Claiming 'syriac' or 'Aramaic' is moot.
There is not a single shred of evidence that the NT (as a whole) was ever written in 'Aramaic', or that Jesus primarily spoke such to the disciples. Are there certain 'Aramaic' words utilized? Sure, but that is no different than myself, or anyone speaking to others and throwing in a word from a differing language while speaking or writing to a certain audience, right uso?
In the NT, it is evident that the Jews spoke "Hebrew", not 'Aramaic':
Act_21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
Act_22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Paul was clear in the use of the word, "Hebrew":
Php_3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
How do we know that the Jews spoke "Hebrew" and not 'Aramaic'? Simple, when Jesus spoke some Aramaic words upon the Cross, the Pharisees mistook them to mean Elias (Elijah), and not God (El). They could not have mistaken that if they had understood 'Aramaic', and they were the learned leaders of the Jews..
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mat 27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mar 15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
In the NT, the evidence that Jesus spoke primarily "Hebrew", not primarily 'Aramaic', is evident in His appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus:
Act_26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying
in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Or we could cite the reference of John in the Gospel and in the Revelation:
Joh_5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called
in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Rev_9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name
in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Rev_16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called
in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
Ummmm, I don’t know
HOW to break this to you – but Aramains
IS a
HERBREW TONGUE.
ALL of the verses that you listed say “Aramaic” in the following translations
NIV,
When the Bible wants to specifically identify a language it is clear as to what languge it refers to:
Dan_2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.
Ezr_4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
Act_1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Rev_9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Nowhere, in the NT, do we see that Jesus primarily spoke in 'Syriack'.
Anchor Bible, Vol. 26, Matthew, (195), simply asserts their position, with very little actual evidence of support. It is basically a personal commentary notation section -
Anchor Bible. Vol.26, Matthew : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Let's see how true your own statement is:
"HOWEVER – I’ll let these PROTESTANT scholars do the explainin’ for me . ."
Albert Barnes (18th-19th Cent.), also said:
"... the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended ...", "... Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. ..." - Albert Barnes, Matthew 16:18 Commentary
Why do you only quote the part of Barnes which you need him to say, and not the part which entirely distances itself from Romanism's theology?
John Albert Broadus, is also likewise selectively quoted, by leaving out his clear statements which proved my original material on the subject on the so called ECF:
John Albert Broadus speaks of the Romish
"... abuse ..." of Matthew 16:18, and it's perversion of doctrine, when he says,
"Now apart from the Romish perversion ..." (page 355) -
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew : Broadus, John Albert, 1827-1895 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Why didn't you cite those relevant portions to the matter, which shows the error of the Romanist's position?
Craig L. Blomberg (20th Cent.) writes like a Catholic, though he claims to be Baptist. he uses a lot of similar catholic terminology, and borrows the assumptions of Romanism. However, why do you quote only part of Craig L. Blomberg, and not the parts which detract from the importance you place upon his other words?
"... 99 Interestingly, J. E. Bigane III (Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholic Exegesis [Washington: UPA, 1981]) shows that prior to 1560, even in Roman Catholic circles, there was great diversity of interpretation of this verse, which only later hardened to viewing just Peter as the rock as a counterresponse to Luther's
"n, or Petrine infallibility ...
"... In fact, in Acts, Peter seems to decrease in importance as the church grows ..." (256) -
Matthew : Blomberg, Craig : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
It looks to me like your own sources explained that Romanism doesn't have a rock to stand on at all.
Why, as a Romanist, do you cite 18th-20th century persons (called 'protestants', but not really), instead of the vast majority of the ECF, of which all Romanists agree are authoritative in matters pertaining to Christianity as they are interpreted by the official Magisterium of Rome, and it's Curia and 'See'?
Do you think they have any authority, or even any relevance to the discussion at all, for me?
Allow me to assure you, they have none in either case. You might as well be citing Dr. Suess, or some other fiction, as attempting to prove the Romanists point. ""There are rocks in my socks!", said the Ox to the Fox."
