Re:관찰자님과 새하늘님은 거짓말해선 안됩니다

[관찰자]

Aramaic original New Testament hypothesisEdit

Although physical evidence has yet to be found, J.S. Assemane[7] in his Bibliotheca stated that a Syriac Gospel dated 78 A.D. was found in Mesopotamia.[8][9][10]
The marginal hypothesis that the New Testament text that was read by the Apostles would have preserved the life and sayings of Yeshua (as he spoke them in Aramaic – the language of Jesus) in their own native tongue of Aramaic before it was translated for those not among them who spoke Greek is not held by the majority of scholars.
The position of the Assyrian Church of the East is that the Syriac Peshitta (a Bible version which is written in a vernacular form of Aramaic), used in that church, is the original of the New Testament. For instance, the patriarch Shimun XXI Eshai declared in 1957:

With reference to... the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." (April 5, 1957)[11]

This view is to be distinguished from the view held by most historical critics, that the Greek New Testament (particularly the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Mark) may have had Aramaic source texts which are no longer extant.[a]
Syrian churches say that their history includes compilation of their canon (which lacked the 'Western Five') extremely early. Comments John Hancock Pettingell, "There is no question, but that scattered manuscripts of the several books of the New Testament, in Greek, were in existence very early, for the Fathers quote from them,—but there is no evidence that any attempt was made to collect them into one code, or canon, till after the Second or Third Century. But it is certain, on the other hand, that the Syrian Churches had their canon long before this collection was made; tradition says, between the years 55 and 60, and that this was done by the Apostle Jude. This canon is known to have contained all the books now included in our New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse, and the brief Epistles of 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude. This tradition is strongly corroborated by the fact that these closing portions of our present canon were not then written; and this is a good and sufficient reason why they were not included in the first collection. The abrupt closing of the Book of Acts—for it was evidently written at about that time—that it might be ready for inclusion in this collection, goes to confirm‎ the tradition as to the date of this collection. The Apocalypse and the four short Epistles which were not in readiness to be included at that early date, were afterward received into the Syriac Canon, but not till the sixth century."[12]
The most noteworthy advocate of the "Peshitta-original" hypothesis in the West was George Lamsa of the Aramaic Bible Center. A tiny minority of more recent scholars are backers of the Peshitta-original theory today, whereas the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the Peshitta New Testament to be a translation from a Greek original. For instance Sebastian Brock wrote:

The only complete English translation of the Peshitta is by G. Lamsa. This is unfortunately not always very accurate, and his claims that the Peshitta Gospels represent the Aramaic original underlying the Greek Gospels are entirely without foundation; such views, which are not infrequently found in more popular literature, are rejected by all serious scholars.[13]

(Lamsa and Bauscher did not translate the Old Testament Peshitta's deuterocanonical books, but did translate the remainder of the Peshitta Old Testament, plus the New Testament. Gorgias Press has published translations of many Peshitta Old Testament books, and of the entire Peshitta New Testament.)
E. Jan Wilson writes, "I believe firmly that both Matthew and Luke were derived from Aramaic originals." – xli of his The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations (vol. 1, Matthew and Mark) (2003), 381pp.
Some advocates of the "Peshitta-original" theory also use the term "Aramaic primacy", though this is not used in academic sources, and appears to be a recent neologism, as is the phrase "Greek primacy", used to characterize the consensus view. The expression‎ "Aramaic primacy" was used by L. I. Levine,[14] but only as a general expression‎ used to denote the primacy of Aramaic over Hebrew and Greek in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period (i.e. roughly 200 BC – 70 AD). The earliest appearance of the phrase in print appears to be in David Bauscher.[15]
Charles Cutler Torrey, while teaching at Yale, wrote a series of books that presented detailed manuscripturial evidence supporting the Aramaic New Testament, starting with The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels,[16] and including the widely known Our Translated Gospels.[17]
James Trimm presented evidence for an Aramaic New Testament in the preface to his The Hebrew Roots Version of the New Testament.
Yoseph Viel presented evidence for a Hebrew origin to the books of Matthew and Hebrews, theorizing that they were translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek in his book, The Hebrew Pages of the New Testament.

[관찰자]

게시글은 일부 발췌 한 것이니 자세한것을 보려면
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_original_New_Testament_theory

[새하늘사랑]

위키페디아에 아주 자세한 자료가 있군요^^

그중에서 <요한 계시록의 나쁜 그리스어 문법에서 원래 그리스어가 아니라는 주장>
이렇게 기록한 자료는 제가 지지하는 주장입니다.

계시록이 난제의 성경이 된 연유는 <잘못된 헬라어문법>에서 원인이 찿을 수 있다고 봅니다^^

[관찰자]

예수님이 아람어를 사용한것이 확실한 만큼
일차적으로 예수님의 어록은 아람어로 기록된것이 분명한것 같습니다
자료를 모아 스토리를 만들고 기승전결을 구성하고 나서 아람어 사용자들에게는 아람어 사본을 ,아람어를 모르고 헬라어만 아는 곳에는 헬라어 번역본을 만들어 보급했을
것으로 생각됩니다

[새하늘사랑]

네^^
그렇게 보아야 정상입니다.ㅎㅎ

[suiter]

님


위에 올린 글이 사본입니까?

왜 엉뚱한 것을 올려서 사람을 미혹시키고 있습니까?



거짓말 부터 진심으로 사죄하시기 바랍니다



"아람어사본의 추정연대는 약AD160년경으로 신약의 사본중에서 가장 오래된 사본입니다."

이건 명백한 거짓말입니다

아무리 찾아도 그런 사본이 없습니다


160년경에 아람어 사본이 존재하지 않습니다

하나님앞에 부끄럽지 않나요?

사본이 존재하지도 않는데 너무나 뻔뻔스럽게 사실 인거처럼 거짓말햇습니다


이제 사죄하고 용서을 구할 차례입니다

[관찰자]

아람어 성경이 있고 아람어성경을 헬라어로 번역되었다는 것이 님에게
무슨 해를 끼칩니까

같이 연구해 보자는데 싫으면 참여안하면 그만이니 갈길 가세요

사본은 미국 도서관까지 가리켜 주었으니 찾아보시던가
찾기 싫으면 그만 두시던가
마음대로 하세요