dots. It still requires an enormous amount of speculation and a great deal of suspicion toward the Vatican library. Often the correct answer is not so obscure, but the obvious one.

I happen to agree with your belief that all four gospels (and I believe John’s book of the apocalypse) were written prior to 70 CE. I would love there to be an earlier copy circa 78 CE of all four gospels whether written in Greek or Aramaic as you propose. If in existence, what plausible reason would there be for the Vatican to secret this away?

This copy would be at least 100 years older than any known fragments of papyri in existence. Fragments. It would be of greatest importance, but the glaring problem is that Assemani reports it to have been ancient, but pristine. Without an iota missing. Does that sound like a 1700 year old codex, while all other copies are papyri fragments?

Stefan the nephew proposed that the footnote was simply added to inflate the value (price exacted) for potential buyers.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You’ve softened your tone. Wonderful. I’ll do the same. I think you’ve done some terrific research and a great job of connecting dots. It still requires an enormous amount of speculation and a great deal of suspicion toward the Vatican library. Often the correct answer is not so obscure, but the obvious one.

I happen to agree with your belief that all four gospels (and I believe John’s book of the apocalypse) were written prior to 70 CE. I would love there to be an earlier copy circa 78 CE of all four gospels whether written in Greek or Aramaic as you propose. If in existence, what plausible reason would there be for the Vatican to secret this away?

This copy would be at least 100 years older than any known fragments of papyri in existence. Fragments. It would be of greatest importance, but the glaring problem is that Assemani reports it to have been ancient, but pristine. Without an iota missing. Does that sound like a 1700 year old codex, while all other copies are papyri fragments?

Stefan the nephew proposed that the footnote was simply added to inflate the value (price exacted) for potential buyers.

I haven't modified my tone in any way. I still call out error where there is error.
As is stated multiple times in the presentation, no one knows what the codex exactly is. It hasn't been seen since the early 1700's. You are confused in several keys facts. It is not pristine. Assemani says that the first part was missing. But the text was what was still very clearly legible.
Second, this does not mean this codex was the actual pages written in 78 AD. The scribal tradition of the East is very much different from the scribal tradition of the Greek manuscripts. Early Greek manuscripts were very messy, with corrections and scratched out portions. But the Aramaic manuscripts followed the Jewish methods of copying very closely. They were much more careful - actually counting letters and words in order to make sure nothing was added or taken away - as Scripture says. They were so careful in their copies that even the notes of other scribes were copied. This lost codex in the Vatican could be a newer copy (from at least 1000AD) that preserves the original codex from 78 AD. Why 1000 AD? There is other evidence I didn't get into where another Church of the East Father describes this particular codex and he lived around 1000 AD. But no one knows until an effort is made to search the Vatican Library.

 

[Mr E]

I haven't modified my tone in any way. I still call out error where there is error.
As is stated multiple times in the presentation, no one knows what the codex exactly is. It hasn't been seen since the early 1700's. You are confused in several keys facts. It is not pristine. Assemani says that the first part was missing. But the text was what was still very clearly legible.
Second, this does not mean this codex was the actual pages written in 78 AD. The scribal tradition of the East is very much different from the scribal tradition of the Greek manuscripts. Early Greek manuscripts were very messy, with corrections and scratched out portions. But the Aramaic manuscripts followed the Jewish methods of copying very closely. They were much more careful - actually counting letters and words in order to make sure nothing was added or taken away - as Scripture says. They were so careful in their copies that even the notes of other scribes were copied. This lost codex in the Vatican could be a newer copy (from at least 1000AD) that preserves the original codex from 78 AD. Why 1000 AD? There is other evidence I didn't get into where another Church of the East Father describes this particular codex and he lived around 1000 AD. But no one knows until an effort is made to search the Vatican Library.

That's just not true. Be honest.

You posted "Wrong! You don't even know how to conduct research!"

Are you saying you didn't modify that?

 

[Mr E]

For $224 US you can examine Folio 140.

Amazon.com

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

For $224 US you can examine Folio 140.

Amazon.com

LOL. Nice try. Don't know if you are being serious or just trolling now.

 

[Mr E]

LOL. Nice try. Don't know if you are being serious or just trolling now.

There is no "Folio 140" at all. It means that there were 140 surviving folios--- two-sided pages of an original 150 folio, with the first ten leaves having been lost. Your silly search of the Vatican for Folio 140 is wasted effort.

 

[Mr E]

Asemanievo (izborno) gospel; Vaticanski evangeliarij (evangelistar); Vaticansko glagoli č esko evangelie; Asemanov evangelistar(ij); Asemanov kodeks (B)​

---

Summary : Glagolitic; 10th/11th century, Ohrid School, Aprakos Gospel, Vatican Library

---

The codex written in Glagolitic is the oldest known Old Bulgarian Glagolitic manuscript. It is believed to be quite close to the original translation of the Cyril and Methodius Bible texts. It is at the same time the most magnificently decorated monument of Old Church Slavonic and at the same time almost completely preserved.
The codex consists of 158 parchment sheets and contains in the first part (sheet 1--112) a selection from the gospels in which the stories follow one another as they are read in the service during the church year (= Aprakos gospel , Bulgarian izborno evangelie ).
This is followed by calendar notes on the Christian holidays (= Menologion , Bulgarian mesecoslov ) (sheets 112-153). In them, the months from September to April are still called by their old Slavic names: royen, listogon, groyden, stoyden, prosinec, s ěč en , soyx, br ězen, while the months of May to August bear their Latin names.
The conclusion is formed by some shorter texts with instructions for the service (pages 153--158).
The codex is almost completely preserved : sheet 1 is damaged and darkened over time, otherwise only sheet 49 and the actual end of the codex are missing.
The monument was probably created in the western Bulgarian-speaking area and is attributed to the Ohrid school , where the Glagolica was firmly anchored at that time. It was probably written in the second half of the 10th century. or at the beginning of the 11th century
This dating results from the following considerations: In its calendar part (page 151) the text mentions the days of death of Kirill and Method as well as Kliment Ohridski (July 27, 916) -- the first mentions of these memorial days in Slavic literature -- but mentions them not Ivan Rilski, who died in 946. This suggests that the protograph, i.e. the immediate original text, was written down around 920. The Codex Assemanianus was probably copied by him no later than 980, because Ivan Rilski was probably canonized in this year -- an event that would probably have been taken into account in the text.
From the Macedonian part of Bulgaria it was probably brought to Palestine and then to the St. Catherine's Monastery on Sinai, where a larger Number of South Slavic monks had settled. The Cyrillic annotations found in the manuscript probably date from this period. But there are also Glagolitic and even Greek notes.

The codex is named after its discoverer, the orientalist and Vice-Prefect of the Vatican Library, Joseph Asemani (1687--1768), who privately acquired the codex in 1736 in a Jerusalem monastery (Archangel or Savva Monastery) from Slavic-Greek monks . After his death, a relative, Archbishop Stefan Asemani, gave his complete manuscript collection to the Vatican Library, where it has been kept ever since. The manuscript is incorporated into the library under the signature "Codex Vaticanus Slavicus 3 Glagoliticus". On sheet 1 there is a note from the donor, Stefan Asemani, who calls the manuscript "Evangelia Illyrice".
The codex was the first Glagolitic written monument known to the scholars of the time, at a time when the Glagolica was largely unknown and considered to be a special secret writing. On sheet 2 of the manuscript there is a dated 1.7. In 1820, a longer note was made by Prof. M. Bobrovskij from Vilnius, who recognized the importance of the monument early on.