Merle

Ah, I didn't think of that. If the original New Testament was in Aramaic, then you have the problem that the surviving documents we have are in Greek, and there may be mistranslations.

Further, if they were translated from Aramaic, it must have occured early, for I understand the early church fathers in the second and third century quoted extensively from the Greek. If the translation was done early, it is doubtful that the Christians could have pulled together a significant group of scholars to do the translation, so we are left with the probability that the Greek manuscripts we have are a doubtful translation by unknown people with unknown credentials. And, since the only people interested in such a translation at the time would have been Christians, there would have been little control of the bias of the translators.

I am no epert on these things, but it seems an early translation to Greek, with the Aramaic texts disappearing is unlikely.

So if the gospels were written in Greek, they were probably written by people who knew no earthly Jesus. If they were written in Aramaic, we would be stuck with possibly unreliable translations. Either way, it is not good.

Some have tried to get around both problems by suggesting that Greek was a common language in palestine at the time, but the quote of Josephus that Toto posted answers that argument.

Regards,
Merle

Boro Nut

Not only that, if they were indeed written by unlearned followers of a Jesus in Palestine they would be written on leaves and scraps of dung, not fine paper, and say "I seen Jesus tuday. He luk nice. He does go on a bit".

Boro Nut

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, judge, this is correct. What you said in your post was valid overall, and provides yet one more argument for the same thing, i.e. that those OT quotes in the NT cannot be a good argument for anything.

Below are just a couple of minor corrections.

Quote:

One theory is that at the council of Jemima in A.D.100 the jews 'standardised' their hebrew text.

Although this "council of Jamnia" is most likely legendary, there clearly was such a standartisation at a later period.

Quote:

Now while josephus did say that he wrote in greek (IIRC correctly he staes that he perhaps translated his work into greek...but I could be wrong here),

AFAIK, his "Jewish War" was a translation from the original Aramaic, apparently done with the help of a native Greek editor.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

Just to clarify some, myself, I'm actually not a blanket Semitic prioritist. I don't think that everything in the NT was written originally in a Semitic tongue.

To me, this argument that everything in the NT was written originally in a Semitic tongue seems like the mirror reflection of the opposite position, which happens to be mainstream at this time, i.e. that everything in the NT was written originally in Greek. But, in my view, both of these positions seem equally wrong-headed.

The fact is, we don't really know for sure what was the original text of any of the canonical gospels. And so, I feel that it's hazardous to speculate which language or languages they were in -- until such time as we address the textual issues first. So it all mainly boils down to Textual Criticism, a much neglected area at this time.

And it's not just me, of course. There are great many other textual critics who doubt that we have the originals for any of the 4 gospels. The canonical texts that we do have currently represent much later recensions. The exact textual shape of those "original versions" should be seen as highly hypothetical, pending the resolution of the key textual disputes. Thus, until these issues are resolved, I feel that it would be very presumptuous to claim to know what these hypothetical original documents might have looked like, and what was their language or languages. This is what the mainstreamers keep doing, and this is why they fail.

Thus, I'm still quite open to various gospel passages, or even whole gospels, having being written originally in Greek. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that Mt was originally written in a Semitic tongue. The source of Mk may also have been written originally in a Semitic tongue. Also, the source of Lk, but this is more speculative.

And so, I do not accept either the blanket Greek priority, or the blanket Aramaic priority. I see blanket Greek priority as mostly an article of faith at this time. Certainly, so far, nobody has demonstrated it conclusively.

So, really, it all boils down to Textual Criticism. The main prerogative at this time is to determine, which of the three main text-types (Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine) is the earliest. Once this is done, then one can move on to the language question, and the issues of translation. But not before. And this is where most of the existing studies on this subject fail abysmally.

So a lot of scholars take what I think is the late Alexandrian Greek text, and try to "retrovert" it back to Aramaic. What a waste of time... Because the late authors of these Greek passages most likely had not the slightest idea about the Aramaic, to begin with! This is like carrying water in a sieve...

Basically, I think that the main textual issues are eminently resolvable. Western text is the earliest, and this can be proven scientifically. This should be the starting point for any further investigations of language and translations. OTOH, I think that any scholar who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still believes in the Alexandrian priority has thereby disqualified him or herself from being capable of addressing the much more complex issues of the original languages and translations.

All the best,

Yuri.

judge

Hi merle,
more evidence that the Jesus himself referred to Aramaic translations is suggested by Craig A. Evans, professor of biblical studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Canada.

He writes...."evidence for this can be seen in the fact that when Jesus alludes to Scriptures in the Gospels, he usually does so in a manner that agrees with the Aramaic Targum, not the Greek or Hebrew versions. Some examples: In Mark 9:42 –50, Jesus warns of judgment by speaking of Gehenna and alluding to Isaiah 66:24, "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The word Gehenna does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek, but only in the Aramaic. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus commands his disciple to put away his sword, "for all those who take the sword, by the sword they will perish." These words, which aren't in our Hebrew-based Isaiah, probably allude to the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah 50:11: "all you who take a sword…go fall…on the sword which you have taken!" Jesus' well-known saying "Be merciful as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36) reflects the Aramaic expansion of Leviticus 22:28: "My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth." And Jesus' very proclamation of the gospel, namely, that the kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:14–15), probably reflects the Aramaic paraphrasing of passages such as Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7. In these Aramaic paraphrases we find the distinctive words "The kingdom of your God is revealed!"

Understanding the usage of Aramaic in Jesus' time explains another often puzzling passage. In the parable of the wicked vineyard tenants (Mark 12:1–12), Jesus alludes to Isaiah 5:1–7. In the Hebrew version of Isaiah (on which our English translations are based), the people of Judah as a whole (and not their leaders) are condemned as guilty of bloodshed. But when Jesus told the parable, the ruling priests understood that Jesus had told the parable "against them." This is because Jesus applies the passage in his parable in a way that reflects the Aramaic Targum's interpretation of it, in which God's judgment is directed primarily against the temple establishment. (The tower of Isaiah's parable is understood as the temple, and the wine vat is understood as the altar.)"

from..... http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t5/9t5098.html


As for Isaiah 7:14 I don't know, it may be interesting to look though as aramaic and hebrew are so close we are probably looking at much the same word and if there were some suggestion that it was different we would probably be more well known I suspect.

All the best

judge

Merle, another interesting , but not well known fact is that there are aramaic speaking Christians today who still hold their services in Aramaic. The assyrian Church of the East still holds their services in Aramaic and they claim to have the original NT (22 books anyway) that is, and I quote "without change or revision having come down from the hands of " the blessed apostles themselves"

But of course western bible scholars don't believe this because....because...because....ummm....look I'm sure there must be a good reason...isn't there?

All the best

CX

Actually there are several good reasons for thinking the original language of the NT was Greek.

1)MSS evidence - all the earliest MSS of the NT (with few exceptions) are in Greek.

2)LXX quotations - the quotes of the OT found in the NT come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT.

3)Texts themselves - the texts themselves do not show evidence of translation. A translation is usually notably different from something in it's original language because there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence between the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of any two languages. The use of Greek idiom, the existences of "aramaisms" etc. are all signs that the texts were originally compose in Greek.

4)Aramaic was primarily a spoken language of the common masses while Greek, during the period, was the language of writers and scholars.

I suggest you search the literature for more detailed discussions of this subject before making anymore flippant pronouncements.

MortalWombat

Yeah, so? Joseph Smith claimed that he received gold tablets with the Book of Mormon written on them from the angel Moroni.

Claude Vorhilon (the Raelian founder) claimed that elohim extraterrestrials directly gave him knowledge of their creation of humankind.

David Koresh claimed he took orders directly from God.

People can claim anything they want.

judge

Hi there..

CX:
Actually there are several good reasons for thinking the original language of the NT was Greek.

1)MSS evidence - all the earliest MSS of the NT (with few exceptions) are in Greek.


Judge:
Yes this is true, however I'm not sure the strength of this. After all prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest OT were not in hebrew.

CX:
2)LXX quotations - the quotes of the OT found in the NT come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT.

Judge:
This cannot be demonstrated. I have dealt with this above. At best one can demonstrate that the text quoted was similar to the LXX. But clearly at times the LXX is not quoted. I have given an example above of Ephesians 4:8, there are many more.


CX:
3)Texts themselves - the texts themselves do not show evidence of translation. A translation is usually notably different from something in it's original language because there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence between the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of any two languages. The use of Greek idiom, the existences of "aramaisms" etc. are all signs that the texts were originally compose in Greek.

Judge:
There are many many examples of where the translations have left a "smoking gun"

Where a word in the Aramaic may possibly be correctly translated
several ways it turns up in these different ways in various greek
manuscripts.
An example would be John 3:15
So that everyone who believes in Him not will perish.
The word translated here as "in him" may be translated 'in Him", "on
Him", "into him" or perhaps "through him".
All the Aramaic read the same but when it comes to the greek.

The following Greek manuscripts translate it "In Him": p75, B, W, 083
0113

The following translate it "On Him": p63vid, p66, A, L

And the following translate it "Into Him": S, K, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi,
086, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

This sort of thing (of which this is only one example) seems consistent
with the greek versions being translated.
Bear in mind that all the peshitta manuscripts are identical
throughout.


CX:
4)Aramaic was primarily a spoken language of the common masses while Greek, during the period, was the language of writers and scholars.

judge:
So who was paul writing to? The common masses or scholars?


CX:
I suggest you search the literature for more detailed discussions of this subject before making anymore flippant pronouncements.


Judge:
Would you like to go into more detail here?

all the best.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear CX,

"judge" already answered your objections quite capably, so I will add only a few more notes.

This is a weak argument. All our earliest MSS of the NT come from Egypt, where no Semitic languages were spoken. Hence there's no surprise at all that these MSS are in Greek.

So this can be seen as merely an accident of preservation.

Quote:

2)LXX quotations - the quotes of the OT found in the NT come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT.

Please read the previous posts in this thread. This has already been answered, and in more than one way.

Quote:

3)Texts themselves - the texts themselves do not show evidence of translation. A translation is usually notably different from something in it's original language because there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence between the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of any two languages. The use of Greek idiom, the existences of "aramaisms" etc. are all signs that the texts were originally compose in Greek.

This doesn't make sense. How can the existence of Aramaisms be seen as evidence that the original language was _not_ Aramaic?

Quote:

4)Aramaic was primarily a spoken language of the common masses ...

And of course this should indicate to us that those common masses were most likely provided with Aramaic gospel texts at a very early stage.

All the best,

Yuri.