The Gospels Codex from 78 AD - where is it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

EclipseEventSigns

Well-known member
In the early 1700's a librarian from the Vatican discovered an ancient codex containing the 4 Gospels of the New Testament written in Aramaic. On its last page the scribe made a note that it had been completed on what was December 18th, 78 AD. This information was forgotten until around 1889 when a biblical scholar republished this information. However, still to this day no one knows if this ancient codex is still in the Vatican Library or not. Could this truly be the oldest manuscript from the New Testament?

 
Sounds super fake.
Hmmmm... Did you look at the proof? The thing about it is - it's in an official publication from the Roman Catholic Church. Published on pain of excommunication and prison for the librarian if he didn't publish the truth. So it's not an opinion.
 
If it is true that the 4 Gospels existed in Aramaic by at least 78 AD, what evidence is there for the rest of the New Testament?

Start with what Peter says. In II Peter, he references Paul's multiple letters having been available and read by those Peter is addressing.

[2Pe 3:15-16 LSB] 15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter's audience had been able to read what Paul had written. So who was Peter's audience. We find out a few verses previous:
[2Pe 3:1 LSB] 1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you ...

Who was the first letter addressed to?
[1Pe 1:1 LSB] 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

It was to the Christians of Jewish heritage who were living outside of the Jewish homeland. Where are those places? In modern day Turkey. So the writings of both Peter and Paul had made it through that entire area. They were able to read it in a language they understood. That language was Aramaic and not Greek. Aramaic was the lingua franca outside of the Roman Empire. It was the lingua franca of the Jewish people whether in their homeland or those living in exile. This is demonstrated in Acts 21:26-40. Paul is arrested after some visiting unbelieving Jews slander him and rile up the residents of Jerusalem. The Roman commander arrests him and is just about to put him in prison. Paul talks to the commander in a different language and he is shocked to hear Paul speaking Greek. This convinces the commander that Paul is being slandered and Paul is allowed to address his accusers - in their own language. He does not speak to them in Greek but in their own language - stated to be the language of the Hebrews.

So things are not as we have always been told. While Paul did know Greek, that does not mean the entire Jewish population knew or spoke Greek. And the content of the New Testament probably was not originally in Greek. But it was translated very soon after being written in Aramaic.
 
Last edited:
If it is true that the 4 Gospels existed in Aramaic by at least 78 AD, what evidence is there for the rest of the New Testament?

Start with what Peter says. In II Peter, he references Paul's multiple letters having been available and read by those Peter is addressing.

[2Pe 3:15-16 LSB] 15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter's audience had been able to read what Paul had written. So who was Peter's audience. We find out a few verses previous:
[2Pe 3:1 LSB] 1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you ...

Who was the first letter addressed to?
[1Pe 1:1 LSB] 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

It was to the Christians of Jewish heritage who were living outside of the Jewish homeland. Where are those places? In modern day Turkey. So the writings of both Peter and Paul had made it through that entire area. They were able to read it in a language they understood. That language was Aramaic and not Greek. Aramaic was the lingua franca outside of the Roman Empire. It was the lingua franca of the Jewish people whether in their homeland or those living in exile. This is demonstrated in Acts 21:26-40. Paul is arrested after some visiting unbelieving Jews slander him and rile up the residents of Jerusalem. The Roman commander arrests him and is just about to put him in prison. Paul talks to the commander in a different language and he is shocked to hear Paul speaking Greek. This convinces the commander that Paul is being slandered and Paul is allowed to address his accusers - in their own language. He does not speak to them in Greek but in their own language - stated to be the language of the Hebrews.

So things are not as we have always been told. While Paul did know Greek, that does not mean the entire Jewish population knew or spoke Greek. And the content of the New Testament probably was not originally in Greek. But it was translated very soon after being written in Aramaic.

They used the LXX. It is the very reason that the LXX was created. The idea that Aramaic replaced Hebrew among Jews of the 1st century is conjecture. There is no direct Aramaic lineage of the Hebrew OT through to the Peshitta.
 
They used the LXX. It is the very reason that the LXX was created. The idea that Aramaic replaced Hebrew among Jews of the 1st century is conjecture. There is no direct Aramaic lineage of the Hebrew OT through to the Peshitta.
Your statements are not backed by any kind of evidence. The idea that Greek replaced Hebrew among the Jews of the 1st century is not according to historical evidence. The LXX was created in Egypt specifically for the huge library there. No other purpose than that. When it was created the Talmud says that there was much mourning. The idea that the Jews adopted the language of their enemies is absolute hogwash.
 
Your statements are not backed by any kind of evidence. The idea that Greek replaced Hebrew among the Jews of the 1st century is not according to historical evidence. The LXX was created in Egypt specifically for the huge library there. No other purpose than that. When it was created the Talmud says that there was much mourning. The idea that the Jews adopted the language of their enemies is absolute hogwash.

Where your evidence? Some "scribe" that put a date on a single manuscript? What reasoning is this?

"I read it, it must be true"?

I have plenty of evidence to support what I said. You have someone writing a date on a piece of paper that no serious textual critic would believe......

Josephus used the LXX. So you have a Jew in the first century using the LXX. That is proof you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Where your evidence? Some "scribe" that put a date on a single manuscript? What reasoning is this?

"I read it, it must be true"?

I have plenty of evidence to support what I said. You someone writing a date on a piece of paper that no serious textual critic would believe......

Josephus used the LXX. So you have Jew in the first century using the LXX. That is proof you're wrong.
There is so much evidence. I can't put it all in a post. How silly to think that's even possible. People have written books and articles about it all. If you are not aware of this subject, spend some time researching.

The fact that you don't know the history of the LXX means that you haven't done enough research.
 
There is so much evidence. I can't put it all in a post. How silly to think that's even possible. People have written books and articles about it all. If you are not aware of this subject, spend some time researching.

The fact that you don't know the history of the LXX means that you haven't done enough research.

I know it better than you do. I've studied it for over 30 years. There is no direct evidence of the connection you're making.
 
No game to me. I know the evidence. If you know the evidence, it is a short conversation.
Report back to discuss when you have read the research of Michaelis, Neubauer, Murdoch, Etheridge, Norton, Torrey, and Burney. Report back when you have examined the Latin descriptions of the codex in 2 official publications of the Vatican Library which were approved by the Pope of that time.
 
Report back to discuss when you have read the research of Michaelis, Neubauer, Murdoch, Etheridge, Norton, Torrey, and Burney. Report back when you have examined the Latin descriptions of the codex in 2 official publications of the Vatican Library which were approved by the Pope of that time.

I don't need to ONLY read your sources. I'm looking for evidence. Not conjecture and commentary. I mean you seriously claimed that Josephus didn't write in Greek. That is what you claimed... when he wrote EXTENSIVE IN GREEK. Do you think that I need your sources?

You have a rudimentary understanding of textual criticism and canonical development. Surprise me. Give me real evidence of what you claim. Many popes write lies. Did you know that Peter wasn't the first pope????

You can't place the Aramaic Gospels in 78 AD.
 
I could put it right back at ya. Where is the evidence for an original text in Greek for the New Testament? Where? The first person that suggested this idea was Voss in the 1650's.

I think you have reading comprehension issues. No where did I say that Josephus didn't write in Greek. Of course he did. AFTER, he first wrote it all in Aramaic. As he says in his works:

Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1): "I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]."

Jewish Wars Book 1 Preface, Paragraph 2 - "I thought it therefore an absurd thing to see the truth falsified in affairs of such great consequence, and to take no notice of it; but to suffer those Greeks and Romans that were not in the wars to be ignorant of these things, and to read either flatteries or fictions, while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both whence the war begun, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended."

All of these nations OUTSIDE of Judea were able to read Josephus' first version (ie. not in Greek). Their language was the same as what was in Judea during this time. The Greeks and Romans were ignorant of his works because they couldn't read them and so he had to translate them.

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;b ecause they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

Josephus says he went through a lot of effort to learn Greek. It was not a common thing. Some people do try but many do not succeed in it. He had a lot of difficulty in speaking it properly. He would have stuck out to any native Greek speaker.

Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 2 - "Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were, - what fortunes they had been subject to, - and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, - what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language."

Greek was a foreign language to the Jews. They were unaccustomed to it. It was NOT commonly spoken. The vast majority would NOT have used the Septuagint as their Scripture reading.
 
I could put it right back at ya. Where is the evidence for an original text in Greek for the New Testament? Where? The first person that suggested this idea was Voss in the 1650's.

The evidence is clear. Luke records Greek people searching Scripture. Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. Thusly, you have the earliest reference "INTERNAL EVIDENCE" to be found.

See how simple that was?
 
The evidence is clear. Luke records Greek people searching Scripture. Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture. Thusly, you have the earliest reference "INTERNAL EVIDENCE" to be found.

See how simple that was?
And you completely the ignored all the evidence within the Greek of Josephus.

I already dealt with what Peter said of Paul earlier in this very thread. Proving your understanding is incorrect. The letters of Peter were written to JEWISH believers. Not Gentiles.
 
I think you have reading comprehension issues. No where did I say that Josephus didn't write in Greek. Of course he did. AFTER, he first wrote it all in Aramaic. As he says in his works:

No. He wrote his first book in Aramaic. The very second edition he wrote in Greek. Afterwards he wrote extensive in Greek. Your comments do not present this facts.

He did not WRITE IT ALL IN ARAMAIC.

You even post the fact that He learned GREEK wherein to communicate. How can you possibly miss this.

From your own quotes....

""I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations,"

He learned Greek. Just like most every other HEBREW.
 
And you completely the ignored all the evidence within the Greek of Josephus.

I already dealt with what Peter said of Paul earlier in this very thread. Proving your understanding is incorrect. The letters of Peter were written to JEWISH believers. Not Gentiles.

I referenced Peter's words concerning Paul... WHO WROTE TO GENTILES....

Pay attention.
 
Now you're just being silly. I've posted so much evidence which blows your understanding out of the water. You've proven you do not know the history of the LXX. Or how Josephus translated his works. Or of the who the New Testament letters were addressed to. Read the list of scholars I included and get back to me then.
 
Greek was a foreign language to the Jews. They were unaccustomed to it. It was NOT commonly spoken. The vast majority would NOT have used the Septuagint as their Scripture reading.

No. Hebrews translated the LXX for HEBREWS.

From Josephus....

Large population of Jews in Egypt.

"But when Ptolemy had taken a great many captives, both from the mountainous parts of Judea and from the places about Jerusalem and Samaria, and the places near Mount Gerizim, he led them all into Egypt, and settled them there."

Jews Rejoiced in the creation of the LXX for them.
"Now when the law was transcribed, and the labor of interpretation was over, which came to its conclusion in seventy-two days, Demetrius gathered all the Jews together to the place where the laws were translated, and where the interpreters were, and read them over. (108) The multitude did also approve of those elders that were the interpreters of the law. They withal commended Demetrius for his proposal, as the inventor of what was greatly for their happiness; and they desired that he would give leave to their rulers also to read the law."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom