Aramaic NT Origins (The HRV)

James Trimm · May 26, 2010

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

The Which way thread should perhaps be doctrinal, but the original language of the NT is not necessarily "doctrinal"...

I would love to see a sub-forum for Aramaic Research or something....

WordWolf · May 26, 2010

The Which way thread should perhaps be doctrinal, but the original language of the NT is not necessarily "doctrinal"...

I would love to see a sub-forum for Aramaic Research or something....

It's closer to "doctrinal" than to being "About the Way", which is specifically

concerning the organization calling itself "the way international",

and things directly concerning it.

The scholarly stuff in general usually belongs in "Doctrinal."

Feel free to request a Moderator to just move this thread or any similar thread

down there.

James Trimm · May 26, 2010

I have already moved the doctrinal discussion.

As for Aramaic NT Origins research, I think it was very much a part of the Way that transcended doctrine. In fact their three volume set and concordance reflect little if any TWI doctrine and are well regarded by Aramaic researchers as academically honest and untainted by TWI doctrine.

OldSkool · May 26, 2010

Well, it's good to hear that they are good for something. <_<

chockfull · May 26, 2010

I have already moved the doctrinal discussion.

As for Aramaic NT Origins research, I think it was very much a part of the Way that transcended doctrine. In fact their three volume set and concordance reflect little if any TWI doctrine and are well regarded by Aramaic researchers as academically honest and untainted by TWI doctrine.

Haha - so much so they fired the people that worked on it or drove them off. One of them whose screen name is penworks posts here.

Edited May 26, 2010 by chockfull

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

Language of First Century Israel

The Middle East, through all of its political turmoil, has in

fact been dominated by a single master from the earliest ages until

the present day. The Semitic tongue has dominated the Middle East

from ancient times, until the modern day. Aramaic dominated the

three great Empires, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian. It endured

until the seventh century, when under the Islamic nation it was

displaced by a cognate Semitic language, Arabic. Even today some few

Syrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans speak Aramaic as their native

tongue, including three villages north of Damascus .

The Jewish people, through all of their persecutions,

sufferings and wanderings have never lost sight of their Semitic

heritage, nor their Semitic tongue. Hebrew, a Semitic tongue closely

related to Aramaic, served as their language until the great

dispersion when a cognate language, Aramaic, began to replace it.

Hebrew, however continued to be used for religious literature, and is

today the spoken language in Israel.

The Babylonian Exile

Some scholars have proposed that the Jews lost their Hebrew

language, replacing it with Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity.

The error of this position becomes obvious. The Jewish people had

spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt yet they did not stop speaking

Hebrew and begin speaking Egyptian, why should they exchange Hebrew

for Aramaic after only seventy years in Babylonian captivity? Upon

return from the Babylonian captivity it was realized that a small

minority could not speak "the language of Judah" so drastic

measures were taken to abolish these marriages and maintain the

purity of the Jewish people and language One final evidence rests

in the fact that the post-captivity books (Zech., Hag., Mal., Neh.,

Ezra, and Ester) are written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic.

Hellenization

Some scholars have also suggested that under the Helene

Empire Jews lost their Semitic language and in their rush to

hellenize, began speaking Greek. The books of the Maccabees do

record an attempt by Antiochus Epiphanies to forcibly Hellenize the

Jewish people. In response, the Jews formed an army led by Judas

Maccabee This army defeated the Greeks and eradicated Hellenism .

This military victory is still celebrated today as Chanukkah, the

feast of the dedication of the Temple a holiday that even Yeshua

seems to have observed at the Temple at Jerusalem in the first

century . Those who claim that the Jews were Hellenized and began

speaking Greek at this time seem to deny the historical fact of the

Maccabean success.

During the first century, Hebrew remained the language of the

Jews living in Judah and to a lesser extent in Galilee. Aramaic

remained a secondary language and the language of commerce. Jews at

this time did not speak Greek, in fact one tradition had it that it

was better to feed ones children swine than to teach them the Greek

language. It was only with the permission of authorities that a

young official could learn Greek, and then, solely for the purpose of

political discourse on the National level. The Greek language was

completely inaccessible and undesirable to the vast majority of Jews

in Israel in the 1st century.70a Any gauge of Greek language outside

of Israel cannot, nor can any evidence hundreds of years removed from

the 1st century, alter the fact that the Jews of Israel in the 1st

century did not know Greek.

The Testimony of Josephus

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100

C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first

century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was

the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first

hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According

to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the

Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2)) . Josephus

gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people

during his time:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the

learning

of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek

language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak

our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with

sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those

that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2)

Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even

speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language."

Archaeology

Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by

Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins

were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All

of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other

inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and

various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions

Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language

during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about

that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the

Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters.

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more

than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls

are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular

scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew.

The Bar Kokhba letters are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba

and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These

letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all

written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in

Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One

of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar

Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have

no one who knows Hebrew here."

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only

include first and second century Hebrew documents, but give an even

more significant evidence in the dialect of that Hebrew. The dialect

of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach (Old

Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220

C.E.). The Hebrew of these documents is colloquial, it is a fluid

living language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary

process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew of

the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a

Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean

Hebrew. Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of

geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead

language.

Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew

and Aramaic can be found in other documents of the period, and even

later. These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts in Aramaic (66-70

C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c. 30 - 110 C.E.), Wars

of the Jews by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in

Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.)

Gen-2 · May 27, 2010

I can never read a whole chapter before i go to bed,....

johnj · May 27, 2010

Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarcus, Trophimus, Onesimus, Appollos, Tryphinia, Triphosa, Hermogenous, Erastus, Philemon, Rufus, Peter, Paul, Silas, Phoebe, Epinetus, Andronicus, Hermes, APpelles, Narcisus, Lucius, Jason, Tertius, Gius, Quartus, Mark, Demas, Chloe.

If the early church was so full of Hebrew converts who rejected Greek, why were nearly all their names Greek and Latin? (you very, very rarely see Hebrew names like Bartholemew, Simon, Jacob in the epistles or Acts) And why were several of them even named after Greek gods (Apollos, Hermes)?

And why did Paul say to the Jews in Corinth, "your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles!" (Acts 18:6)

Most Hebrews in the world in the first century used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, not Hebrew. But the Jews came to see it as "the Christian Bible," so at the end of the first century a Rabbi wrote a Greek translation of the OT to replace the Septuagint among the Hebrews. There would be no need for either of them if Hebrews didn't speak Greek like everyone in the towns in which they lived. Today the Hasidic (ultra-orthodox) Jews who live in America speak English, just as the Pharisees in Thessolonica spoke Greek in their daily life and knew it more fluently than Hebrew.

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarcus, Trophimus, Onesimus, Appollos, Tryphinia, Triphosa, Hermogenous, Erastus, Philemon, Rufus, Peter, Paul, Silas, Phoebe, Epinetus, Andronicus, Hermes, APpelles, Narcisus, Lucius, Jason, Tertius, Gius, Quartus, Mark, Demas, Chloe.

If the early church was so full of Hebrew converts who rejected Greek, why were nearly all their names Greek and Latin? (you very, very rarely see Hebrew names like Bartholemew, Simon, Jacob in the epistles or Acts) And why were several of them even named after Greek gods (Apollos, Hermes)?

And why did Paul say to the Jews in Corinth, "your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles!" (Acts 18:6)

Most Hebrews in the world in the first century used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, not Hebrew. But the Jews came to see it as "the Christian Bible," so at the end of the first century a Rabbi wrote a Greek translation of the OT to replace the Septuagint among the Hebrews. There would be no need for either of them if Hebrews didn't speak Greek like everyone in the towns in which they lived. Today the Hasidic (ultra-orthodox) Jews who live in America speak English, just as the Pharisees in Thessolonica spoke Greek in their daily life and knew it more fluently than Hebrew.

Well there were a lot of Greek names and also many Hebrew names. The Greek names came into Jewish culture becuse when Alexander the Great first gained control of Judah, he enacted speacial laws protecting the Jews and their rights to continue in their culture, language and religion. This made Alexander and Hellenism initially popular with the Jewish people (but this was for a short time, over 300 years BEFORE the NT was written) Once names enter a culture, they are there for a long time. Also at the time many Hebrews had two names, a Hebrew name and a Greek one. As for being named after Greek gods, that is a misconception. The Greeks worshiped nature. Their gods were things in nature. Apollos just means "sun" and Hermes just means "message".

In fact many Rabbis in the Mishna, Tosefta, Talmuds and Midrashim also had Greek names, but no one would claim Greek as the original language of these books. When I grew up one of my best friends was Alexander and a Jewish friend in Synagogue was named Christopher .

>And why did Paul say to the Jews in Corinth, "your blood be on your own heads!

>I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles!" (Acts 18:6)

Up until Acts 11:19-20 (c. 41 CE) they took the message “to the Jews only” Paul goes out to the Gentiles in Acts 18:6 (c. 54 CE) nearly 20 years into his ministry (Acts 9 is around 35 CE). \

Moreover the first Gentile believers were at Antioch (Acts 11:19-20) which is in Syria where they spoke Syriac (A dialect of Aramaic).

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.

>Most Hebrews in the world in the first century used the Greek Septuagint

>Old Testament, not Hebrew. But the Jews came to see it as "the Christian Bible,"

>so at the end of the first century a Rabbi wrote a Greek translation of the OT to

>replace the Septuagint among the Hebrews. There would be no need for either of

>them if Hebrews didn't speak Greek like everyone in the towns in which they

>lived. Today the Hasidic (ultra-orthodox) Jews who live in America speak English,

>just as the Pharisees in Thessolonica spoke Greek in their daily life and knew it

> more fluently than Hebrew.

This is not true, in fact the largest Jewish population of the time lived in the area of the old Babylonian Captivity (from which the Babylonian Talmud would later come, in Aramaic the language of the land at the time. (The Gentile Christians of that region continue to use the Aramaic Pedangta as THE New Testament top this very day. It is generally accepted that the LXX was used by Hellenist Jews who were a minority in Judea but a majority in Alexandria Egypt. Oddly there is little mention in the NT of an early Messianic movement in Alexandria, the seat of Jewish Hellenism, where there certainly would have been had it been a Hellenistic movement. In fact the version by Aquila was not done at the end of the First Century at all but around the middle of the Second Century. Aquila was a disciple of Rabbi Akiva and was anything but a Hellenist. It is generally accepted that Aquila’s version was created primarily for the purpose of having a Greek version with which to use in debating with Christians, and the Septuagint had fallen into distrust because the Christians used it. (See Old Testament Textual Criticism by Ellis R. Brotzman p. 75)

Edited May 27, 2010 by James Trimm

Gen-2 · May 27, 2010

... It is generally accepted that Aquila’s version was created primarily for the purpose of having a Greek version with which to use in debating with Christians, and the Septuagint had fallen into distrust because the Christians used it.

The Way said the same thing about the PFAL Class, and the need to have the Way of Power and Abundance because those outside their fold were using that older class to debate them.

I tend to have stopped reading your cut and paste remarks, they are long and rather impersonal, as it seems you're speaking "AT" us rather than "TO" us. To do this so much makes me think that you believe we are not worth your personal time and consideration. You can argue this point, saying that you are spending great effort in selecting just-the-right sections to "cut & paste" to us, but it still comes off as terribly impersonal to me, as though we're not really worth the time it might take you to type it today.

It's just my opinion.

OldSkool · May 27, 2010

I tend to have stopped reading your cut and paste remarks, they are long and rather impersonal, as it seems you're speaking "AT" us rather than "TO" us.

I agree and haven't read one of your posts in it's entirety. Maybe I have a short attention span.

soul searcher · May 27, 2010

I tend to have stopped reading your cut and paste remarks, they are long and rather impersonal...

+1

James, why don't you post a link or attach a thumbnail document and save the real estate on the actual post for your comments?

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

+1

James, why don't you post a link or attach a thumbnail document and save the real estate on the actual post for your comments?

My intent was to stimulate conversation, for which links to PDF's would be much less effective. I am attempting to post in short segments that deal with very specific issues.

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

The Way said the same thing about the PFAL Class, and the need to have the Way of Power and Abundance because those outside their fold were using that older class to debate them.

I tend to have stopped reading your cut and paste remarks, they are long and rather impersonal, as it seems you're speaking "AT" us rather than "TO" us. To do this so much makes me think that you believe we are not worth your personal time and consideration. You can argue this point, saying that you are spending great effort in selecting just-the-right sections to "cut & paste" to us, but it still comes off as terribly impersonal to me, as though we're not really worth the time it might take you to type it today.

It's just my opinion.

I have been posting on the internet on this topic since 1993 and even before that on computer bulletin boards (remember those? remember 300 baud modems?)

My dad was an engineer and always taught me that there is only one most effective (efficient) way to do something. Over the years I have sought to create the most effective response to any given issue on Hebrew/Aramaic NT Origins (as well as other issues). I have refined the material debating over the years, as Scripture says, "iron sharpens iron". Now I could start over redesigning each argument each time an issue comes up, or I could depend on over 20 years of refinement end present the most effective argument my 20 years of experience has developed. Bit that refined argument has been presented somewhere else before...

Edited May 27, 2010 by James Trimm

soul searcher · May 27, 2010

My intent was to stimulate conversation, for which links to PDF's would be much less effective. I am attempting to post in short segments that deal with very specific issues.

Short segments? I don't think so. They are long and boring (sorry).

Call this Marketing 101: your readers are pulling away. Less people reading means less discussion.

But do it any way you wanna. Maybe others here are enjoying your "short" posts.

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

Short segments? I don't think so. They are long and boring (sorry).

Call this Marketing 101: your readers are pulling away. Less people reading means less discussion.

But do it any way you wanna. Maybe others here are enjoying your "short" posts.

Well I will shoot for shorter posts.

chockfull · May 27, 2010

I have been posting on the internet on this topic since 1993 and even before that on computer bulletin boards (remember those? remember 300 baud modems?)

yes. I remember USENET and 300 baud modems.

My dad was an engineer and always taught me that there is only one most effective (efficient) way to do something. Over the years I have sought to create the most effective response to any given issue on Hebrew/Aramaic NT Origins (as well as other issues). I have refined the material debating over the years, as Scripture says, "iron sharpens iron". Now I could start over redesigning each argument each time an issue comes up, or I could depend on over 20 years of refinement end present the most effective argument my 20 years of experience has developed. Bit that refined argument has been presented somewhere else before...

I would postulate to you that the most effective and efficient way to present a response is to formulate it in a way that it will be read, as opposed to a way that it will not be read. The problems with carrying on a conversation in this fashion are as follows:

1) Utilizing 20 years of pre-compiled arguments is that you place the others you are discussing the topic with at a disadvantage as they don't have 20 years worth of pre-compiled arguments. If you do this consistently, people will stop conversing with you.

2) Without reviewing and editing the pre-compiled arguments so that they exactly match the discussion you are having it is a shotgun approach - there is content both on topic and off topic. Many specific questions in the conversation are not answered, just loose high level topics are matched up.

3) Messages on forums to be considerate of fellow posters should be short and to the point with links to external background information should participants in the discussion choose to want more background information. This respects everyone's time as equally valuable. With the shotgun approach, you are indirectly communicating that your time is more valuable than others on a forum so you don't want to spend it editing ideas you've had 20 years ago to make them pertinent to the current conversation.

So as an engineer's son, my challenge to you is this. If you design the most perfectly constructed bridge that nobody will travel over, of what genuine value is it? The location of a bridge is at least as important as the engineering of the bridge.

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

yes. I remember USENET and 300 baud modems.

I would postulate to you that the most effective and efficient way to present a response is to formulate it in a way that it will be read, as opposed to a way that it will not be read. The problems with carrying on a conversation in this fashion are as follows:

1) Utilizing 20 years of pre-compiled arguments is that you place the others you are discussing the topic with at a disadvantage as they don't have 20 years worth of pre-compiled arguments. If you do this consistently, people will stop conversing with you.

2) Without reviewing and editing the pre-compiled arguments so that they exactly match the discussion you are having it is a shotgun approach - there is content both on topic and off topic. Many specific questions in the conversation are not answered, just loose high level topics are matched up.

3) Messages on forums to be considerate of fellow posters should be short and to the point with links to external background information should participants in the discussion choose to want more background information. This respects everyone's time as equally valuable. With the shotgun approach, you are indirectly communicating that your time is more valuable than others on a forum so you don't want to spend it editing ideas you've had 20 years ago to make them pertinent to the current conversation.

So as an engineer's son, my challenge to you is this. If you design the most perfectly constructed bridge that nobody will travel over, of what genuine value is it? The location of a bridge is at least as important as the engineering of the bridge.

Of course if someone gives an original argument against the Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the NT that I have never heard before. I will compose an original response.

James Trimm · May 27, 2010

A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New Testament were originally penned in a Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the topic:

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

The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian,

and the language in which it was originally written

is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land...

-C. C. 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

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

...this [Old Syriac] Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least

to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work

of the Apostle himself.

- William Cureton; Remains of a Very

Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels

in Syriac; 1858; p. vi)

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

and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close

rendering of the original."

- C. C. 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...

- R. B. Y. Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse

1928; p. 6

The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states:

In regard to 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.

- C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix

James Trimm · May 28, 2010

TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS"

All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to

the Semitic origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following

quotes demonstrate:

Papias (150-170 C.E.)

Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each

translated as he was able.

(quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)

Ireneus (170 C.E.)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in

their own dialect.

(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)

The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same

that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of

Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish

believers, wrote it in Hebrew.

(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.)

Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,

when on the point of going also to the other nations,

committed

it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the

want of

his presence to them by his writings.

(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24)

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported

that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been

delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of

Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is

said, had proclaimed, and left them the writing of Matthew in

Hebrew letters.

(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)

They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew

quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still

preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew

letters.

(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)

"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to

be

an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of

Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the

benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who

translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.

Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in

the

library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently

collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this

volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to

be

remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the

testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the

authority of the seventy translators [the Greek Septuagint],

but

that of the Hebrew."

(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve

emissaries, had there [india] preached the advent of our Lord

Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which

was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to

Alexandria, he brought with him."

(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)

His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of

Palestine,

and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in

Hebrew...

(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)

Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin

of at least one of Paul's epistles. These "church fathers" claim

that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a

Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate:

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.

(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl.

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 5)

It should be noted that these church fathers did not always

agree that the other books of the New Testament were written in

Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Matthew put the

setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament

in the Hebrew language and letters." (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3)

Epiphanius does, however, tell us that the Jewish believers would

disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of

John and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius,

Israel. (Epipnanius; Pan. 30:3, 6) Epiphanius believed these

versions to be mere "translations" (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6, 12) but

admitted that the Jewish believers would disagree with him.

(Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3) The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek

had replaced Hebrew as the language of Jews as early as the first

century, then why would fourth century Jews have any need for Hebrew

translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these

books in fourth century Israel testifies to their originality, not to

mention the fact that the Jewish believers regarded them as authentic.

James Trimm · May 28, 2010

That the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic is further verified by the history of the early believers in Yeshua as the Messiah. The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" . Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua called "Christians" appeared . This first congregation of Gentile Christians formed in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where some of the people spoke Greek and almost all spoke Aramaic, which is also called "Syriac". Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the Nazarenes from their center at Jerusalem to Pella. Eventually, they established communities in Beroea, Decapolis, Bashanitis and Perea. These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures and in the fourth century Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew Matthew. As a result, while at least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very early on Aramaic and Greek New Testament books were needed.

Mark Sanguinetti · May 28, 2010

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm

The dominant language of the first century when the New Testament was written was Greek. This was often the second language for the majority of people, in particular the Jews. Jesus, Paul, Peter and others likely had Greek as a second language similar to what we have today in Europe where people know more than one language. Luke the writer of Acts and the gospel of Luke was a Gentile. Peter, likely did not write the books that are given his name in the New Testament, but rather dictated this information to someone else. This person likely too was knowledgeable of Greek.

But the most obvious is why would the writer (Paul) of 1 and 2 Corinthians or the book of Ephesians originally write them in Aramaic when they were originally sent to be read by Greek speaking people? Paul was highly educated and likely could also write in Greek. Either that or he had to work with a Greek translator while he was writing these books. Even this would still make the original copies in Greek because the original had to have been written in the language of the people that they were sent to.

The above link is a study which looks to be helpful in determining the original language of the New Testament.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Mark Sanguinetti

James Trimm · May 28, 2010

>The dominant language of the first century

>when the New Testament was written was Greek.

>This was often the second language for the

>majority of people, in particular the Jews.

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) . Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his time:

I have also taken a great deal of pains

to obtain the learning of the Greeks,

and understanding the elements of the Greek

language although I have so long accustomed

myself to speak our own language, that I cannot

pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness:

for our nation does not encourage those

that learn the languages of many nations.

(Ant. 20:11:2)

Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language."

>Luke the writer of Acts and the gospel of

>Luke was a Gentile.

The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states:

In regard to 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.

- C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix

It is commonly argued that Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek.

Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect.

It is often also argued that Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus".

Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm

But the most obvious is why would the writer (Paul) of 1 and 2 Corinthians or the book of Ephesians originally write them in Aramaic when they were originally sent to be read by Greek speaking people? Paul was highly educated and likely could also write in Greek. Either that or he had to work with a Greek translator while he was writing these books. Even this would still make the original copies in Greek because the original had to have been written in the language of the people that they were sent to.

The above link is a study which looks to be helpful in determining the original language of the New Testament.

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.

For example David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish

Bible (which is translated from the Greek), admits that "there is

good reason to think that several of the books of the New Testament

eother were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source

materials in those languages..." (CJB p. xxxi) but he then goes on to

say "Sha'ul (Paul) whose letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew

on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote." (ibid).

In this and future instalments I intend to show that Paul did in fact

draw on his native Jewish and Hebraic though forms, including his

native languages of Hebrew and Aramaic and that he did NOT write in

Greek.

Now in Instalment four we have already quoted some Church Fathers as

indicating that Paul wrote at least some of his material in Hebrew or

Aramaic. In this instalment I intend to reinforce that point and

open the door for the internal evidence for a Hebraic-Aramaic for the

entire NT (including Paul's Letters) which will be presented in

future instalments.