The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pensees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Pensees:
This is from the Aramaic New Testament:
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin ** will conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is interpreted, Our God is with us.

The Aramaic Peshitta Old Testament translates Isaiah 7:14 as:
Code:
      Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
      Behold, a** virgin**** ** shall conceive, and bear a son,
      And call his name Immanuel.**
The fact that the Peshitta has “virgin” instead of young woman is proof possitive that its ia a translation from the Greek NT which in turn quoted from the LXX.

🙂
 
Lamsa on Mattew 1:23 in Gospel Light page 11

“This verse is taken from Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew text uses the word alma which means a young girl. The Aramaic word for a young girl is alemta. In Aramaic alma is a noun which means the world or the people. The eastern version reads petolta which means virgin. This word was doubtless changed when the Assyrians adopted Christianity. The 0ld Testament in Aramaic was written centures before the Christian era. Petolta also means an unmarried woman who may be young or old. In this instance the Hebrew word alma is more accurate.”
 
Llamsa tends to be praised mainly by various cult groups, he was a modernist, teaching of new world order, etc.

He translated from greek, to aramaic, then to english. There will always be translation issues with any text.

My father-in-law started to get into that kick before my wife and I did some research online.
 
Hi Mike, the first time I saw any of his books was in an occult bookstore.
 
40.png
thistle:
When the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles they could speak foreign languages that they never knew before that so maybe they could write them as well!!
Pentecost was a special circumstance, was it not? Many secular scholars doubt the authorship of John merely because of the quality of the Greek. This is because if John the Apostle had written the fourth Gospel, it is more likely to have been written in his own language.
 
It is awfully presumptious to think that all of the apostles could not read or write other than Aramaic. Rome had a state language, only that could be used in their offices, etc…
 
40.png
RyanL:
  1. When spoken of, the Early Church Fathers all indicate that there was an Aramaic version of Matthew written first, then translated to Greek. There is no such evidence for any other book of the NT. Their acceptance of all other books as original in the Greek would seem to indicate that the Peschitta was not first.
“In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us the abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures… the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.” – Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes (c. 200 CE) referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2

“For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle.” – Eusebius (4th Cent.); Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3

“He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.” – Jerome (4th Cent.); Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V

As for the rest of the New Testmanet, I believe the burden of proof would be on Greek primacy.
40.png
RyanL:
Also, why would the Aramaic NT not use ‘betulah’ rather than ‘alma’, as the meaning is completely unambiguous?
No, ‘ALMA’ is the word utilized in the Hebrew text. The Aramaic Tanakh uses ‘B’TULTA’ which unambiguously means ‘virgin’.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Llamsa tends to be praised mainly by various cult groups, he was a modernist, teaching of new world order, etc.
Lamsa was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East and his translation is widely used in Eastern Churches.
40.png
mjdonnelly:
He translated from greek, to aramaic, then to english. T
No, he translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English.
 
Daniel Marsh:
The fact that the Peshitta has “virgin” instead of young woman is proof possitive that its ia a translation from the Greek NT which in turn quoted from the LXX.

🙂
How can you be so sure? Again, the Aramaic New Testament uses the Aramaic Tanakh rather than the Septuagint.
 
Daniel Marsh:
The eastern version reads petolta which means virgin. This word was doubtless changed when the Assyrians adopted Christianity.
Though Lamsa was greatly responsible for introducing the Aramaic Peshitta to the West, he was definitely not infallible. There is no textual reason to suppose that the Aramaic Tenakh has been altered in this verse.

One might as well suppose that it is the Jews who changed their own scriptures in order to deny the fulfillment of prophecy:

“The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA
clearly refers to virgins.
In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as “virgin” in Gen. 24:43 and in Song
1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the
cognate of BETULAH.
For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists, Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of
Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as “virgin” (Almah in Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).”
hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html
 
40.png
Pensees:
No, he translated the Aramaic Peshitta into English.
His translation has some of the same problems as translations from the 16th century, proving it is not from “early documents”

The greek translations were written at the end of the 1st beginning of the 2nd century, 3 centuries before the Syria Peshitta.
If one were going to read the Lamsa Bible, it would be well to read it along with a reliable modern translation
bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

Interesting stuff about the guy and his personal translation:

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-translations.htm

probe.org/content/view/502/157/
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
His translation has some of the same problems as translations from the 16th century, proving it is not from “early documents”
What are these problems you speak of?
40.png
mjdonnelly:
The greek translations were written at the end of the 1st beginning of the 2nd century, 3 centuries before the Syria Peshitta.
The Peshitta was written as early as the second century and was very likely an adaptation of the Old Syriac.
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Interesting stuff about the guy and his personal translation:
It is highly unlikely that you will find reliable information on Lamsa from Protestant internet sites. First of all, he was not a Nestorian.
That is a straw man used against him.

For more reliable resource on George Lamsa:

edessa.com/authors/lamsa1.htm
 
The following is a brief biography of George Lamsa:

"Biography of Dr. George M. Lamsa 1892-1975

George M. Lamsa, Th.D., a native Assyrian, renowned scholar of the Scriptures, lecturer and author, F.R.S.A., was born August 5, 1892, in a civilization with customs, manners, and language almost identical to those in the time of Jesus. His native tongue was full of similar idioms and parables,untouched by the outside world in 1900.

Until World War I, his people living in that part of ancient Biblical lands which today is known as Kurdistan, in the basin of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, retained the simple nomadic life as in the days of the Patriarchs. Only at the beginning of the 20th century did this isolated segment of the once great Assyrian Empire learn of the discovery of America and the Reformation in Germany.

Likewise, until that same time, this ancient culture of early Christians was unknown to the western world, and the Aramaic (Syriac) language was thought to be dead. But in this so-called “Cradle of Civilization,” ancient Biblical customs and Semitic culture, cut off from the world, were preserved.

Lamsa’s primary training as a boy was to tend the lambs. But, as the first-born son in his family, while yet an infant he was dedicated to God by his devout mother. Years after her death, when Lamsa was 12, her vow was renewed by native tribesmen, an ox killed and its blood rubbed on his head. This vow to God, Lamsa claimed, had always been part of him. "God’s Hand,"he affirmed, “has been steadfastly on my shoulder, guiding me in His Work.”

Lamsa’s formal studies began under the priests and deacons of the ancient Church of the East. Later he graduated with the highest honors ever bestowed from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Colleges in Iran and in Turkey, with the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Lamsa never married, but dedicated his life to “God’s Calling.”

At the beginning of World War I, when Turkey started invasions, Lamsa was forced to flee the Imperial University at Constantinople, where he was studying, and went to South America. Living was hard during those years; he knew but three words in Spanish - water, work and bread. As best he could he existed - in the British Merchant Marine for a time, then working on railroads, in mines, and later in printing shops, a trade he had learned in college.

After arriving in the United States, in his early 20’s, Lamsa by day worked as a printer, and by night went to school. He later studied at the Episcopal Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia, and at Dropsie College in Philadelphia.

It was through his struggles with the idioms of English, during these years, that Lamsa gradually launched in his “life’s work” of translating the Scriptures from Aramaic into English. Yet many years were to pass before the world received his translations.

First as a lecturer in churches and seminaries, in halls and auditoriums, before statesmen, theologians, groups of artists, actors and others, Lamsa received recognition as a poet-philosopher, and as an authority on all phases of Eastern civilization.

It was his own inner compulsion, and the urging of hundreds who heard him, that drove him forward, and brought about, after 30 years of labor, research and study, his translation of The Holy Bible from a branch of the ancient Aramaic language, used by Christians from earliest times; it is known fact that Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic.

There were times when he was temporarily stopped in his translations, when the idioms in the manuscripts could not be given correct English meaning. Lamsa related, "Often I would lie on the bed with the script before my eyes (he had a photographic memory which retained chapter after chapter of Biblical passages), and suddenly the translation would come, the English words would fall into place. “I discovered that the words in the Bible contain power, that they are charged with the Holy Spirit. Everything comes and passes away, but God’s Truth endures forever.” It was Lamsa’s firm belief that his translation would bring people nearer to the true Word of God, and would facilitate understanding between East and West.

The last 10 years of his life, Dr. Lamsa tutored and prepared Dr. Rocco A. Errico to continue with the Aramaic work. He died on September 22, 1975 in Turlock,California where he is interred."
noohra.com/Index.pl?glamsabio

Lamsa was arguably the greatest Biblical scholar of the 20th century.

Peace.
 
What major groups endorse his personal translation?

What is the Catholic stance on someone and their personal translation?
 
Hi Pensees, define the word gay please, and define it as our great grandparents would have understood it too.
Internal Disagreements
Aramaic Primacists are divided into several distinct camps in terms of their methods of researching and reconstructing the Aramaic layer of the New Testament.
Peshitta Primacy Approach
The Peshitta Primacy Approach believes that the Aramaic Peshitta is the closest text to the original New Testament. Prominent figures that side with this view are Dr. George Lamsa, Paul Younan (Peshitta.org), Andrew Gabriel Roth (Aramaic NT Truth), and Christopher Lancaster (Aramaic Peshitta Primacy Proof).
Peshitta-Critical Approach
The Peshitta-Critical Approach takes both the Peshitta and the Syriac manuscripts and critically compares them, just as many Greek Primacists take a critical approach to determining which Greek text better represents the original. Prominent figures that side with this view are Dr. James Trimm (S.A.N.J.), and Joe Viel.
Critical Approach
The Critical Approach researches into first-century Aramaic, culture, and psychology to reconstruct the New Testament sources in a dialect contemporary to Jesus. Prominent figures that side with this view are Matthew Black, Bruce Chilton, Maurice Casey, and Steven Caruso (AramaicNT.org).
Counter Arguments
Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels’ text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. It is especially interesting to note in the Gospel of Mark the format of Jesus’ teaching in Greek with scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expresssions transliterated and then translated. Most scholars also acknowledge that early Christian writers like Papias and Irenaeus reported that the Gospel of Matthew (and the related non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews) were written in Aramaic or Hebrew. However, even this is doubted in part with an argument that the literary quality of the Greek of these books indicates that the Greek would be the original. This argument extends to the other books where the Church Fathers accepted Greek as the original without debate. The Greek New Testament’s general agreement with the Septuagint is also counted as evidence by Greek Primacists. However, the Aramaic texts of the New Testament reference Aramaic versions of the Old Testament.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy
 
This explains why Lamsa’s books are in occult bookstores.
In the previous issue of TAJ, Dr. James Trimm discussed whether Dr. George Lamsa taught reincarnation, utilizing Dr. Lamsa’s commentaries and scriptural translation. Dr. Trimm concluded, in the TAJ article,that Dr. Lamsa did not teach reincarnation, also termed ‘transmigration of the soul’.
Robert Allen, Director of the Aramaic Bible Society, takes issue with Dr. Trimm, affirming that Dr. Lamsa could be interpreted otherwise. Mr. Allen believes there must be some law or principle in the universe which requires accountability for our actions and reincarnation makes a good case. TAJ was asked to address the topic…reincarnation.
metamind.net/reinca.html
 
GEORGE M. LAMSA: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?
by John P. Juedes
equip.org/free/DL010.htm

I find it interesting that George Lamsa is liked by New Thought, Religious Science and Unity School of Christianity.

noohra.com/

is linked to by

Religious Science
google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=link:fP3Q4oClYp8J:www.noohra.com/

a bio of Lamsa is given by Dr. David R. Hawkins, a medical doctor, mystic, and spiritual teacher associated with the New Thought Movement, claims in his books Power vs. Force (2002) and Truth vs. Falsehood (2005) that his non-linear research shows that Dr. Lamsa’s version of the Bible is the most truthful available.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lamsa

from a Unity site:
Rocco Errico
Who is Jesus? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels
The last two decades have brought a great resurgence of interest in the man Jesus. The question everywhere is: Who was Jesus? Not only is there interest in Jesus, but the four gospels and Jesus’ teachings have come under fire. How reliable are the gospels? How were the gospels created; by whom, when, and how were they composed? How reliable is the so-called Q hypothesis? What is the gospel truth about Jesus? What was his vision and message? What did Jesus really say? What was attributed to Jesus that he did not say? Is his message practical for the modern world?
We know that Jesus was an Aramaic speaking Semite. His life and thought are only properly understood within the cosmopolitan, creative, and diverse groups that formed early first century Judaism of his time. Dr. Rocco A. Errico, world-renowned expert on Semitic Near Eastern customs and the ancient Aramaic language of Jesus, puts together a coherent portrait of Jesus and his teachings for this special seminar.
Rocco A. Errico, Ph.D., Th.D., is founder and president of Noohra Foundation of Smyrna, Georgia. The Noohra Foundation is a nonprofit, nonsectarian, spiritual educational organization of Aramaic biblical studies, research, and publications. The Foundation is also an alternative ministry of the Association of Unity Churches, Lee’s Summit, MO. Dr. Rocco A. Errico is an ordained Unity minister, lecturer, author, Bible authority, translator, Aramaic instructor, educator and spiritual counselor.
unitydallas.org/Pages/pastEvnts2.html
google.com/search?q=%22www.noohra.com/%22&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

When one is assosicated with occultic teachings, and with Unity, I turn a deaf ear to their false teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top