Aramaic English New Testament

I was under the impression that the New Testament was originally in Greek even though the people of the area spoke Aramaic. I did know that a few phrases quoted in the Gospels (such as Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani) were in Aramaic. Now I am confused. I found this book at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-English-Testament-Hebrew-Letters/dp/1934916269/

There is not a whole lot in the description to answer my many questions. And why are there Hebrew letters above the Title on the front cover? Were Majority text manuscripts translations of earlier Aramaic texts and these are those texts? This really has my curiosity piqued.

One reviewer talks about how the Aramaic sheds light on the word "Lord" in the NT, differentiating between Master and God since Greek uses the single word Kurios for both. Here is excerpt that has me so curious and interested:

Begin book reviewer's quote:

The BEST thing about this translation however is that it is FINALLY an accurate and faithful translation in restoring the name of the Almighty, YHWH, in it's proper location. In the Greek texts, there is no distinction between Master (referring to the Son) and MASTER (referring to the Father). The Greek uses Kurios for both. In the Aramaic text however, the Aramaic equivalent of the tetragrammaton (MarYah) actually exists, and the AENT is one of the very few translations that recognizes and translates this correctly. The result is astounding! There is an intense theological clarity which comes from this, and I will let you find out for yourself by reading through the text. So unlike the various Sacred Name Bibles out there that obsess over inserting the name into Greek translations, there is absolutely no guesswork with the name of YHWH in the Aramaic text. This alone makes the AENT a gem to be treasured. MarYah is translated as Master YHWH, allowing you to pronounce the name however you wish (and avoiding the highly disputed translation of "jehovah"). You will also find proper titles, such as Elohim in the text (instead of "god") and more literal, accurate renderings of other words (such as "Set Apart" for holy, indicating more precisely what the word holy is supposed to mean). Since this comes from the Aramaic, you will not find any hellenized words, and unlike George Lamsa, Mr.Roth does not translate according to the tradition of hellenization. This again gives us a new clarity not offered in other versions of the Scriptures.

End of book reviewer's quote.

If anyone can shed light, please do. The above also makes me think perhaps that Aramaic is similar or maybe partly derived from Hebrew.? Elohim use for god. etc. Anyone with knowledge of this issue, please help.

I do not like disagreeing with you J-I-G, but if you know of any Aramaic copies of the the NT Books (Letters) written in the 1st or 2nd century AD, please produce them.

I know of only one NT Book written that might have been originally written in Aramaic, or in Hebrew, the Gospel of Matthew, because Matthew's Gospel was written specifically to his fellow Jews, and not to the gentiles.

Greek influence in the homeland of the Jews began as early as 330 BC. Greek was the predominant language of the entire Roman Empire, including Israel. Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, a Greek speaking city. All of Paul's writings to Corinthians, Romans, etc, obviously would not be in Aramaic, they would be in Koine Greek, because it was the universal language of the Roman Empire. Copies were made and passed on to many cities away from Palestine.

Luke's Gospel and Book of Acts, would not have been written in Aramaic. They were sent to Theophilus, a Greek name. Plus Luke was not at all involved with those who speak Aramaic. He was with Paul going from towns and cities far away from those who spoke Aramaic. John wrote his Gospel around 96 AD from Patmos, in modern day Turkey. Does anyone really think that John wrote it in Aramaic for a small audience around Judea?

And where are all these Aramaic copies from the 1st and 2nd Century. There are plenty of Greek manuscripts. Aramaic copies seemingly appear in late third and 4th centuries. The Jewish Scribes and Priests spoke Hebrew fluently in Jesus day.

And another very strong reason for how we know the NT was predominantly written in Greek is that we can reconstruct the entire New Testament using 2nd and 3rd century greek manuscripts of the Church Fathers, nearly all written by Greek speaking gentile Christians. From these quotes we can assemble a Greek NT with the only exception of eleven verses from 2 and 3 John. Source: Dr. Norman Geisler, 'When Skeptics Ask'.

for more info:

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/aramaicprimacy.html

The arguments for Aramaic as the original manuscripts of the NT comes from the Catholic Church and those Orthodox Churches who are similar to the RCC, because the Aramaic is not a precise language, and this allows the Catholic Church wiggle room to justify certain claims they make about Mary who gave birth to Jesus, in order to deny that Mary bore several other sons and a few daughters by her husband Joseph. The Aramaic has no word that specifically means son or daughter, the word used in the Aramaic can also mean cousins. But the Koine Greek clearly uses the Greek words that only means 'sons' and 'daughters', the Greek has an entirely different word for cousins.

by Jesus-is-GOD on 2012/2/11 18:07:35

":) Brother Art, I don't know how, but somehow my post was misunderstood. [I'm not the best at communicating through text - so maybe it was my lay-out :]
I'm wholly in agreement with you. I wrote in my post why I defend the original Greek, because it was the international language at that time and the Most Exact language as well - and our Professor went so far as to tell us that is another purpose/reason that it is written "in the fullness of time, Christ came" ... when the language 'also' was the clearest to present the perfect Gospel and His Truth.

Bless you much, Brother!! I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on this important topic."

J-I-G. Okay, I did misunderstand what you meant. This is my fault. I see now that we are in agreement. I should not be writing posts when my mind is not clear. I struggled to write what I wrote, and I missed what you were actually saying. I thank you very much for your kind clarification.

Sincerely, ArtB

Greek was the lingua franca of the first century. Many, if not most quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the LXX (Gk. NT). The oldest manuscripts and fragments date to between 117 and 200 CE and are written on papyrus in Greek uncials. A small little book introducing the issues with manuscripts I would recommend David Alan Black, "New Testament Textual Criticism." For those interested in one of the great definitive works, "The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger (although Metzger follows Westcott and Hort's attitude towards Byz witnesses to a large degree). I would also highly recommend this SI thread from a few years ago.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34704&forum=36&start=30&36

Almost to a man, the scholars will say 'Aramaic' and the gospel writers translated his words into Koine Greek. Some years ago I came across a stray comment from G Campbell Morgan who referred to his belief that Jesus did most of his preaching in Greek! I was amazed and have scoured GCM's works to find why he believed this. I have never found his reasons. If anyone knows of them I would be grateful to know.

However, I have come to the same conclusions but don't know if it is for the same reasons.

Let me give you some of my reasons.

1. Jesus was reading from the LXX, the Greek version, of the OT when he preached in the synagogue in Nazareth.

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.” Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. Luke 4:16–20 NKJV

If you follow this narrative is seems pretty clear that we are reading the verses from Isaiah that Jesus read out in the synagogue. But there is an interesting feature here if you compare it with Isaiah in your OT.

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, Is 61:1–2 NKJV

Can you see that our version of Isaiah does not have the clause about 'the recovery of sight to the blind'? That's because the phrase is not in the Masoretic text. So what was Jesus reading from? Well, the LXX, Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT created c200 BC DOES have that phrase. It seems clear that they were actually using the Septuagint in the synagogue in Nazareth.

Galilee was known as Galilee of the Gentiles (the foreigners). It population had historically had a high percentage of aliens living there. On the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee was an area known as the Decapolis; the ten cities. Greek was the language spoken there. 4 miles from Nazareth was the Roman dominated city of Sepphoris (google it) which would have had a huge influence on the culture of Galilee. It is very possible that 'Joseph & Son' carpenters worked on the Roman works there.

It all leans towards the likelihood that during the time of Christ Nazareth and Galilee in general was a very mixed culture and the predominating language spoken by all was Greek.

2. How did Pilate and Christ have that philosophical conversation on the nature of truth? Pilate certainly would not have known Aramaic. Most likely the language used was Greek.

3. Why do the gospel writers put a tiny proportion of the words of Jesus in Aramaic when they apparently translate all the others? I suggest that at these particular moments Christ did speak in Aramaic and that for him to do so was so unusual that the gospel writers noted and recorded the fact.

4. In John 11 and in John 21 the gospel writer switches between the words agapeO and phileO in the same narrative. To do so suggests that some distinction is being made between the meaning of these two Greek words. But no such distinction exists in Aramaic. Why would John introduce this subtle distinction if he was simply translating from Aramaic.

That's enough to think about. ;-)

I don't know why GCM thought that Jesus did most of his teaching in Greek but this is why I think he did.

No offence taken.

So are you suggesting that the existing copies of the Septuagint are a Christian fake, written to substantiate gospel manuscripts? Do you have any evidence for this. I have never heard such a claim before.

The point I was making is that the area of Galilee was so thoroughly affected by the current Greek culture of the day that the Jews (and Gentiles) who attended the synagogue in Nazareth were using Koine Greek. Jesus' use of Greek does not undermine his claim to Messiahship. He is simply using the language that will best ensure good communication.

Where did Jesus find the words relating to the opening of blind eyes if not from the Septuagint; there are not in the Masoretic text.