The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pensees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mjdonnelly:
What major groups endorse his personal translation?

What is the Catholic stance on someone and their personal translation?
Click to expand...
Hi Mike, to answer your question, native american spirituality groups, Unity School of Christianity, Religious Science ( gnostic ) and New Thought — maybe hebrew roots movement, but I don’t remember Lamsa as being taken serious by them – with bed fellows like those who needs endorsements. Also, read the Christian Research Article I linked to above.

GEORGE M. LAMSA: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?
by John P. Juedes
equip.org/free/DL010.htm

Basically, any proofs they give to claim the bible was wriiten in aramaic could also be used to for the “oral aramaic” claim thus ruling out the need for an aramaic orginal. The aramaic bible is historically known to be a translation from the Greek, see catholic encylopedia at newadvent — I gave the link above, see Syriac Version newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#III
 
a more positive approach is to look at catholic churches which speak aramaic

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chaldean+Rite+Roman+Catholic+Church+&btnG=Google+Search

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chaldean+Rite+Roman+Catholic+Church+&btnG=Google+Search
The Peshitta
The Peshitta is a Syriac Bible. Its creation represented an attempt to created a “standard version” of the Bible amidst a variety of other Syriac texts.
Click to expand...
The name Peshitta (which means “simple” or “clear”) was first used by Moses bar Kepha (d. 903), perhaps to distinguish it from the more complex Syrohexapla, translated ca. 616 from Origen’s revised Septuagint. Written before Syrian Christians divided into two communities in 431 and this version therefore was accepted by both the Jacobites (Monophysites) and the Nestorians.
Click to expand...
The Old Testament portion was probably created a different times spanning the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Some of it was translated by Jews working from mostly the Hebrew sometimes consulting the LXX. Except for Sirach, the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek. The New Testament section was translated near the end of the 4th century or in the 5th century.
Click to expand...
The Peshitta originated in Osrhoëne, a buffer state between the Roman and Parthian Empires. The language of Osrhoëne was Syriac, as it was for much of the area, except Antioch of Syria (see map). The Peshitta was probably written in the cities of Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey), Nisibis, and/or Arbela.
Click to expand...
The Peshitta is the authoritative biblical text for today’s Syrian Orthodox, Church of the East, and Maronite churches. The official New Testament canon includes 22 of the books in the Roman Catholic and Protestant canons but does not have 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation. In addition, this Syriac New Testament does not include Luke 22:17-18 and John 7:53-8:11.
Click to expand...
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/translations.stm#Peshitta

google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=aramaic+peshitta+roman+catholic

The vulgate was an translation done by one person, thus we can use how the church approached it as a standard for how to approach personal translations in other languages. Basically, what made it acceptable.
The Peshitta can absolutely be dated to the fourth century or earlier. This is implied by the oldest manuscripts (since several are believed to date from the fifth century). Burkitt also points out that it is used by all branches of the Syriac church (which were well and truly sundered by the fifth century – eventually they even came to develop different versions of the script, so that one can tell by the writing style which Syriac church used a particular manuscript), which implies (though it does not quite prove) that the version was in use before the date of the schism.
Click to expand...
skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html

👍
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
You might want to check your facts on that one. The Septuagint is the most quoted OT Reference in the New Testament. Yes, Jesus spoke predominantly Aramaic, as you see in John, where Jesus calls Simon, Cephas (or Kephas). But there is entirely too much evidence showing it’s Greek origin.

I do understand that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. But Luke was writing to Jews of the Dispersion. Mark to Roman Jews. John to Jews and Gentiles alike (I think). Paul would have written in whatever language the Church used. Didn’t Paul travel to Greece and preach there to the Gentiles?

God Bless!

Notworthy
Click to expand...
You are correct in your analysis. There is a great deal of reason to believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, which was the common tongue of the day. The Greek of Mark and John is NOT “classical” Greek, but rather the “Koine” Greek – the “trade language” of the time. Luke’s Greek is so good that it is borderline “classical”, which would fit with the tradition that he was an educated man.

Paul was a highly schooled Pharisee who had been born, not in Palestine, but in Tarsus. He was also a Roman citizen. He would have been fluent in Aramaic – the “everyday” language of the Jew; Hebrew, the “liturgical” language of the Jew; Koine Greek (and possibly even better Greek) as an educated man (he cites Greek philosophy) and (in all probability) Latin.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Pensees:
As Palestinian Jewish peasants, how can we expect the Apostles to have written in Greek?
Click to expand...
Peasants may well be too strong a word.

The “classical” Greek of Plato, etc.? Probably not. But the New Testament is written in “Koine” Greek, which was the “trade language” throughout the entire area.

These “peasants” as you call them, would have spoken Aramaic as an “everyday” language; Hebrew as a “liturgical” language" and would have been fluent in the trade language of the day. Indeed, several of the Apostles (Matthew, at the least) would also have had some Latin, as he was an appointee (tax collector) of the Roman Government.

Blessings,
 
early american farm boys and gals could read many of the languages of Europe. The newspaper of their day would be on our 17th grade level or first year masters program reading level.

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
 
You use Clement for the following:

Pensees said:
“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
Click to expand...

Then you use Jerome for the following:
“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
Click to expand...
I wasn’t able to find the Jerome quote, but I did find the following:
40.png
Jerome:
He wrote nine epistles to seven churches: To the Romans [Italians] one, To the Corinthians [Greeks] two, To the Galatians [Turks] one, To the Ephesians [Turks] one, To the Philippians [Greeks] one, To the Colossians [Turks] one, *To the Thessalonians *[Greeks]two; and besides these to his disciples, To Timothy two, To Titus one, To Philemon one. The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language…
Click to expand...
So you have Clement saying that Hebrews is Paul’s, and Jerome saying it was actaully Paul’s sayings but was ijn fact written by Clement (i.e., your second source questions your first). If these are the best sources you have, your case isn’t well supported. Again, there is much support for an Aramaic original for the Godpel of Matthew, but no evidence of the kind for any other NT book. I put brackets after the Churches indicating the regions I believe the Churches to be in, and none of them are native Aramaic speakers.
As for the rest of the New Testmanet, I believe the burden of proof would be on Greek primacy.
Click to expand...
Wrong, sir. Since the majority of NT scholars and Biblical historians agree that the NT was written in Greek, the burden lies on the one making the assertion of Peschitta Primacy to prove the case. You have not yet done so, and have ignored the fact that letters were written to Greeks and Romans (who did not speak Aramaic) - you must explain why this would make sense. Again, you have not done so.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
Pensees:
Have you provided a racist website as a source?

Peace.
Click to expand...
When even the world can see why your position is wrong that tells me you position is very weak indeed. Why not try to stregthen your position by answering their arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole people.
 
Daniel Marsh:
When even the world can see why your position is wrong that tells me you position is very weak indeed. Why not try to stregthen your position by answering their arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole people.
Click to expand...
Exactly, everyone can’t be wrong. Roman Catholic church, various protestant groups, among others have the same idea of the Lamsa translation.

It seems the only groups that endorse that translation are the ones that would be considered evil by the Church.
 
Hi Ryan, I agree, one only need visit New Testament Gateway site to see that Greek NT is used by the vast majority of NT scholars.
 
I would also like to see the response to the fact that we have Greek manuscripts dating from 125 A.D., but the earliest Peschitta that I have come across dates from the 4th Century, at best. I wonder why, if it was the original, there are no earlier copies of the Peschitta when the copies of the Greek NT dated earlier than the 4th Century are abundant. Source (from Duke.edu).

God Bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
What major groups endorse his personal translation?
Click to expand...
The Churches of the East use the Aramaic Peshitta, including the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to which I belong. Lamsa’s is currently the best complete English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta available.
40.png
mjdonnelly:
What is the Catholic stance on someone and their personal translation?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t know.

Peace.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi Pensees, define the word gay please, and define it as our great grandparents would have understood it too.
Click to expand...
Greek primacists are divided between those who prefer the Byzantine text-type and those who prefer the Alexandrian. It is not suprising that disagreements also exist between Aramaic scholars.
 
Daniel Marsh:
When one is assosicated with occultic teachings, and with Unity, I turn a deaf ear to their false teachings.
Click to expand...
Mormons prefer the King James Bible, does that make the Authorized Version a Bible of ‘occultic teachings’?
It is fallacious to assume that the accuracy of a Bible is dependent upon the behavior of those who read it.
George Lamsa was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, not a new age cult.

Peace.
 
40.png
RyanL:
I would also like to see the response to the fact that we have Greek manuscripts dating from 125 A.D., but the earliest Peschitta that I have come across dates from the 4th Century, at best. I wonder why, if it was the original, there are no earlier copies of the Peschitta when the copies of the Greek NT dated earlier than the 4th Century are abundant. Source (from Duke.edu).

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
The Aramaic Peshitta dates to as early as the second century and was most likely an adaptation of earlier Syriac texts, much like how the Latin Vulgate synthesized earlier Latin manuscripts.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Exactly, everyone can’t be wrong. Roman Catholic church, various protestant groups, among others have the same idea of the Lamsa translation.
Click to expand...
Remember, appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.
40.png
mjdonnelly:
It seems the only groups that endorse that translation are the ones that would be considered evil by the Church.
Click to expand...
“The Peshitta, lightly revised and with missing books added, is the standard Syriac Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Mar Thoma Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta

The Lamsa Bible is currently the best complete English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta in print. If Lamsa belonged to a cult, the Assyrian Church of the East is a cult.
 
Daniel Marsh:
When even the world can see why your position is wrong that tells me you position is very weak indeed. Why not try to stregthen your position by answering their arguments instead of trying to pigeon hole people.
Click to expand...
Am I ‘pigeon holing’ people by observing that white supremacists would be racially motivated in attacking the Aramaic Peshitta?
If my position were wrong, there would be hard evidence against it.

Peace.
 
Pensees,
40.png
Pensees:
“The Peshitta, lightly revised and with missing books added, is the standard Syriac Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, the Mar Thoma Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is not, I repeat NOT a credible source.
40.png
Pensees:
The Lamsa Bible is currently the best complete English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta in print. If Lamsa belonged to a cult, the Assyrian Church of the East is a cult.
Click to expand...
Pensees,

This is a total “non-sequitor”.

Item: You need to prove that your statement, backed up only by “Wikipedia” is a credible source.

Item: You need to prove that the “Lamsa” Bible IS IN FACT the BEST complete English translation of the Aramaic.

Item: You STILL need to prove your original premise.

Believe me, I do not discount the Aramaic. I am a convert to the Faith who teaches on the University level – and I freely use the Aramaic translations (see the EXCELLENT work overseen by the folks at Liturgical Press in Minnesota) BUT, without anything remotely resembling a serious proof, I must dismiss your arguments – with respect, of course.

Sincerely,
 
40.png
Pensees:
Am I ‘pigeon holing’ people by observing that white supremacists would be racially motivated in attacking the Aramaic Peshitta?
If my position were wrong, there would be hard evidence against it.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Appealing to race in this argument is entirely unnecessary – and inappropriate.

The onus is on you to PROVE your point – not the other way around.

Blessings,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top