while i cant say ive ever gotten much out of those old name arguments
i will say that if they did speak greek commonly
and given the cosmopolitan make-up of the region...
...there seems very little possibility that this NT account of "speaking in tongues"
is what pfal/vpw and the like describe as being the signifiers and values of "speaking in tongues"
which, of course, is talking about what a large number of folks here do believe to various degrees
so i try to be as light as possible about things
and also say that its as ive been wondering around here for a few years ...
a dense summation: how "speaking in tongues" seems more valuable and more likely as some actual wave of reformations and restorations in the arts of ordinary human dialogue and its role in spiritual thought
where an easy common tongue (such as greek) serves as a vessel for a wine of greater meaning among all races
...so we can finally see how we are all spiritually red underneath
I think Lamsa is to be blamed for this for declaring that speaking Greek meant you had to accept its culture, falsely saying that no good Jew/Israelite would dare talk in Koine Greek or Latin without damning themselves and being kicked out of Judaism. Hence Wierwille agreed with him and claimed Jesus and most Gallieans, Samaritans, and Judeans would spit and avoid anyone speaking Greek or Latin without contamination. But Lamsa, Errico, and Wierwille obviously were ignorant on this subject.
I had forgotten that Wierwille thought that Aramaic was the original language of the New Testament until you guys reminded me. A bible scholar he was not. The article that I posted says that all the oldest fragments of ancient biblical text are all in Greek. None are in Aramaic. Also since the Greek language was by far the language most recognized if the New Testament was to be understood by the most people it would need to have been written in Greek. Aramaic would have meant a very limited readership since this was only understood by the people of Israel. Hence they would not have been able to gain Gentile converts to Christianity. The aspostles and Jesus spoke Greek as a second language and certain New Testament records bear this out. On the other hand only the people of Israel spoke Aramaic. Hence this would not have been a good language for the spread of the Christian faith as its original language.
I had forgotten that Wierwille thought that Aramaic was the original language of the New Testament until you guys reminded me. A bible scholar he was not. The article that I posted says that all the oldest fragments of ancient biblical text are all in Greek. None are in Aramaic. Also since the Greek language was by far the language most recognized if the New Testament was to be understood by the most people it would need to have been written in Greek. Aramaic would have meant a very limited readership since this was only understood by the people of Israel. Hence they would not have been able to gain Gentile converts to Christianity. The aspostles and Jesus spoke Greek as a second language and certain New Testament records bear this out. On the other hand only the people of Israel spoke Aramaic. Hence this would not have been a good language for the spread of the Christian faith as its original language.
If you take a look at the history of the NT, common sense would preclude Aramaic as being the language of the vast majority of the writings that comprise the NT.
Mark was supposed to have accompanied Peter to Rome (he is said to have gone to Africa after this). Why would that Gospel or the Epistles of Peter be written in Hebrew or Aramaic from that point?
Luke was a Greek. You can see that from the Acts. Again, what purpose would Luke have in writing his account of the gospel or the Acts in Aramaic? Would Luke have even known Aramaic?
Luke's function was to serve as Paul's scribe. It is likely that most of the Pauline epistles were actually penned by Luke (on Paul's dictation). They, obviously, were penned by somebody other than Paul (remember how Paul announced in one that he wrote a greeting in his own hand). The same argument against Aramaic in regards to the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts apply to those epistles.
John left Palestine and went to Ephesus (and was later exiled to Patmos). Again, why would his account of the gospel, his letters, or the Apocolypse be written in Aramaic? Makes no sense.
James' letter was written to Hebrew Christians in the diaspora. Many of them no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (as a witness to this, consider why the OT was translated into Greek in Alexandria -- the Septuagint)
That leaves Matthew, Jude, and the epistle to the Hebrews.
According to Tradition, Matthew penned his account of the Gospel for the Hebrews in Palestine. For that reason, it his highly likely that his Gospel account would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Jude, according to tradition, lived in Palestine and, in all likelihood, wrote his epistle to Christians living in Palestine. Again, it's likely that his letter was originally penned in Aramaic.
Finally, Hebrews. Common sense, on the surface, states that this would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, textual critics who are far smarter than I am point out a lot of "Greek-isms" in the text that might lead one to think otherwise.
No. Jesus did not speak Greek. That is/was Dr. Lamsa's position and that is likely where VPW learned that. The remark about VPW not being a bible scholar because he thought the original was written in Aramaic is about as ignorant as one could get - especially when one considers Dr. Lamsa's credentials. (The next thing we'll probably hear is how VPW plagarised Lamsa. It wouldn't surprise me when people push their ignorance off on others who don't know any better themselves.)
Dr. Lamsa was trained at the Archbishop of Canterbury College in Iran and Turkey under the strict care of scholarly and brilliant Cambridge and Oxford men. He was awarded the highest honors and degrees that that college conferred and received the honored title of "Rabbi". He studied extensively in American schools including the Episcopal Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia, and pursued endless years of study and research in the field of Biblical scholarship based on the Aramaic. His numerous volumes and translations have been enthusiastically received throughout the East. His translations of the New Testament, in 1940, is based on the oldest surviving texts (sources) in existence, that were preserved in Turkey and Iran, that were preserved in Turkey and Iran by the ancient Christians commonly called "Nestorians". Lamsa is the first man from the East to start Aramaic research and to point out that the Scriptures were originally written in Aramaic and not in Greek, and that the "Pedangta" is an original.
Lamsa's translations are based on the nine surviving, ancient, original Aramaic texts, which have never been revised or tampered with. [One can't say that about the Greek or the common Koine Greek - one of the main reason why we have so many different (and confusing) bibllical translations today.] He spent more than thirty years on the translation of the New and Old Testaments. Lamsa spoke eight other languages and served as translator on numerous occasions for governments and important institutions.
The Aramaic Bible Society appears to have been divinely chosen to be the medium of officially presenting to America and to the world not only this major prophet but the works of the Yonan Codex Foundation and it's continuing work with another ancient Aramaic document, the Khaboris Codex, another ancient Aramaic New Testament manuscript under the aegis of Dr. Dan MacDougald, Jr., and The Laws of Living Institute of Albany, Georgia.
It is nice that you have an opinion What the Hey, but did you read the article? If you read it then why didn't you learn anything from it?
Your thinking that Wierwille knows more about the original language of the New Testament than the man who wrote the linked article is insane. Here are some of the findings of actual textual experts.
The fact that Jesus Christ and the disciples all knew and spoke Greek, as a "third language," in addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, is also indicated and supported by the fact that all the gospels and epistles of the New Testament are written and preserved in the Greek language.
Stop and think! It is very significant that no early Christian documents are extant in Aramaic! ALL the earliest New Testament documents and fragments are in Greek! Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor stated that Matthew had put together the "sayings" of Jesus in the Hebrew dialect, Aramaic. But no one has ever seen them. All we have are GREEK manuscripts, and as far back as we go, GREEK is the language of the New Testament! Strange, isn't it, that not one manuscript in Aramaic or Hebrew predates the Greek?
Try to think for yourself for a change What the Hey. Do you really think the epistles written by Paul, for example, Ephesians, Corinthians, Phillippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, etc., to Greek speaking people who did not know Aramaic would be written to them in a foreign language? What would be the point of that? Have you ever received a letter addressed to you in a foreign language?
This really is a historical question for the most part.
Going back to what Mark O'Malley wrote, a book by book analysis would be good. An interesting project to start with, who wrote each of the books of the bible? Here is a brief study for each of the books with a brief overview.
I've read the linked article, and while the author raised various solid points , I found his particular Ripley's "Believe it or Not!" tract-like delivery to be a tad DISTRACTING -
even CHILDISH!
I personally lean toward the tri-lingual theory, that Jesus was not limited to speaking one language only. As to what language the NT mss. were originally written - each writing in the NT has to be considered case by case, along the lines of what Mark O. raised earlier.
I think it interesting to consider (and enjoy) all the sources available to us when studying the early Christian writings.
The Greek-only vs. Aramaic-only debate seems rather silly in this respect.
It's extremely interesting to consider all the variants of a text, in whatever language they have come down to us.
If I had an additional lifetime, I'de pursue the Armenian and Ethiopic textual traditions.
Here is a study that suggests the gospel of Matthew was not even written by the disciple/apostle Matthew. This study suggests that the original language for this written work, like other books of the New Testament, may have been Greek. This study is from the Nelson Bible Dictionary.
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
Authorship and Date. Matthew is an anonymous gospel. Like other gospel titles, the title was added in the second century A.D. and reflects the tradition of a later time. How, then, did the gospel acquire its name? Writing about A.D. 130, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), records, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew (that is, Aramaic) language, and each interpreted them as best he could." Until comparative studies of the gospels in modern times, the church understood "oracles" to refer to the first gospel and considered Matthew, the apostle and former tax collector (9:9; 10:3), to be the author.
This conclusion, however, is full of problems. Our Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek, not Aramaic (as Papias records); and no copy of an Aramaic original of the gospel has ever been found. The Greek of the gospel cannot readily be translated back into Aramaic; and this strongly indicates that the gospel is not a Greek translation of an Aramaic original. Moreover, it is now generally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the four gospels and that the author of Matthew substantially used the Gospel of Mark in writing this gospel (also see GOSPELS).
If the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, one would wonder why he quoted so extensively from Mark (601 of Mark's 678 verses appear in Matthew), who was not a disciple of Jesus. Such observations virtually eliminate the possibility of the apostle Matthew being the author of the gospel.
The most promising way out of this dead-end street is to understand the "oracles" mentioned by Papias, not as the Gospel of Matthew, but as a collection of Jesus' sayings collected by the apostle Matthew. Later these sayings were used by an unknown author as a source for the present Gospel. The actual author probably was a Palestinian Jew who used the Gospel of Mark, plus a Greek translation of Matthew's Aramaic "oracles," and composed the gospel in Greek. The name of the gospel, therefore, stems from the apostle Matthew on whom the author draws, in part, to compose his work. This interpretation has the benefit of paying Papias' testimony the respect it deserves, as well as honoring the problems mentioned above.
And then you could take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia's case that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic:
II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.
A. TESTIMONY OF TRADITION
According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.
Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias--e.g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., I, viii, 2), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, cccxcii), and Origen (De Princip., IV, xi)--have used it to designate facts and savings. The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and teachings.
(2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could".
(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.
B. EXAMINATION OF THE GREEK GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW
Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we shall here treat them in full.
(1) The Language of the Gospel
St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions.
WTH, sorry, Lamsa is no longer credible as he and his parents rejected Christianity when George was 10 years old and became Islamic(Muslims). Also don't trust Aramaic Society nor Errico's Nodhra's Foundation as they have a pre-determined agenda which is all lies.
MS, info I had was 2nd hand but suppossedly reliable. Lamsa seemed to praise the Koran as being the truth as revealed by God, and the Bible as being okay, but not the full story. Sources close to Lamsa and his family impled that this was the case, though his niece in later years became a member of Unity School. Also the Church of the East never officially approved George's English translations(being dubious about its accuracy).
I recently came across this article on the subject:
What Language(s) Did Jesus Speak and Why Does It Matter?
What Language(s) Did Jesus Speak and Why Does It Matter?
He also concludes that Jesus most probably spoke at least some Greek. He would probably have needed to speak Greek with Pontius Pilate as recorded in John 18 and with the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13.
This thread reminded me that I wrote an article for the Way Magazine (remember the GMiR, research insert?) back around 1983 or so, I think the title of it was something like, "An Aramaic Approach to Paul's Epistles". I was studying Aramaic at the time at UCLA so I could "prove" VPs claims that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. Oh boy, those were the days.
Recommended Posts
sirguessalot
while i cant say ive ever gotten much out of those old name arguments
i will say that if they did speak greek commonly
and given the cosmopolitan make-up of the region...
...there seems very little possibility that this NT account of "speaking in tongues"
is what pfal/vpw and the like describe as being the signifiers and values of "speaking in tongues"
which, of course, is talking about what a large number of folks here do believe to various degrees
so i try to be as light as possible about things
and also say that its as ive been wondering around here for a few years ...
a dense summation: how "speaking in tongues" seems more valuable and more likely as some actual wave of reformations and restorations in the arts of ordinary human dialogue and its role in spiritual thought
where an easy common tongue (such as greek) serves as a vessel for a wine of greater meaning among all races
...so we can finally see how we are all spiritually red underneath
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Did they speak Greek? Well, it would make sense to me.. unless the Romans learned Palestinian Aramaic..
We know that Paul spoke Greek. I read or heard something a long time ago that suggested the epistles were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I think Lamsa is to be blamed for this for declaring that speaking Greek meant you had to accept its culture, falsely saying that no good Jew/Israelite would dare talk in Koine Greek or Latin without damning themselves and being kicked out of Judaism. Hence Wierwille agreed with him and claimed Jesus and most Gallieans, Samaritans, and Judeans would spit and avoid anyone speaking Greek or Latin without contamination. But Lamsa, Errico, and Wierwille obviously were ignorant on this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I had forgotten that Wierwille thought that Aramaic was the original language of the New Testament until you guys reminded me. A bible scholar he was not. The article that I posted says that all the oldest fragments of ancient biblical text are all in Greek. None are in Aramaic. Also since the Greek language was by far the language most recognized if the New Testament was to be understood by the most people it would need to have been written in Greek. Aramaic would have meant a very limited readership since this was only understood by the people of Israel. Hence they would not have been able to gain Gentile converts to Christianity. The aspostles and Jesus spoke Greek as a second language and certain New Testament records bear this out. On the other hand only the people of Israel spoke Aramaic. Hence this would not have been a good language for the spread of the Christian faith as its original language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
If you take a look at the history of the NT, common sense would preclude Aramaic as being the language of the vast majority of the writings that comprise the NT.
Mark was supposed to have accompanied Peter to Rome (he is said to have gone to Africa after this). Why would that Gospel or the Epistles of Peter be written in Hebrew or Aramaic from that point?
Luke was a Greek. You can see that from the Acts. Again, what purpose would Luke have in writing his account of the gospel or the Acts in Aramaic? Would Luke have even known Aramaic?
Luke's function was to serve as Paul's scribe. It is likely that most of the Pauline epistles were actually penned by Luke (on Paul's dictation). They, obviously, were penned by somebody other than Paul (remember how Paul announced in one that he wrote a greeting in his own hand). The same argument against Aramaic in regards to the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts apply to those epistles.
John left Palestine and went to Ephesus (and was later exiled to Patmos). Again, why would his account of the gospel, his letters, or the Apocolypse be written in Aramaic? Makes no sense.
James' letter was written to Hebrew Christians in the diaspora. Many of them no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (as a witness to this, consider why the OT was translated into Greek in Alexandria -- the Septuagint)
That leaves Matthew, Jude, and the epistle to the Hebrews.
According to Tradition, Matthew penned his account of the Gospel for the Hebrews in Palestine. For that reason, it his highly likely that his Gospel account would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Jude, according to tradition, lived in Palestine and, in all likelihood, wrote his epistle to Christians living in Palestine. Again, it's likely that his letter was originally penned in Aramaic.
Finally, Hebrews. Common sense, on the surface, states that this would be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. However, textual critics who are far smarter than I am point out a lot of "Greek-isms" in the text that might lead one to think otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
No. Jesus did not speak Greek. That is/was Dr. Lamsa's position and that is likely where VPW learned that. The remark about VPW not being a bible scholar because he thought the original was written in Aramaic is about as ignorant as one could get - especially when one considers Dr. Lamsa's credentials. (The next thing we'll probably hear is how VPW plagarised Lamsa. It wouldn't surprise me when people push their ignorance off on others who don't know any better themselves.)
This information about Dr. Lamsa is found here: Historical Backgrounds of the Holy Bible: Eastern Text
Dr. Lamsa was trained at the Archbishop of Canterbury College in Iran and Turkey under the strict care of scholarly and brilliant Cambridge and Oxford men. He was awarded the highest honors and degrees that that college conferred and received the honored title of "Rabbi". He studied extensively in American schools including the Episcopal Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia, and pursued endless years of study and research in the field of Biblical scholarship based on the Aramaic. His numerous volumes and translations have been enthusiastically received throughout the East. His translations of the New Testament, in 1940, is based on the oldest surviving texts (sources) in existence, that were preserved in Turkey and Iran, that were preserved in Turkey and Iran by the ancient Christians commonly called "Nestorians". Lamsa is the first man from the East to start Aramaic research and to point out that the Scriptures were originally written in Aramaic and not in Greek, and that the "Pedangta" is an original.
Lamsa's translations are based on the nine surviving, ancient, original Aramaic texts, which have never been revised or tampered with. [One can't say that about the Greek or the common Koine Greek - one of the main reason why we have so many different (and confusing) bibllical translations today.] He spent more than thirty years on the translation of the New and Old Testaments. Lamsa spoke eight other languages and served as translator on numerous occasions for governments and important institutions.
The Aramaic Bible Society appears to have been divinely chosen to be the medium of officially presenting to America and to the world not only this major prophet but the works of the Yonan Codex Foundation and it's continuing work with another ancient Aramaic document, the Khaboris Codex, another ancient Aramaic New Testament manuscript under the aegis of Dr. Dan MacDougald, Jr., and The Laws of Living Institute of Albany, Georgia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
It is nice that you have an opinion What the Hey, but did you read the article? If you read it then why didn't you learn anything from it?
Your thinking that Wierwille knows more about the original language of the New Testament than the man who wrote the linked article is insane. Here are some of the findings of actual textual experts.
Try to think for yourself for a change What the Hey. Do you really think the epistles written by Paul, for example, Ephesians, Corinthians, Phillippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, etc., to Greek speaking people who did not know Aramaic would be written to them in a foreign language? What would be the point of that? Have you ever received a letter addressed to you in a foreign language?
This really is a historical question for the most part.
Going back to what Mark O'Malley wrote, a book by book analysis would be good. An interesting project to start with, who wrote each of the books of the bible? Here is a brief study for each of the books with a brief overview.
http://blueletterbible.org/study/intros/es....html#esvchap58
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I've read the linked article, and while the author raised various solid points , I found his particular Ripley's "Believe it or Not!" tract-like delivery to be a tad DISTRACTING -
even CHILDISH!
I personally lean toward the tri-lingual theory, that Jesus was not limited to speaking one language only. As to what language the NT mss. were originally written - each writing in the NT has to be considered case by case, along the lines of what Mark O. raised earlier.
I think it interesting to consider (and enjoy) all the sources available to us when studying the early Christian writings.
The Greek-only vs. Aramaic-only debate seems rather silly in this respect.
It's extremely interesting to consider all the variants of a text, in whatever language they have come down to us.
If I had an additional lifetime, I'de pursue the Armenian and Ethiopic textual traditions.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is a study that suggests the gospel of Matthew was not even written by the disciple/apostle Matthew. This study suggests that the original language for this written work, like other books of the New Testament, may have been Greek. This study is from the Nelson Bible Dictionary.
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
Authorship and Date. Matthew is an anonymous gospel. Like other gospel titles, the title was added in the second century A.D. and reflects the tradition of a later time. How, then, did the gospel acquire its name? Writing about A.D. 130, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), records, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew (that is, Aramaic) language, and each interpreted them as best he could." Until comparative studies of the gospels in modern times, the church understood "oracles" to refer to the first gospel and considered Matthew, the apostle and former tax collector (9:9; 10:3), to be the author.
This conclusion, however, is full of problems. Our Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek, not Aramaic (as Papias records); and no copy of an Aramaic original of the gospel has ever been found. The Greek of the gospel cannot readily be translated back into Aramaic; and this strongly indicates that the gospel is not a Greek translation of an Aramaic original. Moreover, it is now generally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the four gospels and that the author of Matthew substantially used the Gospel of Mark in writing this gospel (also see GOSPELS).
If the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, one would wonder why he quoted so extensively from Mark (601 of Mark's 678 verses appear in Matthew), who was not a disciple of Jesus. Such observations virtually eliminate the possibility of the apostle Matthew being the author of the gospel.
The most promising way out of this dead-end street is to understand the "oracles" mentioned by Papias, not as the Gospel of Matthew, but as a collection of Jesus' sayings collected by the apostle Matthew. Later these sayings were used by an unknown author as a source for the present Gospel. The actual author probably was a Palestinian Jew who used the Gospel of Mark, plus a Greek translation of Matthew's Aramaic "oracles," and composed the gospel in Greek. The name of the gospel, therefore, stems from the apostle Matthew on whom the author draws, in part, to compose his work. This interpretation has the benefit of paying Papias' testimony the respect it deserves, as well as honoring the problems mentioned above.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And then you could take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia's case that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic:
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia (Gospel of St Matthew)
(There is a lot more to the article, just wanted to paste in the applicable portions of it)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
WTH, sorry, Lamsa is no longer credible as he and his parents rejected Christianity when George was 10 years old and became Islamic(Muslims). Also don't trust Aramaic Society nor Errico's Nodhra's Foundation as they have a pre-determined agenda which is all lies.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Where did you hear that Thomas? Are you saying that all the time George Lamsa was doing his bible version that he was a Muslim?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
MS, info I had was 2nd hand but suppossedly reliable. Lamsa seemed to praise the Koran as being the truth as revealed by God, and the Bible as being okay, but not the full story. Sources close to Lamsa and his family impled that this was the case, though his niece in later years became a member of Unity School. Also the Church of the East never officially approved George's English translations(being dubious about its accuracy).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
I recently came across this article on the subject:
What Language(s) Did Jesus Speak and Why Does It Matter?
What Language(s) Did Jesus Speak and Why Does It Matter?
He also concludes that Jesus most probably spoke at least some Greek. He would probably have needed to speak Greek with Pontius Pilate as recorded in John 18 and with the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13.
This thread reminded me that I wrote an article for the Way Magazine (remember the GMiR, research insert?) back around 1983 or so, I think the title of it was something like, "An Aramaic Approach to Paul's Epistles". I was studying Aramaic at the time at UCLA so I could "prove" VPs claims that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. Oh boy, those were the days.
Edited by wrdsandwrksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.