Was the New Testament Originally Written in Aramaic?

[rgprice]

I'll say this is interesting. But what does it mean? My first question is, what is the distribution of these supposed Aramaicisms? Are any in John? What portion of the synoptics are they in? Are they only in the material shared with Mark? Are they in "Q"? Are they in material unique to Matthew/Luke?

[ebion]

It means that the earliest NT was written in Aramaic, which means that 99% of the greek nitt-pickings in this forum are vacuous

Are they in "Q"? Find me a curated copy of Q and I'll tell you!
BTW: what language is your copy of Q written in? Aramaic??

Are they in material unique to Matthew/Luke? No - look for yourself.

And that surprised me; I was expecting to see them only in Matthew/Luke, as the original Matthew was known to be in HAramaic. Which has a corollary if the Faulines were written by MarcionOrLater: the Aramaic->TR translation must be post-Marcion or later. Wow.

[rgprice]

Ok, I'm getting his book, but what are the counter arguments against it? What is the quality of the translations? I have to say that I haven't really studied this issue and am not really versed on the counter arguments. I know the general case pro and con, but haven't really gone beyond the basics.

How is Mark 15:34 handled in Peshitta?

[rgprice]

Ok, so I'm reading the section on codes starting on page 244. WTF is this guy talking about?

[ebion]

Ok, so I'm reading the section on codes starting on page 244. WTF is this guy talking about?

I'm impressed: you had to go to page 244/259 to come up with something you could use for a one-line WTF post, and you come up with something not written by the author, but included "for interest" from: Bauscher! How really lame; poof.

We agree with Luc Lefebvre's assesment:

This is exactly why I think a professional dialogue and counter would prove profitable, because the more scholars we can expose to these things and have them thoroughly investigated, the better. One of the biggest issues with Aramaic primacy is that no one is looking at it, and when they do, they merely skim it over long enough to give a simple refute without actually having looked at some of the real arguments.

So here is the peshitta.org's comments on Tim Hegg's critique of Aramaic primacy.

From peshitta.org threads: Shamasha Paul Younan

IMO, Hegg did a very poor job regurgitating standard academic talking points, while offering very little in way of original thought.

• scholars all agree NT was written in Greek
• oldest fragments are in Greek
• just because Jesus spoke Aramaic doesn't necessarily mean He spoke Aramaic
• I love my own voice as I reframe old ideas as if they are my own
• look at my beard I look religious

I wanted to save you some time in case you're interested in actual original thought. I can't get that 1/2 hour of my life back, but perhaps I can save yours.

4

so, my assessment: nothing even remotely of weight argument-wise. i was really surprised at that, actually. i expected more from him, to be honest...

5

I read the article first, then the blog posts. What's sad about that article is the amount of double standards and ignorance of the Jewish and Roman historical backdrop.
...
He NEVER mentions the Semitic style, idioms, poetry or ambiguous mistranslations in the NT, which is perhaps the biggest justification for Aramaic Primacy study. Plus if he recommends Lamsa at the end, he doesn't understand why Lamsa is a problem.
...
There were many other assumptions and biases I detected, but these were the ones that I wanted to share. I hate double standards with a passion.

Other comments in that thread said the same thing.

Also having wasted more than a half hour reading it, I have nothing to add, except in his paper he does not address any of the KJV Howlers that we have posted, even though the work excavating them was originally done in the 2005-2008 timeframe.

[Ulan]

We agree with Luc Lefebvre's assesment:

This is exactly why I think a professional dialogue and counter would prove profitable, because the more scholars we can expose to these things and have them thoroughly investigated, the better. One of the biggest issues with Aramaic primacy is that no one is looking at it, and when they do, they merely skim it over long enough to give a simple refute without actually having looked at some of the real arguments.

But isn't that a logical way of processing arguments like this? I mean, I looked at your "eunuch/believer" argument, came to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense, and went on my merry way. If I had more interest in the idea, I'd probably check more examples, but if the first one already falls flat, there isn't much enthusiasm for an idea left.

[ebion]

This is not a KJV Howler, but it is important as it is often used against Jesus.

This mistranslation from the Aramaic (§ 1.9) shows up in a number of places in the KJV.

1. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. (Mark 13:30 [KJV])

From: WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e

The Greek reads "γενεα" (genea), which can mean "generation" (not to be confused with "γενος" (genos) which means "offspring"). Here it would seem that our Messiah prophesized incorrectly in the Greek.

The answer comes in the Aramaic. Here we don't see the word for "generation," but the word sharvtho', which means "family," or "family branch." A sharvtho', is like a ray in geometry. It starts at a point, then continues onwards. Usually sharvotho' (plural) come from other sharvotho' (plural), so we can see these branching rays make up a family tree. The only way for a sharvtho' can be extinguished, is if the entire family is wiped out, an entire branch destroyed. And sharvtho' can also be used to describe a people as a whole, like someone could be from an Italian sharvtho' or the sharvtho' of New York.

So you can see that since "γενεα" (genea) implies a length of time equal to one person's lifespan, a generation, a sharvtho' can last from a few days to thousands of years (for example, we are all still within the sharvtho' of Adam).

Since we now know what sharvtho' means, how do we know which sharvtho' our Messiah was referring to? Who was He talking to? Taking a look at the beginning of the chapter, at verse 3:

"While Jesus sat on the mount of Olives, towards the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us when these things will happen, and what is the sign when all these things are about to be fulfilled? " - Mark 13:3-4

Bingo: His disciples. But some of them came from different biological families. What did they all have in common?

They were Christians (believers in Yeshua as the Messiah and Son of Eloha to be precise).

The translation of from the Aramaic of PeshittA gives "generation" or "family" as the word:

>

Word 	Vocalised 	ID 	Root 	Category 	Meaning 	PS 	JEN 	CAL 	Person 	Gender 	Number 	State 	Tense 	Form 	Enclitic
ܫܪܒܬܐ 	ܫܰܪܒ݁ܬ݂ܳܐ 	2:22439 	ܫܪܒ 	Noun 	generation, tribe, family, stock, line 	597 	230 	62041-13306 	- 	Feminine 	Singular 	Emphatic 	- 	- 	No 	- 	- 	-
ܫܰܪܒ݁ܳܬ݂ܳܐ 	2:22440 	ܫܪܒ 	Noun 	generation, tribe, family, stock, line 	597 	230 	62041-13306 	- 	Feminine 	Plural 	Emphatic 	- 	- 	No 	- 	- 	-

>

The CAL lexicon gives:

>

$rbh noun sg. emphatic
šrbh, šrbtˀ (ša/urbā, ša/urbəṯā) n.f. family
	CPA ܫܘܪܒܐ ‏; JBABo שורבתא‏; Mand šurbta; Syr. pl. with spirantization ܫܲܪ̈ܒܼܵܬܼܵܐ‏

  1 family OA, CPA, Syr, JBAmb, Man. --(a) distinct class or group of people CPA, Syr. (a.1) priestly class CPA. (a.2) ܐܚܪ̈ܵܢܝܲܝ ܫܲܪܒܬܵܐ‏ : = LXX ἀλλόφῡλος foreigner (used for Philistines) Syr.
  2 genus, species Syr.
  3 pl. : generations Syr. 

>

The obvious translation from the Aramaic is family. Reading from the PeshittA makes so much more sense.

[rgprice]

Ok, so I'm reading the section on codes starting on page 244. WTF is this guy talking about?

I'm impressed: you had to go to page 244/259 to come up with something you could use for a one-line WTF post, and you come up with something not written by the author, but included "for interest" from: Bauscher! How really lame; poof.

We agree with Luc Lefebvre's assesment:

Err, I'm really just asking the question, WTF is this guy talking about? That's obvious nonsense. The fact that it is included in the book is certainly a mark against credibility, but I didn't say anything about that.

The split words seem quite convincing on the surface. But I don't know anything about these languages, so without some other kind of support for these translations I'm not sure where to go with it. I'd really like to see a genuine counter argument for someone knowledgeable, but I haven't been able to really find such a thing.

[ebion]

We agree with Luc Lefebvre's assesment:

This is exactly why I think a professional dialogue and counter would prove profitable, because the more scholars we can expose to these things and have them thoroughly investigated, the better. One of the biggest issues with Aramaic primacy is that no one is looking at it, and when they do, they merely skim it over long enough to give a simple refute without actually having looked at some of the real arguments.

So here are our comments on Orville Jenkins' critique of Aramaic primacy.

From peshitta.org threads: 2

This person seems to have limited knowledge of the topic he's discussing, not to mention his arguments are self contradicting. He offers no proofs, and only vague claims about others doing some kind of research that would support his claims.

Also his claims about the lack of a complete Aramaic NT manuscripts, the Greek OT, and the common language of the era contradicts well established facts; as well as the transmitted knowledge of the indigenous people who inhabit that part of the world.

I believe that Paul Younan would be the best at addressing this topic, as he is the most versed on it, but I believe that he'll most likely find some of these arguments to be hilarious.

Shamasha Paul Younan

This is a hilarious post, mostly a re-hash of nonsense we've heard and read over the years.

Brantana - is there any way to get a hold of this fellow and invite him to a 1-on-1 debate with me, broadcast live right here on the website? I'll make sure to record it as well, so we can replay it over and over again whenever we need a good laugh. I would love the opportunity.....let's see how much he REALLY knows.

PS - Akhay, get a load of his statement:

Quote:
"I have not seen any indications that Aramaic was a literary language at that time."

Akhi Andrew, do you have a spare set of grade school-level encyclopedias to donate to this unfortunate soul? Not a literary language? Does this man realize that Aramaic was a literary language 1,000 years before Meshikha was born?

While you're chuckling at that, get a load of this one:

Quote:
....since it appears that the original teachings of Jesus were in Aramaic.

... Brantana, never mind the request to invite him to a debate, I didn't realize this guy's a joke ..... it really wouldn't be fair.

8 Andrew Gabriel Roth

I admit I wanted to hold my tongue once I saw this information, but more because of the time constraints that I am under for obvious reasons. But I think it is kind of ironic that this "professor" was attacking Raphael Lataster's book since that book currently using to great effect the "______ for Dummies Book" pattern, and that's really what teacher-man SHOULD try to read. I would have sent him some of my leftover of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named's stuff but:

1) It will make him more ignorant, not less and
2) I already used up my supply of printed bathroom tissue for the week!

The whole thing about Aramaic NT books not having survived though was a real hoot.

9

He actually is available for debate. When I stumbled onto his website I wanted to discuss with him. After tearing apart his points one by one, he sent me a 10-page email full of gibberish, with many opinions, and no facts. I didn't bother proceeding, it would have been a waste of time to write a response, and a waste of time trying to get through to him. Better focus on the many that are willing to listen, than the few who are not.

Other comments in that thread are hilarious, and is worth looking at for the information on Josephus' writing in Aramaic.

He has a few pages on his site, and none address any of the KJV Howlers that we have posted, even though he had an (early) copy of Lasater's book we drew them from!

[rgprice]

This is indeed frustrating, and I'm sympathetic to the plight, because mythicism gets treated in much the same way. I'd like to see a real scholarly rebuttal to the "Split Words". To me, the argument put forward regarding the split words seems quite convincing, but without more linguistic knowledge I can't really pass judgement. Are these translational claims legitimate? Are there any counter examples? Are there cases where there are different words in different manuscripts that cannot be explained as having originated from Aramaic translation?