Aramiac Gospels?

YatzivPatgam · Nov 5, 2003

BS'D

The topic of the christian gospels in Aramiac has always intrested me. I'd kinda like to see people expound apaun that. I was going to try and Ask the most esteemed Dr. James Trimm- but he has left us. I'll pose my questions here and maybe people will reaspond ?...Thoughts or opinions, I'd love to hear them.

Now, Trimm liked to claim that there had to be a "Aramiac" orginal of the gospels that were kept by Jewish circles. How he comes to this conclusion is iffy and to me, absurd.

Some people wonder why so many questions about Trimm's credibaility always follow him. Well, allow me to demonstrate....Let me repost a comment he makes;

"Many synoptic variances point to an underlying Semitic text. For example:

Mt. 4:19 = Lk. 5:10 "fissher's of men"/"catch men"
= TZAYADA (Aram.) "

What he is trying to show here that the "poetic language" of the Christian Gospels mimics much of "Aramiac" and is rampant throughught the christian texts. What he will not tell you ( or maybe he doesn't know himself ) that he is baseing his Aramiac off Palestinian Aramiac, which did not exist during the times of J-man, infact, the type of Aramiac spoken in that region during the time would be considered a branch of "Middle Aramiac" that is closesly related to the Syrian tounge, even more related that actual Hebrew and Aramiac.

So what does this mean? His grammar is off. His vocabulary congugation doesn't match up to the Historcal tounge of the time, but one that coems from a much latter date.

I have many more "Observations" I have about his work he posted here, but I'd like to keep it short.

~Wisdom Seeker~ · Nov 5, 2003

I'm unfamiliar with the person you are referring to, or the conclusion that that person came to. But the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in Kumran (sp?) are written in Coptic and Aramaic. It's my understanding that the originals are displayed somewhere in Jerusalem.

The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were originally written in Aramaic.

I am not an authority on this subject. But, I am a student of it. And this is listed as fact in every religious history book I've read.

If you do a search on the internet on "Aramaic Gospel" you will get quite a few links. The Gospels being written in Aramaic language is not one of the many Bible facts that is disputed.

simchat_torah · Nov 5, 2003

Yatziv,

I would like to point out that the earliest historians referred to the "gospels" as having been written in a Aramaic/Hebraic tongue.

As well, the "Textual Criticism" given to the Aramaic texts does not rely soley upon the grammar, but also upon the obvious mistranslations from the Greek to the Aramaic. Some words are spelled quite similarly in Aramaic, and when we read the Greek texts we see obvious incidents where the wrong word was assumed in the translation.

There are numerous cases in which we can ellude to, but Ill highlight just two here:

A:

Mt. 26:6 = Mk. 14:3 And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
(KJV)

As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the
city (see Lev. 13:46).

Stern's JNT attempts to fix the problem by translating:

Stern's JNT has: Yeshua was in Beit-Anyah, at the hom of Shim'on, the man who had had the repulsive skin disease.

But in fact the Greek does NOT say that Shim'on HAD BEEN a Leper. The Greek calls him "Simon the Leper".

Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written
without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words
GAR'BA (leper)and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.

B:

Mt. 19:24 = Mk. 10:25 = Lk. 18:25

...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.

Stern's JNT has "...it is easier for a camel to pass through a
needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly the meaning here.

These mistranslations show an obvious Aramaic origninal. I hope this illustrates my point.

Trimm liked to claim that there had to be a "Aramiac" orginal of the gospels that were kept by Jewish circles.

It's not merely that certain Jewish cirlces kept Aramaic texts, but rather the original 'messianics' were Jewish, and the texts were composed in their native tongue.

What he is trying to show here that the "poetic language" of the Christian Gospels mimics much of "Aramiac" and is rampant throughught the christian texts. What he will not tell you ( or maybe he doesn't know himself ) that he is baseing his Aramiac off Palestinian Aramiac, which did not exist during the times of J-man, infact, the type of Aramiac spoken in that region during the time would be considered a branch of "Middle Aramiac" that is closesly related to the Syrian tounge, even more related that actual Hebrew and Aramiac.

Now I am no Aramaic "scholar", but from what little I do understand of Aramaic, there are 7 dialects that can be broken down into the 3 categories you mentioned... but one thing remains clear: The poetic liscense and style remains the same throughout all 7 of the dialects.

I would also like to remind you that the 'poetic language' is not used as one of the main proofs of Aramaic originals, but it certainly does further justify the conclusion. Instead, historians, textual criticism, translational criticism, and the texts themselves are what give us our major clues.

===================================

With that said, as my first 'moderator' power I will exercise is: I would like to remind all here that Justin has requested all discussions concerning James Trimm's credibility should cease. Please do not make reference to this topic again.

Thank you and shalom,
Yafet.

Dominus Fidelis · Nov 6, 2003

I like the fact that the Beatitudes RHYME in Aramaic.

There is A LOT of subtle wordings lost in the translation out of Aramiac, from what I have read and seen some examples.

I wish I could speak Aramaic.

Amandine · Nov 6, 2003

Yeah.. I saw the Lord's Prayer online in Aramaic with all the different ways it could be translated. It's meaning looked so much more powerful then how we think of it in English.
-Catherine

YatzivPatgam · Nov 7, 2003

simchat_torah said:
Yatziv,

I would like to point out that the earliest historians referred to the "gospels" as having been written in a Aramaic/Hebraic tongue.

Trimm gave a short list, but the people he listed were more then a century apart and all actually thought Matthew was the author of the gospel, so I'd consider them outdated sources, compared to what we know today.

Click to expand...

YatzivPatgam · Nov 7, 2003

Wisdom Seeker said:
I'm unfamiliar with the person you are referring to, or the conclusion that that person came to. But the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in Kumran (sp?) are written in Coptic and Aramaic. It's my understanding that the originals are displayed somewhere in Jerusalem.

The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were originally written in Aramaic.

I am not an authority on this subject. But, I am a student of it. And this is listed as fact in every religious history book I've read.

If you do a search on the internet on "Aramaic Gospel" you will get quite a few links. The Gospels being written in Aramaic language is not one of the many Bible facts that is disputed.

I'm not sure how you link the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Gospels....

And the theroy that the Gospels were written in Aramiac is a disputed claim, that is hotly debated within Christanity.

By the by, They actually haven't seen a gospel written in Aramiac from that time period.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 7, 2003

These mistranslations show an obvious Aramaic origninal. I hope this illustrates my point.

Which branch? As I went through the list of Trimm's proof texts, not even half of them actually made sense with just one brand of Aramiac, and most only worked with Aramiac that came at a much later date.

I'm sure you are aware of the diffrences in language between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem one, and how both kinds of Aramiac can greatly change the meanings of things, they don't flow togther so easily as some might think.

koilias · Nov 7, 2003

The Dead Sea Scrolls (Documents from the Judean Desert) are in Aramaic, some Greek, some Arabic, but the vast majority are in HEBREW. And contemporary Hebrew at that (although some are more literary): 2nd temple period Hebrew!

The Coptic papyrus scrolls are from Nag Hammadi in Egypt (2nd to 3rd century literature mostly), written by Alexandrian Jewish-Christian gnostics.

simchat_torah · Nov 7, 2003

Trimm gave a short list, but the people he listed were more then a century apart and all actually thought Matthew was the author of the gospel, so I'd consider them outdated sources, compared to what we know today.

I can provide a much more extensive list than Trimm's article provided.

As well, I thank you for your OPINION but us simple folks around here would like to see you begin backing up your claims with verifiable sources.

It's nice and all to hear what you think, but there comes a time when we will need to require something substantial.

Shalom!
-Yafet.

koilias · Nov 7, 2003

There are many schools of thought regarding the original vorlage of the Gospels. In Israel, many scholars reject the mainstream theory arguing for an Aramaic original (except for John's gospel). The preeminent Israeli scholar of Early Christianity David Flusser disagreed with the notion of an Aramaic vorlage. This is the dominant theory in the Western World, conceived by 19th century German scholars who did everything they could to reject Rabbinic witnesses. These scholars still want to show that the Mishnah was composed in the late second century, a conceit of later Jewish Rabbis, and not a living oral tradition within Judaism with ancient underpinnings.

Clearly, the Synoptic Gospels relied on Greek manuscripts which were translations of a Semitic language. That can be proven, whether that language was Aramaic cannot be proven without carefully analyzing the vorlage first. Most indications point to Hebrew over Aramaic. Except for Matthew, who probably was an Aramaic speaker, Luke and Mark do not show Aramaic signs. Therefore Matthew's Aramaic signs are coming from Mathew and not part of the vorlage.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 7, 2003

simchat_torah said:
[/size][/font]

I can provide a much more extensive list than Trimm's article provided.

As well, I thank you for your OPINION but us simple folks around here would like to see you begin backing up your claims with verifiable sources.

It's nice and all to hear what you think, but there comes a time when we will need to require something substantial.

Shalom!
-Yafet.

Egads! When did I start getting such hostiality from you?

But since you asked, here;

Mt. 26:6 = Mk. 14:3 And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
(KJV)

As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the
city (see Lev. 13:46).

Stern's JNT attempts to fix the problem by translating:

Stern's JNT has: Yeshua was in Beit-Anyah, at the hom of Shim'on, the man who had had the repulsive skin disease.

But in fact the Greek does NOT say that Shim'on HAD BEEN a Leper. The Greek calls him "Simon the Leper".

Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written
without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words
GAR'BA (leper)and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.

Click to expand...

The Author of this little tid-bit ( I assume it's not you ) has their Aramiac mixed up. J-man would have lived in a time of Middle-Aramiac. GARABA is Palestinian Aramiac from 13th century.

All I have to do is point to any Yeshiva Student's Copy of JASTROW, where he gives a breif expouse' of the word used the Jeruslaem Talmud, since GAR'BA is used in a joke, saying the Moshiach ben Dovid will actually be a leper.

I thought perhaps, you might have caught the hint when I mentioned the two Talmuds, thats an old addage from Yeshivas when people make mistakes in linguistics. Maybe it didn't get passed on to the mezzie colleges?

SonWorshipper · Nov 7, 2003

Shalom AleichemYatziv,

since we are speaking of proper language and translations we here in the MJ forum do not refer to Him as the 'J' man, I know why you do but we do use His proper Hebrew name so maybe while in this forum you could say "Y" man?

Toda!

simchat_torah · Nov 8, 2003

Egads! When did I start getting such hostiality from you?

No hostility. Just a lot of opinions being tossed around as fact, and absolutely no proof. Before both sides started getting deep into the post count with posts purely embedded in "opinion" I decided to ask for proof that we might actually have a grounds to debate within.

Nothing more.
shalom,
Yafet.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 9, 2003

SonWorshipper said:
Shalom AleichemYatziv,

since we are speaking of proper language and translations we here in the MJ forum do not refer to Him as the 'J' man, I know why you do but we do use His proper Hebrew name so maybe while in this forum you could say "Y" man?

Toda!

Y-man it is.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 9, 2003

simchat_torah said:
No hostility. Just a lot of opinions being tossed around as fact, and absolutely no proof. Before both sides started getting deep into the post count with posts purely embedded in "opinion" I decided to ask for proof that we might actually have a grounds to debate within.

Nothing more.
shalom,
Yafet.

Ahhh. Talking is so much easier with voice inflextions, facial expressions and hand gestures

simchat_torah · Nov 10, 2003

Hahaha... sometimes I'm sure that my bluntness might come off as rude on the forums. I tend to be straight-forward here on the forums, but am rather light hearted in real life.

I appologize if you felt I was being rude previously... it's just my way of stating things rather bluntly.

-Yafet.

YatzivPatgam · Nov 10, 2003

simchat_torah said:
Hahaha... sometimes I'm sure that my bluntness might come off as rude on the forums. I tend to be straight-forward here on the forums, but am rather light hearted in real life.

I appologize if you felt I was being rude previously... it's just my way of stating things rather bluntly.

-Yafet.

Think nothing of it

SonWorshipper · Nov 10, 2003

Todah Rabah!

Aramiac Gospels?

Active Member

INFP the Healer

Got Torah?

ScottBot is Stalking Me!

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ancient Hassid in the making

Got Torah?

Ancient Hassid in the making

Active Member

Old Timer

Got Torah?

Active Member

Active Member

Got Torah?

Active Member

Old Timer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency