The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

[Pensees]

RyanL:

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.

Appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy. Since Christ and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the burden lies on those making the assertion that the New Testament was written in Greek.

RyanL:

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.

Aramaic Peshitta For Dummies, a free online book, provides evidence for the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles:
aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshitta_Dummies_FirstEd.pdf

There are mistranslations in the Greek of Paul’s Epistles and plays on words that become clear in the Aramaic.

For example, while Romans 5:7 translates from the Greek, “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, but peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die”.
That doesn’t make sense, does it? What is the difference between a “righteous man” and a “good man”? Why would a person die for one but not the other?
Only in the Aramaic does the true meaning become more clear:
“For scarcely for a wicked man would one die?”
That’s a big difference.

Peace.

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

Appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy. Since Christ and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the burden lies on those making the assertion that the New Testament was written in Greek.

These are two totally different issues.

Item: Christ and the Apostles, in all probability, based on the preponderance of evidence available, DID speak Aramaic as the “everyday” language.

This historical fact has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the llanguage in which most of the NT was written. The two issues don’t even fit together.

EXAMPLE: I like Russian vodka. Therefore, my children speak Russian.

IT DOESN’t WORK THAT WAY!!!

Just because the “everyday” language of Palestine was Aramaic – and I don’t see people going out of their way to disagree with you – it does NOT necessarily follow that the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT was written in Aramaic.

The burden of proof is on you.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

Appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy. Since Christ and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the burden lies on those making the assertion that the New Testament was written in Greek.

Aramaic Peshitta For Dummies, a free online book, provides evidence for the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles:
aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshitta_Dummies_FirstEd.pdf

There are mistranslations in the Greek of Paul’s Epistles and plays on words that become clear in the Aramaic.

For example, while Romans 5:7 translates from the Greek, “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, but peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die”.
That doesn’t make sense, does it? What is the difference between a “righteous man” and a “good man”? Why would a person die for one but not the other?
Only in the Aramaic does the true meaning become more clear:
“For scarcely for a wicked man would one die?”
That’s a big difference.

Peace.

With respect – and I may be wrong, and will apologize if I am – I suspect that you know NO Greek, NO Hebrew and NO Aramaic. I suspect that you have never seriously studied ANY of the above, and are relying ENTIRELY on a translation, the principles behind which you do NOT understand.

If I am incorrect, I apologize in advance.

Blessings,

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

The burden of proof is on you.

Again, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that Aramaic speakers who wrote for Aramaic speakers about Aramaic speakers would write in Greek.

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

If I am incorrect, I apologize in advance.

No, I am not trained in either Aramaic nor Greek but when translations from them diverge, I look into the original language to see what words were originally used. In this verse, you must admit, the Aramaic makes more sense.

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

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

You’ve missed the point. If the best source available for Greek primacy is a white supremacist website, that doesn’t help one’s case at all.

 

[RyanL]

I see you use the rules of argument, which is encourging, but you are using them incorrectly. Appeal to the majority is not valid if the majority has no authority or credibility. If, as is the case here, all scholarly evidence, writings and study are the majority, an appeal to the majority is certainly in order. For example, if you wanted to claim that extra terrestrials were ruling Africa in the 3rd century, it would not be against the rules of logic to appeal to the majority to demonstrate the lack of any credible scholarship supporting such a claim.

In other words, I don’t think you’re using this claim correctly. Here, it is a logical appeal to authority, and is therefore valid.

Additionally, I have provided a source for the early claim of Greek manuscripts. Where is your source for the early Aramaic ones?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

Again, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that Aramaic speakers who wrote for Aramaic speakers about Aramaic speakers would write in Greek.

I disagree – because you have not demonstrated your basic premise – namely, that Aramaic speakers wrote for Aramaic speakers about Aramaic speakers!

A premise, I must add, which is faulty – and which I will continually criticize as faulty, unless you (or someone else) can give me professional evidence beyond “my guru says so”.

Again, I ask – HAVE you ACTUALLY STUDIED the languages in question???

Blessings,

 

[RyanL]

There are only two examples so far of how the Aramaic rendering could “make more sense” to the 21st century mind regarding a particular 1st century idiom. Could you provide any more examples? As a camel would be tougher to get through the eye of a needle than a rope, I could make the argument that the particular idiom makes more sense in the Greek…

I guess the question is…do you have any better examples?

In light of the so far uncontroverted fact that the various epistles were written to Greek speaking audiences by people who could write in Greek, the Aramaic claim falls a bit flat…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

No, I am not trained in either Aramaic nor Greek but when translations from them diverge, I look into the original language to see what words were originally used. In this verse, you must admit, the Aramaic makes more sense.

Frankly, I must admit nothing.

The only thing I must admit, is that you are making statements about languages you have not studied.

This does not add to your credibility.

Blessings,

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

You’ve missed the point. If the best source available for Greek primacy is a white supremacist website, that doesn’t help one’s case at all.

Total non sequitor.

You’ve got to do better than this.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“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.”

That is no true, the fact is, only King James Only people have such a debate and they are very very very very very very very very far from mainstream. Greek Scholars use a critical edition of the Greek NT published by United Bible Societies, American Bible Society – its textual commentary is edited by Bruce Metzger.

The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (United Bible Societies, 1993) - This is very widely regarded as the definitive Greek text of the New Testament, as the most reliable and most thoroughly documented Greek New Testament currently available.

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger

 

[Pensees]

Daniel Marsh:

That is no true, the fact is, only King James Only people have such a debate…

You are incorrect. Otherwise, there would not be a New King James Bible or any modern Bible which translates exclusively from the Majority Text in the first place. The Greek Orthodox Church, for example, prefers the Byzantine-text to the exclusion of the Alexandrian.

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

Total non sequitor.

You’ve got to do better than this.

In all fairness, there is no reason why a white supremacist should be considered credible in this discussion. One may consider this an ad hominem attack but again, one should be able to provide a more reliable source than that.

I’d be glad if someone actually demonstrated that a book written by Aramaic speakers for Aramaic speakers and about Aramaic speakers was originally composed in Greek.

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

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

Perhaps I need to qualify that statement - The Lamsa Bible is the best complete translation that is available for purchase. If you know of a better one, please tell me of it. While there are better translations, I have not seen any of them in print.

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

The only thing I must admit, is that you are making statements about languages you have not studied.

I have provided evidences from those who have, evidences which must not be avoided.

 

[Pensees]

RyanL:

Additionally, I have provided a source for the early claim of Greek manuscripts. Where is your source for the early Aramaic ones?

"Can one prove that the Greek is the original? Nobody actually can. It’s just taken for granted. Since all the Greek versions have corruptions, contradictions etc, it is clear that they are not the originals…

What about age? Obviously, the original must also be the oldest. Well, this we cannot determine either. It is acknowledged on both camps that the originals are long gone and that we are left with copies of copies. So, dating the various mss does not help anyone much. It is interesting to note however, that as of the year 2003 CE, the oldest dated Biblical manuscript is the Peshitta Old Testament Ms. 14,425 held in the British museum. It is believed to have been written in 464 CE. It is also notable that many Semites revered their Scripture so much that they would not let it disintegrate. Rather they would copy them precisely, and do away with the originals or older copies…

Here are some of the primary Greek mss and the approximate ages that have been assigned to them…

…These ages are hardly impressive, when Aramaic originals are quoted and being talked about as early as the second century, by ancient Eastern scholars!

These dates are especially unimpressive when looking over these quotes from modern scholars:

“The SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in it various forms: the “Peshitto” [Peshitta, the names are often confused – Chris] (cent. 2) and the “Curetonian Syriac” (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses [the last 12 verses of Mark’s Gospel – Chris]. So with the “Philoxenian” (cent.5) and the “Jerusalem” (cent. 5)… Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170. Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is ready to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West. “yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same.” Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses. Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those “various readings” with which the Syriac agrees.” – Dr. E. W. Bullinger, “The Companion Bible”

Dr. Scrivener on the Peshitta:

“…the oldest and one of the most excellent of the versions whereby God’s providence has blessed and edified the Church.” – Dr. Frederick HA Scrivener, “Introduction”

Even Dr. Westcott (of Alexandrian-text fame) saw…:

“no reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that the formation of the Peshitto Syriac was to be fixed within the first half of the second century. The very obscurity which hangs over its origin is proof of its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up spontaneously among Christian congregations…Had it been a work of later date, of the 3rd or 4th century it is scarcely possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is.” – Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott, “The New Testament Canon”, 1855

…One topic often used as supporting evidence of Greek primacy, is that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus. The Greek NT says that they were Greek, but the original Aramaic NT tells us that they were actually Aramean (Acts 16:1, Galatians 2:3).

With the Messiah, Apostles and early Christians being Aramaic-speaking, why on Earth would the New Testament have been written in Greek? Why would Aramaic-speaking Paul, write to Aramaic-speaking Timothy and Titus, in Greek, rather than in Aramaic? Why would Paul write to Greeks, using Aramaic idioms that they wouldn’t understand?"
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm

 

[Pensees]

RyanL:

Here, it is a logical appeal to authority, and is therefore valid.

The majority of early church fathers believed that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. With the advent of modern science, these men were proved wrong. Those who were considered the preeminent authorities on the interpretation of Scripture erred in assuming that the Biblical genealogies provided an accurate estimation for the age of the univerese.
Today, the majority of New Testament scholars believe that a book written by Aramaic speakers for Aramaic speakers and about Aramaic speakers was originally composed in Greek.
It is perhaps their own cultural milieu which prevents them from realizing the truth. One must not forget that while the majority of scholars in the West believe that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek, the majority in the East does not.
When a basic assumption is taken for granted by one’s culture, it becomes easy to neglect the disconfirming evidence.

 

[Pensees]

RyanL:

As a camel would be tougher to get through the eye of a needle than a rope, I could make the argument that the particular idiom makes more sense in the Greek…

Why would Jesus teach that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God?

RyanL:

I guess the question is…do you have any better examples?

For a concise introduction to the mistranslations within the Greek and the idioms of the Aramaic:
aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshitta_Dummies_FirstEd.pdf

 

[Pensees]

David Zampino:

I disagree – because you have not demonstrated your basic premise – namely, that Aramaic speakers wrote for Aramaic speakers about Aramaic speakers!

Were the Apostles Palestinian Jews who wrote for fellow Semitic peoples? If so, why would they by writing in Greek? Without evidence that the Greek is the original, it is like arguing that USA Today is written in Chinese.

"Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language (very similar to Hebrew) that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica became the dominant language of the Middle East, around 500-600 years before the birth of the Messiah.

“Aramaic is thought to have first appeared among the Aramaeans about the late 11th century BC. By the 8th century BC it had become accepted by the Assyrians as a second language. The mass deportations of people by the Assyrians and the use of Aramaic as a lingua franca by Babylonian merchants served to spread the language, so that in the 7th and 6th centuries BC it gradually supplanted Akkadian as the lingua franca of the Middle East.” – Encyclopedia Britannica…

…Modern scholarship contends that while both Aramaic and Greek were common in Israel, in the time of Jesus, Greek was the main language, or “lingua franca”. Problems arise for this theory, when we see what famous Judean historian Josephus has to say on the matter, in 42 AD (note that Josephus wrote in Aramaic!):

“I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language; although I have so accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness. For our nation does not encourage those that learn the language of many nations. On this account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors, with great patience, to obtain this Greek learning, there have yet hardly been two or three that have succeeded herein, who were immediately rewarded for their pains.” – Antiquities XX, XI 2"
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm