Aramaic?

[truthman]

Does anyone know how much of the Bible was originally written in Aramaic?

truthman

[GrayPilgrim]

Daniel 2-7 (?) and letter in Ezra and other than that just a few words here or there.

[GrayPilgrim]

Most Bible dicitonaries would have the actual verses of the Ezra letter in it, and as I am not home I do not have access to mine.

GP

[Mikey]

According to the NIV footnotes, Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26

[judge]

Western theologians say the NT was written in greek.

But the Church of the East says it was written in Aramaic.

The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

In reference to the originality of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

"With reference to....the originality of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

from here....
http://www.pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.org/initial/pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.html

[Mikey]

But most of the textual evidence points to the NT being written in Greek, does it not? Not to mention, it makes little sense for any of Paul's letters (except Hebrews, if it was written by Paul) to be in Aramaic, as those in Corinth, Rome etc. would speak Greek.

[Bib Lit Major]

Western theologians say the NT was written in greek.

But the Church of the East says it was written in Aramaic.

The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

In reference to the originality of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

"With reference to....the originality of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

from here....
http://www.pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.org/initial/pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.html


Hey Judge! Glad to see you!

Mikey: Judge and I have had a debate on this very thing in the Wrestling Ring. I can't say my performance was exemplary, but if you'd like to see judge's position, you can go there.

[JohnStevenson]

Western theologians say the NT was written in greek.
But the Church of the East says it was written in Aramaic.
The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.
Sounds a bit like the same rhetoric that is presented by the KJV-only folk; and just as convincing.
On the other hand, there is some testimony from the early church fathers that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew.

[judge]

Sounds a bit like the same rhetoric that is presented by the KJV-only folk; and just as convincing.
On the other hand, there is some testimony from the early church fathers that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew.

Hi John, hope you are well.

The idea that Paul would have written in "the Hebrew dialect" (which I think is Aramaic) was not strange to "church fathers" such as Jerome and Eusebius. So on the surface there may be at least some evidence that even more than Matthew was written in the "hebrew dialect"

He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.

Jerome Lives of Illustrious men Chapt 5
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-27.htm#P7098_1824928

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)

[Jezz]

Sounds a bit like the same rhetoric that is presented by the KJV-only folk; and just as convincing.
Sounds a bit like the same rhetoric that people try to use when they try guilt-by-association. :wink:

That's a bit unfair. I think the case for primacy of the Syriac Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is just a little bit stronger than the case for the primacy of the English KJV. :ahem: And suppose that they really have faithfully passed down the very first Bible from the beginning - how else could they make the claim?


On the other hand, there is some testimony from the early church fathers that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew.
Indeed. Which makes a great deal of sense, because Matthew was an apostle and a Levite.

[Drashi]

The problem with declaring that Matthew was in Aramaic is that he has an Aramaic verse of Psalm 22 with Jesus on the cross, followed by a translation! It would make no sense to say that Matthew was in Aramaic, and then quote an Aramaic saying, and then write, in Aramaic, what the Aramaic verse actually means.

Furthermore, despite what Mel Gibson would present to the world, the common language of the Jews in Israel was neither Roman nor Aramaic, but Greek. By that time, even the Romans were doing commerce and learning in Greek. This does not dismiss that the scholars of that time as well as those who interacted with the Babylonians did not speak any Aramaic, but it makes sense that the writings would be in the language of the common people, and not of the minority or elite among the Jews.

[MuggleOrSquib]

My impression is that the common people and villagers tended to speak Aramaic, while those in the cities tended to speak Greek as well.
Shim'on bar Kokhba wrote to his followers in Aramaic, if I recall correctly, and the targumim present the Scriptures in Aramaic.
On the other hand, the primary language of the western diaspora was Greek rather than Aramaic; thus the popularity of the Septuagint.

In regards to Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta New Testament, there is a dialect problem with the claim that it is the original New Testament. The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta is written in the Aramaic dialect common in Edessa/Urhay in roughly the 4th/5th century, in which the 3rd person imperfect verb form begins with an 'n' rather than the usual 'y'. Likewise with the Old Sryiac manuscripts.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[Menachem]

The problem with declaring that Matthew was in Aramaic is that he has an Aramaic verse of Psalm 22 with Jesus on the cross, followed by a translation! It would make no sense to say that Matthew was in Aramaic, and then quote an Aramaic saying, and then write, in Aramaic, what the Aramaic verse actually means.

Furthermore, despite what Mel Gibson would present to the world, the common language of the Jews in Israel was neither Roman nor Aramaic, but Greek. By that time, even the Romans were doing commerce and learning in Greek. This does not dismiss that the scholars of that time as well as those who interacted with the Babylonians did not speak any Aramaic, but it makes sense that the writings would be in the language of the common people, and not of the minority or elite among the Jews.


I do agree with you about the gospel of matthew on this one it doesnt make much sense as you say.

But I do however have to respectfully disagree with you on the language of the common Jew back in the Day(first century) in Eretz Y'israel. My reason being the composition of the Mishnah and the language it was composed.

While what you have said is not inconceivable: I recall a conversation in the Talmud in Sotah 49b where Rabbi is quoted saying:

Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian language in the land of Israel? Either use the holy tongue or Greek!

והאמר רבי: בא"י לשון סורסי למה: אלא אי לשון הקדוש אי לשון יוונית

While it is possible they chose greek over Hebrew I still must disagree on that based on the composition of the Mishnah in Mishnaic Hebrew. Granted there is a Huge aramaic influence and an influx of some greek words but nonetheless it is still hebrew after a fashion.

This disagreement however does not affect the composition of the GNT. More than likely if not factually the early Christians did choose greek over hebrew as suggested and composed The "NT" in Greek.

Shalom,

[Recognitiones]

Does anyone know how much of the Bible was originally written in Aramaic?

truthman
Hello truthman,
Probably alot of the NT was written in Greek but as Judge pointed out, there are sources indicating some of it may have been written in a Semetic language. While it is unlikely this was the Syriac dialect, dialects are defined as mutually intelligible regional variations; this means translation is unnecessary and if done, the differences are negligible. To my recollection, the redundancy of Psalm 22 in Matthew is not in any of the Syriac versions; that speaks more for it than against it.
ר' שמואל בר נחמן בשם ר' יוחנן שלא יהא לשון סורסי קל בעיניך. שבתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים הוא אמור.
Rebbe Shmu'el bar Nahman in the name of Rebbe Yohanan (said) do not despise the Syrian language, for it is employed in the Torah, and in the Prophets, and in the Writings
Y. Sot. 7.21c

[Glenn P]

Furthermore, despite what Mel Gibson would present to the world, the common language of the Jews in Israel was neither Roman nor Aramaic, but Greek.Mel Gibson has nothing to do with it. it is virtually universally declared among biblical historians that the lingua franca Of native Jews in Jesus' day and location was Aramaic.