The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pensees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daniel Marsh:
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.
As has been shown in this thread, the use of Greek among Jews was highly discouraged.

"“…Aramaic was so firmly established as the lingua franca that no government could dispense with its use as a vehicle of expression in a far-flung empire, especially in the western provinces. Moreover, without schools and other modern facilities, Aramaic could not be replaced by the speech of conquering nations. Conquerors were not interested in imposing their languages and cultures on subjugated peoples. What they wanted was taxes, spoils, and other levies…” – Dr. George Mamishisho Lamsa, Aramaic scholar

Aramaic even spread into such regions as Asia.

“As for the Aramaic alphabet, it achieved far wider conquests. In 1599 A.D., it was adopted for the conveyance of the Manchu language on the eve of the Manchu conquest of China. The higher religions sped it on its way by taking it into their service. In its `Square Hebrew’ variant it became the vehicle of the Jewish Scriptures and liturgy; in an Arabic adaptation it became the alphabet of Islam.” – Dr. Arnold Toynbee, Historian

Aramaic, being such a common language, used in many different countries, such as Assyria, Babylon and Israel, had many names. One name was given by the Greeks: Syriac.

“Greeks had called Aramaic by a word they coined, ‘Syriac’, and this artificial term was used in the West, but never in the East, where it has always been known by its own name, ‘Lishana Aramaya’ (the Aramaic language.)” – Paul Younan, Aramaic scholar

“There is another name for Ancient Aramaic. The Jewish scholars of Scriptures today talk of the “Ashuri” language and they call the sacred language of the Torah “Ashurit.” The modern Hebrew writing is called “Ktav Ashuri,” or Ashurai Writing. This is the language in which the Ten Commandments were written and the only sacred language of the Old Testament according to most Jewish scholars. There are hundreds of pages on the Internet that a scholar can research by simply doing a search for "Ashuri, Ashurit, Ashuris, Ktav Ashurit, Ksav Ashuris.” – Victor Alexander, Aramaic scholar

Aramaic, as we know from history and the Bible (parts of Ezra, Jeremiah and Daniel were written in Aramaic, albeit with the Hebrew script), became the dominant language even among the Israelis. Additionally, Aramaic is the primary language of the “Rabbinical Jewish” Mishnah and two Talmuds. The Aramaic language became a very important part of religion among the Judeans.

“Even to the West of the Euphrates river, in the Holy Land, the main vernacular was Aramaic. The weekly synagogue lections, called sidra or parashah, with the haphtarah, were accompanied by an oral Aramaic translation, according to fixed traditions. A number of Targumim in Aramaic were thus eventually committed to writing, some of which are of unofficial character, and of considerable antiquity. The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud was written in Aramaic, and received its definitive form in the 5th century. The Babylonian Talmud with its commentaries on only 36 of the Mishnah’s 63 tractates, is four times as long as the Jerusalem Talmud. These Gemaroth with much other material were gathered together toward the end of the 5th century, and are in Aramaic. Since 1947, approximately 500 documents were discovered in eleven caves of Wadi Qumran near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. In addition to the scrolls and fragments in Hebrew, there are portions and fragments of scrolls in Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic, which are sister languages, have always remained the most distinctive features marking Jewish and Eastern Christian religious and cultural life, even to our present time.” – Paul Younan

…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
 
Daniel Marsh:
When the top scholars and Orientalists in the field disagree with you
Should one believe your anonymous scholars and Oriental Orthodox Christians?
Daniel Marsh:
you have not given any proofs whatsoever for your case
It seems then that you haven’t been paying any attention at all.
Daniel Marsh:
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 :-).
Again, the Hebrew word in the Masoretic text of Isaiah 7:14 that we translate as ‘virgin’ actually means ‘virgin’. It is only modern Jews who dispute this.
Again, the Aramiac Peshitto dates to earlier than the Septuagint and is therefore a direct translation from the original.
 
Wide Use of Greek in Israel
Languages gain wide use through conquest and contact, which accounts for the prevalence of Spanish and English in the world today. Greek was used throughout the Mediterranean area and Persia from 335 B.C. to A.D. 200 because of Alexander the Great’s conquests. The Seleucid dynasty imposed Greek rule and ways over the Mideast from 280-63 B.C. and, with Herod, founded over 30 Greek cities in Israel. Some Greek rulers, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, aggressively attempted to Hellenize the Jews (i.e., force acceptance of Greek speech and ways on them), killing thousands who tried to maintain their Hebrew culture and religion. Greeks occupied Palestine for 270 years, not seven years as Lamsa ignorantly maintained. Thus Greek was used almost universally in the New Testament world, dominating government, commerce, and instruction.[37] Even slaves and farmers of less-Hellenized areas knew Greek as a second language.
Archaeology attests to the widespread use of Greek. Virtually every coin issued by the Greek rulers (363-35 B.C.), Jewish Herodian Kings (37 B.C.-A.D. 70), and Romans was struck in Greek.[38] One study of inscriptions in Palestine listed 168, of which 114 are in Greek only. Greek appeared in Jewish ossuaries (stone chests which held the bones of the dead) and on the Ophel synagogue, indicating that ordinary Jews used Greek.[39] Moreover, key trade routes passed through Israel, requiring knowledge of Greek to service them. Letters that Jewish rebel leader Bar Cochba wrote to his lieutenants (A.D. 132-135) show that these insurgents used Greek as easily as Aramaic and Hebrew.[40]
The oldest biblical manuscript known today is not the Peshitta (as Lamsa holds), but a Hebrew copy of Isaiah written about 100 B.C. We now have scores of Greek portions of the New Testament written before Lamsa’s Peshitta. (More will be said about this later.) The Estrangeli alphabet Lamsa used was not even created until at least the second century A.D.
Jews outside of Israel could not read Hebrew, so they translated it into a Greek version called the Septuagint (referred to as the “LXX” today) which became the “Authorized Version” of the Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. More than half of the Old Testament passages found in the New Testament are quoted from the Greek LXX, not from an Aramaic Targum or Hebrew text. Even Matthew, written by a Jew for Jews, quotes primarily from the LXX and uses 76 words found nowhere but the LXX.[41] The vocabulary and style of the LXX dominates the NT, even though it was archaic at the time. Common “Jewish” words, including “Synagogue,” “Sanhedrin,” and “hypocrite” (meaning “actor,” for which Hebrew has no equivalent due to a Talmudic prohibition against theater) are actually Greek words. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the rabbis’ use of Greek proverbs and their families who learned Greek (Sota 49b). The 1,500 Greek loan words in Talmudic literature indicate that rabbis knew Greek.[42]
Gospel history also suggests common use of Greek. Jesus and 11 of His disciples came from “Galilee of the Gentiles” and Jesus used the Greek city Capernaum as His headquarters. The tax collector, Matthew, and fishermen like Peter and John needed Greek to do business. On Pentecost, Persians, Mesopotamians, and Medes were surprised to hear the disciples speak in their own tongues (by the Spirit’s power), indicating that their languages were very different from Galilean Aramaic. Yet, Peter was able to address them about this phenomenon in a common language: most certainly Greek. A special name, the “Hellenists” (NIV: “Grecian Jews,” Acts 6:1) was used for Jews who spoke Greek, and each of the seven deacons who served them had Greek names.
The evidence against the Lamsa position is overwhelming. Greek was commonly used by all types of people in Israel and the Mediterranean world in Jesus’ day. The apostles knew Greek and wanted all nations to believe. They had no reason to write in a politically and racially-colored dialect (Aramaic) when the universally known Greek existed. They wrote as bilingual men, intimately acquainted with the Greek version of the Scriptures; they thought in Aramaic (and/or Hebrew) and wrote in the Greek style of the LXX.
LAMSA’S TRANSLATION: ACCURATE OR FAULTY?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html
 
David Zampino:
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.
Mark was most likely written for the Jewish Christians who lived in Rome who most likely spoke Aramaic. Given that he received its contents from Saint Peter, a fellow Aramaic-speaker, it is not surprising that this Gospel was originally composed in Aramaic.

QUOTE=David Zampino]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.

Luke was, of course, a Syrian. Syrians spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The Greek New Testament is, of course, in Greek but the Aramaic New Testament is, of course, not in Greek.

QUOTE=David Zampino]John: A Jew, an Apostle of Jesus, writing much more universally than the other three Gospel writers, writing in “KOINE” Greek

Taking a Greek manuscript of John and then claiming that it must have been originally written in Greek proves nothing.

QUOTE=David Zampino]
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.

The scope of Aramaic as a dominant language was not limited to Palestine. The testimony of the early church is that Paul originally wrote his letters in Hebrew but then were later translated into Greek.

Peace.
 
QUOTE=David Zampino]
Rome – written to ROMAN Christians, both Jew and Gentile.

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

"“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
 
Daniel Marsh said:

We must question whatever the Western world has taught us first before we find the truth. When the blinders of ethnocentricity are removed, it is easy to see where the preponderance of evidence lies. That article, for example, distorts the truth. The Aramaic Peshitto, not the Peshitta, is the oldest Christian translation of the Old Testament. This does not mean that it is the oldest manuscript of the Tanakh but the oldest Christian translation, making it more early than the Septuagint.
Furthermore, the Peshitta dates to as early as the second century and was quoted by certain fathers of the Church. There are many good reasons to believe that the Alexandrian text-type does not comprise the ‘oldest and most reliable’ manuscripts.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Both, what exactly is your congregation, so I can verify with your pastor.
Father Michael Hatcher of St. Gregorios Orthodox Syrian Church in Spokane, WA.

“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#Modern_developments

I know for a fact that we use a translation from the Peshitta in our liturgy because only in the Peshitta are Christ’s last words “For this I was spared!” rather than “Why have you forsaken me?” This is due to a mistranslation in the Greek.

This thread is starting to get a little immature. When one is able to provide actual proof that the New Testament, written by Aramaic-speakers for Aramaic-speakers and about Aramaic-speakers devoted to an Aramaic-speaking Messiah was actually written in Greek, please do so.

Peace.
 
“We must question whatever the Western world has taught us first before we find the truth. When the blinders of ethnocentricity are removed”

You just proved your ethnocentricity 🙂

Even your own Indian bible society recognizes that the aramaic NT is a translation from the Greek!!!

Your logic reminds me of the old routine

Hippie #1, Question everything the man says.

Hippie #2, Why?

And, what truths do you claim to have that the Roman Catholic Church does not have?
 
Daniel Marsh:
Even your own Indian bible society recognizes that the aramaic NT is a translation from the Greek!!!
Who is this Indian Bible Society you speak of and how are they affiliated with my Church? Furthermore, what evidences do they provide in favor of Greek primacy? Are actual evidences provided, like the evidences that I provide, or are assumptions merely taken for granted?

Would you care to address the evidences that I have provided or will you continue clinging to anonymous authorities? I already showed your sources claim concerning the Aramaic Old Testament to be incorrect, something which you have avoided.
Again, one must purge oneself of all presuppositions before realizing where the preponderance of evidence lies.
Daniel Marsh:
And, what truths do you claim to have that the Roman Catholic Church does not have?
Where should I begin? The merits of Orthodoxy over the Roman Church is for a different discussions.
 
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.
Evidence? Evidence? You’ve provided no evidence.

And accusing Dr. Metzger of ethnocentrism? Friend, that’s RICH!!! Especially when he discussed in his book Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Sogdion, Old Church Slavonic and Nubian versions!

Doesn’t seem terribly ethnocentristic to me!
40.png
Pensees:
Has any actual evidence been presented in this thread in favor of Greek primacy? Appeals to authority are not getting us anywhere.
Unless you’ve studied the languages, “appeals to authority” are difficult to dispence with! 🙂

And you’ve admitted that you have not studied the languages.
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.
Um, actually, I’ve addressed this issue several times.

To whom did Mark write? Answer please.

To whom did Luke write? Answer please.

To whom did Paul write? Answer please.

Until you can provide some answers, please don’t accuse me of neglect. Dishonesty is not a Christian virtue.

Blessings,
 
40.png
Pensees:
The New Testament, again, was written by Aramaic speakers for Aramaic speakers and about Aramaic speakers. I cannot stress this enough.
And I cannot stress enough how incorrect this statement is. You have provided no proof whatsoever
40.png
Pensees:
No evidence for Greek primacy has been provided in this thread. Instead, I’ve been given assumptions that many seem to take for granted.
Actually, friend, the burden of proof lies on you. Since by your own admission you have never actually studied the languages in question, you are merely regurgitating snippets of information from questionable sources, and then using ad hominim when you are opposed.

This discussion has become pointless. Believe what you like.

Blessings,
 
David Zampino:
And accusing Dr. Metzger of ethnocentrism? Friend, that’s RICH!!! Especially when he discussed in his book Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Sogdion, Old Church Slavonic and Nubian versions!
This response shows you lack of understanding of what ethnocentrism is.

Ethnocentrism
The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one’s own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one’s own ethnic group is superior to the other groups.

In its weaker form, ethnocentrism is merey viewing the world through the lense of one’s culture while taking cultural assumptions for granted, even at the expense of neglecting disconfirming evidence. While the majority in the West may hold to Greek primacy, the majority in the East does not.
Without ethnocentricity, it would not be so hard to believe that Aramaic-speakers would write in their own language.

Luke was a Syrian, a native of an Aramaic-speaking country. It is only taken for granted that his Gospel was written in Greek.
As for the textual evidence in favor of an Aramaic origin of Luke, I must point you to this again:
aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshitta_Dummies_FirstEd.pdf

One important difference in the Aramaic is that the apparent contradictions in the genalogies of Jesus in the Greek are not so in the Peshitta.

One must also not forget how the claims to Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles have been refuted in this thread, both by historical and textual evidence. Please do not neglect the posts in which Paul’s usage of the term “Aramean” instead of “Greek” is explained.

Peace.
 
David Zampino:
And I cannot stress enough how incorrect this statement is. You have provided no proof whatsoever
If this is your claim, you have not paid attention to this discussion at all. Plenty of evidence has been provided that those who composed the New Testament not only spoke Aramaic but wrote in this language. Please remember to check one’s assumptions at the door.
 
Use of LXX in NT chart is from
geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

Matthew 1.23/ Isaiah 7.14 "Behold, a virgin

We already know from above that Lamsa agrees with LXX by your own word.

Matthew 12.21/ Isaiah 42.4

Lamsa agrees with LXX here too. note: in place of gentiles, he uses peoples.

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/1_Matthew/Matthew12.htm

Matthew 13.14-15/ Isaiah 6.9-10

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/1_Matthew/Matthew13.htm

Again Lamsa is closer to LXX then to Hebrew Masoretic Text

Go on do the research, it is not hard to do…
 
If you have not figured it out, I have given an objective test above.

We know that the LXX is quoted in the Greek NT.
You claim that the NT was written in Aramaic.
We claim that the NT was translated from Greek into Aramaic.

If Our claim is true then we only need to show that there are LXX Greek influnces in the Aramaic to English translation that Lamsa represents.

The link above post has a list of LXX in the NT. I do not have time to go through all the references in the table, but I have seen for myself and everyone else can check for themselves if the are interrested that there is a strong LXX influnce in the Aramaic NT.

Objectivity, I have shown that the Aramaic is in fact a translation from the Greek NT.

😉
 
The words below were spoken by Bruce Metzger, who is the world’s leading authority on New Testament manuscripts and on the Greek text of the New Testament. He made these comments during a question and answer period at the conclusion of a full-day lecture on “Highlights from the Sermon on the Mount,” which he delivered in 1992 at The Foundation for Biblical Research, in Charlestown, New Hampshire, USA. The Foundation has been renamed the “Center for Scriptural Studies” and is now located at 2595 Depot Street Manchester Center, VT 05255-9541, 802-362-2432. The Center for Scriptural Studies webpage may be browsed at scripturalstudies.org. The following words were transcribed by Robert Nguyen Cramer, by permission of The Foundation. It is worthwhile noting that Dr. Metzger is a genuinely gentle and mild-mannered individual, but here he spoke with unequivocally strong words when he addressed the issue of the Lamsa Bible.
QUESTION FROM SEMINAR ATTENDEE: Are there not Aramaic documents and manuscripts which would shed authentic light on the career of Jesus? And how does the Aramaic relate to the Greek and to the Hebrew?"
DR. METZGER’S ANSWER: The answer briefly is yes and no. But, of course, I want to expand on that.
The common language of people in Palestine in the first century was the Semitic language related to Hebrew, much as Spanish is related to Portuguese – Aramaic. The word “king” in Hebrew is melek. The word “king” in Aramaic is malkawh. Melek, malkawh – same consonants.
Now Jesus undoubtedly did commonly speak to common people in Aramaic. I think that also on occasion he’d use Greek.
He grew up in Galilee. In the north, Galilee was called, “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Many gentiles living in Galilee – many more in proportion to Jewish people than in Jerusalem. Naturally Jewish people living in Galilee would be bilingual. For business reasons. And I think that Jesus was bilingual, and on some occasions would speak in Greek.
When the Syrophenician woman came to him from outside of Palestine, she would use Greek. He conversed with her in Greek, I’m sure. When in John’s Gospel, Philip comes and says to Jesus, “There are some Greeks who would like to speak with you.” I think that then Jesus would have spoken in Greek. But normally I believe that he would have given much of his teachings in the Aramaic language.
There are four fossils of Aramaic left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41] – “Girl, I say to you, get up.” To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34] – “be opened.” In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. Abba is still today the common usage in Palestine, meaning, “Father,” “Daddy.” And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34] – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel – of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.
Yes, there are Aramaic documents, especially now that the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls have come to light – that were written about the time of Jesus – documents in Hebrew and Aramaic that are non-religious documents. Some of them are religious documents. They help us to understand the ambiance of society at that time. So that’s the “yes” part of my answer.
But the “no” part to your question is this: We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So – except for these four fossils that are left embedded in the text of Mark, the four brief statements or words in Aramaic from Jesus – no! And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” – they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in by such works.
George Lamsa, L-A-M-S-A, who in the 1940s persuaded a reputable publisher of the Bible in Philadelphia, the Winston Publishing Company, to issue his absolute fraud, of ‘the Bible translated from the original Aramaic.’ Absolutely a money getter, and nothing else.
He said that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,’ and he ‘translates it from the Aramaic,’ but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from. Secondly, why would Paul write in Aramaic, let us say, to the people of Galatia? They didn’t know any more Aramaic than people in Charlestown or Princeton know Aramaic. Why would Paul write to the Romans in Aramaic? They didn’t know Aramaic. So, even from a logical point of view, it’s silly to say that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic.’
Jesus orally communicated some of these teachings in Aramaic. We have a record of that today in Greek manuscripts.
So, yes and no. Chiefly no.
bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm
bibletexts.com/qa/qa040.htm
 
Let’s see, sould one take your word or Metzger’s ?

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bruce+M.+Metzger+&btnG=Google+Search

I know Metzger is qualified to speak on the topic. I have given an objective test that those who do not read biblical languages can do and that test proves beyond doubt that the Aramaic was in fact translated from the Greek NT because of the LXX influences in Lamsa’s translation.

I think this is pertty much a dead topic at this point.
 
"As has been shown in this thread, the use of Greek among Jews was highly discouraged. "

Who was Luke writting to? Who did Paul write Romans to?

If Greek was “highly discouraged” than how do you explain the existence of the LXX?

Go up and do the objective test I listed above.
 
¿Por qué usted writting en inglés en este sitio?

Почему вы writting на английском языке на этом месте?

Por que você writting em inglês neste local?

너는 왜 이 위치에 영어로writting?

なぜこの場所の英語でwritting か。

Γιατί στα αγγλικά σε αυτήν την περιοχή;

Warum writting Sie auf englisch auf diesem Aufstellungsort?

Pourquoi vous writting en anglais sur cet emplacement ?

Perchè writting in inglese su questo luogo?

Waarom writting u in het Engels op deze plaats?

為什麼您writting 用英語在這個站點?

为什么您writting 用英语在这个站点?

Why are you writting in English on this site?

babelfish.altavista.com/tr

And, not in one of the other languages in this post?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top