I thank you for the reply! I am happy to hear their case, even if I disagree with it.
In Greek NT manuscripts, Jesus mentions Aramaic words like "Talitha Cumi", "Elahi Elahi lemana sabachthani", etc. Aramaic primacists believe that New Testament is completely written in Aramaic. Not in Greek.
I understand that this is their claim. However I don't see how a few transliterated quotes from Jesus indicates that there is a "lost" Aramaic
original that the Greek texts were created from. We have little doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic primarily (though his understanding Greek and possibly
Hebrew as well is not unlikely). But this does not mean that the original texts were Aramaic. It may be that the "Q" Document was Aramaic, but this is nothing
more than a list of common sayings that were used by the Synoptic writers.
So even in a best case scenario ("Aramaic Q") this would not indicate the Four Gospels originally existed in Aramaic and then were translated into Koine Greek.
Next, this does not indicate that any of the other NT documents (there are 27 after all, not just the four Gospels) were written in Aramaic. The only Patristic "Evidence" we have for any of the NT documents being in a language other than Greek is the Gospel of Matthew. But as no fragments predating the Greek have been discovered, this remains supposition. Some feel that the Church Fathers who reported this were in error or meant something else.
This belief is strengthened by the testimony of Jewish Historian Josephus in first century AD. Here are some of the details provided by Josephus.
Jewish Historian Josephus wrote –
“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 of Jews XX, XI
(The precise references is
Antiquities 20:11:2We might view a larger context to the quote you provided here:
And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; 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 long 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 languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.
When we view the quote in context, it does not appear that there is actually a bias against Jews learning other languages, but that this is not seen as a great accomplishment by them compared to memorizing and interpreting the Jewish Law. Here I think too it seems Josephus is being humble, apologizing for the imperfectness of his writing (something we see in some other ancient works).
Now unless I'm reading him wrong (this is from William Whiston, 1737 in the public domain), it sounds like the "Learning" that Josephus is talking about as having been so rare in his time and so greatly rewarded, is NOT the mastery of Greek (which he says is considered "common") but that of memorizing the Jewish Law and being able to interpret it. So that quote would seem to mean precisely the opposite of what you (or the person you quoted) intended it to mean (that is, to imply that Jews who wrote and understood Greek were a rarity in his day).
When viewing the context of this quote, we can see that it is perfectly in keeping with other examples (like Paul, Philo and the LXX) that many Jews of this time period were quite capable of being literate in both Greek and "their own language" (whether we say that is Hebrew or Aramaic). The quote with the ellipses points is ambiguous, but the full context is not.
Now none of this proves anything about the NT per se, but it does establish that it is very plausible that the NT was written originally in Greek.
According to Flavius Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Jewish Wars 5:9:2).
The relevant quote is here:
But then Titus, knowing that the city would be either saved or destroyed for himself, did not only proceed earnestly in the siege, but did not omit to have the Jews exhorted to repentance; so he mixed good counsel with his works for the siege. And being sensible that exhortations are frequently more effectual than arms, he persuaded them to surrender the city, now in a manner already taken, and thereby to save themselves, and sent Josephus to speak to them in their own language; for he imagined they might yield to the persuasion of a countryman of their own.
It doesn't say what language. Was Titus a speaker of Greek or Latin? It seems that the particular language used was less important than that it was Josephus, "a countryman of their own" who was persuading the surrender.
If we are making a universal claim that being Jewish meant you only understood Aramaic, and therefore the early Christians would have only written in Aramaic is not a very compelling one, as it assumes many things. It assumes people like Josephus were anomalies, ignoring the fact that people like Philo and Paul (who wrote before the Gospels) contemporary to Jesus, and that there was already a precedent for Greek speaking Jews via the LXX more than a century earlier. We know that there were Greek speaking Jews from the stories of the Maccabbees and so forth.
Next we have the fact that more quotations of the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament come from the LXX, not the Hebrew (unless we presume a lost "Hebrew" that the disciples had access to which was closer to the LXX than the Hebrew). Unless we presume that the hypothetical "Greek translators" (of the "lost Aramaic NT") substituted quotations from the LXX but not in every case (Why not? Do we presume that they had only fragmentary Hebrew copies and so used the LXX most of the time?).
Next, the fact is that much of the NT is written to a formerly Gentile audience or else Hellenized Jews living in Greek speaking territories. What kind of sense does it make to presume that for some reason these persons would adopt Aramaic instead (as a liturgical language you might argue, but as a language of communication in letters?)? Why would (mostly Gentile) Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians, and Thessalonians all need to have letters sent to them in Aramaic?
It is clear that some of the Gospels (ex: Mark) are written to a Gentile audience (how many gentiles spoke Aramaic as their primary language in those times?), needing to explain Jewish law, customs and prophecy as if the audience doesn't know these things. So if they need to explain what Judaism is, why would they also not need to put it in a language understood by Gentiles? What is the logic in believing it was first written in Aramaic?
The thing is, I can see that perhaps these theorists are thinking "well first you write it down in your native tongue, THEN you write another copy in a new language for the benefit of your audience." Well why not translate it "on the fly" (so to speak) with a bilingual scribe (or a bilingual literate witness)?
Why is that implausible? The existence of a written source for at least part of the material does not change this fact. But a preserved list of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic is not out of the question, but it does not imply an Aramaic original for any of the texts that quote Jesus. There are portions of Aramaic in the Old Testament as well, but nobody uses that argument to say that therefore the entire Old Testament was originally written in Aramaic (perhaps that's a slightly different case, but still).
One topic often used as supporting evidence of Greek primacy, is that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus. The Greek NT says that they were Greek, but Aramaic New Testament tells us that they were actually Arameans (Acts 16:1, Galatians 2:3).
Sorry, where does it say this?
(NASB)
Acts 16:1:
"Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek,"
Galatians 2:3
"But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."
If you want to say that there are Aramaic copies of Galatians and Acts which substitute "Greek" with "Aramean" fine, but can you demonstrate that those Aramaic copies or fragments are OLDER than the Greek ones?
If I translated the NT into Russian and changed it so it said that Timothy and Titus were Russians, would that mean anything? Only if we could prove that the
Russian copy was older than the others.
Through Matthew 4:24-25, Luke 6:17, and Mark 3:7-8, it is revealed that Multitudes came from Galilee, Syria, Judaea, Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon, and from beyond Jordan to hear the discourse of Jesus and to be healed of their diseases. Aramaic Primacist William Norton provided this information (below) in his 1889 book.
Which is more plausible... that all of these people understood Aramaic, or that they spoke a common language like Greek? We don't even need to presume that Jesus spoke Greek to these crowds (plausible as that could have been), but even today Westerners go to visit Hindu gurus despite the language barrier. If you think this is a "Great man" who can heal you, you will go, plus there were people around who could "translate" (even before any miraculous thoughts of translation as in the book of Acts).
Of course, even if we assume that Aramaic was the linguica franca of the region at the time of Jesus (which is a major assumption), why would we need to assume that the Gospels (written perhaps four decades or more later to a mostly Gentile audience) would also need to be in Aramaic? The Gospels were not written to that original audience, were they? The Gospels appear to be written to people who joined the movement sometime after Jesus' death.
At one point I believe even the book of Acts says that Paul preached in the Hebrew tongue (not every time, just on a specific occasion). Why would that fact need to be mentioned, if we are reading a text already in the "Hebrew tongue" to an audience that is primarily in the "Hebrew tongue" (some have interepreted "Hebrew tongue" as meaning Aramaic, but even so, my point is that Paul is bilingual, but why bother mentioning the language if it's the same as what it's written in... we might as well mention that George Washington once gave a speech in English, whereas if he gave a speech in French that would be more noteworthy).
Page ix-x (Introduction) – “Josephus is a very important witness in proof of the extent to which Syriac was known and used in the first century. He took part in the war against the Romans which led to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. He was taken captive by them, and was well acquainted with all the events connected with the war. He wrote a history of it in Syriac;
I'm pretty sure scholars agree that Josephus wrote "the Jewish War" (aka The Wars of the Jews) in Greek. The Syriac version dates to the 12th century, and as such is a translation. Are we now going to also argue for Aramaic primary for Josephus as well?
Edit: I may be confusing Antiquities with the Jewish War here. The Wikipedia page is a poor substitute for research, but even it indicates that there are Hebrew and Greek versions of The Jewish War that each include material the other lacks. I'd have to ask a real scholar of this material which is thought to be more original. But Josephus' works were certainly translated into other languages and he himself was multi-lingual.
In the end though, even if Josephus never wrote a word of Greek, this would not logically prove that the NT must have been originally in Aramaic (or even that any of it was, short of the few transliterated quotes of Jesus).
and states how great a multitude of people, living in different nations, from near the Caspian Sea to the bounds of Arabia, could read and understand what he had written in Syriac. He afterwards wrote the same history in Greek, that those who spoke Greek, and those of the Romans, and of any other nation who knew Greek, but did not know Syriac, might read it also.”
So that's his theory from the 19th century. Is there any more current scholarship on Josephus and what languages he wrote in? (Besides the speculations of these Aramaic NT primacists, that is)
More informations about this are available at this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament#Methods_of_argument
There's another problem with arguing that if you translate one language into another, it sounds like the latter language. Well of course it does...
If I translated Harry Potter into Russian and thought "this sounds like Russian" I don't see how that would be a valid argument to say that the Harry Potter we find in English is actually a translation FROM a Russian original. Even if we discovered that Harry Potter was most popular in Russian-speaking areas today or that JK Rowling knew Russian.
So while these arguments are interesting, I don't find them particularly compelling and if that's the best they've got, I can see why modern scholarship has not joined the Aramaic primacists' camp.
It's simply a matter of historical curiosity either way. But I sense that for these folks it's more a matter of national pride and even doctrinal distinctiveness that their position be correct. Either way, I guess this will
go on forever, until such time as we actually find some more ancient Aramaic copies or fragments of any of the NT documents to strengthen their case.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
rexshard93
11 years ago
I wish I could put more details.
The problem is whenever I write certain keywords here, it just becomes *beep*. They are not profane words at all. But I can't post informations containing them, because Imdb sees them as profane words. I am talking about the name of Aramaic NT.
What I was trying to say about Timothy and Titus was they are Arameans in Aramaic NT in Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3. Arameans are the Gentiles who spoke Aramaic.
Jewish Historian Josephus himself states that he wrote Jewish Wars formerly in the language of his country before he translated it into Greek tongue for the sake such as live under the government of Romans.
Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1) - "I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work].""
We know that his nation spoke another language. But he doesn't reveal which language. But it can be Hebrew or Aramaic.
But in Greek NT, we see Jesus saying Aramaic words "Talitha Cumi", "Elahi Elahi sabachthani", etc. But whenever Aramaic words are mentioned in NT, it is mentioned as Hebrew. In NT, Aramaic was called Hebrew, because it was the tongue of Jews (or Hebrews) who are the descendants of Abraham who is called a Hebrew in Genesis 14. In 1800s, when British controlled India, Indians used to call English "British Language." This is because British Language is the language of British People. So when Indians said "you speak British language" in 1800s, they are referring to English. I know this information, because I am from India.
I want to point out something.
If Jesus was really speaking Hebrew, then he would have used "Yaldah" instead of Talitha in Talitha Cumi. This is because Yaldah is used in Hebrew. Talitha is an Aramaic word.
In our English Bible or Greek NT, you will see lots of names starting with Bar - Bartholomew, Barabbas, Barsabbas, Barnabbas, Barjonah, Barjesus, etc. Aramaic word "Bar" means Son. In Hebrew, Ben is used for son. Not Bar. For Example, Benjamin in Old Testament.
But let's go with other evidences. I will put "Aramaic NT" instead of its actual name in the quote, because imdb will show it as *beep*
Here are other supporters of Aramaic primacy.
With reference to the originality of the "Aramaic NT" text the Church "received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself...which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." - Mar Eshai Shimun, California, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, April 5, 1957.
"I have no reason to doubt that "Aramaic NT" is superior to that of the Greek. It was handed down to us by the Apostles through the scribes and preserved to us in our very own generation. No other version written in any other language can claim such authenticity and antiquity." - Patriarch Mar Dalin I, China in the 1800's, Assembly of Jerusalem
"Undoubtedly the "Aramaic NT", written in the Aramaic language of the East, contains the pure and untainted Word of the Messiah." - Mar Yokhanan Dalin III, Portugal in 1980, Assembly of Jerusalem
"We have in the "Aramaic NT" the preserved word of Our Lord unchanged from the time of the Apostles." - HH Patriarch Mar Michai, Detroit in 1989, Assembly of Jerusalem.
"Christ, after all spoke in the language of His contemporaries. He offered the first sacrifice of the Eucharist in Aramaic, a language understood by all the people who heard Him. The Apostles and Disciples did the same and never in a language other than that of the gathered faithful." - Latin Patriarch Maximus, Vatican.
Let me give an example of mistranslation.
In Mark 14:3, Jesus was in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany in Greek NT. In Leviticus 13:46, we read that the dwelling of Lepers should be outside of camp. In "Aramaic NT", it says Simon the Potter in Mark 14:3. Aramaic word Garibo means Potter and Aramaic word Garobo means Leper. Garibo can be confused with Garobo, because it was written without vowel markers in first century. While Aramaic words are identifical, they are not in Hebrew. The Hebrew for a potter is yotser while leper is tsaru'a.
One of the zealot leaders who fought against Romans in Jewish Wars was called Simon Bar Giora. Notice the word "Bar." Bar is Aramaic for son. If it was Hebrew, then it would have been Simon Ben Giora.
I want to put more information. Sadly, many of them will come up as *beep*
reply
share
kurgan-10
11 years ago
Ah yes, the P E S H I T T A. It's not talking about manure, it's a document collection in Aramaic. Yeah, that's a problem with IMDB, I sympathize.
A fuller response may come later as I have more time, but in Acts 16:1 for example, the father of Timothy (or Timotheus) is called a "Hellen" in Greek, which means "a Greek" (meaning either someone with Greek nationality or someone who at the very least spoke the Greek language, if not observed the various customs and so forth of the Greek people). Sometimes it is used to mean Gentiles (as opposed to Jews). This is the same word ("Hellen") which is used to refer to Titus in Galatians 2:3. See here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1672&; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;t=KJV (scroll to the bottom to see the many references).
What is the word for "Greek" in Aramaic? What is the word for "Aramean" in Aramaic or in Greek?
the P E S H I T T A is interesting, but it is newer than the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, thus it does not prove that the NT existed in Aramaic first.
The P E S H I T T A is probably second century, at the earliest. This was the time when both the Old Testament was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew and also the New Testament from the Greek. However the P E S H I T T A that would have existed in the 2nd century CE would have been missing several books, that had to be added to it later (1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, James, Jude and Revelation). Certainly by the 5th century it became standard for the Syriac church(es), but that's about it. Everybody else was using Greek or Latin (or the Ge'ez language in Ethiopia).
I (happily) stand correct on the language Josephus wrote the "Wars of the Jews" in originally.
With reference to the originality of the "Aramaic NT" text the Church "received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself...which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." - Mar Eshai Shimun, California, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, April 5, 1957.
With respect to His Beatitude, upon what evidence from ancient tradition was he making this claim? Was this an infallible statement, or can we question it? Again, I can see how some take this as an article of faith, but most Christians have no problem disagreeing. So what was HIS evidence? Again, no disrespect intended to the late Patriarch (or any of the other modern Patriarchs you quoted).
It's one thing to say that the Church of the East has maintained pristine copies of the P E S H I T T A since they got it (between the 2nd and 5th centuries), but it's quite another to claim that the Apostles themselves handed these documents complete to them and that these were the "originals." And no offense, but there are variants of EVERY version of the biblical texts in every language (which doesn't speak against any belief in inerrant doctrine but still).
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
rexshard93
11 years ago
In Aramaic PESH ITTA Acts 16:1 says that father of Timotheus is Aramayan and Galatians 2:3 says Titus is an Aramayan.
In Aramaic, the word for Greek is Iavanoya.
In Aramaic, the word for Aramean is Aramaya. Aramaya is an Aramaic speaking Gentile.
According to the ancient tradition, 22 books of PESH ITTA were given by Mar Yehuda (Jude the Apostle of Jesus). St. Ephraem and Mar Aprahat are among the church fathers of Church of the East who used PESH ITTA I know Famous Church Historian Jerome in 4th century AD praised Ephraem for his christian poetry works. Pesh itta.org owner Paul Younan has all of the records of the ancient tradition of Church of the East.
In India, the tradition is that PESH ITTA was given in South India by Apostle Thomas. PESH ITTA was one of documents destroyed by Portuguese in early 1600s in Kerala. Detailed history of this conflicting incident was published by Michael Geddes in his book "The History of the Church of Malabar, from the Time of Its Being First Discover'd by the Portuguezes in the Year 1501" around 1694.
Anyway, I wanted to show something. I don't think I can explain this.
I think its better to show you through these 2 videos why I consider PESH ITTA as original. This video was published by Mencel89 on youtube. It is about Romans 5:7-8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w&list=PL0A7DCAA4C01F03C8&;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCaDPsq6Lgc&list=PL0A7DCAA4C01F03C8
reply
share
kurgan-10
11 years ago
I'll watch the videos, but once again I see the problem as this:
The P E S H I T T A we have are all translations from the Greek. That's right FROM THE GREEK. If I take a copy of Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" and translate it into French, I can't then use that French translation to argue that the Canterbury Tales was originally in French, no matter how great the French sounds or how much I might prefer it to the English. You can try it yourself to see if re-translating something gets it "closer to the original."
Go find an online translation and translate a text into another language. Then take the result of that translation and translate it back into the original language and compare the results. Is it really "closer to the original" in terms of content and meaning? "Sounding like" is one thing, but meaning is distorted and even lost in this way, which is why scholars when translating try to do as little of that sort of thing as possible and go directly from one language to another, providing annotations to explain the inexactness.
No Aramaic fragment or copy of a NT book exists that is earlier than the Greek copies or fragments we already have.
Thus, while you can cite all the traditions you like (which incidentally are an extreme minority amongst the ancient Christian Traditions), but without
evidence, it's a bit like somebody claiming that the Vulgate is the
original bible.
Until somebody can produce an aramaic copy of the NT that predates the Greek copies, I consider this a case of wishful thinking on the part of certain sectarian believers who happen to have a few fringe scholars on their side.
Look, I'd love it if they found "Aramaic Matthew" and vindicated the early tradition mentioned by St. Irenaeus. But I doubt they'll ever find a complete
(or even mostly complete) Aramaic NT. They could start with finding
ANY NT books that have Aramaic versions that are older than the Greek. Speculating that they're being hoarded somewhere is not proof.
So I'll say it here, the P E S H I T T A "original" theory is bogus.
The Assyrian Church of the East guys are propping it up because it aggrandizes their tradition's prestige, and some others are promoting it because they think it gives them "wiggle room" to change ancient Christian doctrines, by proclaiming that the Bible has been "misunderstood" all this time. Simply not liking traditional Christian doctrines and what the Bible actually says is not an excuse to do sloppy scholarship.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
rexshard93
11 years ago
kurgan,
You don't have to be harsh by calling Pesh-itta being original as bogus. I did take it as an insult. That's why I didn't want to reply for a long time.
But as a human, I decided to give one more reply.
1) Acts 1:19 - "And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood."
"Akel dama" is Greek transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama."
We clearly see "Field of Blood" was called "Khqel Dama" by all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language which is Aramaic.
If I translate aramaic words "Khqel Dama" into Hebrew, then "Khqel Dama" will become "Sh'deh Hadam."
Through this, we can read that all inhabitants of Jerusalem spoke in their own language in first century AD which was Aramaic. If Hebrew was used as spoken language in first century Israel, then "Sh'deh Hadam" would have been mentioned along with "Khqel Dama" (a.k.a akel dama in Greek and English NT) in Acts 1:19.
Here is the link to Acts Chapter 1 (Hebrew translation from Greek)
http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Acts_1.pdf
You will see "s'deh Hadam" at the end of Acts 1:19. To match the words, see S'deh (Green color) and Field (Green Color). Hadam (in purple color) and Blood (in purple color).
So we read that there is no indication of not even a single person speaking Hebrew.
Aramaic word Bar
Aramaic word "Bar" means son. But in Hebrew, Ben means son ("Ben"jamin in Old Testament). Just look at the names in our English New Testament Bible.
"Bar"tholomew, "Bar"abbas, "Bar"nabbas, "Bar"sabbas, Simon "Bar" Jonah, "Bar" Jesus, "Bar"timaeus, etc.
David "Ben" Gurion was the first Israeli Prime Minister. The biggest airport in Israel is Ben Gurion International Airport in memory of David Ben Gurion.
In Antiquities of Jews Book 3, Josephus points out that Hebrews called Pentecost "Asartha." Asartha is Aramaic, because Aramaic places the definite article "tha" at the end of the word. This is the same thing with the Aramaic word Talitha (Mark 5:41).
If Hebrew was spoken during first century AD, then Josephus would have also written that Hebrews called Pentecost "Ha Atzeret"or the common Hebrew name for Pentecost "Shavuot."
So we can confirm that Jews didn't use Hebrew as a spoken language. According to Israeli Archaelogist Yigael Yadin (who is famous for his researches on Dead Sea Scrolls), it was Simon Bar Kokhba who tried to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). Yigael Yadin also noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD).
In Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar-Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state" (Page 181).
2) When they say Hebrew in New Testament, they are referring to their Hebrew tongue which is Aramaic.
John 19:17 (ESV) - "and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha."
Golgotha is Aramaic, because Aramaic places the definite article at the end of the word, thus the 'tha' at the end of 'Golgotha' is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun. Unlike Aramaic, the definite article of Hebrew is in the beginning of the word ("Ha").
If I write Golgotha in Hebrew, then "Golgotha" will become "Ha Gulgoleth."
In John 19:17 of KJV, we see John calling "Golgotha" Hebrew. When he says "Hebrew", he is referring to Aramaic spoken by Hebrews. Aramaic spoken in Judea was known as Judean Aramaic (or Southern Aramaic). Aramaic spoken Galilee and Syrian regions were known as Northern Aramaic or Suristi by Greeks.
Like Hebrew, we use the definite article ("the") in the beginning of a word in English. For example, we say "the car" in English. We never say "car the."
That is why NIV, ESV, and other bible versions write "Golgotha, Gabbatha, etc." as Aramaic instead of Hebrew.
Notice that Peter was exposed by his Galilean Aramaic speech among people (Matthew 26:73 and Mark 14:70). Judeans used Dead Scrolls Alphabet to write Aramaic while Syrians commonly used Estrangela Alphabet to write Aramaic in first century AD. Although Northern Aramaic and South Aramaic were mutually intelligible just like British English and American English, still Galilean accent of Aramaic would have sounded to the Judean Aramaic somewhat like Cockney sounds to a British aristocrat.
Here is the link to John 19:17 - http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/John_19.pdf
You will see Ha Gul'goleth and Skull in pink color.
Let me give a famous example HAARETZ is a newspaper in Today's Israel. ARETZ means Land. HAARETZ means "The Land."
reply
share
kurgan-10
11 years ago
Thank you for replying. I am going to link a page that contains some useful information on Aramaic Primacy and some of the evidence and arguments against it.
Take a look and see what you think:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4146/what-arguments-ex ist-that-would-refute-the-theory-concerning-aramaic-primacy-of
reply
share
rexshard93
11 years ago
Yes, I have read it. But there are couple of problems in it.
One of the problems in the link is claiming that Mishnaic Hebrew as common language of the people in first century AD.
Through New Testament and Josephus, we know that nobody spoke Hebrew. High Priests at Jerusalem preserved Old Hebrew only for religious purposes.
Since nobody spoke Hebrew, Aramaic Old Testament (Pesh-itta Tanakh) was used in first century AD.
We know that when they say Hebrew, they were referring to their Hebrew tongue which was Aramaic(Golgotha, Akel Dama, etc.).
Like I pointed out before, Aramaic spoken in Judea and Idumea is slightly different from Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syrian regions. Difference is just like the difference between British English and American English. Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syria were called Syriac or Suristi while Aramaic spoken in Judea and Idumea is called Hebrew (referring to their Hebrew tongue) in first century AD.
Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syria is also known as Northern Aramaic. Northern Aramaic was written in Estrangela script while Aramaic used in Judea and Idumea (known as Southern Aramaic) was written in Dead Sea Scrolls Script.
We know Jesus grew up in Galilee and we see Jesus speaking Aramaic in New Testament (Talitha Cumi, Elohi Elohi lama sabachthani, etc.).
We also know that Peter is called Cephas (John 1:42, Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 1:12, etc). Cephas is Greek transliteration of Aramaic word "Kaypha" (also written as Kefa) which means stone. Peter is Greek translation of Aramaic word "Kaypha." We also see Jesus calling Peter "Kaypha" in The Passion of the Christ.
We also know that the language that represents Jesus Christ is Aramaic.
Galatians 4:4-6 (NIV) - "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father."
We see Aramaic word Abba and the translation of Abba which is father. If I translate Aramaic word "Abba" into Hebrew, then it will become "Ha Ab."
Aside from NT and Josephus, we also know that one of the 3 zealot leaders who fought against Romans during Jewish Wars (66 AD - 70 AD) was Simon Bar Giora.
"Bar Giora" means Son of A Proselyte in Aramaic. Giora is Aramaic word for Proselyte. "a" at the end of both Abba and Giora is Aramaic definite article on a masculine noun in an emphatic state.
Also notice the name Bar Kokhba. Bar Kokhba is Aramaic which means Son of A star (referring to the prophecy in Numbers 24:17).
But when Bar Kokhba came to power in 131 AD, Bar Kokhba tried to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state, because Hebrew is considered as the holy language of the state. Since his purpose was to restore Israel, he restored Hebrew and tried to restore the efforts of Hasmoneans and early leaders, by minting them on coin in Hebrew. He also did this for the purpose of honoring them.
In US, We have George Washington on $1 bill and Abraham Lincoln on $5 bill. This is for purpose of acknowledging them as Presidents and also for the purpose of honoring their efforts.
In AD 33, We know that Field of Blood was called Khqel Dama (a.k.a Akeldama) which is Aramaic by all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This ranges from a small child who could speak Aramaic to an old person of 95 years or older who speaks Aramaic.
So the oldest people (95 or older) who lived during AD 33 was born around the time period when Hasmonean John Hyrcanus II was in power (67 BC-40 BC). If Hebrew was spoken during the period of Hasmonean John Hyrcanus II, then Hebrew would have spoken at least as a minor language in AD 33 in Jerusalem.
Let's also go to Maccabean Period (focusing on 167 BC - 140 BC).
When we also read 1 Maccabees 12:37 (Septuagint), we read that the spoken language of Maccabees was Aramaic.
1 Maccabees 12:37 (Septuagint) - "Upon this they came together to build up the city, forasmuch as part of the wall toward the brook on the east side was fallen down, and they repaired that which was called Caphenatha."
Notice "tha" in Caphenatha. "tha" in Caphenatha is Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state. There is no indication of Hebrew being spoken at all.
According to Book "City of Jerusalem" by Colonel C. R Conder (Pg. 100), Caphenatha is Aramaic word for a "heap."
I actually wrote the problems with Dead Sea Scrolls in the below link.
Its called "Conflicts between Dead Sea Scrolls and Aramaic Primacy" (posted by konwayk).
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4721/do-the-dead-sea-scrolls-argue-against-aramaic-primacy
I wanted to write it here. But it will be too long. What do you think about it, Kurgan?
Please let me know if you have any questions. But please don't be angry. Let's keep everything in a friendly way.
reply
share
kurgan-10
11 years ago
Yes, I have read it. But there are couple of problems in it.
One of the problems in the link is claiming that Mishnaic Hebrew as common language of the people in first century AD.
Through New Testament and Josephus, we know that nobody spoke Hebrew. High Priests at Jerusalem preserved Old Hebrew only for religious purposes.
We know this isn't true, as the Qumran community wrote nearly exclusively in Hebrew, both in their biblical and sectarian writings, and I believe all but one scholar believes they were NOT part of the Sadducee priesthood.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for Hebrew primacy of the New Testament. I'm also not arguing for Aramaic primacy of any New Testament book. I'm arguing for the position of mainstream scholarship, which is that these texts were originally composed in Greek, which is the language found in the earliest fragments of each. There is no ancient Tradition of an Aramaic original for any of the texts, much less for the whole deal. The Pesh itta is far too late to be the original and once again, outside a handful of scholars who belong to the Nestorian Church (and have accepted Aramaic primacy as an article of faith already), nobody takes this view seriously. Hence, the burden of proof is on you guys.
If you could produce an Aramaic fragment of ANY of the New Testament documents older than the Greek we have, great, that would go a long way to proving your argument and putting to shame everyone who discounted it. Until that day we're dealing with suppositions.
But I think if you say the New Testament and Josephus say that NOBODY spoke Hebrew, that's simply not the case. Either these documents are in error in claiming this (as plain evidence shows people in the first century did indeed understand and wrote in Hebrew, and these texts would have been spoken or prayed aloud, and these were once again not part of the Temple priesthood), or else your interpretation of them is wrong.
Since nobody spoke Hebrew, Aramaic Old Testament (Pesh-itta Tanakh) was used in first century AD.
Only portions of the Old Testament are in Aramaic. And the Aramaic that was used there, if memory serves, is different than the Aramaic spoken Jesus and his spotles, which is in turn different from the Aramaic that is used in the Pesh itta that we have today (and used in the Assyrian Church of the East).
This reminds me a bit of some Muslims who try to make arguments about the Bible's "true meaning" based on Arabic.
We know that when they say Hebrew, they were referring to their Hebrew tongue which was Aramaic(Golgotha, Akel Dama, etc.).
If that's the case, why are the Dead Sea Scrolls primarily in Hebrew rather than Aramaic? (yes, there are portions in other languages, but I'm speaking here of the primary language of the texts discovered). You acknowledge this fact later in your post, but I'm not sure why that doesn't give you a clue that saying Aramaic was the universal language of these Jews, therefore the NT must have been composed in that language is unproven. It makes far more sense that the texts would be written in Greek since their target audience was primarily Greek speaking (or else had Greek as a second language). The apostles had already been orally preaching to their countrymen, so there would have been no need for an Aramaic corpus at this point. Again, I'm not arguing people didn't speak Aramaic, I'm arguing that the position that the NT texts were composed in Greek is the much stronger position.
Like I pointed out before, Aramaic spoken in Judea and Idumea is slightly different from Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syrian regions. Difference is just like the difference between British English and American English. Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syria were called Syriac or Suristi while Aramaic spoken in Judea and Idumea is called Hebrew (referring to their Hebrew tongue) in first century AD.
Aramaic spoken in Galilee, Lebanon, and Syria is also known as Northern Aramaic. Northern Aramaic was written in Estrangela script while Aramaic used in Judea and Idumea (known as Southern Aramaic) was written in Dead Sea Scrolls Script.
Syriac copies of biblical texts are once again newer than the Greek copies we have.
We know Jesus grew up in Galilee and we see Jesus speaking Aramaic in New Testament (Talitha Cumi, Elohi Elohi lama sabachthani, etc.).
Yes, and those quotes would seem to indicate a Greek original for the Gospels, since otherwise they could just have transliterated the whole thing (or simply written it in Aramaic).
But we have the same problem if we want to say that the NT was composed in Hebrew. There are no ancient Hebrew copies predating the Greek. There's thus no evidence of a Hebrew original (or an Aramaic original, Latin original, etc).
The existence of translations FROM the Greek into those languages strongly points to Greek being the original language.
We also know that Peter is called Cephas (John 1:42, Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 1:12, etc). Cephas is Greek transliteration of Aramaic word "Kaypha" (also written as Kefa) which means stone. Peter is Greek translation of Aramaic word "Kaypha." We also see Jesus calling Peter "Kaypha" in The Passion of the Christ.
A movie isn't evidence, but I know what you're talking about.
Once again though, don't you see that this doesn't actually argue for an ARamaic original for the NT texts. Even if Jesus and his disciples spoke French, that would not mean we should assume the Greek NT must be a translation from the "original French."
Translating ORAL PREACHING from one language to another and writing it down is not the same as arguing that you wrote it down in the same language it was preached in, THEN translated that text into another text in another language.
Do you see the difference there? I think by the way you're arguing here, that perhaps you don't understand the difference. Let me know. Not trying to push your buttons there, just clarify.
I'm pretty sure we have other examples from antiquity of the words of some person preserved in a language other than the original language those words were spoken in, and that does not presume they were first written in that language.
Jesus wasn't handing out bibles. He was preaching, teaching orally, so were his disciples. Most scholars agree that the earliest texts produced were in the middle of the career of St. Paul, starting two decades after the crucifixion.
We also know that the language that represents Jesus Christ is Aramaic.
I wouldn't make too much of that statement. Aramaic is not special because Jesus spoke it. It's no more special than Hebrew or Greek for the same reasons.
The point is to try to understand what he said and did, not fawn over the words themselves. So thank God I don't need to understand Aramaic in order to understand Jesus' words and deeds, nor am I prevented from having my prayers to him heard in my native language.
Moving on...
Galatians 4:4-6 (NIV) - "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father."
We see Aramaic word Abba and the translation of Abba which is father. If I translate Aramaic word "Abba" into Hebrew, then it will become "Ha Ab."
Right, and we know for a fact that Paul spoke Greek, so it would be silly to presume that this text was therefore composed in Aramaic, wouldn't it?
Why would you translate an Aramaic word into Hebrew, btw? You've done that a few times now... taken an Aramaic transliterated word from the Greek, and translated it into Hebrew. What's the point of that? What are you trying to accomplish or prove from it? Is this addressed at something I said?
I completely reject the theory that the New Testament had a Hebrew Original. I'm not part of that camp anymore than I'm part of the camp asserting there was an Aramaic original to the NT.
Aside from NT and Josephus, we also know that one of the 3 zealot leaders who fought against Romans during Jewish Wars (66 AD - 70 AD) was Simon Bar Giora.
Do you have a citation from that?
"Bar Giora" means Son of A Proselyte in Aramaic. Giora is Aramaic word for Proselyte. "a" at the end of both Abba and Giora is Aramaic definite article on a masculine noun in an emphatic state.
As we see with St. Paul, we know that Jews had multiple names in different languages in those times. So mentioning a name in one language doesn't establish primacy for the NT.
Also notice the name Bar Kokhba. Bar Kokhba is Aramaic which means Son of A star (referring to the prophecy in Numbers 24:17).
But when Bar Kokhba came to power in 131 AD, Bar Kokhba tried to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state, because Hebrew is considered as the holy language of the state. Since his purpose was to restore Israel, he restored Hebrew and tried to restore the efforts of Hasmoneans and early leaders, by minting them on coin in Hebrew. He also did this for the purpose of honoring them.
The DSS predate Bar Kokhba.
In US, We have George Washington on $1 bill and Abraham Lincoln on $5 bill. This is for purpose of acknowledging them as Presidents and also for the purpose of honoring their efforts.
Sure, and inspired by the actions of countless peoples of the past. But irrelevant to our discussion. Several Jewish texts were composed in Greek and we had the LXX. So it's not as if every Jew agreed with Bar Kokhba (to say nothing of Jews living before and after him).
In AD 33, We know that Field of Blood was called Khqel Dama (a.k.a Akeldama) which is Aramaic by all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This ranges from a small child who could speak Aramaic to an old person of 95 years or older who speaks Aramaic.
This does nothing to establish NT Aramaic primacy. It only establishes what we already knew, which was that Aramaic was the primary language of Jesus and the earliest disciples.
So the oldest people (95 or older) who lived during AD 33 was born around the time period when Hasmonean John Hyrcanus II was in power (67 BC-40 BC). If Hebrew was spoken during the period of Hasmonean John Hyrcanus II, then Hebrew would have spoken at least as a minor language in AD 33 in Jerusalem.
Perhaps, I suppose.
Let's also go to Maccabean Period (focusing on 167 BC - 140 BC).
When we also read 1 Maccabees 12:37 (Septuagint), we read that the spoken language of Maccabees was Aramaic.
What language was 1 Maccabees composed in?
1 Maccabees 12:37 (Septuagint) - "Upon this they came together to build up the city, forasmuch as part of the wall toward the brook on the east side was fallen down, and they repaired that which was called Caphenatha."
Notice "tha" in Caphenatha. "tha" in Caphenatha is Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state. There is no indication of Hebrew being spoken at all.
Once again, DSS. And tell me what language 1 Maccabees was composed in.
If nobody spoke Hebrew at all, how was Bar Kokhba's group able to revive it?
According to Book "City of Jerusalem" by Colonel C. R Conder (Pg. 100), is Aramaic word for a "heap."
Interesting. I found this:
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/CHAPHENATHA/
CHAPHENATHA
ka-fen'-a-tha (Chaphenatha; the King James Version Caphenatha): A name apparently given to part of the eastern wall of Jerusalem or a fort in that neighborhood which is said (1 Macc 12:37) to have been repaired by Jonathan Maccabeus. The place cannot now be identified. Various speculations have been made as to the origin of the name, but they can hardly be said to throw any light on the passage cited.
Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Definition for 'CHAPHENATHA'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". bible-history.com - ISBE; 1915.
Copyright Information
© International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)
I actually wrote the problems with Dead Sea Scrolls in the below link.
Its called "Conflicts between Dead Sea Scrolls and Aramaic Primacy" (posted by konwayk).
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4721/do-the-dead-sea-s crolls-argue-against-aramaic-primacy
Thanks for the link. I may check it out later. I don't think we can wave away the DSS to promote some fringe theory, so it better be good!
Please let me know if you have any questions. But please don't be angry. Let's keep everything in a friendly way.
Absolutely. It makes me sad when a person is too offended to be able to continue a rational discussion of historical evidence. So it's not my intention to offend and if I did, I apologize.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)
reply
share
rexshard93
11 years ago
Kurgan,
I want to point out that Several Ancient Aramaic manuscripts preserved in Middle East and in India were destroyed by enemies. For Example, Some Ancient Aramaic NT manuscripts that were preserved in South India was destroyed by Archbishop Menezies.
That's why there are still South Indians who hate European Christians. The details about these infos were published by Michael Geddes in his 1694 book "History of the Church of Malabar."
I want to point out that please don't take a material by antiquity of a manuscript.
We know that the oldest surviving OT manuscripts come from Septuagint. But does that mean Old Testament is written in Septuagint Greek?
Certainly not. We know it was written in Old Hebrew since the time period of Moses. But Pentateuch written in Old Hebrew by Moses no longer survives.
Pesh-itta has been copied from Ancient manuscript to newer manuscripts for preservation. For Example, Khabouris Manuscript is a 11th century Aramaic NT manuscript.
As you know, Aramaic and Hebrew scribes annotate their copy with a notation that identifies the source document they copied. The annotation is called a "colophon". The colophon in the Khabouris Codex identifies its source as a document that existed about 165 CE.
That's why when Khabouris Manuscript was found, the news article "US Library gets an Ancient Bible" appeared in the New York Times on March 26, 1955 reporting on the oldest known New Testament Bible written in the language "used by Christ". The article noted how it was taken to the White House where President Eisenhower viewed it. The Bible was said to be insured for "an hour and a half" in the amount of $1,500,000 US dollars.
When the Khabouris Codex was first revealed to America in April 1955 it was referred to as "the NT Time Bomb."
If anyone comes and tells you that Aramaic in Pesh-itta is an Edessan Dialect, then it is a wrong information.
In Edessan Dialect, the imperfect is conjugated with "Yodh" as prefix instead of the Nun.
In Aramaic of Pesh-itta, the imperfect is conjugated with "Nun" as prefix.
Let me give an example. In Edessa Aramaic inscription from AD 6, you will read "Yodh" as prefix instead of "Nun" in imperfect. For Example, "Nakhza" in Pesh-itta is "Yakhza" in Estrangela Edessa inscription.
If Jews spoke Hebrew, then Josephus would have mentioned it. This is because he was also a Jewish Priest (Jewish Wars Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1).
I am not saying that High Priests at Jerusalem didn't know Hebrew. They knew Hebrew. But they only used it for religious purposes. But not for the purpose of speaking it.
Pesh-itta Tanakh is a first century Old Testament written in Aramaic. Some informations are here.
http://www.psh-itta.org/english/
(eliminate "-" from psh-itta to get correct website address)
As for Simon Bar Giora, Josephus mentions about Simon Bar Giora in Jewish Wars Book no. Four and Five.
We all know that all of Greek NT manuscripts claim that all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem called Field of Blood in their own tongue as Akeldama which is Aramaic.
I have 1-4 Maccabees in Aramaic (which is also preserved in Pesh-itta Tanakh). Not only that, just look at the textual variations in Greek NT manuscripts. Let me take well known Greek manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies (Volume 2)" (1914), there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.
But Eastern Pesh-itta has no textual variations or any contradictions.
Aside from New Testament and Josephus, Israeli Archaeologist Yigael Yadin who received Ph.D for his researches on Dead Sea scrolls admits that it was Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state and Yadin also points out that the earlier documents of Bar Kokhba revolt are written in Aramaic while later documents of Bar Kokhba revolt are written in Hebrew.
reply
share