# Aramic Primacy.



## Tallen (Dec 4, 2006)

Any thoughts?

In particular, any evidence?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 6, 2006)

Ted,

Are you referring to the idea that an Aramaic/Hebrew NT preceded the Greek?

Steve


----------



## Tallen (Dec 6, 2006)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ted,
> 
> Are you referring to the idea that an Aramaic/Hebrew NT preceded the Greek?
> 
> Steve


 
Yes an Aramaic NT, but in particular an Aramaic Gospel (Matthew for instance) or Hebrews. I keep coming across this idea as I research the Jewish roots movement.


----------



## DTK (Dec 6, 2006)

Some scholarly comment on that theory...



> *Carson, Moo, and Morris* commenting on Papias’ testimony (i.e. an early church father who propagated this view): There is no doubt that the early church understood this to mean that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic; the same Greek word was used to refer to both cognate languages) and that it was then translated by others. But there are some serious problems with this view. Although a few modern scholars argue that Matthew’s entire gospel was first written in Aramaic, substantial linguistic evidence is against them. In the first place, the many quotations from the Old Testament do not reflect a single text form. Some are unambiguously Septuagintal; others are apparently a translation from a Semitic original; still others are so eccentric as to defy easy classification. Had the gospel first been written in Aramaic, one might have expected the Old Testament quotations would be either the translator’s own rendering of the Aramaic or standard quotations from the accepted Bible of the early church, the LXX. The mix of text forms suggests an author writing in Greek but knowledgeable in Semitic languages and therefore able to vary his form.
> 
> Second, assuming that Matthew depends on Mark (see chap. 1, on the synoptic problem), the detailed verbal connections between Matthew and Mark make it extremely unlikely that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. Of course, those who do not accept the priority of Mark or who propose that an Aramaic edition of Matthew preceded the publication of Mark, which then served as the heart of our Greek Matthew, will perceive no problem here.
> 
> Finally, the Greek text of Matthew does not read like translation Greek. True, there are Semitisms and, more frequently, Semitic enhancements, but these are largely restricted to the sayings of Jesus, and (arguably) they are introduced for effect by an author who is demonstrably capable of writing idiomatic Hellenistic Greek. One could argue that a very good translator could have produced the same effect, but he would have had to be a very good translator indeed. D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, _An Introduction to the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), pp. 68-69.





> *Carson, Moo, and Morris:* Moreover, plausible reasons have been advanced to suggest why Papias may have been led astray on the question of a Semitic original. It may have been an intelligent, albeit erroneous, guess. The early Fathers assumed that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Since Jesus and his apostles lived and served among the Hebrews, it may well have been a natural conclusion that the first gospel to be written was produced “in the Hebrew [Aramaic] dialect”—the more so if Papias, living in the Hellenistic world, had no real knowledge of just how much Greek was spoken in the first-century Palestine, especially Galilee. Moreover, Papias may have confused canonical Matthew with another gospel, written in Aramaic or Hebrew, that was well known in the second century. Reports have come down to us of a “gospel according to the Hebrews,” a “gospel of the Nazareans,” and a “gospel of the Ebionites.” It is uncertain whether these titles refer to three separate books or two or more of them refer to one book. Epiphanius claims that the Ebionites, a group he regards as heretical, based their beliefs on a gospel of Matthew that they called “According to the Hebrews,” written in Hebrew, but (as far as Epiphanius was concerned) falsified and mutilated: for a start, it eliminated the genealogy of Jesus and began with the ministry of John the Baptist. Similarly, Ireneus says that the Ebionites used only the gospel of Matthew but denied the virgin birth which again suggests that their Matthew did not include Matthew 1-2. The great translator Jerome claims that he translated the “gospel according to the Hebrews” into both Greek and Latin. This book he associates with the Nazareans, who, he insists, gave him permission to copy the Hebrew original of the gospel according to Matthew. Yet as far as we can tell from his frequent references, the actual content is far removed from canonical Matthew. All this suggests that there was ample opportunity for confusion to arise between some “gospel according to the Hebrews” and Matthew, engendering the theory that the latter was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, _An Introduction to the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), pp. 70-71.


In short, the theory behind a Hebrew or Aramaic original of Matthew is but speculation.

DTK


----------



## Tallen (Dec 6, 2006)

Thanks for the input, that ws helpful.


----------



## 3John2 (Dec 15, 2006)

I've been having an ongoing discussion with friend of mine who belongs to a church (cult?) that ONLY uses the Peshitta. They claim the bible was written in Aramaic. I was shocked to hear that. i could see how potentially Math or Hebrews but the rest? Anyways he got pretty upset when I suggested to him that he was in essence reading from a translation of a tranlsation as he is reading it in English?! He seems to come unglue when I come against his beliefs in this. I even have attempted to buy one but got outbid on ebay (I'm NOT going to pay full retail for one). He has been attending my church for a while which is Reformed but told me last night he would no longer be attending there. Anyways anyone know much about the Peshitta? I've tried looking up on it but not much. I know it's used by some Coptic churches etc. To me his "church" sounds VERy cultish & not just because of the use of the Peshitta mind you.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 16, 2006)

Frank,

On the Amazon site enter into the search page: lamsa peshitta bible

You will come up with some entries. Lamsa's, _Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text_, is a well known version (I often compare it to the Greek readings). But you are right to doubt the claims of its being the original NT text; the Greek has that status.

At Amazon I see a used copy for $15.99 + SH.

Steve


----------

