Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't understand your comments avi. As usual your arguments are based on misunderstandings. spin is talking about Josephus. Origen is not only available Latin. Not are Irenaeus's texts only available in Latin. Why have you come back? There aren't three people on this earth that can at once have so...

Origen could also distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew (as would be expected). First on his consultation with a Jew about the Greek sections of Daniel: You say that you can see how this can be in Greek, but that in Hebrew the words are altogether distinct. On this point, however, I am still in dou...

Here is something significant. Jerome could indeed distinguish between Chaldee (Aramaic) and Hebrew. I think this begins to finally put the nail in the 'Aramaic gospel' claim. http://books.google.com/books?id=__uiF8CVWVkC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=jerome+chaldee&source=bl&ots=ro8NcgT...

But there is nothing to argue with here. The sources don't talk about an Aramaic gospel. I admire creativity especially scholarly creativity. But this is silly. The argument only works if you don't know the original sources and somehow convince yourself that the Church Fathers couldn't distinguish b...

Excellent point spin. I was looking for something exactly like this in the writings of the Church Fathers. But this will certainly do. The argument from Casey seems to read something like - because Jesus was a historical man living in Galilee the Hebrew gospel mentioned by the Church Fathers was rea...

Malcolm Lowe I think summarizes how stupid it is to claim that Origen and Jerome - men who could distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic - could not distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic when writing about the Gospel according to the Hebrews. http://books.google.com/books?id=HkNiz54LQ0gC&pg=PA71...

Irenaeus rightly identified 'Hebrew' as Hebrew in Book Five: For the Hebrew word "Satan" signifies an apostate. (Adv Haer 5.21.2) I think it is a pipe dream to speak about the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' as an Aramaic gospel. It was a Hebrew gospel and all the Church Fathers say that.

Another example: For mammon is, according to the Jewish language, which the Samaritans do also use, a covetous man, and one who wishes to have more than he ought to have. But according to the Hebrew, it is by the addition of a syllable (adjunctive) called Mamuel, and signifies gulosum, that is, one ...

My point is (if I haven't stated it enough times already) that the only reason Aramaic gets substituted for Hebrew is because of the pre-existent supposition about a historical Jesus. You can't then turn around and say 'the Aramaic gospel' proves anything about a historical Jesus when it was invente...

I am saying that if Hebrew means Hebrew at the end of Book Two, it has to mean Hebrew at the beginning of Book Two. Thanks for the page numbers. Also Jerome surely means 'Hebrew gospel' not Aramaic gospel, right? We can't imagine that Jerome translated Hebrew and Aramaic but couldn't distinguish bet...