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:
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.
A very poor analogy at best.

Matthew: A Jew, an Apostle of Jesus, writing to Jews in Palestine seems to have been written originally in Aramaic. I think that we are all in agreement here.

Mark: A Jew, NOT an Apostle of Jesus, perhaps an eyewitness, writing IN ROME to ROMANS and who ended up ministering in Alexandria, Egypt. No need for an Aramaic original here.

Luke: A GREEK, NOT an Apostle of Jesus, perhaps an eyewitness, writing IN GREEK TO GREEKS IN “NEAR CLASSICAL GREEK”. CERTAINLY no need for an Aramaic original here.

John: A Jew, an Apostle of Jesus, writing much more universally than the other three Gospel writers, writing in “KOINE” Greek – the common “trade language” of the day, which, being the Gospel with the widest (early) distribution to persons of many different backgrounds, makes perfect sense.

Acts: See comments on Luke.

Paul’s Letters: Written by Paul, an extremely well educated Jew, also a Roman citizen who was not born in Palestine, and did not write ANY of his 13 letters to Palestinian cities.

Rome – written to ROMAN Christians, both Jew and Gentile.

Corinth – written to Christians, both Jew and Gentile, in a large and important GREEK city.

Etc.

Your original assertion, namely, that Aramaic speakers wrote in Aramaic to other Aramaic speakers is factually not correct in most cases. This is what you need to grasp.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Pensees:
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.
A non-sequitor.
40.png
Pensees:
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.
Herein lies the rub. The New Testament is not a “book”, rather, it is a COLLECTION of books written by different people to different people. Your statement is factually incorrect.
40.png
Pensees:
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.
The only person in this discussion who seems to be neglecting discomfiting evidences is you, my friend! 🙂

As an example, please demonstrate to me why Luke, a Greek, writing to Theophilus (a Greek, NOT living in Palestine) would write in Aramaic?

Blessings,
 
40.png
Pensees:
I have provided evidences from those who have, evidences which must not be avoided.
No you have not! You have provided lists of quotes. There is a difference.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Pensees:
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.
Hmn, that’s funny. I’m preparing to teach a course entitled “The Bible Through the Ages” at a local Catholic university, and in the course of my class preparation have obtained a copy of “The Bible in Translation” by Bruce M. Metzger, recognized by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike as one of the very top men in the field. He devotes the entire first section of his book on ancient versions of the Scriptures for both Jews and Christians. He discusses the Septuagint. He discusses the Jewish Targums (which WERE written in Aramaic, and which I have used extensively). He discusses the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Sogdian, Old Church Slavonic, and Nubian versions.

What seems to be missing here?

Hmn, no reference to the “Lamsa” Bible at all – even in the index. No reference to Aramaic Bibles at all – except to mention that an Aramaic translation was attempted USING THE GREEK AS A PRIMARY SOURCE!!!

Why do you suppose this is?

Blessings,
 
“all reputable scholars hold the peshitta New Testament to be based on translations from Greek texts – and from late and inferior texts at that” Edwin M. Yamauchi in Bibliotheca Sacra ( October - December 1974 ) Source: page English Language Bible Tramslators by William E. Paul page 135 of the Bible Collector.

**
How does Lamsa translate 2 Macabees 4:13?
**

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Malankara+Orthodox+Church&btnG=Google+Search

I took the liberity of emailing several of your church’s pastors, including the Indian [Malankara] Bible Society. All that replied thinks Lamsa is a joke. None of their churches uses Lamsa’s bible because his translation in their words is “not an accurate translation” In fact, they all used one of the standard translations from Greek Manuscripts.

Their pew bibles are standard translations from Greek Manuscripts which they recognize as predating the peshitta.

Nor, can you call Lamsa a complete translation because he lacks the deuterocanonical books!!
  1. I understand the Orthodox Church has recently published the New Testament with the Psalms and where can I obtain such a Bible?
  1. Where can I get the Old Testament Septuagint that Eastern Orthodox Christians read?
serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm
The Peshitta version of the Old Testament clearly draws on Aramaic Targums and the Greek Septuagint. The influence of the Septuagint is particularly strong in Isaiah and the Psalms, probably due to their use in the liturgy. Most of the Apocrypha is translated from the Septuagint, except that Tobit did not exist in early versions of the Peshitta, and the translation of Sirach was based on a Hebrew text.
answers.com/topic/peshitta

“The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the Old Testament (Septuagint) in high esteem”
google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Septuagint+Malankara%2BOrthodox+Greek
Most of the first Christians spoke Greek, and so the early church used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. But the need for additional translations arose as Christianity spread to Syria and to Latin-speaking countries. Bibles translated into Syriac and Latin appeared in the A.D. 100’s
indianchristianity.org/bible.html
 
You may want to print out this site and compare to Lamsa to see the LXX influence for yourself.
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden, 19-21 August 1993 (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden)
P.B. Dirksen (Editor), A.Van Der Kooij (Editor)

Hardcover 248 pages (May 1995)
Publisher: Brill
Language: English
ISBN: 9004103511​

Reviews

Synopsis
This text contains the 11 papers which were read at the Second Peshitta Symposium, held in Leiden on 19th to 21st August 1993, as well as two reports on the ongoing work on the Peshitta in Stellenbosch and Leiden. In addition an appendix provides an update of the “Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament” (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, No 5). The papers discuss various aspects of the Peshitta as a translation: its translation technique(s); its relation to Septuagint and Targum; its language; and its use for text-critical purposes. This work is intended to be of relevance to scholars who are engaged in research of the Peshitta and in the history of the Old Testament text, as well as for Syriacists.
 
lxx.org/

You may want to look into the Orthodox Study Bible project, I understand the complete bible will soon be avilable.
 
Murdock, James. The New Testament: A Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshitto Version Gorgias Press LLC
 
Daniel Marsh said:
“all reputable scholars hold the peshitta New Testament to be based on translations from Greek texts – and from late and inferior texts at that” Edwin M. Yamauchi in Bibliotheca Sacra ( October - December 1974 ) Source: page English Language Bible Tramslators by William E. Paul page 135 of the Bible Collector.

**
How does Lamsa translate 2 Macabees 4:13?
**

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Malankara+Orthodox+Church&btnG=Google+Search

I took the liberity of emailing several of your church’s pastors, including the Indian [Malankara] Bible Society. All that replied thinks Lamsa is a joke. None of their churches uses Lamsa’s bible because his translation in their words is “not an accurate translation” In fact, they all used one of the standard translations from Greek Manuscripts.

Their pew bibles are standard translations from Greek Manuscripts which they recognize as predating the peshitta.

Nor, can you call Lamsa a complete translation because he lacks the deuterocanonical books!!

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

answers.com/topic/peshitta

“The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the Old Testament (Septuagint) in high esteem”
google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Septuagint+Malankara%2BOrthodox+Greek

indianchristianity.org/bible.html

EXCELLENT!!! It will be very interesting to see a response to this.

Blessings,
 
Lamsa seems to forget the gift of ‘tongues’ granted to the Apostles at Pentecost:

Acts 2:4
4And they were allfilled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Acts 2:11
11Cretans and Arabs–we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."

1 Cor 12:28
28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

If they could speak in tongues, surely they could write in tongues, if that be God’s will. It matters not what the Apostles cognitively ‘knew’ at the time for the Spirit was granted to them in order to reach the ends of the earth, which they did.
 
Daniel Marsh:
I took the liberity of emailing several of your church’s pastors, including the Indian [Malankara] Bible Society. All that replied thinks Lamsa is a joke. None of their churches uses Lamsa’s bible because his translation in their words is “not an accurate translation” In fact, they all used one of the standard translations from Greek Manuscripts.
Did you contact members of the SOC or the IOC? I know that in our liturgy, an English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta is used which is not the Lamsa Bible. But for personal use, the members of the clergy at our congregation do read the Lamsa Bible.

Peace.
 
David Zampino:
No reference to Aramaic Bibles at all – except to mention that an Aramaic translation was attempted USING THE GREEK AS A PRIMARY SOURCE!!!

Why do you suppose this is?
As I’ve explained before, it is ethnocentrism which prevents him from seeing the truth. When one’s culture accepts a certain idea as axiomatic, it is easy to overlook the disconfirming evidence.
Has any actual evidence been presented in this thread in favor of Greek primacy? Appeals to authority are not getting us anywhere.
What you’ve neglected is the absurdity of why Aramaic speakers writing about Aramaic speakers and for Aramaic speakers would decide to compose in Greek. Furthermore, one must not forget the mistranslations within the Greek New Testament and the plays on words that become apparent in the Peshitta.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Synopsis
This text contains the 11 papers which were read at the Second Peshitta Symposium, held in Leiden on 19th to 21st August 1993, as well as two reports on the ongoing work on the Peshitta in Stellenbosch and Leiden. In addition an appendix provides an update of the “Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament” (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, No 5). The papers discuss various aspects of the Peshitta as a translation: its translation technique(s); its relation to Septuagint and Targum; its language; and its use for text-critical purposes. This work is intended to be of relevance to scholars who are engaged in research of the Peshitta and in the history of the Old Testament text, as well as for Syriacists.
The Aramaic Peshitto, written in 200 A.D., is the earliest Christian translation of the Old Testament and was therefore not dependent upon the LXX but on the original Hebrew.

Peace.
 
David Zampino:
Herein lies the rub. The New Testament is not a “book”, rather, it is a COLLECTION of books written by different people to different people. Your statement is factually incorrect.
The New Testament, again, was written by Aramaic speakers for Aramaic speakers and about Aramaic speakers. I cannot stress this enough.
David Zampino:
The only person in this discussion who seems to be neglecting discomfiting evidences is you, my friend! 🙂
No evidence for Greek primacy has been provided in this thread. Instead, I’ve been given assumptions that many seem to take for granted.
David Zampino:
As an example, please demonstrate to me why Luke, a Greek, writing to Theophilus (a Greek, NOT living in Palestine) would write in Aramaic?
Luke was born in Aramaic-speaking Syria. Why would he have written his Gospel in Greek?

“But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us two inspired books… One of these is his gospel” – Eusebius

Where is your evidence that Luke was Greek and was writing for Greek-speaking people?

“Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Philippians 1:24 and 2 Tim 4:11.”
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/intro.htm

Peace.
 
40.png
Pensees:
As I’ve explained before, it is ethnocentrism which prevents him from seeing the truth. When one’s culture accepts a certain idea as axiomatic, it is easy to overlook the disconfirming evidence.
Has any actual evidence been presented in this thread in favor of Greek primacy? Appeals to authority are not getting us anywhere.
What you’ve neglected is the absurdity of why Aramaic speakers writing about Aramaic speakers and for Aramaic speakers would decide to compose in Greek. Furthermore, one must not forget the mistranslations within the Greek New Testament and the plays on words that become apparent in the Peshitta.
So you really think Luke wrote to Theophilus in Aramaic, and Paul wrote to the Romans in Aramaic, and Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Aramaic. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
 
40.png
Pensees:
Did you contact members of the SOC or the IOC? I know that in our liturgy, an English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta is used which is not the Lamsa Bible. But for personal use, the members of the clergy at our congregation do read the Lamsa Bible.

Peace.
Both, what exactly is your congregation, so I can verify with your pastor.
 
40.png
Pensees:
What you’ve neglected is the absurdity of why Aramaic speakers writing about Aramaic speakers and for Aramaic speakers would decide to compose in Greek. .
First Century Jewish people spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek … Since Greek was the language of exchange among most people of that era, Greek makes the most sense to write in.
 
40.png
thistle:
So you really think Luke wrote to Theophilus in Aramaic, and Paul wrote to the Romans in Aramaic, and Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Aramaic. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
With the influence of Hellenism, it is not unlikely that a Palestinian Jew or other Aramaic-speaker would have a Greek name. One must not forget that Luke himself was a Syrian, not a Greek.

As for the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians:

"“It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle’s in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul’s phrase “to the Jew first and then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.” – Dr. James Trimm, Aramaic scholar

This would make sense of the Apostle Paul’s oft-used quote, “to the Judean first, and then to the Gentile/Aramean”.

The word in Aramaic for “Arameans” (Armaya) is believed by many to also mean “Gentiles” (while the Greek usually says “Gentiles” or “Greeks”, the Aramaic usually says “Arameans” ). This seems confusing, but many (perhaps most) of the Gentiles involved with early Christianity were Aramean. Arameans were the same basic race of people as Assyrians and Syrians (different to today’s Arabic “Syrians” ). Many labels used to describe the same people. As Christianity started to really bloom in Antioch, Syria, it is not surprising to see the Arameans being spoken of so much in the New Testament, and as possibly being representative of Gentiles in general.

Another interesting point to consider about the Gentiles, is that so often the Bible talks of Judeans and Gentiles (as above, it may not mean Gentiles at all, as “Armaya” are being referred to, but let us digress). What then about the “lost 10 tribes”, the Israelites? Since they are not Judean, are they Gentile? If so, we have yet another prominent Aramaic-speaking Semitic group, as part of “the Gentiles”. With so many Aramaic-speaking Gentiles in the Middle East, is it such a stretch to imagine that Aramaic-speaking authors would write in Aramaic - utilizing Aramaic idioms - to Aramaic-speaking Judeans, Israelites, Chaldeans, Syrians and Assyrians? In fact, why would these authors use so many Aramaic idioms, if they wrote in Greek, to Greek-speaking people who wouldn’t understand them?

Scholars who claim that books such as the Pauline Epistles were written in Aramaic, to primarily Semitic congregations in Greece and Rome, are backed up by the Bible:

Romans 2:17-18

17 Now if you who are called a Jew trust on the law and are proud of God,

18 And because you know his will and know the things which must be observed, which you have learned from the law,

There goes the theory that Romans was addressed to “Romans”.

Romans 11:13
13 It is to you Gentiles that I speak, inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, and perhaps magnify my ministry;

It was also addressed to Gentiles. Note that “Gentiles” does not only include Greeks and Romans as Greek primacists may want to believe. “Gentiles” includes many Aramaic-speaking Semitic groups, such as the Chaldeans, Syrians, Assyrians, Canaanite-Phoenicians and possibly non-Judean Israelites.

1Corinthians 10:1

1 MOREOVER, brethren, I want you to know that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;

2 And all were baptized by Moses, both in the cloud and in the sea;

Now we focus on Greece, and it seems that again, Paul is talking to Judeans. 1Corinthians and 2Corinthians are full of references to Israelite law and history. Clearly, though Paul writes to people in Greece and Rome, these people are Judeans and Aramaic-speaking Gentiles. It is no wonder then that the Pauline Epistles are so overflowing with Aramaicisms. We must never forget the order of preaching. “To the Judean first…” And according to famous Judean historian Flavius Josephus, the Judeans had great difficulty learning Greek, while they did speak Aramaic (Josephus even wrote in Aramaic)."
aramaicpeshitta.com/Online_Version/historical_proofs.htm

Peace.
 
40.png
Pensees:
The Aramaic Peshitto, written in 200 A.D., is the earliest Christian translation of the Old Testament and was therefore not dependent upon the LXX but on the original Hebrew.

Peace.
When the top scholars and Orientalists in the field disagree with you and you have not given any proofs whatsoever for your case – I am going to believe the authorities. Besides you already proved that the LXX was used when you said that Isaiah 7:14 had the word “virgin” instead of young woman, unless that is you believe that there was TWO virgin births :-).

I gave you a link from othodox on the use of the LXX in the NT. Take the time to compare those quotes to Lamsa and you will see the LXX dependence for yourself.

Where is a Lamsa text online that is searchable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top