NT in Aramiaic?

theseed · Feb 6, 2004

Hellow Everbody

've heard some MJ's in this forum believe that the NT was written in Aramaic. Could anyone explain how they came to this conclusion, and whether you think all the NT was written in Aramiac, or just certain parts, and other parts like Paul's Eptistles were written in Greek?

I'm leaving for the weekend, but I lookforward to reading your posts next week

Shalom

koilias · Feb 6, 2004

Yes. It's strange...there are lots here who think that. :scratch:

I believe that it was written in Hebrew, but I seem to be a minority of one! That's ok, cuz I got an MA from David Flusser land in Hebrew U., so the others don't know what they are talking about.

Seriously, I do think the Synoptic Gospels go back Hebrew documents. The Revelation of St. John was also first composed in Hebrew, at least by someone who thought in his head in Hebrew (not Aramaic). I'm quite sure Yeshua spoke the letters to John in Hebrew. John woodenly translates them.
Only John's gospel, I'm quite certain, comes from an oral Aramaic tradition...but that could have been Hebrew at first.

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

koilias said:
Yes. It's strange...there are lots here who think that.

I believe that it was written in Hebrew, but I seem to be a minority of one! That's ok, cuz I got an MA from David Flusser land in Hebrew U., so the others don't know what they are talking about.

Seriously, I do think the Synoptic Gospels go back Hebrew documents. The Revelation of St. John was also first composed in Hebrew, at least by someone who thought in his head in Hebrew (not Aramaic). I'm quite sure Yeshua spoke the letters to John in Hebrew. John woodenly translates them.
Only John's gospel, I'm quite certain, comes from an oral Aramaic tradition...but that could have been Hebrew at first.

I agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic in everday conversation and have no reason to doubt he used Hebrew too. But I think the NT was firsted penned in Greek. John, though says that he wrote his Gospels to that others might believe and have eternal life. I'm sure he translated Christ's teachings.

I think it was good that the NT documents were written in Greek, so that all the known world could have learned about Christ.

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

It would make sense for the Epistle of Hebrews to have been written in Hebrew.

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

theseed said:
I agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic in everday conversation and have no reason to doubt he used Hebrew too. But I think the NT was firsted penned in Greek. John, though says that he wrote his Gospels to that others might believe and have eternal life. I'm sure he translated Christ's teachings.

I think it was good that the NT documents were written in Greek, so that all the known world could have learned about Christ.

You can look at the research that I have published on that subject http://www.AramaicNT.org . Poetry, puns, wordplay, typographical errors, polysemy ("split words"), and many other phenomena exist throughout the New Testament. The evidence for, not just the dialogue, but the narrative of the Gospels as original Aramaic is rather strong, especially in the words of Jesus and the Letters of Paul.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

The Thadman said:
You can look at the research that I have published on that subject http://www.AramaicNT.org . Poetry, puns, wordplay, typographical errors, polysemy ("split words"), and many other phenomena exist throughout the New Testament. The evidence for, not just the dialogue, but the narrative of the Gospels as original Aramaic is rather strong, especially in the words of Jesus and the Letters of Paul.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

So, you are only claiming that the Gospels were orginally in Aramaic, but not the other writings?

It is generally believed that the Gospels, especially the synpotics were based on a source called Q, which was never found.

I'm not so sure that John's Gospel was though, it appears that The Fourth Evangelist wrote it intientially to a general audience, and that he wrote it in Greek.

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

Thadman, do you know Koine Greek too?

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

theseed said:
So, you are only claiming that the Gospels were orginally in Aramaic, but not the other writings?

It is generally believed that the Gospels, especially the synpotics were based on a source called Q, which was never found.

I'm not so sure that John's Gospel was though, it appears that The Fourth Evangelist wrote it intientially to a general audience, and that he wrote it in Greek.

I believe that the majority of the NT was written in Aramaic. This includes the 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul, and Peter's letters.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

theseed said:
Thadman, do you know Koine Greek too?

Not as well as Aramaic, I must admit. With my research projects over at Rutgers, however, my professor double-checks all of my Koine analysis.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

Would the Greeks have known Aramaic?

Henaynei · Feb 8, 2004

That would not be necessary - but rather that someone knowing Aramaic also knew Greek (for the translation). At that time Greek, as I'm sure you know, was like English is today - it was the Lingua Franca of commerce and academics and most of the Roman world, including in Israel, knew it. Certainly, scholars would know it and merchants

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

Henaynei said:
That would not be necessary - but rather that someone knowing Aramaic also knew Greek (for the translation). At that time Greek, as I'm sure you know, was like English is today - it was the Lingua Franca of commerce and academics and most of the Roman world, including in Israel, knew it. Certainly, scholars would know it and merchants

Yes, which makes me wonder why it makes sense to me that Paul would have written in Greek to the Greeks, but, I suppose you may mean that Paul wrote in Aramaic, and it was translated immediately, however, Paul claims to have written one Epistle in his by is own hand.

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

theseed said:
Would the Greeks have known Aramaic?

Probably not.

Paul would have written his letters in his native language (Aramaic) to the Jews that were in each congregation, who would then have them translated for those who spoke Greek (much how Josephus' first works were in Aramaic, and he later had them translated into Greek). According to my theory, this explains polysemic problems within the Greek text, where several Greek manuscript traditions each attest to radically different words, stemming from a single Aramaic word that has two or more distinct meanings. Additionally, Paul would not have sent elaborate Aramaic poetry in Greek in his introductions and letters to Timothy (http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Timothy/GreatPoem).

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

Henaynei said:
That would not be necessary - but rather that someone knowing Aramaic also knew Greek (for the translation). At that time Greek, as I'm sure you know, was like English is today - it was the Lingua Franca of commerce and academics and most of the Roman world, including in Israel, knew it. Certainly, scholars would know it and merchants

The Historian Josephus had something to say about Greek among the Jews of the time:

Antiquities of the Jews
Book 20 - Chapter 11 Paragraph 2

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 nothing, 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.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

theseed · Feb 8, 2004

Ok, so many of the Jews did not know Greek that well. Am I right in quessing that Many Greeks did not know Aramaic?

simchat_torah · Feb 8, 2004

It is generally believed that the Gospels, especially the synpotics were based on a source called Q, which was never found.

This is what I have affectionately termed as "PseudoScholarship"

You see, people who have these magical letters in front of their names "Dr." often can play fairy tale and label this fairy tale as a "theory". These "theories" typically don't need any verficaiton, fact, or any supporting material what so ever and people turn around quoting these 'theories' as fact.

We end up with a bunch of fairy tales, with absolutely no evidence what so freaking ever, being called facts.

It's really gross when you think about it.

This supposed "gospel of Q" has never been produced, has no evidence of its existence, and has come from a bunch of old men who were strongly biased in the first place playing make believe. Their 'make believe' fairy tales are now quoted by many as truth.

I call it as it is: bull dung.

BenTsion · Feb 8, 2004

This is what I have affectionately termed as "PseudoScholarship"

You're being too kind, Yafet...

We gotta hand it to people like the Jesus Seminar. They are masters in the art of lending scientific credibility to sheer speculation.

It kind of reminds me of a comic strip I saw a while ago, which portrays the Jesus Seminar fellows on Judgement Day. In such picture, Yeshua is pointing at them and saying 'Away from me you evildoers!' and then one of the guys from the Jesus Seminar raises his hand and says 'Excuse me, L-RD, but we have decided that you didn't say that.'

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

BenTsion said:
You're being too kind, Yafet...
We gotta hand it to people like the Jesus Seminar. They are masters in the art of lending scientific credibility to sheer speculation.

It kind of reminds me of a comic strip I saw a while ago, which portrays the Jesus Seminar fellows on Judgement Day. In such picture, Yeshua is pointing at them and saying 'Away from me you evildoers!' and then one of the guys from the Jesus Seminar raises his hand and says 'Excuse me, L-RD, but we have decided that you didn't say that.'

I wouldn't be that harsh about the members of the Jesus seminar. My professor who is looking after my project here at Rutgers (Dr. Mahlon Smith) was one of the people on the committee. Although we don't agree eye to eye on method all of the time, as I see it, he's just as sincere as I am in finding what Jesus truly said. They don't claim to say "this is what Jesus couldn't have said" they claim "these are the words which are most historically probable, given our set of criteria."

The methods, like I said, although they are researched, I see as ultimately flawed.

Q is a theoretical document, which is to be taken just as that: Theory. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman · Feb 8, 2004

theseed said:
Ok, so many of the Jews did not know Greek that well. Am I right in quessing that Many Greeks did not know Aramaic?

As far as I know, given the evidence that I have examined, you are correct.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

iitb · Feb 8, 2004

simchat_torah said:
This is what I have affectionately termed as "PseudoScholarship"

You see, people who have these magical letters in front of their names "Dr." often can play fairy tale and label this fairy tale as a "theory". These "theories" typically don't need any verficaiton, fact, or any supporting material what so ever and people turn around quoting these 'theories' as fact.

We end up with a bunch of fairy tales, with absolutely no evidence what so freaking ever, being called facts.

It's really gross when you think about it.

This supposed "gospel of Q" has never been produced, has no evidence of its existence, and has come from a bunch of old men who were strongly biased in the first place playing make believe. Their 'make believe' fairy tales are now quoted by many as truth.

I call it as it is: bull dung.

If you think he gets worked up over Q, you should see him in a discussion on E and J!

NT in Aramiaic?

Contributor

Ancient Hassid in the making

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Echud! Al pi Adonai...

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Got Torah?

Yeshua Worshipper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a.k.a. insaneinthebrain

Similar threads