Aramaic NT Origins (The HRV)

[James Trimm]

The Hebraic Roots Version (which began as the Semitic New Testament

Project) was a ten year project to produce a new and accurate translation

of the New Testament taken primarily from old Hebrew and Aramaic sources.

Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek

Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text

of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally

written. This is important because there are some passages in the NT

which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense

when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic:

Acts 11:27-30

And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of

them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going

to be a great famine throughout all THE WORLD, which also happened in the

days of Claudius Caesar. Then the talmidim, each according to his ability,

determined to send relief to the brothers dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also

did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Now this doesn't make sense at all, why would those in Antioch send

relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA if the famine was to strike all THE

WORLD. They would be facing famine themselves. The solution lies in

the fact that the word for "WORLD" in the Aramaic manuscripts

is ‘ERA (Strong's #772) the Aramaic form

of the Hebrew word ERETZ (Strong's 776). This word can mean

"world" (as in Prov. 19:4) "earth" (as in Dan.

2:35) or "land" (as in Dan. 9:15) and is often used as a

euphemism for "The Land of Israel" (as in Dan. 9:6). Certainly

the word here is not meant to mean "world" but "land of

Israel."

Mt. 26:9 = Mk. 14:3

And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,

As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city

(see Lev. 13:46). 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.

Mt. 19:12 & Acts 8:26f

....there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the

Kingdom of Heaven's sake....

--Mt. 19:12 NKJV

So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a

eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians,

who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to

worship.

--Acts 8:27 NKJV

The man in Acts 8:27 appears to be a proselyte to Judaism since he seems

to be making the Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Dt. 16:16). The

Torah, however, forbids a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew, and

from worshiping at the Temple (Dt. 23:1f). This also raises the question

of why one would become a eunuch (be castrated) for the sake of the

Kingdom of Heaven. After all eunuchs are excluded from the assembly of

Israel. The word for "eunuch" in the Aramaic manuscripts

of both of theses passages is M’HAIMNA which can mean "eunuch"

but can also mean "believer" or "faithful one" as it

clearly means here.

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.

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.

Jn. 12:11 & 15:16

One word that the Greek translators often misunderstood was the

Aramaic word ‘EZAL which normally means "to go" or "to

depart" but is used idiomatically in Aramaic to mean that some

action goes forward and that something progresses "more and

more".

One case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word and

translated to literally is in Jn. 12:11:

Because that by reason of him many of the Jews

went away (!?!?!?!?), and believed on Jesus. (KJV)

Now I have translated the Aramaic of this passage as follows:

because many of the Judeans, on account of him,

were trusting more and more (‘EZAL) in Yeshua.

And Jn. 15:16:

...that ye should go and bring forth fruit...

KJV

I have translated from the Aramaic:

...that you also should bear fruit more and more (‘EZAL)...

The HRV Tanak it translated primarily from the Hebrew Masoretic Text

contains many footnotes giving important alternate readings from the Dead

Sea Scroll manuscripts; the Samaritan Pentateuch; the Greek Septuagent;

the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak and the Aramaic Targums.

The HRV "New Testament" text is taken from ancient Hebrew and

Aramaic manuscripts. (Shem Tob, DuTillet and Muster Hebrew Matthew;

Munster Hebrew Hebrews; The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels; The Aramaic

Pedangta NT and the Crawford Aramaic Revelation.) and has over 1,700

footnotes.

The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za

The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

[James Trimm]

As you all know I have long said that the “New Testament” was not written in Greek or any other European language but was instead written in Hebrew and Aramaic. I have also said that there are many passages which do not make sense in Greek or in the translations derived from Greek, but only make sense when we look at them in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. There are a number of examples I have given over the past few years but I want to make it clear that there are MANY MORE examples I can cite. The Hebraic Roots Version is the first translation in many cases to correctly translate these passages by translating directly from the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

The following are just a few more examples from various portions of the “New Testament” which do not make sense in the Greek or in the Greek based translation but which do make sense in the Hebraic Roots Version:

CAST OUT YOUR NAME AS EVIL ?????

In Luke 6:22 the KJV reads “Blessed are ye when men… cast out your name as evil…” following the Greek.

The Aramaic of the HRV has “Happy are you when men… cast out your evil name…” following the Aramaic of the Old Syriac.

In the Aramaic this is a usage of a Semitic idiom (also found in the Torah) whereby a person having been slandered is said to have an “evil name”. For example the Torah says:

If any man take a wife, and go unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her,

and bring up an evil name upon her,….

…because he has brought an evil name

upon a virgin of Israel…

(Deut. 22:13-14, 19)

Now in Hebrew and Aramaic a modifier follows the word it modifies. As a result the literal sentence structure of Luke 6:22 in the Aramaic has “name evil” but in English we say “evil name”. The Greek translator was apparently unaware of the Semitic idiom “evil name” and finding the term “evil name” odd, left the words in their Aramaic order and added the word “as” in between to make the phrase say in Greek “name as evil” rather than “evil name”. Luke 6:22 is actually saying in the Aramaic that believers would be persecuted by being slandered just as the virgin of Israel in Deut. 22:13-14, 19 was slandered, while the Greek simply implies that the believers very names would be hated and counted as evil things.

TOMBS IN THE CITY ?????

In Luke 8:27 the KJV (following the Greek) says that Yeshua met a man “out of the city” and who dwelt “in the tombs”.

Now anyone who knows much about the Torah knows that TOMBS were never located in a CITY because the dead are considered unclean. However the Aramaic uses a word here which can mean “city” or can mean “province” thus the HRV translates properly here that the man was “from the province” not “the city” while the Greek has misunderstood this ambiguous Aramaic word.

GREET NO MAN ON THE WAY ????

In Luke 10:4 in most translations (following the Greek) Yeshua sends his talmidim (disciples) out to travel around teaching and in doing so instructs them to “greet no man on the way” (as for example in the ISR version). Now this makes little sense. Why would Yeshua instruct his talmidim not to greet people? Can you just see them pass by someone on the road, the person says “shalom” in a friendly voice and the talmid just looks at him a minute, says nothing and keeps going. Surely the traveler thinks “what’s up with this rood jerk?”. In a quest to make some sense of this Greek phrase David Stern’s Jewish New Testament has “…don’t stop to shmooze with people on the road.” This is very much a paraphrase at best. First of all “shmooze” is Yiddish and has no relevance to the first century. The word “shmooze” means “engage in gossipy chit-chat” (as Stern defines it). There is no word in the Greek of Luke 10:4 that means “engage in gossipy chit-chat” or even “stop”. The Greek word in Luke 10:4 means “salute, greet”. However the Greek translator appears to have misunderstood the Aramaic original. The Aramaic has an ambiguous Aramaic word here which can mean “greet” but can also mean to “join or unify with”. Yeshua was not telling his talmidim not to greet people during their travels, nor was he instructing them not to stop to engage in friendly gossipy chit-chat” (though that might have been a good instruction). He was telling them not to be join or unify with other travelers along the way. Thus the HRV has here “and join no man on the way”.

GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND ????

In Romans 1:28 the KJV follows the Greek in having Paul say of Homosexuals that “God gave them over to a reprobate mind”. Now the Aramaic that appears here is a word that can mean to “deliver”/”give over” or to “release”. The Greek translator misunderstood this passage to mean that Elohim “gave them over to a reprobate mind” however the HRV correctly translates the Aramaic to read “Eloah released them to a mind of vanity”. Certainly Elohim does not deliver persons to a reprobate mind, but he may release them to their own freewill to their own mind of vanity.

I WILL CAST [JEZEBEL] INTO HER BED ??????

In Revelation 2:22 the KJV follows the Greek in telling us that Yeshua will cast Jezebel into her bed with her adulterers!!!! Certainly Jezebel would not mind being cast into a bed with her adulterers nor would Messiah be likely to do so. The Aramaic word here is ambiguous and can mean “bed” but can also mean “funeral pier” or “coffin”. The Greek translator misunderstood this Aramaic word and mistranslated it to mean “bed” and thus we read in most translations that Messiah cast Jezebel and her adulterers in bed together. The HRV reads correctly “Behold I will cast her into the coffin”.

Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written: Hebrew and Aramaic. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za

The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

James, a lot of this was taught by George Lamsa and Rocco Errico. I assume you also are familar with Matthew Black, Agnes Scott(?)Lewis, and Arthur Vorbius as experts in Aramaic/Syriac and Hebrew. One example where Greek is used is in Gospel of John where after Jeusu/Eshoo's ressurrection about love(khobva) is translated in Greek as philo by Peter/Kepa and agape used by Jesus(Eshoo). In Greek Jesus is saying divine love coming from God(Yahweh)but Peter(Kepa) is saying love/like as a friend. However in Aramaic the term love can mean godly divine love or friendship"brotherly" love, hence Peter's misunderstanding what Christ/Meshiah is saying in context. Or that is what I remember VPW teaching.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Thomas Loy Bumgarner

[James Trimm]

James, a lot of this was taught by George Lamsa and Rocco Errico. I assume you also are familar with Matthew Black, Agnes Scott(?)Lewis, and Arthur Vorbius as experts in Aramaic/Syriac and Hebrew. One example where Greek is used is in Gospel of John where after Jeusu/Eshoo's ressurrection about love(khobva) is translated in Greek as philo by Peter/Kepa and agape used by Jesus(Eshoo). In Greek Jesus is saying divine love coming from God(Yahweh)but Peter(Kepa) is saying love/like as a friend. However in Aramaic the term love can mean godly divine love or friendship"brotherly" love, hence Peter's misunderstanding what Christ/Meshiah is saying in context. Or that is what I remember VPW teaching.

Why the Hebraic Roots Version "New Testament"?

Yes, I am familiar with their groundwork.

In fact various scholars have made the case for a Hebrew or Aramaic rather than Greek origin for each and every portion of the New Testament:

When we turn to the New Testament we find that

there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic

original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John

and for the apocalypse.

(Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii)

I. THE GOSPELS

The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian, and the

language in which it was originally written is Aramaic,

then the principal language of the land..."

(Charles Cutler Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936; p. ix)

The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships was

Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell short

of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the case,

some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main

contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ...

The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made from

a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language was

Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most strikingly

through a comparison of parallel passages. ...

One group [of scholars], which originated in the nineteenth century

and persists to the present day [1979], contends that the Gospels

were written in Greek...

Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes out flatly

with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts up to 15:35

are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written Aramaic text....

My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position

valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were translated

from Aramaic into Greek.

(Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979)

A. MATTHEW

...certain linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew

text [of DuTillet Matthew] underlies the Greek, and that certain

renderings in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew

original.

(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; Hugh Schonfield; 1927, p. 17)

B. MARK

Some years ago I came to the conclusion that a new Hebrew

translation of the New Testament was badly needed... I chose

the Gospel of Mark... preliminary study of the Greek text of Mark

turned up the conclusion that the Greek word order and idiom was

more like Hebrew than literary Greek... I wondered if the Gospel

might not be a literal translation from some Semitic original.

(Robert Lisle Lindsey; A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark; p. 9)

C. LUKE

In regard to [Greek] Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four

Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most

constant evidence of being a translation [from Aramaic]."

(Charles Cutler Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936; p. lix)

D. JOHN

Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the

question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel; and

quickly convincing himself that the theory of an original Aramaic

document was no chimera, but a fact which was capable of the

fullest verification...

(Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3)

II. THE APOSTLES

A. ACTS

...the presence of Semitisms... in Acts once again raises the

whole question of its composition.

(Max Wilcox; The Semitisms of Acts; 1965; p. 157)

The ultimately Semitic nature of the traditions enshrined in a

number of parts of the New Testament- especially in Acts- must

not be underestimated or otherwise left out of account."

(ibid; p. 185)

B. THE EPISTLES

1. The General Epistles

...a number of scholars,... believe that portions of the New

Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic... this case has been

made for... the General Letters."

(David Stern; Jewish New Testament; 1989; p. xvii)

2. Pauline Epistles

The Pauline Epistles were letters written by Paul to small

Christian congregations in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. These

early Christians were mostly Jews of the Dispersion, men and women

of Hebrew origin. Paul on his journeys always spoke in the Jewish

synagogues. His first converts were Hebrews. Then came Arameans...

Paul emphasizes Hebrew law and history. He refers to Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob as our fathers. In his letters and teaching he

appeals to the Jewish people to accept Jesus as the promised

Messiah. Paul's mission was first to his own people... Paul was

educated in Jewish law in Jerusalem. He was a member of the

Jewish Council. His native language was western Aramaic but he

acquired his education through Hebrew and Chaldean or Palestinian

Aramaic... He defended himself when on trial in the Hebrew tongue.

Acts 22:2... Very early the Epistles were translated into Greek

for the use of converts who spoke Greek. Later they were

translated into all tongues."

(George M. Lamsa; The New Testament according to the Eastern Text; 1940; pp. xi-xii)

C. REVELATION

...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language, and

the Greek translation... is a remarkably close rendering of the

original."

(Charles Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church; 1941; p. 160)

We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse

as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...

(RBY Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse 1928; p. 6)

The HRV "New Testament" text is taken from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. (Shem Tob, DuTillet and Muster Hebrew Matthew; Munster Hebrew Hebrews; The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels; The Aramaic Pedangta NT and the Crawford Aramaic Revelation.)

Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written: Hebrew and Aramaic. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za

The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

[WordWolf]

(snip)

Unlike most translations this edition is not rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this translation seeks to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in which it was originally written: Hebrew and Aramaic. This is important because there are some passages in the NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.

(snip)

I think a fairly good case can be made for some, most, or all of the 4 Gospels having been

given originally in Aramaic and soon after translated into Greek.

From what I've seen, that can't honestly be said of the Epistles, and few people have

attempted to make that claim. Basically, Lamsa did, and Lamsa disciples do, and vpw

did as someone who parroted Lamsa as he parroted others.

That is, not counting present company.

I noticed that when you got to someone specifically claiming the Epistles had such an

origin, your source was Lamsa. It's no secret around here that Lamsa was a crackpot

and a megalomaniac, and might have been where vpw ripped off the assertion that he was

some special unique Christian in his lifetime.

[James Trimm]

I think a fairly good case can be made for some, most, or all of the 4 Gospels having been

given originally in Aramaic and soon after translated into Greek.

From what I've seen, that can't honestly be said of the Epistles, and few people have

attempted to make that claim. Basically, Lamsa did, and Lamsa disciples do, and vpw

did as someone who parroted Lamsa as he parroted others.

That is, not counting present company.

I noticed that when you got to someone specifically claiming the Epistles had such an

origin, your source was Lamsa. It's no secret around here that Lamsa was a crackpot

and a megalomaniac, and might have been where vpw ripped off the assertion that he was

some special unique Christian in his lifetime.

I will try to respond to this more in depth later today.

But on the topic of the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles, there was a nice piece written in the GMIR section of The Way Magazine (March-April '84) by a Karen Masterson 9th Way Corps. It was also presented at something called the Biblical Research Fellowship held at TWI HQ in Aug. 1983.

An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles

In this paper she makes a very good academic case that Paul wrote in Aramaic.

I think she was right and I will post some of my own reasons later.

Also in the May-June 1985 issue Dr. Daniel McConaughy published a paper The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament,

in which he also argues "We can clearly see... that he [Paul] would have written in Aramaic." (p. 19 column b; last paragraph).

Dr. McConaughy is known to me, he was a student of the noted scholar Arthur Voobus. He discovered a missing page of the Old Syriac in an expedition to the Middle east in November of 1985 and published his discovery in the professional journal Biblia Vol. 68 in 1987 (pp. 87-90).

And in 1988 he published a paper in the Journal Oriens Christianus

"An Old Syriac Reading of Acts 1:4 and More Light on Jesus' Last Meal before His Ascension.

(Band 72, 1988; p. 63-67)

In other words, he was no George Lamsa.

Wonder what ever happened to Ms. Masters...

Edited May 25, 2010 by James Trimm

[chockfull]

I will try to respond to this more in depth later today.

But on the topic of the Aramaic origin of the Pauline Epistles, there was a nice piece written in the GMIR section of The Way Magazine (March-April '84) by a Karen Masterson 9th Way Corps. It was also presented at something called the Biblical Research Fellowship held at TWI HQ in Aug. 1983.

An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles

In this paper she makes a very good academic case that Paul wrote in Aramaic.

I think she was right and I will post some of my own reasons later.

Wonder what ever happened to Ms. Masters...

Sure - there's a good academic case for the Pauline epistles being written in Aramaiac first, then translated to Greek later with the help of Timothy who was half Greek natively.

To me from a Pauline perspective that doesn't really address all the direct need for the Torah and ensuing minutae, although that's not criticizing the Law. I mean do we really need to build archways to our neighbor's houses to ensure the Sabbath is preserved such as some of the kosher Jews do? Paul himself had to deal with all of those that were "zealous for the Law" towards the end of Acts, and would not succomb to some of their demands. Paul himself, a Jew of Jews, was called to his main ministry to the Gentiles.

That to me speaks louder than anything as to the veil being ripped in half to the holy of holies.

[OldSkool]

That to me speaks louder than anything as to the veil being ripped in half to the holy of holies.

From top to bottom no less, indicating God is the one who tore it in half.

[Bolshevik]

From top to bottom no less, indicating God is the one who tore it in half.

. . . well . . . but can he make a paper crane?

[Tzaia]

That to me speaks louder than anything as to the veil being ripped in half to the holy of holies.

Was it ripped after he died on the cross according to Matthew 27:51, or was it before he died according to Luke 23:45?

Just asking.

[chockfull]

Was it ripped after he died on the cross according to Matthew 27:51, or was it before he died according to Luke 23:45?

Just asking.

Honestly, I don't know. And I don't know if one or the other is figurative. I would lean towards the Matthew record being figurative because of the nature of the gospel and the other things going on in that verse.

But I do know the significance of the act is recorded in both. And it represents the same thing in both.

[Tzaia]

But I do know the significance of the act is recorded in both. And it represents the same thing in both.

I don't think it represents the same thing in both. I think when the holy of holies was ripped represents whether the act was viewed by the writer as an act of atonement (Matthew and Mark) because it happened after his death, or whether it is viewed by the writer as an act of judgment (Luke) because it was torn before he died.

I haven't read the (supposed) translation from the Aramaic to do any comparison, but I sincerely doubt if it's going to do any better job of "fixing" the fact that the Matthew/Mark versions of the passion are very different from the Luke account.

[James Trimm]

45 Now from the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land, until the ninth hour.

46 And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My El, My El, why

have you forsaken Me?

47 And some of the men that stood by, when they heard, and said, He calls for Eliyahu.

48 And one of them ran right away, and took the sponge and filled it with vinegar, and

put it on a reed and gave Him to drink.

49 But the others said, Let be, and let us see if Eliyahu will come to deliver Him.

50 Then Yeshua cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 And behold! The veil of the Temple was torn in two, from the top to the bottom, and

the earth did quake, and the rocks were torn,

(Matt. 27:45-51 HRV)

44 Now about six hours had gone, and darkness was upon all the earth until the ninth

hour.

45 And the sun was dark, and the veil of the Temple was rent from its middle.

46 And Yeshua cried out with a great voice and said: My Father, into your hands I

commend My spirit! He said this and died.

(Luke 23:44-46)

It is my understanding that both accounts are describing a number of things that all happened at once.

The following is my comment on Matthew 27:51 from my

Hebraic Roots Commentary to Matthew

http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

27:51 the veil of the Temple was torn in two – In ancient Israel it was the custom of a father to mourn the death of his son by renting his garment in two. In this beautiful imagery the Father rent his garment in two at the death of his son. The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of this event as it was recorded in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews:

But in the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters

we read not that the veil of the Temple was rent,

but that the lintel of the Temple of wonderous size

collapsed.

(Jerome; Letter 120 to Hedibia and in his Commentary

on Mt. 27:51)

While Jerome thought that the collapse of the lintel occurred in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews instead of the tearing of the veil, it appears that both events occurred.

The lintel was a crossbeam over the doorway to the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The lintel stood atop two pillars eight stories high forming a doorway. The lintel was some thirty feet across and made of solid stone. It would have weighed about thirty tons! At the death of Yeshua there was an earthquake. This earthquake seems to have caused the lintel to break in the middle. It would have been no small event when these two pieces of the thirty ton lintel came crashing down eight stories. The veil hung from the lintel on the outside of this doorway. The hekel doors were attached to the pillars. When the lintel broke it caused the veil to be rent in two from top to bottom. This event seems to have damaged the hekel doors as well. The Talmud records:

[For] forty years before the Temple was destroyed…

the gates of the Hekel opened by themselves.

until Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai rebuked them

saying “Hekel, Hekel, why alarm you us? We know

that you are destined to be destroyed. For of you

has prophesied Zechariah Ben Iddo (Zech. 11:1):

“Open your doors, O Lebanon and the fire shall

eat your ceders.”

(b.Yoma 39b)

[James Trimm]

The Pauline Epistles

The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the Pauline Epistles were first written in Greek. This position is held by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers" admitted the Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome) admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles . Still, Paul is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from Tarsus who Hellenized the Gospel. So strong has this image of Paul been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have argued for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament have rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles.

Paul and Tarsus

In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them .

Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3:

I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,

but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,

taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah.

and was zealous toward God as you all are today.

Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel passage in Acts 7:20-23:

At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God;

and he was brought up in his father's house for three months.

And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away

and brought him up as her own son.

And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...

Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di). Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely born at Tarsus.

Was Paul a Helenist?

The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist. This would explain why Paul disputed against the Helenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.

Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt that he was in any way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic expression meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed to Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism.

The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles

Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians . It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes:

What advantage then has the Jew,

or what is the profit of circumcision?

Much in every way!

To them first, were committed the Words of God.

- Rom. 3:1-2

It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.

One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:

1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)

2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)

All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and Aramaic Paul would not have written material which he intended to be read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal) authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Semitic Style of Paul’s Epistles

Paul clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions. Paul uses the term "word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor. 12:8) Paul also uses the Semitic form of magnification by following a noun with its plural form. This is used in the Tenach (Old Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies." Paul uses this idiom in such phrases as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5); "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).

Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)

In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly

he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of

all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he

asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew

tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and

published among the Greeks.

(Eccl. Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Hist. 6:14:2)

Eusebius (315 C.E.)

For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his

country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that

Clement, translated the epistle.

(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Jerome (382)

"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own

tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently

written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek

(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)

[Tzaia]

45 Now from the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land, until the ninth hour.

46 And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My El, My El, why

have you forsaken Me?

47 And some of the men that stood by, when they heard, and said, He calls for Eliyahu.

48 And one of them ran right away, and took the sponge and filled it with vinegar, and

put it on a reed and gave Him to drink.

49 But the others said, Let be, and let us see if Eliyahu will come to deliver Him.

50 Then Yeshua cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 And behold! The veil of the Temple was torn in two, from the top to the bottom, and

the earth did quake, and the rocks were torn,

(Matt. 27:45-51 HRV)

44 Now about six hours had gone, and darkness was upon all the earth until the ninth

hour.

45 And the sun was dark, and the veil of the Temple was rent from its middle.

46 And Yeshua cried out with a great voice and said: My Father, into your hands I

commend My spirit! He said this and died.

(Luke 23:44-46)

It is my understanding that both accounts are describing a number of things that all happened at once.

Personally - I think you understand incorrectly. The Matthew/Mark versions of the story say that the veil tore after he died. Luke clearly states that it happened before. I won't even get into the notion that someone didn't get it right - that kind of flies in the face of the whole "God inspired" thing. The point is that the placement of when that event happened has significant theological implications - and 2 very different things are being said by way of where that tearing of the holy of holies takes place.

[James Trimm]

Personally - I think you understand incorrectly. The Matthew/Mark versions of the story say that the veil tore after he died. Luke clearly states that it happened before. I won't even get into the notion that someone didn't get it right - that kind of flies in the face of the whole "God inspired" thing. The point is that the placement of when that event happened has significant theological implications - and 2 very different things are being said by way of where that tearing of the holy of holies takes place.

I cannot agree. In fact the Old Syriac text of Matthew 27:51 says that "in the same hour" the Temple veil was torn. I think that the veil was torn at the exact moment of Messiah's death, thus in listing the things that happened in that instant Matthew lists it after and Luke lists it before, but both are listing things that happened at the same instant in time.

[chockfull]

I don't think it represents the same thing in both.

What it represents in all gospel accounts is that now the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, have access into the Holy of Holies which they could not possibly previously have access to without being Jews.

It represents now that all common people who accept Jesus Christ have the same access to God that only the High Priest had under the Law.

Did you pick that up?

I cannot agree. In fact the Old Syriac text of Matthew 27:51 says that "in the same hour" the Temple veil was torn. I think that the veil was torn at the exact moment of Messiah's death, thus in listing the things that happened in that instant Matthew lists it after and Luke lists it before, but both are listing things that happened at the same instant in time.

That makes sense to me. All of the "harmony of the gospels" work to me has seemed in many places to be tedious, problematic, and to require stretches of logic. That's why I said I don't know to the exact sequence of events, but thought the more important point was what that represented and continues to represent.

[James Trimm]

What it represents in all gospel accounts is that now the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, have access into the Holy of Holies which they could not possibly previously have access to without being Jews.

It represents now that all common people who accept Jesus Christ have the same access to God that only the High Priest had under the Law.

Did you pick that up?

I cannot accept that interpretation. I do not believe that before Messiah's death Gentiles were just fuel for the fire of Hell.

To the contrary MANY gentiles came to the true faith in so called "Old Testament Times". Ruth was a Moabitess. We read in Esther:

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and

his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy; a feast and a good day. And many from

among the peoples of the land, became Jews: for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon

them.

(Esther 8:17 HRV)

Jonah was sent to urge the Ninevehites to repent... to what end if the way was closed to them.

I cannot accept that interpretation. I do not believe that before Messiah's death Gentiles were just fuel for the fire of Hell.

To the contrary MANY gentiles came to the true faith in so called "Old Testament Times". Ruth was a Moabitess. We read in Esther:

And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and

his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy; a feast and a good day. And many from

among the peoples of the land, became Jews: for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon

them.

(Esther 8:17 HRV)

Jonah was sent to urge the Ninevehites to repent... to what end if the way was closed to them.

Although I would like to keep the theological debate in the Which Way? thread and keep this thread for Hebrew and Aramaic New Testament Origins.

[bliss]

I'm starting to have (((flashbacks))))....!!!!

One sentence put the nail in the coffin when deciding to leave TWI ...and that was a question from a Christian ''outsider''.

she said:

"Sounds like you worship the bible, instead of the Author of it?"

nuff said.

[chockfull]

"Sounds like you worship the bible, instead of the Author of it?"

Yeah, the Greek comes into play there - the word for "scribe" is Grammatikos, I believe. You get too wound up in the minutae and you don't see the forest for the trees, and strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Good point.

[James Trimm]

SOURCE TEXTS USED IN THE HRV "NEW TESTAMENT":

Edited May 26, 2010 by James Trimm

[James Trimm]

Although the Greek version of the Epistle to the Hebrews has become

the standard text used in Christendom, the "Church Fathers" of

Christendom openly admitted that the Letter to the Hebrews had been

originally written in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek.

Eusebius in the fourth century referred to a now lost writing by

Clement of Alexandria wrote around the year 200 C.E. which Eusebius

cites as follows:

In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up

the matter briefly he [Clement of Alexandria]

has given us the abridged accounts

of all the canonical Scriptures, the Epistle

to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul,

to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue;

but that it was carefully translated by Luke,

and published among the Greeks.

(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes (c. 200 CE) referred to by

Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2)

And Eusebius himself testifies:

For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews

in the language of his country;

some say that the evangelist Luke,

others that Clement, translated the epistle.

(Eusebius (4th Cent.); Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Finally Jerome writes:

He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew,

that is, his own tongue and most fluently

while things which were eloquently

written in Hebrew were more eloquently

turned into Greek.

(Jerome (4th Cent.); Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V)

Now as many of you may know, in 1537 Munster had published Hebrew

Matthew which he had obtained from the Jews (this Hebrew text was

very similar to the Hebrew Matthew published in 1553 by Jean

DuTillet). Twenty years later, in 1557, a second edition of

Munster's Hebrew Matthew was printed, this time also containing the

complete Hebrew text of the Letter to the Hebrews in an appendix.

This second edition went largely unnoticed and soon forgotten. The

lost Hebrew text of Hebrews has only been "rediscovered" since this

second 1557 edition of Munster's Hebrew Matthew has (in recent

months) come to our attention.

This Hebrew text of Hebrews (which had never before been translated

into English) served as the primary text of the Hebraic Roots Version

of the Letter to the Hebrews as published in the HRV complete

Scriptures.

Sometimes I am asked in the Hebrew or Aramaic NT texts differ from

the Greek texts. I would like to give an example of such a

difference as found in Hebrews 6:1-2:

The KJV translates the Greek version of Hebrews 6:1-2 as follows:

Therefore leaving the principles of

the doctrine of Christ, let us go on

unto perfection; not laying again

the foundation of repentance from dead works,

and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of

baptisms, and of laying on of hands,

and of resurrection of the dead,

and of eternal judgment.

In Greek Hebrews it is layed out that one leaves the "principles of

the doctrine of Christ" and "goes onto perfection" by "not laying

again the foundation" of a list of six "principles of the doctrine of

Christ".

But Hebrew Hebrews reads somewhat differently in this passage:

Therefore it is time to leave the word concerning

the word of the beginning of the life of Messiah

for so we grow in maturity to move again to establish

a foundation of repentance from dead works by faith in

Elohim. [A foundation] of immersions, of teaching,

of laying on of hands, of resurrection from the dead

and from everlasting judgment.

In the Hebrew version of Hebrews one leaves the mere study of the

life of Messiah and moves onto maturity by establishing a foundation

of seven areas that move us on to maturity.

Now this is a big difference. The Greek text says that we

should "leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ" ?!?! while

the Hebrew only says that we should move beyond a mere study of the

life of Messiah.

The Greek points us to move on from a study of six items while the

Hebrew tells us we should continue in studying seven items. Of

course in the Scriptures seven is normally the number of perfection

while six is generally the number of man (created on the sixth day)

and imperfection.

The Greek translator mistook the phrase "of immersions, of teaching"

as "of teachings of immersions" (i.e. of doctrines of baptisms) thus

leaving out "teaching/study" as one of seven foundational items that

help us move onto maturity.

The Hebrew points us in the direction of maturity while the Greek

tells us that the very things we need to grow in maturity are things

we should leave behind (and leaves out "teaching" entirely).

The Hebraic Roots Version is available at http://www.messianic.co.za

The E-Text version is at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

Edited May 26, 2010 by James Trimm

[James Trimm]

If you are interested in this kind of research check out the following resources:

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-hebrew-and-aramaic-origin-of-the-new-testament/5616601

B'sorot Matti The Goodnews according to Matthew from an Old Hebrew Manuscript

(Hebrew and English on facing pages)

(Paperback)

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/bsorot-matti-the-goodnews-according-to-matthew-from-an-old-hebrew-manuscript/5616553

(hardback)

http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/bsorot-matti-the-goodnews-according-to-matthew-from-an-old-hebrew-manuscript/5616577

The Letter to the Hebrews from an Old Hebrew Text

(Hebrew and English on Facing Pages)

http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/the-letter-to-the-hebrews-from-an-old-hebrew-text/5611693

The Hebraic Roots Version:

PRINTED EDITION

http://www.isr-messianic.org/pubs/hrv.shtml

E-TEXT

http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/hebraic-roots-version-revised-e-book-ed/4901935

ON CD ROM

http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/hrv-on-cd-rom---revised-text/4901961

[James Trimm]

Wonder how many of the old TWI Research Team Aramaic folks are still out there? The research on the Aramaic origins of the NT need not end, it can continue without TWI.

[Twinky]

This and some other of James Trimm's topics are very interesting - but need to be in Doctrinal, surely, not in About The Way?