NT originally written in Aramaic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ni8_shadow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pax said:
You might want to read the following thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=163982&highlight=peshitta
Click to expand...
Didn’t see in that thread any references to Father Tresmontant’s theory that Matthew was written in Hebrew, something he attempts to demonstrate by back translating the Greek Matthew into Hebrew. I have always wondered about the conventional dating of the Gospels, and some of that depends on the assumption that they were written originally in Greek at a late date. Bishop Robinson’s “'taint necessaralily so” approach to John’s dating convinced me of the arbitrariness of so much biblical scholarship. If the Lord spoke in Aramaic, and he did so to a public that must have included many literate men, why should his teachings NOT have been committed to writing at a very early time? Certainly Luke’s preamble and the sometimes awkward Greek passages by man who was obviously fluent in Greek suggests he was translating as well as encorporating text. IAC, the many plausible alternatives to the “offical” explanation about the composition of the New Testament caused me to doubt its veracity.
 
Does Tresmontant say that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

St. Jerome states that there were still copies of Matthew in the original Hebrew extant during his lifetime, which he had seen. He also notes that Matthew quoted from the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint; therefore, when he said Hebrew, he did not mean Aramaic.

I think that John and Revelation were written in Aramaic; Mark in Latin; Luke and Acts in Greek; Matthew in Hebrew (not Aramaic); Romans in Latin; Hebrews in Hebrew.

My dating of the Gospels:
Matthew was written between early A.D. 22 and early 25.
Mark was written in the late autumn and winter of A.D. 34 to 35.
Luke and then Acts were written between early A.D. 44 and early 46.
John was written probably between A.D. 68 and 80.
Revelation was written between A.D. 82 and 84.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Does Tresmontant say that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

St. Jerome states that there were still copies of Matthew in the original Hebrew extant during his lifetime, which he had seen. He also notes that Matthew quoted from the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint; therefore, when he said Hebrew, he did not mean Aramaic.

I think that John and Revelation were written in Aramaic; Mark in Latin; Luke and Acts in Greek; Matthew in Hebrew (not Aramaic); Romans in Latin; Hebrews in Hebrew.

My dating of the Gospels:
Matthew was written between early A.D. 22 and early 25.
Mark was written in the late autumn and winter of A.D. 34 to 35.
Luke and then Acts were written between early A.D. 44 and early 46.
John was written probably between A.D. 68 and 80.
Revelation was written between A.D. 82 and 84.
Click to expand...
Let me start by saying I have no clue about the dating of and language the Gospels were written in but I have to ask where you get your precise information. Its my understanding that the consensus of Biblical scholars is that nobody can so precisely date the Gospels and that with the possible exception of Matthew, all other books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Also your dating of Matthew would mean he wrote the Gospel before Jesus was crucified.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Does Tresmontant say that Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

St. Jerome states that there were still copies of Matthew in the original Hebrew extant during his lifetime, which he had seen. He also notes that Matthew quoted from the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint; therefore, when he said Hebrew, he did not mean Aramaic.

I think that John and Revelation were written in Aramaic; Mark in Latin; Luke and Acts in Greek; Matthew in Hebrew (not Aramaic); Romans in Latin; Hebrews in Hebrew.

My dating of the Gospels:
Matthew was written between early A.D. 22 and early 25.
Mark was written in the late autumn and winter of A.D. 34 to 35.
Luke and then Acts were written between early A.D. 44 and early 46.
John was written probably between A.D. 68 and 80.
Revelation was written between A.D. 82 and 84.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about anything that you said, except that after reading David Currie’s book on the “rapture” I hold firm that Revelation was written in the year of our Lord 68. That is kind of off topic, but the book is good… he mentions among other things, the dating of books in the Bible and their language and the context of that language as relating to Biblical prophesies.
 
RobbyS said:
Didn’t see in that thread any references to Father Tresmontant’s theory that Matthew was written in Hebrew, something he attempts to demonstrate by back translating the Greek Matthew into Hebrew. I have always wondered about the conventional dating of the Gospels, and some of that depends on the assumption that they were written originally in Greek at a late date. Bishop Robinson’s “'taint necessaralily so” approach to John’s dating convinced me of the arbitrariness of so much biblical scholarship. If the Lord spoke in Aramaic, and he did so to a public that must have included many literate men, why should his teachings NOT have been committed to writing at a very early time? Certainly Luke’s preamble and the sometimes awkward Greek passages by man who was obviously fluent in Greek suggests he was translating as well as encorporating text. IAC, the many plausible alternatives to the “offical” explanation about the composition of the New Testament caused me to doubt its veracity.
Click to expand...
Hi, RobbyS!

If your Faith hinges upon man’s ability to determine the origins of writings nearly 2000 years old… it is weak in deed.

Scolars, as other “learned” ones, operate as much from personal opinion as from actual data–just a few years ago some scientists were attempting to convince the world that the universe was ancient and folding upon itself–soon to be extinct (new “big bang”?)… then the hobble telescope (not sure of the actual spelling) sent new pictures which denied that erroneous belief… silently, the “end” sayers just vanished into that realm of “oops” scientific evidence. 😛

Every Bible scholar (or want to be) continue on that same path: reinventing the wheel… the guess work has become such as science that none would say “I guess” or “I think.” They boldly state: “it is!” …well, till the oops realm factors in!

What is more important: knowing with mathematical precision that “x” book was written by “xy” at precisely “xyz” time and date or knowing that Jesus Christ Sacrificed Himself to rescue us from the punishment of sin? Which piece of data will facilitate your Salvation?

Maran atha!

Angelf
 
Ron_Conte said:
St. Jerome states that there were still copies of Matthew in the original Hebrew extant during his lifetime, which he had seen. He also notes that Matthew quoted from the Hebrew OT, not the Septuagint; therefore, when he said Hebrew, he did not mean Aramaic.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he wrote “Hebrew” but “the language of the Hebrews” which is why there is not firm opinion whether he was writing in Hebrew (the religious language) or Aramaic (the spoken language).
 
Evan said:
I don’t think he wrote “Hebrew” but “the language of the Hebrews” which is why there is not firm opinion whether he was writing in Hebrew (the religious language) or Aramaic (the spoken language).
Click to expand...
Hi, Evan!

Excellent point!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I would note also, that the Gospel of Luke, which includes passages which have Hebrew pieces – notably those which are recording speech directly from Hebrew lips – none the less, Luke’s Greek is quite polished in Greek ways of thought.

This evidence can be read multiple ways – however, I am pretty certain that Luke was not followed by a Greek translator, as an opinion I hold. ( Feel free to argue, it would be fun. )

The main evidence I have found convincing is the style of the work – Either the “translator” did so much to bring in Greek thoughts and mannerisms, history, and style of writing – that he authored what we now have as the gospel, in a real creative sense – or the original is in Greek.

This could be argued is a “Greek” apologetic showing up more than a proof of original authorship – but if the apologetic is Greek, I would tend to think is was written in Greek, because why argue in Greek style if your audience is Hebrew.

As to the dating preferences, the fall of the temple in AD 70 is a common reason for modern scholars to date the Gospels containing the fall of Jerusalem prophecies as post 70AD. However, the major major problem with that is that shortly after the death of Jesus the activity of the Zealotes led the Roman emporer in ~30 something to send fleets to destroy Jerusalem – it was only that the winds were against them that foiled the attempt, and I believe the caesar died, and was followed by one who countermanded the order. So, even playing the secularist and avoiding admitting the “Miraculuous” nature of Jesus’ prophecy, one can easily come to the conclusion that there are very valid historical reasons to believe the fall of Jerusalem would have been on the mind of the Gospel writers for multiple reasons pre 70A.D.

Critical analysis can be shredded when historical documents are reviewed properly. And I agree with the scientific principle that multiplications of probablity can only lessen the likelyhood of the final result – therefore study to form an opinion, because new facts or overlooked ones can lead to different conclusions.
 
I believe the strongest evidence that Matthew was not originally in Aramaic is this verse.

Mat 27:46 ESV
(46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

It gives the Aramaic, just as Jesus said it, then it gives the translation of the Aramaic.

If the whole book was Aramaic, it’s rather problematice to think that a translator did this in only one passage. Jesus was quoted lots of times. Why not quote him in Aramaic and then give the translation just as this verse does?

And if the translator was simply translating, well the original author would not have written the same Aramaic twice.

JJ
 
Jolly_Joe said:
I believe the strongest evidence that Matthew was not originally in Aramaic is this verse.

Mat 27:46 ESV
(46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

… Jesus was quoted lots of times. Why not quote him in Aramaic and then give the translation just as this verse does?

And if the translator was simply translating, well the original author would not have written the same Aramaic twice.

JJ
Click to expand...
Your last comment is sound, (There shouldn’t be two repetitions of the exact same thing in the exact same language) so long as the original author of the passage was not quoting a Hebrew variant of the old testament psalm which differed in some way from the Aramaic. (Hard to tell, we don’t have those texts any more.)

The new testament reference to the present day language was to that “of the Hebrew’s” not the aramaic – because the people as a whole were known inclusively as Hebrews, the remaining sects being primarily Samaritan (outcast, interbred) and the Jews (from the southern kingdom of Judah). The parent language, however, of these diverse groups and the remnants of the Israelites was still called “Hebrew”. Just as Amercan english is still called “English” which can refer to the British english, or American english.

So, as to the first part of the answer – “why”, well the answer may well be that this reference is so explicitly Hebrew and incomprehensible to a Greek (or rather misinterpretable) that the translator wanted to make sure their audience understood it to be a foreign expression. After all, this is a victory psalm – not a psalm of defeat.

Take another twisted example used by modern scripture scholars:
In Luke there is a passage which says: “Rejoice when that day comes and dance (literally: leap or jump) for joy, then your reward will be great in heaven. This was the way their ancestors treated the prophets.”

Dance, is predicated on david before the ark – but jump speaks more to reaching up to heaven where one may eventually be if martyred.

Now many a smug stuffed shirt today will claim that “their” is a slip of the author’s pen placed on the lips of Jesus – showing that Luke is not a Jew. Although I agree that Luke is far more Greek in style – this last “modern” thought does not follow.

Read the passage a couple of times and see if you can figure out why based on Luke alone – if not, try reading: Matthew 23:2-3, 15, and esp. 29-32 which makes the accuracy of Luke’s quotation quite clear.

Sometimes the reason for things being accurate is subtle.
 
Jolly_Joe said:
I believe the strongest evidence that Matthew was not originally in Aramaic is this verse.

Mat 27:46 ESV
(46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

It gives the Aramaic, just as Jesus said it, then it gives the translation of the Aramaic.

If the whole book was Aramaic, it’s rather problematice to think that a translator did this in only one passage. Jesus was quoted lots of times. Why not quote him in Aramaic and then give the translation just as this verse does?

And if the translator was simply translating, well the original author would not have written the same Aramaic twice.

JJ
Click to expand...
First of All, we don’t have the original manuscripts.
The Church fathers allude to the fact that the Gospel was first written in Matthew’s native language.

That second part could have been added when the Gospel was translated into Greek.
 
Huiou_Theou said:
As to the dating preferences, the fall of the temple in AD 70 is a common reason for modern scholars to date the Gospels containing the fall of Jerusalem prophecies as post 70AD. However, the major major problem with that is that shortly after the death of Jesus the activity of the Zealotes led the Roman emporer in ~30 something to send fleets to destroy Jerusalem – it was only that the winds were against them that foiled the attempt, and I believe the caesar died, and was followed by one who countermanded the order. So, even playing the secularist and avoiding admitting the “Miraculuous” nature of Jesus’ prophecy, one can easily come to the conclusion that there are very valid historical reasons to believe the fall of Jerusalem would have been on the mind of the Gospel writers for multiple reasons pre 70A.D.

Critical analysis can be shredded when historical documents are reviewed properly. And I agree with the scientific principle that multiplications of probablity can only lessen the likelyhood of the final result – therefore study to form an opinion, because new facts or overlooked ones can lead to different conclusions.
Click to expand...
Hi, Huiou Theou!

…you’ve lost me on this one… I do not recall a single passage in the Gospels speaking of the fallen Temple… so how could “scholars” date the Gospels post 70 AD due to the futurinstic destruction of the Temple?

It seems to me that it is most likely that “scholars” continue to use the “hindsight method” of revisionist history: if the piece doesn’t fit the puzzle… pass the hammer! 😛

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
Hi, Huiou Theou!

…you’ve lost me on this one… I do not recall a single passage in the Gospels speaking of the fallen Temple… so how could “scholars” date the Gospels post 70 AD due to the futurinstic destruction of the Temple?

It seems to me that it is most likely that “scholars” continue to use the “hindsight method” of revisionist history: if the piece doesn’t fit the puzzle… pass the hammer! 😛

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right – there nothing speaking of a “fallen temple” but rather the passage in Luke 21:5-7, 20-23 where Jesus predicts the tearing down of the temple by the Romans in the future. (eg: this generation ~ approx 20-40years hence, so 33AD + 40 = 73 (obviously I picked the better estimate, cause I know the date Jerusalem fell)

I don’t dicount what the scholars are using as a premise, however – as there are examples of period texts (notably like the book of Revalation) which are known as apocolyptic – the common literary technique was to fictionalizes the time sequence by predicting past events as – in the future – as a way of expressing belief that God chose this history even before anyone truly realized it, and as a side effect “suggesting” that the text itself is older than it really is. That is not beyond scripture, for it is a literature style which was not uncommon at the time – and was not truly meant to decieve in the way we would be fooled by it today. However, the Gospel of Luke is not apocolyptic on the whole – and as I have pointed out the “writing was on the wall” so to speak about the fall of Jerusalem long before 70AD so the question requires more research.

The main concern of scholars is what appear to be a very detailed account of the historical way Jerusalem fell – by the Romans using mounds of dirt to overcome the wall – and machines, etc. This has convinced some that it was prophecied after the fact in the tradition of Apocolyptic literature – where these extra details were added in “hind sight” by Luke to enhance Jesus’ credibility as a prophet.
This pseudo-fact is the main reason many scholars today will refuse to date the Gospel of luke before 70AD. (CE).

However, I examined this passage and others carefully in terms of Josephus’ accounts of his OWN city being sieged before Jerusalem, and other information I was able to find – where Josephus became a traitor to save his own life – and I think it obvious that the Roman army didn’t invent a new technique of siege all the sudden. The Jews knew what awaited Jerusalem – even without Jesus’ prophecy long before 70AD. It was a matter of time – and the very reason the Zealotes, and other parties entered Jerusalem? Messianic fevor – for a messiah already missed. Terribly Ironic if you read Josephus’ account how he tries to re-interpret scripture to say that the messiah was the Romans – in order to save the city if possible, and we all know he didn’t succeed.

The problem is that after studying the text, Luke appears not to know certain details which would have been important – although off the top of my head I don’t recall exactly what these were, besides the so called “wailing wall” which is a sub-terainian wall of the temple remaining in tact (even then the prophecy is still true given the context of what they were looking at) – I ended up coming to the conclusion that the christians were still ignorant of certain particulars which should have been included in the details of the fall of Jerusalem if full vindication of Jesus in hindsight were important. Also, I vaguely remember some reference to the catholic bishop of Jerusalem being in the city during the siege. Perhaps that was Eusibius’ account… but in any event, I digress…
 
jcrichton said:
Hi, RobbyS!

If your Faith hinges upon man’s ability to determine the origins of writings nearly 2000 years old… it is weak in deed.

Scolars, as other “learned” ones, operate as much from personal opinion as from actual data–just a few years ago some scientists were attempting to convince the world that the universe was ancient and folding upon itself–soon to be extinct (new “big bang”?)… then the hobble telescope (not sure of the actual spelling) sent new pictures which denied that erroneous belief… silently, the “end” sayers just vanished into that realm of “oops” scientific evidence. 😛

Every Bible scholar (or want to be) continue on that same path: reinventing the wheel… the guess work has become such as science that none would say “I guess” or “I think.” They boldly state: “it is!” …well, till the oops realm factors in!

What is more important: knowing with mathematical precision that “x” book was written by “xy” at precisely “xyz” time and date or knowing that Jesus Christ Sacrificed Himself to rescue us from the punishment of sin? Which piece of data will facilitate your Salvation?

Maran atha!

Angelf
Click to expand...
The question of the dating of Scripture, especially the New Testament Scripture, unforrunately has been used by Biblical scholars who really don’t believe in Christ as a means of discrediting the veracity of the Bible and the whole tradition about the Bible.
 
Huiou_Theou said:
Yes, you are right – there nothing speaking of a “fallen temple” but rather the passage in Luke 21:5-7, 20-23 where Jesus predicts the tearing down of the temple by the Romans in the future. (eg: this generation ~ approx 20-40years hence, so 33AD + 40 = 73 (obviously I picked the better estimate, cause I know the date Jerusalem fell)

I don’t dicount what the scholars are using as a premise, however – as there are examples of period texts (notably like the book of Revalation) which are known as apocolyptic – the common literary technique was to fictionalizes the time sequence by predicting past events as – in the future – as a way of expressing belief that God chose this history even before anyone truly realized it, and as a side effect “suggesting” that the text itself is older than it really is. That is not beyond scripture, for it is a literature style which was not uncommon at the time – and was not truly meant to decieve in the way we would be fooled by it today. However, the Gospel of Luke is not apocolyptic on the whole – and as I have pointed out the “writing was on the wall” so to speak about the fall of Jerusalem long before 70AD so the question requires more research.

The main concern of scholars is what appear to be a very detailed account of the historical way Jerusalem fell – by the Romans using mounds of dirt to overcome the wall – and machines, etc. This has convinced some that it was prophecied after the fact in the tradition of Apocolyptic literature – where these extra details were added in “hind sight” by Luke to enhance Jesus’ credibility as a prophet.
This pseudo-fact is the main reason many scholars today will refuse to date the Gospel of luke before 70AD. (CE).

However, I examined this passage and others carefully in terms of Josephus’ accounts of his OWN city being sieged before Jerusalem, and other information I was able to find – where Josephus became a traitor to save his own life – and I think it obvious that the Roman army didn’t invent a new technique of siege all the sudden. The Jews knew what awaited Jerusalem – even without Jesus’ prophecy long before 70AD. It was a matter of time – and the very reason the Zealotes, and other parties entered Jerusalem? Messianic fevor – for a messiah already missed. Terribly Ironic if you read Josephus’ account how he tries to re-interpret scripture to say that the messiah was the Romans – in order to save the city if possible, and we all know he didn’t succeed.

The problem is that after studying the text, Luke appears not to know certain details which would have been important – although off the top of my head I don’t recall exactly what these were, besides the so called “wailing wall” which is a sub-terainian wall of the temple remaining in tact (even then the prophecy is still true given the context of what they were looking at) – I ended up coming to the conclusion that the christians were still ignorant of certain particulars which should have been included in the details of the fall of Jerusalem if full vindication of Jesus in hindsight were important. Also, I vaguely remember some reference to the catholic bishop of Jerusalem being in the city during the siege. Perhaps that was Eusibius’ account… but in any event, I digress…
Click to expand...
Anyone living through the first half of the First Century would have been aware of the political instability in Palestine. They would be aware of the military capacity of the Romans. Furthermore, they would know that Jerusalem had already fallen once. Was Jesus really saying anymore than Jeremiah had? About the punishment that God visited on the Jews because they did not keep the Covenant? So why all the effort to explain away his remarks? Because the claim that Luke was written in 85 rather than, say, 55, makes Jesus seem more mythical, less the man than the legend.
 
RobbyS said:
Anyone living through the first half of the First Century would have been aware of the political instability in Palestine. They would be aware of the military capacity of the Romans. Furthermore, they would know that Jerusalem had already fallen once. Was Jesus really saying anymore than Jeremiah had? About the punishment that God visited on the Jews because they did not keep the Covenant? So why all the effort to explain away his remarks? Because the claim that Luke was written in 85 rather than, say, 55, makes Jesus seem more mythical, less the man than the legend.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree – althogh as to the earliest dating of Luke, there is the issue of where he finishes his work – for he can’t have finished it before the last item he records. Luke and Acts are by the same author, and although they are written at different dates – the book of Acts ends before the death of St. Paul. That is an interesting debate as well, but I tend to think since his end was assciated with (Nero?) that the early date is probably a little latter than 55 – since details are missing for Apocolyptic literature, I also believe Luke is pre-70.

Luke sets out to write a history, and had been researching as a Greek historian would – but I seriouly doubt that once he began to write that a span of more than a few years elapsed between the works.
A nice happy medium is somewhere in the 58 - 62 region if I recall correctly. But granted, I don’t have my notes on governors and emperors and such as to be able to pin it down for certain – and I am not sure a date as early as 55 is ruled out either.

🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top