Gospels in Aramaic?

[abucs]

I was listening to Father Pacwa on the radio lately and he mentioned that the Gospel of Mark translated well into the Aramaic found in the Qumran scrolls of roughly the same time as Jesus.

Does anybody have any further information, examples or thoughts about that ???

or about other connections between the NT writings and any possible underlying Aramaic ?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

There is a theory that at least two of the Gospels (Matthew and Mark) were originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Luke’s Gospel was clearly written in Greek while John’s was most likely written in Greek. The problem here is that St. Peter tells us that Mark was his translator for Greek.

Certain expressions (such as the famous “You are Peter…”) work well in Aramaic. In fact, that line is best understood in Aramaic where the gender shift found in Greek doesn’t exist.

The Peshitta is a version of Scripture written in Syriac which is a dialect of Aramaic. Dr. George Lamsa has made it his life’s work to “prove” that the Aramaic predates the Greek.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sir_Anthony]

well i have some thoughts, I try my best to read up on biblical scholarships and stuff. And I have been thinking of some ideas, which I can’t prove nor argue because of my background isn’t in that kind of stuff.

In modern biblical scholarship it is en vogue to suggest that there is the Q-source, which is the earliest source for the gospels, a sayings Gospel. Of course the argument for it seems quite poor, if there was a gospel Q, surely it would have been kept and preserved by the early community and at least the ECF would have mentioned it and commented on it.

Now here comes my theory, Q isn’t what it is supposed to be, rather it is a version of Matthew that is now lost, as it is mentioned by an ECF that Matthew first wrote a gospel in the hebrew language (whether it is hebrew or aramaic is debatable). Anyhow, I think the so-called Q belong to this gospel that is simpler in structure and probably was more of a notebook for the Apostles in the early church. Then Matthew (or one of his disciples) decide to formulate a new gospel from scratch in greek (the lingua franca of the eastern roman empire) which is the one we have now. And Mark is partly derived from the older Matthew version, though it was probably redacted and shorten in order to highlight Petrine ideas and doctrines.

 

[Cluny]

The Peshitto (sometimes spelled Peshitta) is the Aramaic version of the Bible, accepted as authortitative by the various East and West Syriac Churches.

There is an English translation of it by George Lamsa. However, being a one-man production should be approached with caution.

 

[ronyodish]

Cluny,

Besides Lamsa, there are other English translations of the Peshitta out there. One that I check often is the Interlinear version of Paul Younan.

God bless,

Rony

 

[jblake]

abucs;:

or about other connections between the NT writings and any possible underlying Aramaic ?

There are three or four variants of Aramaic Primacy.
In no specific order:
1: All of the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books of the New Testament were originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek;

2: All of the protocanonical New Testament books were originally written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek;

3: The Gospels, and Acts were originally written in Aramaic. The rest of the New Testament was originally written in Greek;

4: Matthew, and possibly Mark were originally written in Aramaic;

The major problem with the first variant is that the Churches that used Aramaic did not know of the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament.

The major problem with the second variant is the total lack of supporting manuscript evidence. Unlike the Greek, there are no Aramaic manuscript traditions. Furthermore, the majority of extant Aramaic manuscripts are significantly later than the Greek manuscripts;

The major issue with the third variant, is that there are textual anomalies that predicate against being written in Aramaic. (The textual anomalies that support Aramaic are, if valid, valid only for the specific Gospel.)

The major issue with the fourth variant, is that the oldest extant Hebrew manuscript predates the oldest extant Aramaic manuscript.(There are also some odd textual differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.)

My theory is that the protocanonical New Testament was translated into both Old Latin, and Aramaic, as soon as the texts were published.

jonathon

 

[Mike_Searson]

I think “Aramaic Matthew” or the “Q” Source are the most plausible.

 

[abucs]

Thanks for all of the responses guys. I am busy reading up on the Peshitto/a references now.

Deacon Ed,

good point with the Rock/Cephus quote.
i’ve come across a thought by a scholar who says that the exclamation of Zechariah when his son John is born to his wife Elizabeth (in Chapter 1 Luke) also works well in Aramaic.

1. He has shown mercy to our fathers, and he has remembered his holy covenants.
2. And the oaths which he swore to Abraham our father.

Apparently he claims that the meanings in Hebrew/Aramaic for the names John, Zechariah and Elizabeth are :

John - The mercy (or grace) of the lord.
Zechariah - the lord remembers
Elizabeth - my God is an oath.

And that this passage works well in the Aramaic although the passage is clearly a quote.

Sir Anthony,

your thinking seems to be a possibility although like jblake says, we need to have an old aramaic text to know if it is possibly true.
It would be great if we could find one, or even fuller writings by Papias.

The notebooks you mention seem to make sense too as in Paul’s letters somewhere (Timothy ??) Paul is described as taking around notebooks with him and writing things down. Especially when travelling and preaching, this seems to make perfect sense. It seems crazy to me that some critical scholars posit the notion of an unknown written Q source but then in the same breath deny any possibility that things of the Gospel could have been written down early but instead only handed down orally.

I think the primacy of this whole oral history idea does not stand up as we get a picture of that time of eyewitnesses criss crossing different towns of the empire and the gospels written down well within 1 lifetime of the events.

With Christianity being an urban religion of the time and disciples constantly travelling in the towns and staying with the faithful it is not exactly like travelling to an isolated village in Papua New Guinea, spending a day there and never returning and then 10 generations later getting a different story from the original - which is the impression some scholars seem to want to create.

Sorry, my 2c worth.

Thanks again guys.