Were the Gospels translated from Aramic to Koine Greek?

[Gorgias]

But I would add: If Jerome doesn’t have proof one way or the other, then we don’t either.

I think I might prefer to suggest that the art of Scriptural scholarship continues to produce results, and hasn’t been stagnant for 17 centuries. So, just because he didn’t have proof, doesn’t mean that we can’t obtain it. But, I agree – there’s no conclusive evidence at the present; scholars continue to disagree on the question.

 

[BartholomewB]

OK, @Gorgias. Point taken. I’m happy to leave it at that.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree that Jerome didnt explicitly reject the Hebrew Gospel as false for sure.

But it seems likely that He changed his mind about its genuineness of being the inspired text, if he ever believed that.

My conclusion, as of now, is that it did exist and its possible it was really where Matthew’s Greek Gospel came from, but its protection as an inspired text was not preserved apart from the Greek translations.

Or, it really existed, but was not so much Matthew’s source, but its own account and was not preserved for reasons unknown.

In both cases, Jerome did not seem to place as much confidence in it as the Greek Matthew.

 

[ratio1]

I was comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic text, and simply noting how often our earliest versions of Matthew match the former rather than the latter.

I just like to be clear that I don’t really know whether Matthew was written in Greek or Hebrew, but I like to evaluate the evidence objectively and look at this from an academic point of view. I particularly find the textual evidence interesting. Hence my pursuit of what you have said, so i’m not picking on you, hope you don’t mind.

Firstly I still don’t understand your reasoning as to what exactly isn’t matching? I asked whether you are saying it’s the English that doesn’t match but you said no. Perhaps I’m not very clear, so let me put it this way using your first example:

the word where you said didn’t “match” was young woman or virgin
The Hebrew word is הָעַלְמָ֗ה Ha-Almah
let’s assume that this was the word in the Hebrew bible in Matthew’s time (ie Massoretic text has preserved this faithfully)
This word (and his related grammatical versions) occurs in the OT 7 times
Gen 24:43, Ex2:8, Psalms 68:25, Prov 30:19, Songs 1:3, Songs 6:8, Is7:14
Various translations have translated this as maiden, girl, virgin in these instances. One can see they are all related in concept. [very often one Hebrew word may have many different translated English words. Even elohim (which usually is translated as God most of the time) in one Genesis verse is translated as powers NOT God.
So let’s say Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew, so he would have used the word ha-almah in the Gospel.
now later on a translator tries to translate this passage. Is he going to try to translate this into Greek himself or simply use the widely available Septuagint version? In my opinion one would just use the Septuagint version.

In any case, when you say young woman and virgin doesn’t match, that’s the English,
but παρθένος always matches with הָעַלְמָ֗ה doesn’t it?

There are also evidence that if the NT was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, then a lot of word puns and poetry makes much more sense. And apparently there are TONS of these from my limited reading of the evidence.
Would be interested to see what you think of the following?

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/PoetryWordPlays.pdf

 

[RedFan]

I like puns, and if the author of Matthew did as well (or, alternatively, if the speakers that the author of Matthew quoted liked to use them), then sure, passages that are punny only in Aramaic would tend to suggest Aramaic as the language of the original writing (or, alternatively, of the speakers that the author of Matthew quoted).

 

[Gorgias]

But it seems likely that He changed his mind about its genuineness of being the inspired text, if he ever believed that.

I’m cool with that thought… but what did Jerome say that you’re taking to mean “I changed my mind”? I don’t see anything that makes that claim…

In both cases, Jerome did not seem to place as much confidence in it as the Greek Matthew.

Or, it wasn’t part of his project to go any further back than the Greek. How can you discern your conclusion?

 

[BartholomewB]

In any case, when you say young woman and virgin doesn’t match, that’s the English, but παρθένος always matches with הָעַלְמָ֗ה doesn’t it?

Well, no, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t. In the Septuagint, παρθενος is the word used to translate almah in only two of those seven occurrences, in Genesis and Isaiah. In Proverbs it’s νεότης. In the other four instances – Exodus, Psalms, and twice in the Song of Songs – the word is νεανις.

http://studybible.info/LXX_WH/psalm 68:25

 

[RedFan]

παρθένος always matches with הָעַלְמָ֗ה doesn’t it?

I can’t say this. I am in no position to confirm the LXX’s translations. The LXX and the first century Hebrew text is what we’d want to compare if we had the choice, but the latter is not extant in any ready form. Augustine – a champion of the LXX – points out that the Jews of his time “contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.43.html I can’t say.

Jerome may be right in suggesting that “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html If he is right, the ramifications of this ought to be considered.

Question: Do you think that the author of Matthew had Mark and “Q” in front of him, both in Greek, when he wrote his gospel – and translated their passages into Aramaic?

 

[ratio1]

Well, no, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t. In the Septuagint, παρθενος is the word used to translate almah in only two of those seven occurrences, in Genesis and Isaiah.

I agree but that is precisely my point. The Hebrew can be translated differently in different context, so how can one say it didn’t match at Isaiah/Matthew? Unless one can suggest an alternative hebrew word at Isaiah that the Hebrew Bible has which translated to Parthenos in Septuagint, how can one say Matthew matches Septuagint more than the Hebrew Bible? My previous post was asking the two words matches here at Isaiah and Matthew. If you agree then one cannot use this as an example that Matthews Greek matches with Septuagint more than the hebrew Bible. If you disagree then I’m wondering what you think the word in Hebrew Bible would have been that makes Septuagint “superior”?

 

[ratio1]

Question: Do you think that the author of Matthew had Mark and “Q” in front of him, both in Greek, when he wrote his gospel – and translated their passages into Aramaic?

Now that’s a good question I haven’t thought of. So thanks. As I said I’m only an amateur and I try to evaluate things as objectively as possible. I was simply trying to say using the Septuagint OT quotations is not a very strong evidence. But don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t bother me whether it is written in Greek or Hebrew Aramaic, as long as I can see convincing evidence.

As to this question I have not read enough on this issue so I don’t know.
I see this issue is a great opportunity to do analysis on this. I wonder if anyone has done the following:
Look at the parts of q and mark of Matthew and compared it with the parts of Matthew and See whether there are textual evidence to suggest they could be written from different languages.
Eg let’s say you find loads of Hebrew Aramaic puns in the Matthew only parts and no puns at all in the q and mark parts well then that says something doesnt it? I’m no expert so I don’t know whether that’s been done already? But if one finds puns equally in these parts then again needs to be evaluated differently then.
Do you have comments on your own question? Thanks!

 

[ratio1]

then sure, passages that are punny only in Aramaic would tend to suggest Aramaic as the language of the original writing

Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar so they may pun together.
Objectively speaking though whilst I find this interesting I think one could argue that Matthew simply wrote down in Greek what he remembered in those situations. For example if the Lord’s Prayer is one great poem with rthymes at the end of them at every line, then that was what was passed on orally and then when the gospel was written or even before, people had already translated into Greek prior and then it was written down in Greek.

 

[Gorgias]

I can’t say this. I am in no position to confirm the LXX’s translations. The LXX and the first century Hebrew text is what we’d want to compare if we had the choice, but the latter is not extant in any ready form. Augustine – a champion of the LXX – points out that the Jews of his time “contend that the Septuagint translators have erred in many places.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.43.html I can’t say.

Jerome may be right in suggesting that “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxviii.html If he is right, the ramifications of this ought to be considered.

In the essay by Augustine which you cite (“Of the Authority of the Septuagint Translation”, he also writes:

the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator.

So, according to Augustine, the answer is “believe what’s in the translation of ‘the seventy’, over what’s in the translation of ‘one’ (i.e., Jerome)”…

Question: Do you think that the author of Matthew had Mark and “Q” in front of him, both in Greek, when he wrote his gospel – and translated their passages into Aramaic?

Some scholars do. Not all, though.