Aramaic primacy

[Joshua-]

Any thoughts on peshitta / Aramaic primacy?

I found some of the claims compiled by Raphael Lataster in his book 'Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek' to be compelling, especially the split words and semetic idioms.

[Neil D]

Any thoughts on peshitta / Aramaic primacy?

I found some of the claims compiled by Raphael Lataster in his book 'Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek' to be compelling, especially the split words and semetic idioms.

Ok, I'll bite....

Why "peshitta"? Why Aramaic primacy? What's the significance?

[Joshua-]

Well, it is controversial for at least two reasons I can think of.

Generally, even the suggestion that some or even much of the NT could have originally been written in Aramaic is considered outlandish to most people who have been to some sort of theological seminary.

But more specifically in regards to Adventism there are subtle questions that arise about specific statements of EGW in light of verses that could have been erroneously translated from Aramaic to Greek, losing their word plays/poetry/idioms in the process.

A rough example that comes to mind (and it isn't by any far means major, but illustrates what I am trying to express) would be Matthew 19:24 / Mark 10:25- the very familiar teaching, 'easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God'.

Apparently (if the Aramaic scholars are correct) the word then used for camel in Aramaic can mean a camel (the animal), or, rope made from the hair of a camel which was commonly used by fishermen. So the illustration, according to them, wasn't meant (nor perceived by the audience) to mean a camel (the animal) going through the eye of a needle, but rather, a thick rope attempting to be threaded through the eye. As an illustration, it seems to make a whole lot more sense (and, to be quite honest, the 'camel' going through the eye of a needle never made any sense- who threads the eye of a needle with an animal instead of some sort of string?).

But EGW (while not necessarily elaborating in the text itself, but mentioning it in passing to make a point) made statements such as the one found in {6T 82.1} "[...]Christ has said that 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[...]"

Again, this isn't really a prime example of what I am talking about, but it illustrates the general idea. I plan to go through many of the Aramaic primacists scriptural 'corrections' and compare them to what I can find in the writings of EGW on those specific verses.

But mainly I was just wondering if anyone here had any 'smoking guns' against the claims of the Aramaic primacists. I have been less than satisfied with many of the translations of various verses (especially in Proverbs) that I have read in my Lamsa translation, but I haven't seen any compelling arguments against the specific claims supported by Aramaic primacists such as Paul Younan.

[Textus Receptus]

Paul penned 14 of the 27 books in the NT. It is important to note that the majority of the NT, was therefore written in Greek. Paul was fluent in Koine Greek, a Greek tongue commonly spoken in his native city of Tarsus, as well as being fluent in Classical Greek, which indicated that he had been exposed to Greek learning at the university level. All evidence considered, it is easy to suggest that Paul had written in Greek, rather than Aramaic.

Granted, your examples were written by other authors, yet, it is important to ask whether the nuances had affected the context. From the verses you provide, it is safe to suggest that they had not. Furthermore, we can assume that the prophetic understandings found in the NT had also not been affected given the eschatological accuracies of SDA theology when juxtaposed to specific time prophesies.

I am of the opinion that Lucifer, more than ever, is attempting to confuse the minds and will use every avenue in his arsenal to do so – including academia. I believe it is important to be grounded in the belief that the Holy Spirit has guided and preserved the totality of His plan throughout the ages. If you are looking for a ‘smoking gun’ to rebuttal Paul Younan’s assertions, I personally have not found one. What I do know is that end-times deceptions have become quite prominent and what may seem as inspiration, is actually Lucifer transforming himself into light.

[Ted Oplinger]

The Aramaic argument keeps rising up. Seminaries (Adventist and non-Adventists alike) keep rejecting the argument. For good reason.

From what I've learned on the subject, Aramaic was spoken widely across Judea, as was Koine Greek. However, Greek takes primacy over Aramaic not because it wasn't the language Jesus understood well, but rather because Greek was THE universal language of the Mediterranean region.

Aramaic, while the administrative/business language of many of the kingdoms in the middle East area before Christ (including the Babylonian and Persian Empires), it was swept aside and made only a regional language as the Greeks swept through the region. By the time of Christ, Latin was the language of Roman administration, and Classic Greek was the language of academia of the day. Koine Greek was spoken throughout the empire as the universal language between the peoples.

Most peoples learned at leas two languages: their home/local language, and Koine Greek. That's what made Pentecost such a miracle - rather than in the universal Greek dialect, people heard the Gospel in their home/local languages..an impossibility for Galilean fishermen with no advanced education.

Jesus may well have Aramaic fluently, but to speak to the crowds in a language all could understand with the Gospel, He likely spoke mostly in Koine Greek during His ministry. This would enable Him to teach in such a way that anyone in hearing range to be able to understand what He spoke, in stead of only the Jews and possibly the Samaritans.

The New Testament was not written with a Jewish audience solely in mind, with the possible exception of the book of Hebrews (who would have understood the corporate and sanctuary symbols much better than any other audience); the Gospels, Luke's writings, and the Pauline epistles were written for the express purpose of reaching as many peoples as possible - most of whom would NOT be expected to know Aramaic.

While Matthew did write his Gospel for a largely Jewish audience, as a tax collector, he would have been far more fluent in Koine Greek as a matter of his work. Likewise, I can more easily see him following Christ's example to appeal to the greatest audience possible with his Gospel - and writing in Greek would have allowed his Gospel to be read to both Hellenized and non-Hellenized Jews.

Most of those I've seen pushing for Aramaic primacy (particularly for Matthew's Gospel) have been Catholic apologists, to get around the precise Greek of Matthew 16:18 and justify the primacy of Peter. The Greek makes a very clear distinction between the masculine proper name Petros, vs. the distinctly feminine noun petra, upon which Jesus said He would build His church. The Koine Greek does not allow for the masculine Peter to be the grammatical reference for the feminine "rock". Aramaic carries both the name for Peter and the word for "rock" as neutral gender - allowing for the link to be made with impunity.

Hope this helps understand why Aramaic wasn't the language of Biblical writ.

[Joshua-]

I was unaware of this Catholic apologist argument (using Aramaic to justify their position). If nothing else, it should be disprovable by comparing scripture with scripture looking at Ephesians 2 and 1 Corinthians 3 as EJWaggoner pointed out (oddly enough on this same topic. I was researching something yesterday and found myself reading this tidbit) in 'Prophetic Lights', chapter 'The Transfiguration' pages 24-26, if using the CD, search for {1889 EJW, PROLI 24.2}

I realize the Aramaic primacist viewpoint is in the minority, the fringe even-- but all I know is that a vast number of verses make a whole lot of sense now that never sat right with me before.

A quick example would be Romans 5:7- The typical rendering of which is:

"For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die."

Apparently the word for righteous in Aramaic has 1 letter difference from wicked, and the letters look extremely similar (it would literally be the difference of about a millimeter in height at a typical writing size). The Peshitta therefore renders it wicked rather than righteous. Lamsa reads:

"Hardly would any man die for the sake of the wicked; but for the sake of the good, one might be willing to die."

This seems to make a whole lot more sense especially considering the next verse that contrasts human morality with that of God:

"God has here manifested his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I'm not saying I am completely sold on the idea, but I will say that there are a plethora of examples in Lataster's book that are worth researching.

Two other compelling examples that are relatively straight forward are 'simon the leper' vs 'simon the potter/pottery maker' and 'eunuchs' vs 'believers' as seen in Matthew 19:12/Acts 8:27. Both of these examples are pretty clear in that a leper shouldn't have been dwelling in Bethany and a eunuch wouldn't have been allowed to worship in the temple as per Deuteronomy 23:1.

The stunning examples from Lataster's book I cannot truly verify as my Aramaic is not by any far means exceptional, but the poetry and word plays that are present in the Lord's prayer (apparently the whole thing rhymes perfectly in Aramaic) and especially the one in 1 Timothy 3:16 (which has a nested reference to Melchisedec) seem too well laid out to have been coincidence.

[Kevin H]

Another issue is that for centuries it was believed that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus and that Aramaic was the only local language in Jesus' day. However with archaeological discoveries in the later part of the 20th century, is has been learned that Hebrew was alive and well in the time of Jesus.

Since we now know that Hebrew was alive and well in the time of Jesus, and that most religious teaching was done in Hebrew, scholars are even less impressressed with the arguments of Aramaic primacy, but are open to the probability that Jesus' words were not translated into Greek from Aramaic, but from Hebrew.

In translating back from Greek to Hebrew instead of Aramaic, they have found two surprises, the first is that Jesus quoted the Bible a lot more than we thought he did. Also Jesus did have a bad habit of quoting a lot of popular religious writings of his time, but placing them in a new framework and in his own unique message, but yet he was quite free in using other people's words and phrases.

[Ted Oplinger]

I was unaware of this Catholic apologist argument (using Aramaic to justify their position). If nothing else, it should be disprovable by comparing scripture with scripture looking at Ephesians 2 and 1 Corinthians 3 as EJWaggoner pointed out (oddly enough on this same topic. I was researching something yesterday and found myself reading this tidbit) in 'Prophetic Lights', chapter 'The Transfiguration' pages 24-26, if using the CD, search for {1889 EJW, PROLI 24.2}

I realize the Aramaic primacist viewpoint is in the minority, the fringe even-- but all I know is that a vast number of verses make a whole lot of sense now that never sat right with me before.

A quick example would be Romans 5:7- The typical rendering of which is:

"For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die."

Apparently the word for righteous in Aramaic has 1 letter difference from wicked, and the letters look extremely similar (it would literally be the difference of about a millimeter in height at a typical writing size). The Peshitta therefore renders it wicked rather than righteous. Lamsa reads:

"Hardly would any man die for the sake of the wicked; but for the sake of the good, one might be willing to die."

This seems to make a whole lot more sense especially considering the next verse that contrasts human morality with that of God:

"God has here manifested his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I'm not saying I am completely sold on the idea, but I will say that there are a plethora of examples in Lataster's book that are worth researching.

Two other compelling examples that are relatively straight forward are 'simon the leper' vs 'simon the potter/pottery maker' and 'eunuchs' vs 'believers' as seen in Matthew 19:12/Acts 8:27. Both of these examples are pretty clear in that a leper shouldn't have been dwelling in Bethany and a eunuch wouldn't have been allowed to worship in the temple as per Deuteronomy 23:1.

The stunning examples from Lataster's book I cannot truly verify as my Aramaic is not by any far means exceptional, but the poetry and word plays that are present in the Lord's prayer (apparently the whole thing rhymes perfectly in Aramaic) and especially the one in 1 Timothy 3:16 (which has a nested reference to Melchisedec) seem too well laid out to have been coincidence.

Pardon my lapse in courtesy - but welcome to the CA forums!

The Aramaic argument is well-known in the Catholic circles. They also pitch using the Epistle of Barnabas (also in the Aramaic) to justify their works+faith approach to God.

That all said, Aramaic - being in the same Semitic language group as Hebrew - does have its beauty and word plays. The Aramaic spoken in Judea in Christ's day was a dialect that was extensively "Hebrew-ized" - it was more of a Hebrew-Aramaic mix, just much of the Spanish spoken along US-Mexico border isn't truly Spanish in the pure sense, but the Mexican Spanish dialect which even borrows heavily from English. The Aramaic found in Daniel was a very much Chaldean dialect.

Reading an Aramaic translation would have nuances all its own which would bring a certain beauty to many verses, but God has His reasons why He preferred Scripture to be written in the languages they are currently known to be originally written in.

I appreciate the insight, Joshua.

[Windsor]

There are two sides to each of these passages I am sure. As an example there is a saying in the Babylonian talmud "Who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle?" In the region of Babylon, the largest animal was an elephant whilst in Palestine it is the camel and hence the saying is different in that region. No need to appeal to Aramaic primacy to change it from camel to rope.

[Joshua-]

I've been trying to verify how long that has been a common saying (which is, admittedly, rather difficult to do for many NT phrases).

I see it in the Babylonian Talmud

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_38.html#38b_25

But the dating would have been somewhere around the late 3rd century AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita

So the question naturally arises. Was it a common saying during the time of Christ, or, did it become a common saying after He said it?

[Gregory Matthews]

Ted, in my opinion, has spoken well.

On the language of the NT, you may want to review Vol. 5 of the SDA Bible Commentary, beginning with page 103.

My thoughts: Rome ruled in the time of Christ. Greek was the one language that united the Roman Empire and was understood throughout that empire. NOTE: Biblical Greek was what is known as Koine Greek, not that of classical Greek.

The language situation as it existed in the time of Christ is illustrated by the trilingual sign placed on the cross of Christ--Aramaic, Greek and Latin.

The Biblical characters living in the time of Christ may have often spoken Aramaic, but the actual written NT was in Greek.

[Joshua-]

I will look at the reference you cited from the SDA commentary. I don't have that one but I imagine it would be on the CD.

Again, I will say that I realize the Aramaic primacists are in the absolute minority - to even suggest that NT books were written in anything other than Greek is so insanely outlandish to most people they will never bother actually looking into it for themselves- but let me just throw this in there:

When I was a convinced Evolutionist, the thing that kept me convinced that there was no evidence whatsoever for creation was the fact that I believed it so completely that I refused to look at any supporting evidence for creation- after all, since I already 'knew' creationism was false and evolution was true-- why bother? it would be a total waste of time.

In that same way, I feel that many people will never look at the actual supporting evidence that Aramaic primacists present because it 'must be wrong' and therefore, why bother?

Lataster's book has tons of compelling and well researched points. Am I saying it is smoking gun evidence? No.

One thing a previous teacher taught me was to strive to postpone conclusions (which is a very difficult thing for me).

At this point, I would not claim to be an Aramaic primacist, nor a Greek primacist. I simply do not know enough about either language. But either way, it doesn't really 'change' anything all that major. As far as I can tell (and I haven't gone through it thoroughly) Lataster's musings aren't anything substantially massive like a change in the gospel. Certainly nothing even as major as the comma johanneum.

[Kevin H]

Ted, in my opinion, has spoken well.

On the language of the NT, you may want to review Vol. 5 of the SDA Bible Commentary, beginning with page 103.

My thoughts: Rome ruled in the time of Christ. Greek was the one language that united the Roman Empire and was understood throughout that empire. NOTE: Biblical Greek was what is known as Koine Greek, not that of classical Greek.

The language situation as it existed in the time of Christ is illustrated by the trilingual sign placed on the cross of Christ--Aramaic, Greek and Latin.

The Biblical characters living in the time of Christ may have often spoken Aramaic, but the actual written NT was in Greek.

Good post, but one update: The Bible says that the sign placed on the cross was in HEBREW, Greek and Latin. Since until the last couple of decades of the 20th century scholars thought that Hebrew was a dead language, so assumed that the Bible meant to say "Aramaic" and some Bible do it "Hebrew (that is Aramaic)" but over the past couple of decades it has been discovered that Hebrew was indeed alive and well at the time and that the sign was just as the Bible said: Hebrew, Greek and Latin, (Not Aramaic, Greek and Latin)

[Ted Oplinger]

Again, I will say that I realize the Aramaic primacists are in the absolute minority - to even suggest that NT books were written in anything other than Greek is so insanely outlandish to most people they will never bother actually looking into it for themselves....

[Gail]

I have an English translation of the Peshitta. For interest's sake, where would be a good place to start reading?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The Bible says that the sign placed on the cross was in HEBREW, Greek and Latin. Since until the last couple of decades of the 20th century scholars thought that Hebrew was a dead language, so assumed that the Bible meant to say "Aramaic" and some Bible do it "Hebrew (that is Aramaic)" but over the past couple of decades it has been discovered that Hebrew was indeed alive and well at the time and that the sign was just as the Bible said: Hebrew, Greek and Latin, (Not Aramaic, Greek and Latin)

Hebrew or Aramaic: Some Bibles say Hebrew and others say Aramaic.

Hebrew alive & well: That is believed to be true.

I do not believe that agreement has been reached as to whether it was Hebrew or in Aramaic. In any case, it is not a major issue with me.

[Joshua-]

Again, I will say that I realize the Aramaic primacists are in the absolute minority - to even suggest that NT books were written in anything other than Greek is so insanely outlandish to most people they will never bother actually looking into it for themselves

[Joshua-]

Is it George Lamsa's or Andrew Gabriel Roth's or someone different entirely?

Supposedly Lamsa knew Aramaic idioms rather well, so one of the books I see the largest difference in (as opposed to say, King James/Young's Literal/Green's Literal) is Proverbs.

I've seen a few that seemed profound- sometimes in the direction of 'wow, that's deep', but far more often in the direction of 'that makes far less sense'

[Gail]

The one I have is Lamsa's.

[Joshua-]

The first time I looked at it I started by going to what I considered to be theologically important verses.

1 John 5:7 is different, verse 7 isn't entirely dropped (like Westcott & Hort's 'Critical' Greek text of the 1880s), but the 'short clause' isn't there.

So, who knows, maybe Vaticanus B actually had that part right ( in spite of stuff like this http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html )

I found Daniel 7,8, and 9 to be of particular interest in some places. For example, in 9:26, rather than translating that after the 62 week period Messiah shall be 'cut off', it says slain- and in that same verse rather than translating 'the end there of shall be with a flood' it is translated 'the end there of shall be a mass exile'.

I really wish there was a free digital copy of it available for e-sword so I could do quick comparisons. I usually use a rather large KJV for study, but occasionally I'll grab the Lamsa to read before I go to bed and try to spot something that seems really foreign, though I haven't really read any substantial amount of it in years.

[Gail]

I like that sort of stuff!