Was the New Testament Originally Written in Aramaic?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Raphael Lataster/Christopher Lancaster wrote a book called Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek1e
where he gives a long list of examples where he demonstrates PeshittA primacy - I find it convincing. The theological differences to the GNT are not huge, but are significant.

Take a look and see what you think. It's not a big book - you can read it in an evening.

I probably have never seen a thesis that gives a first concrete example which seems to completely refute that thesis. Lataster wrote:

Now let us look at the evidence!

1. Burn or boast? – 1Corinthians 13:3

The KJV says: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

The ISV says: “Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.”

Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay-
Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIV-UK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).

The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.

Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.
Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root dqy can mean “to burn”, but can also mean “to boast”. It is clear that the disagreement in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic original.

Here is the verse from the Peshitta, translated by Paul Younan:
“And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

The reading καυχςσωμαι (kauchswmai, “I might boast”) is in Greek manuscripts like Ì46 Í A B 048 33 1739*.
The competing reading, καυθςσομαι (kauqhsomai, “I will burn”), is found in Greek manuscripts such as C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: καυθςσωμαι (kauqhswmai) (“I might burn”) and καυθη∋ (“it might be burned”) read by 1505.

Dr. Bruce Metzger (famous Greek primacist) notes that the latter reading is a “grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, page 498).
This is clear evidence of the Aramaic roots of the various Greek texts.

There are the following text variants in 1 Corinthians 13:3

καυθήσομαι	- C D F G L 6 81 88vid 104 263 436 459 630 1175 1881* 1912 1985 Lectpt lAD Macarius/Symeon1/2 Flavian-Antioch Cyril Euthalius Maximus-Confessor
καυθήσωμαι	- K Ψ 181 256 326 (330* καθήσωμαι) 330c 365 424 451 614 629 1319 1573 1739c 1852 1881c 1962 1984 2200 2464 Byz Lectpt itar itb itd itdem ite itf itg itm ito itt itx vg syrh(mg) gothtext arm (eth) slav Tertullian Methodius Origenlat Rebaptism Cyprian Jacob-Nisibis Ambrosiaster Zeno Aphraates Ephraem Basil Pacian Gregory-Nyssa Macarius/Symeon1/2 Petilianus Chrysostom2/3 Pelagius Jerome1/3 Augustine35/37 Speculum Theodoret John-Damascus Greek and Latin mssaccording to Jerome ς NR CEI ND Riv Dio TILC Nv
καυθήσεται	- 1877 2492 syrp syrh
καυθῇ	- 2127 l1443 (vgmss) Chrysostom1/3 (Augustine2/35)
καυχήσωμαι	- p46 ‭א A B (048 καυχήσομαι) 0150 33 69 1739* copsa copbo gothmg Clement Origen Didymus Jerome2/3 mssaccording to Jerome WH NA NM

Isn't it obvious that these text variants could only have been created by copyists due to the very close similarity of the two Greek words?

καυθήσομαι - burn
καυθήσωμαι - burn
καυχήσωμαι - boast

[ebion]

I probably have never seen a thesis that gives a first concrete example which seems to completely refute that thesis. :scratch: Lataster wrote:

No - I'd guess you have never judged a thesis: it does not fail on one example when it's amongst:

1. 38 Split Word examples
2. 27 Semi Split Word examples
3. 28 Poetry and Word Play examples
4. 16 Semitic Idioms examples

just to start with.

I pulled what I felt are the clearest examples of his and redid them with the modern PeshittA tools that they didn't have when it was written (2005-2008), and stopped after a dozen went unrefuted.

Isn't it obvious that these text variants could only have been created by copyists due to the very close similarity of the two ...words?

No - it's not obvious. Your assumption that text variants in Greek could have been created by copyists does not even address the example: it refutes nothing. What copyists could have done is not nearly as strong an argument as citing a language's lexicons for recognized homonyms. Could you have done better?

In fact, your table of Greek text variants makes a vivid point: there are multitudes of Greek texts, even families of Greek texts, but in the AramaicNT there are 4-5 complete manuscripts of exactly the same text, athough they span centuries.

If you want to be helpful, try your hand at the KJV Howlers.

[StephenGoranson]

Whether the KJV is the best NT translation is a different question
than whether the NT was originally written in Aramaic.

[ebion]

In another thread there was a vacuous posting in response to a list of quotations I posted by James Trimm,, showing that all of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to the Hebrew and/or Aramaic origin of at least the Book of Matthew. Trimm avoided the echo chamber of Greek-only thinking, and quoted Isho'-dadh, of Merv, a famous Church of the East bishop who wrote an extensive commentary on the PeshittA.

His work was translated into English by one of the Gibson sisters:

1. https://archive.org/download/ishodadofm ... aduoft.pdf
2. https://archive.org/download/ishodadofm ... aduoft.pdf
3. https://archive.org/download/ishodadofm ... aduoft.pdf

The Commentaries are a valuable cross-check that validate the inerrancy of text of the PeshittA.

[StephenGoranson]

Though gMatthew may or may not have had a Semitic origin,
"inerrancy" in the previous post
raises a red flag.

[ebion]

Western Tradition teaches that New Testament is written in Greek while many of Eastern Tradition, especially Assyrian Church of the East (ACofE) teaches that New Testament is written in Aramaic.

This issue goes deeper than I thought. A fundamental concept in early christianity is the 70 early christians that helped the 12 Apostles, starting under the Jamesian church in Jerusalem, often called the disciples of the disciples, or the apostles with a lower-case "a".

If I am to believe Wickedpaedia, there are two well known collections of the list of 70:

• one is (dubiously) attributed to Hippolytus of Rome , or pseudo Irenaeus in Greek
• the other to Bishop Solomon of Basra of the Church of the East, in Syriac

But the 2 lists are (quite) different.

So far an Early Christian, the choice of language for your bible may influence your choice of who you consider to be in the Early Church.

See also:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226171 ... -irenaeus/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226171 ... onymus-ii/
https://books.google.com/books/download ... g3AQAAMAAJ
https://archive.org/details/bookofbee00solo/
https://archive.org/details/Introductio ... okOfTheBee

[ebion]

In my list of English translations of the PeshittA I did not mention the well known Lamsa version. I have my own misgivings about it, but I found this post by an Armaicist I respect:

Once you actually check the Lamsa version against the actual readings as found in the Aramaic text, (you can do this at Dukhrana, even if you can't read the Estrangela script)...you won't be a fan of his work anymore. His English style might be smoother than some are, true...but it is one of the worst versions out there for accuracy.

I am now calling it The King James Lamsa Bible. In many places it is a straight King James Version reading, ignoring the actual Aramaic wording. It's weird. I don't know how much Lamsa had control over his translation after he sold it to the company...but it is NOT the Peshitta in many verses. It's a hybrid text of Aramaic and Greek sources, and just plain ole KJV plagiarism.

(Edit) And..."why have you departed from me?" or perhaps a better rendering is "for what did you leave me?" is what I believe Jesus, in His humanity said to His Father that day on the Cross, when he became a curse for our sake. "Forsaken" is not what it was, as if God had rejected His Son, but, it was a departing from, or, leaving him there, as He died on the Cross, apart from God, as the Aramaic text says in Hebrews 2:9. David Bauscher tried to tell me that The Father and The Holy Spirit also died on the Cross...and even before Jesus did...which is of course absurd.

A large part of the problem is that the manuscript Lamsa said he did his translation from, the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript, no one has ever heard of, and he wouldn't show it to anybody. Shamasha Paul Younan says a little about this:

I have no idea what the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript is. I have a feeling it's changed names since Lamsa used it. That's probably why the publisher of his translation calls it "so-called Mortimer-McCawley manuscript."

Some speculate that manuscript was based on the the 1846 Urmiyah New Testament, which may be a sorta easternish mix. Lamsa was apparently not translating from what we consider to be the known good manuscripts, and to this date, no one knows exactly what he used.

[Ulan]

I probably have never seen a thesis that gives a first concrete example which seems to completely refute that thesis.

Yeah, that was my reaction, too. I checked one example (the eunuch/believer one), saw that it failed, and that was it. Didn't Lataster move on from this topic, too?

[ebion]

This isn't a KJV Howler, but it's a KJV Blooper:

Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:24 [KJV])

" loosed the pains of death" makes NO sense.

Shamasha Paul Younan explains:

Now - if you're sitting there scratching your head and wondering what this saying means - that's good - you should be because it makes no sense at all.

In Aramaic, this verse reads:

"Whom God raised up, having loosed the hylbx of Sheol, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

Now, everyone knows that Sheol is normally translated into Greek as "death" or "grave" - so we should expect that that occurred in this verse.

What is so unexpected is how the Greek translators of Acts totally missed the proper translation of hylbx

hylbx comes from a root that can mean "pain/travail/corruption" (#6167) - and in fact it's used with that meaning in verses like Acts 2:27 (just 3 verses from the one in question) or Acts 13:34-37. This is the majority reading - "pain/travail/corruption."

However, there is a minority meaning to hylbx, or more accurately, the lexeme of this word which is fbx (#6165)

That meaning is "rope" or "cable" - as used in John 2:15 and Acts 27:32 (with the exact same lexeme & word spelling) - THAT'S THE MEANING THAT BELONGS IN ACTS 2:24 !!!

The verse should read Jennings:

"Whom God raised up, having loosed the ropes of Sheol, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

How much more sense does THAT make? Here, Shimon Keepa is saying that Sheol could not hold him - because God raised him up - having loosed the figurative ropes that held Him there.

More references - the same saying as in 2 Samuel 22:6 - this time in the Psalms:

"The cords (Khebel) of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me." (Psalms 18:5)

"The cords (Khebel) of death encompassed me, And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow" (Psalms 116:3)

The HAS renders Acts 2:24 as:

But, God raised Him, and loosened the cords of Sheul, on account that it was not possible that He should be held in Sheul. (Acts 2:24 [HAS])

[DCHindley]

early "Christians" who may have edited or wrote the NT books to have been gentiles,

Not so: the early Christians ,who may have edited or wrote the NT books, were Hebrews who spoke Aramaic as their daily language. Their leader after Jesus was his brother James the Just who was exceptionally honored in the Temple by the High Priest according to one of the Earliest Christian writers

... Hegessippus, who wrote in his BOOK V of his 5 volume work:

He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's,

The Jamesian church was the precursor to the Ebioneans. I think you are inventing quotations of the OT in a context that does not appear to be a quotation, in a book written by MarcionOrLater, who hated the OT.

I do agree that Jesus's "brother" continued his work after Jesus' untimely death, but I do not buy the legendary depiction of the trial and execution of "James the Just" relayed by Hegesippus, in a work preserved only here as a fragment in a citation by Eusebius. It is too fabulous, and doesn't really cohere with the account of the trial of a James (with a brother Jesus) in Ant 20.200.

This may be an area which you should research here, as Hegesippus' James the Just account has been discussed here since 2013. Ken Olson, who has his own position on the origin of the TF (Ant 18), touches on the trial of a James before Ananus in Ant 20, and Origen's belief that Josephus had once blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James the Just.

I have also researched this matter to death. You might like my research on why Hegesippus said that James was nicknamed "Oblias." There is a table showing a little Hebrew analysis, which you might find entertaining.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2540&p=57087&hilit=Oblias#p57087

DCH