New Testament written in Aramaic, not Greek.

[jb]

Title says it all. I think this is worthy of its own thread.

= = = = = =

The New Testament, including the book of Revelation, was not written in Greek, as is commonly taught in 98% of the seminaries around the world. Except for Luke, they were all Jews who, being raised in Jewish culture, abstained from anything Gentile. Perhaps they could speak a little Greek, or Latin, but they would never have learned to write it. They thought that anything gentile was to be stayed away from.

The New Testament was written in Aramaic, and the modern "Eastern Church" in Israel has always maintained this.

To read the New Testament Aramaic, converted to English, you need to look for "Peshitta" version, and I have a couple, and my favorite is the one translated by Lamsa.

There are lots of little gems to discover that give way to mistaken notions in "christianity" due to their reliance on the Greek, but for the most part, the Greek translation from Aramaic, has been very good.

I'll give an example, and you'll see how obvious this becomes, showing that the New Testament was originally in Aramaic.

EXAMPLE, from the Greek:

Matt 19:24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The Greek translators thought the Aramaic word they were translating into Greek was "camel".

Now, look at the actual Aramaic word from the original book of Matthew:


View attachment 129706



As you can see, the actual word Jesus spoke was "rope", not camel, but the writing of it in Aramaic resembles the word "camel". There is a very slight deviation between the words. The Greek translators made a mistake.


Obviously, Jesus said "It's easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


You may also recall language to Simon whose name was changed by Jesus to "Peter (which translated means rock)".

Translated from what?

ANSWER: Translated from Aramaic.

The Greek translator was putting that in the margin for the Greek readers.



There are hundred and hundreds of internal evidences to prove that Aramaic was the original language of the New Testament. I have a book containing these proofs, and all you need to do is read one or two of them and the verdict is immediate, such as words that were difficult to find a substitute for in Greek, and when you compare, you are impressed.

I think someone sold you some snake oil! lol

 

[StevieJ]

It would help all if anyone quoting anything would give there soarse and not there opinions

 

[just-me]

There is a spiritual lesson that we can learn from the OP concerning the Aramaic versus the Greek. I agree with the OP in that Matthew, being a descendant of an Israeli tribe (possibly Levi) wrote and spoke in mostly Aramaic using the letters of the Hebrew Aleph Beyt. Below is the Aramaic writing of Matthew 19:24.

תוב רין אמרנא לכון ררליל הו לגמלא למעל בחרורא רמחטא או עתירא רנעול למלכותא ראלהא

“And again I say to you that it is easier for a rope to enter into an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Elohim” (Matthew 19:24)

The spiritual lesson is that Jesus is clearly not saying a rich man can't enter, or He would not love this one! The heavy rope lesson teaches about a rich man entering into heaven, after he unravels his fortune strand by strand as Jesus instructs. If his wealth was bound tightly and strong like a rope, it is to be unwound like threads which will pass through the eye of a needle. Careful attention is required to thread the needle, and so are the rich obligated unto God as to how their wealth is acquired and dispersed. Theological attempts to prove the eye of a needle to be a geographical location have utterly failed, for the teaching of scripture is Spiritual and not physical.

opening post

 

[MarcR]

So your cat's name must be Wilbur? LOL

PS. I use the same Lexicon!

I was reading a paper by Fredriche Wilbur on Jan Hus and the Moravian movements influence on modern denominations; which she scattered on the floor.

 

[MarcR]

I was reading a paper by Fredriche Wilbur on Jan Hus and the Moravian movements influence on modern denominations; which she scattered on the floor.

I just realized that Wilbur is also Gingrich's first name; but that, strangely, was not what distracted me.

I don't believe in coincidence; but that is quite interesting, at least to me.

 

[valiant]

The New Testament books were written in Greek. They are not translation Greek which is easily detectable. However much of Jesus preaching was in Aramaic, which of course the writers had to translate into Greek. Had they been written in Aramaic the LXX would not have been used. Instead quotations would have been from an Aramaic Old Testament which they decidedly were not.

The camel/rope hypothesis is purely scholastic invention but if it were true it could certainly be explained by the fact that Jesus words were in Aramaic, translated into Greek by Matthew.

There is not even a 1 % chance that the NT was written in Aramaic. The idea is pure fiction.

 

[williamjordan]

If written in Aramaic, what does one make of the NT's references to the LXX?

 

[MarcR]

this is a very misinformed thread...

there is practically no evidence that any book of the new testament except perhaps the gospel of matthew ever had a hebrew or aramaic version predating the greek new testament...even in the case of matthew it can be pretty strongly demonstrated that the greek matthew we have today was not merely a translation from aramaic but instead an original composition in greek perhaps adapted from an earlier aramaic composition by the same author...

the new testament uses terminology that was well established and highly developed conceptually in greek but has no conceptual counterpart in the hebrew or aramaic languages...

the first century jews of judea and galilee did -not- shun everything greek...greek cultural influences or 'hellenization' had been present in jewish culture since shortly after the time of alexander the great and was already deeply rooted in first century jewish and early christian culture...to the point that some of the new testament writings contain clear allusions to greek philosophical concepts...such as john's theology of the logos or paul's references to the agnosto theo tradition and plato's allegory of the cave...as well as apparent allusions to the concept of the platonic 'world of forms' in the book of hebrews...

the apostles could have easily known greek as it was the language of business and commerce in the near eastern world at the time...even fisherman like peter and andrew and james and john would have had an advantage selling their fish in the market if they knew at least passable greek...and in fact many of the new testament writings show evidence that the authors were not formally educated in greek...

furthermore paul was from tarsus where the jewish community and pretty much everyone else spoke greek...

additionally most of the intended audience of the new testament were jews outside the holy land who would have mostly spoken greek...many jews outside of judea and galilee did not even know hebrew or aramaic well enough to follow a new testament account or letter written in those languages...

there is no extant text of the new testament in aramaic...the peshitta is -not- in aramaic...it is in syriac...written in a completely different non aramaic script that was not even used in new testament times...

i repeat...this is -not even aramaic writing-...aramaic writing looks closer to hebrew because the modern hebrew alphabet was derived from aramaic...this syriac script is actually the basis for arabic cursive...

moreover the majority of new testament textual scholars have concluded that the peshitta is a translation from greek...

to be very blunt the lamsa translation is promoted -dishonestly- when it is advertised as a translation from an 'aramaic original new testament'

the camel and rope comparison is totally anachronistic because the script in which the two words represent each other are syriac which as i mentioned already was not even in use until after new testament times...

now jesus likely -spoke- a lot of aramaic or hebrew during his earthly ministry...which accounts for the transliterated aramaic quotations in the new testament...but the books themselves were certainly written in greek...which is why the authors felt the need to provide the meaning of the transliterated phrases for the audience who was reading in greek...

There are several reliable sources which claim that Matthew wrote both a Greek and an Aramaic version in his own hand; with no certainty on anyone's part regarding which came first.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

regarding the 'camel' versus 'rope' issue...instead of claiming that the greek new testament we have is an erroneous translation...wouldn't it be simpler not to mention more doctrinally sound to suppose that jesus was actually making a pun?

 

[atwhatcost]

CORRECTION: that should read Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich ! I got distracted by my cat

Is Wilbur your cat?

(For me, I just do that sometimes without the benefit of pets to distract me. I just distract myself. lol)

 

[atwhatcost]

Learn from the foremost authority on Jewish history of the 1st century, Josephus.

= = = = = = =
All of the following from the introduction of the 7th edition NT Peshitta, by Glenn David Bauscher (p.4):


Why should anyone be interested in such a translation? The answers are manifold and I cannot address them all here. The most important reason is that the original Gospels (and Epistles as well) were written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek for Greek speaking Romans. Josephus addresses the language of the first century Israelites in his 1st century volumes of Jewish history. He wrote in Aramaic and translated his works into Greek later. He also testifies plainly that Greek was not the language of his Israeli countrymen (born AD 37 and died after AD 100) and that Greek was not spoken by the vast majority of Jews at that time.

Josephus provides almost all the historical information of first century Israel available today. Every serious student of the New Testament has consulted Josephus for background information on that time period in Israel.

Here is a statement from Josephus: "I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and to 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 the Greek learning, there have hardly been two or three who have succeeded herein, who were immediately rewarded for their pains." Antiquities XX, XI 2. (published circa A.D. 93)

Josephus, a learned Priest and Pharisee of his time, wrote that he did not know Greek well enough to speak it fluently; he knew a few who had learned it well. The main truth to be gleaned here is that Greek was not the language of Israel, nor a second language. It had to be studied deliberately to be learned, and it was apparently discouraged by the Jews.

In A.D. 77, Josephus wrote his Jewish Wars in Aramaic and later translated it into Greek for the Greek-speaking Roman citizens. Even his later Antiquities, quoted above, shows that Josephus was not fluent enough in Greek to compose several volumes in that language. The Jewish Rabbis of that time forbade the teaching of pagan tongues to their young men. They taught that it was preferable to feed one's son the flesh of swine than to teach him Greek. Josephus elsewhere wrote that he wrote his works "in the language of his country" and later "translated his history into Greek". This establishes that Greek was not the language of Israel.

Josephus also wrote that there was a killer plague that hit Egypt so a small band of people left to escape it, lead by a guy named Moses. You might want to nix that "foremost authority" thing. Especially given Josephus' job was to make Rome look great.

 

[posthuman]

bilingualism my be difficult for many Americans to comprehend, i think.

here's a rather thorough, well-referenced/cited & interesting article on the OP subject, if you have time:

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

(biased, sure, but written with knowledge, not blind passion and supposition)


i wouldn't call the fitness of metaphor between a rope passing through a literal needle or a camel passing through a figuratively-named door sufficient evidence to base a claim like this on.
but my opinion on that subject (the metaphor) is that a rope simply cannot fit in a needle's eye, no matter what you do - and then if the implication is that no rich man can enter the kingdom of heaven, what do we say about the kings of Israel, or Joesph of Arimathea, Job, Abraham, or any other number of people both within the scriptures and without whom God blessed with earthly wealth? do we condemn Joseph on such superficial, carnal evidence? simply because he was set in power in Egypt?
it seems a much more fitting, and much less forced allegory to think about a camel having its burdens removed and forced to humble itself (on it's knees) to pass through a gate - and this shows it not to be an impossible thing, but a thing simply easier for an unburdened creature with smaller stature to pass through a narrow way.

 

[pwrnJC]

Uh....the understanding I have on that particular verse is that in JESUS' day, there was an opening in the actual wall of Jerusalem that was very low and made just for camels and emergencies. They had to stoop and kneel and be pulled into the city by their masters because the Eastern Gate and others that lead in the main flow of traffic, was not very tall. When the gates were sealed at night, anyone leaving or entering could use the camel gate and not disturb the safety of the city, for the camel gate was also secured in a different way that would not let in invaders. Jesus said "IT is easier...He never said it was impossible!

 

[Tintin]

the first century jews of judea and galilee did -not- shun everything greek...greek cultural influences or 'hellenization' had been present in jewish culture since shortly after the time of alexander the great and was already deeply rooted in first century jewish and early christian culture...to the point that some of the new testament writings contain clear allusions to greek philosophical concepts...such as john's theology of the logos or paul's references to the agnosto theo tradition and plato's allegory of the cave...as well as apparent allusions to the concept of the platonic 'world of forms' in the book of hebrews...

Rachel, that's fascinating! Where in the Bible can I find Paul's references to Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Thanks.

 

[ember]

What are you doing Todd? It seems to me you start these threads wherein your truth is just a little bigger and better than everyone elses' truth

That's my impression and this seems to be another example of the same

What's up?

 

[ember]

It always baffles me how people ignore evidence.

 

[popeye]

Rope ,camel,what's the difference?

Flyspecs. Changes nothing

 

[ember]

whoah to those who are experts in expertism for they shall confuse fact with fiction and dabble in dribble and concentric circles ever encapsulating and never ending fictional facts unearthed by confused information seeking ever higher levels of knowledge beyond the kin of the perpetrator to assimilate

ie: that dog don't hunt

 

[ember]

It would help all if anyone quoting anything would give there soarse and not there opinions

yes it would she said dryly

 

[just-me]

From the 5th century, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned for it the title of "Queen of the versions."

Pro and con disputes. Greek to Aramaic, or Aramaic to Greek?

Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. A minority viewpoint, variants of an Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis, is that the Aramaic New Testament of the Peshitta represents the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it.

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII are summarized as follows:

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."[SUP][/SUP]