Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Orthodox_Freethinker · 12-31-2005, 01:30 AM

All little known fact among Westerners is the Aramaic origin of the New Testament. The following is from the introduction to the Lamsa Bible:

Quote:

The Israelites never wrote their sacred literature in any language but Aramaic and Hebrew, which are sister languages. The Septuagint was made in the 3rd century, B.C., for the Alexandrian Jews. This version was never officially read by the Jews in Palestine who spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. Instead, the Jewish authorities condemned the work and declared a period of mourning because of the defects in the version. Evidently Jesus and his disciples used a text which came from an older Hebrew original. This is apparent because Jesus' quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Peshitta text but do not agree with the Greek text. For example, in John 12:40, the Peshitta Old Testament and New Testament agree. This is not all. Jesus and his disciples not only could not converse in Greek but they never heard it spoken...

...The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jewish people, both in Palestine and in the Greco-Roman Empire.

Greek was never the language of Palestine. Josephus' book on the Jewish Wars was written in Aramaic. Josephus states that even though a number of Jews had tried to learn the language of the Greeks, hardly any of them succeeded.

Josephus wrote (42 A.D.): "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 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 language of many nations. On this account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors, with great patience, to obtain this Greek learning, there have yet hardly been two or three that have succeeded herein, who were immediately rewarded for their pains." Antiquities XX, XI 2.

Indeed, the teaching of Greek was forbidden by Jewish rabbis. It was said that it was better for a man to give his child meat of swine than to teach him the language of the Greeks...

When we come to the New Testament, the new Covenant, we must not forget that Christianity grew out of Judaism. The Christian gospel was another of God's messages, first to the Jewish people and then to the Gentile world. For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews. All of the apostles and the evangelists were Jewish. These facts are strongly supported by the gospels and history.

The Pauline Epistles were letters written by Paul to small Christian congregations in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome. These early Christians were mostly Jews of the dispersion, men and women of Hebrew origin who had been looking for the coming of the promised Messiah whose coming was predicted by the Hebrew prophets who had hailed him as a deliverer...

Jesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic, the language which the early Galileans had brought from the other side of the river Euphrates. 2 Kings 17:22-25. Mark tells us in his Gospel, 14:70 that Peter was exposed by his Galilean Aramaic speech.

Paul, in all of his Epistles, emphasizes Hebrew law, Jewish ordinances and temple rituals. He refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "our fathers." In his letters and teaching he appeals to the Jewish people to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. Paul's mission was first to his own people. When they refused to listen to him, he shook his garment and went out among the Gentiles. Acts 18:6. Paul preached the Christian gospel written in Aramaic. His Epistles were written years later when Christianity had spread into Syria and parts of the Near East and India. In other words, the Pauline Epistles were letters addressed to the Christian churches already established. Moreover, Paul, in nearly all of his

Epistles, speaks of the Hebrew fathers, subjugation in Egypt, crossing the Red Sea, eating manna, and wandering in the desert. This proves beyond a doubt that these letters were written to members of the Hebrew race and not to the Gentile world who knew nothing of Hebrew history and divine promises made to them. The Greeks had not been persecuted in Egypt nor did they cross the Red Sea, nor did they eat manna in the desert.

Paul was educated in Jewish law in Jerusalem. He was a member of the Jewish Council. His native language was western Aramaic but he acquired his education through Hebrew and Chaldean or Palestinian Aramaic, the language spoken in Judea. He defended himself when on trial in his own tongue and not in Greek. Acts 22:2. Paul was converted, healed, and baptized in Damascus in Syria. Acts 9:17,18.

The Epistles were translated into Greek for the use of converts who spoke Greek. Later they were translated into Latin and other tongues...
http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/...amsaintro1.htm

For further evidence in favor of the New Testament's Aramaic origin:

Quote:

I have discussed many of the linguistic proofs of Peshitta primacy, which is perhaps the best proof we can have, as it is internal evidence. There is however much external evidence also, such as quotes from Church fathers, and simple (yet little-known) facts about Jesus’ time (and language), that also make a strong case for Peshitta primacy.
This article will deal with some historical proofs of Peshitta primacy, and will also touch on other issues, such as the Septuagint, and the other Aramaic Bible versions...
That the OT was written in Hebrew is uncontested. After all, it was written by Hebrew-speakers, for Hebrew-speakers, and tells the stories of Hebrew-speakers. So why is Aramaic primacy of the NT (New Testament) contested? Does it not make sense that the NT, written by Aramaic-speakers, for Aramaic-speakers, telling the stories of Aramaic-speakers, be written in Aramaic? According to “scholarly consensus�? (i.e. the shared beliefs of many scholars, lacking in any real evidence), it makes more sense that it was written in the non-Semitic language of Greek...
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Onlin...cal_proofs.htm

judge · 12-31-2005, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

All little known fact among Westerners is the Aramaic origin of the New Testament.

:

Yes the idea is all but unexplored by western scholars. One day probably not too far away it will be subject to proper peer review ,and the conclusion should be interesting.
We have had quite a few discussions here in the past with Spin providing the fiercest opposition to such an idea.
He has provided some excellent analysis of various words but IMHO it stills seems quite unclear how relevant individual words are on their own. Particularly in the absence of any comparison with other works from the period.

With reference to your quotes , it is quite hillarious IMHO that many even insist that the epistle to the Hebrews would have been written in greek as well.

It makes little sense IMHO.

It is interesting to look for example at Richard Carriers summary of Bruce Matzgers work found on this site here

He writes..

Quote:

By the fifth century the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, became formalized somehow into its present form:

This is the rather inadequate explanation given by the cream of western scholarship. No arguments are even considered (probably not even known about).

The primacy of the peshitta is not even considered. It is rejected a priori.
All this under the cloak of open minded scientific scholarship.

I did have a previous discussion with Richard concerning innacuracies in his artilcle such as this nonsense :-)...

Quote:

For centuries the Diatessaron of Tatian, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books in the Syrian churches,

Unfortunately Richard elected to retain this misleading statement because Metzger asserts it (unsuppotred), and he indicates his article merely sums up Metzgers work, although to be fair he kindly invited further input from myself on the matter.

The problem is that I did not make the unsupported assertion, Metzger did and Richard Carrier in turn summarised his work.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 12-31-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes the idea is all but unexplored by western scholars.

Have you started to learn Aramaic yet, Judge?

Yuri.

River · 12-31-2005, 02:19 PM

I have always felt that the NT has its origins in the Aramaic

yet so many board members here, adamantly insist that it was

always koine Greek.

What exactly is causing this confusion?

-River

Charioteer · 12-31-2005, 08:00 PM

Ok, I'm on my way to a New Year's Eve party so I'm not going to comment on the entire topic just yet. But I would like to point out one fantastic claim that seems to jump off the page on first blush.

Quote:

Jesus and his disciples not only could not converse in Greek but they never heard it spoken...

I'm ok with positing the historicity of Jesus in issues of theology and textual criticism, but to posit that he and his disciples were unable to understand Greek is a huge claim indeed. Where does this come from exactly? So the odds are against the average Israelite speaking Greek according to Josephus. Does this mean that not one of the thirteen people mentioned in this claim understood the language? Also, from a standpoint of Christian orthodoxy, how can you apologetically defend an omnipotent God that cannot understand Greek? This claim is absurd to me.

Anyway, the overall topic is interesting to me. I'll get back to this thread tomorrow.

Vorkosigan · 12-31-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by River

I have always felt that the NT has its origins in the Aramaic
yet so many board members here, adamantly insist that it was
always koine Greek.
What exactly is causing this confusion?
-River

Probably just a difference between those who let evidence and methodology dictate their position, and those whose positions are dictated by religious beliefs.

Chris Weimer · 12-31-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charioteer

So the odds are against the average Israelite speaking Greek according to Josephus.

A) It was Jerusalemite, not Israelite, and B) Jesus was neither a Jerusalemite nor a Israelite. He was Galilean. Israel had long ago ceased to exist.

RUmike · 01-01-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

This is not all. Jesus and his disciples not only could not converse in Greek but they never heard it spoken...

Jesus would have lived only a few miles from Sepphoris, a Helenistic city. If he had any dealings with that city for work, which is certainly plausible (if not probable), then he would probably have known enough Greek to get by. Admittedly this is speculation on my part but way more plausible than the ridiculous assertion above.

Orthodox_Freethinker · 01-01-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes the idea is all but unexplored by western scholars. One day probably not too far away it will be subject to proper peer review ,and the conclusion should be interesting.

I believe that it is perhaps ethnocentrism that has prevented an honest peer review of the Aramaic Peshitta in the West.

NOGO · 01-01-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox_Freethinker

I believe that it is perhaps ethnocentrism that has prevented an honest peer review of the Aramaic Peshitta in the West.

Nonesense!

I do not dispute that Israelites probably did not know enough Greek to have written the Gospels.
The people who wrote the Gospels were not Palestinian Jews.
They were Greeks or Greek speaking Jews who did not speak Aramaic nor Hebrew.

The evidence is overwhelming.
I am not going to educate you on this. There are many people on this forum who can do a much better job than I.
In summary,
Gospel writers quote from the septuagint.
Then there are blunders like this.

Matthew 21:5-7
Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Lo, thy king doth come to thee, meek, and mounted on an ass, ¸and a colt, a foal of a beast of burden.'
And the disciples having gone and having done as Jesus commanded them,
brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set him upon them.

Matthew misquotes scriptures.
Zech 9:9
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Notice the difference "a donkey, even on a colt"
becomes "on a ass and a colt"

No Aramaic speaking writer would have done such a blunder.
The author (Matthew) then proceeds to make the prophecy reality.
He tells the story in a way to make his interpretation of scripture true.
He has Jesus' disciples bring two animals and has Jesus sitting on two animals.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-31-2005, 02:19 PM	#4
River Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NY Posts: 3,680	I have always felt that the NT has its origins in the Aramaic yet so many board members here, adamantly insist that it was always koine Greek. What exactly is causing this confusion? -River

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.