Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks,
Harrison
hkoehli Wrote:Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks,
Harrison

In the aramaic of mark 5:41 there is no explanation given. The words "talithi cumi" do not need to be explained as the whole thing is in Aramaic.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf</a><!-- m -->
For some reason the greek translators left some words of Jesus in the original language. This occurs at other times in the greek translations as well.
That being said there are three occaisions where the aramaic does also contain an explanation.
1. Jesus calls two of His disciples "sons of thunder". This is even explained in the aramaic because the word for thunder could also mean rage. So even the aramaic explains that Jesus meant sons of thunder not sons of rage.
2. The field of blood in the early part of the book of Acts. The name of this field "akeldama" is explained in the peshitta as meaning "field of blood" because this word is a local nickname for the field and this word may not have been understood by a foreigner even though they may have been an aramaic speaker.
3.Jesus being Gallilean spoke a Gallilean dialect of Aramaic. In Mark chapt 15:34 Mark recprds Jesus words in this Gallilean dialect and translates them into the Judean dialect of Aramaic.
Matthew merely records these words in the judean dialect.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf</a><!-- m -->

However on several other occaisions, as with the exa,mple you gave, the greek translations include words from Aramaic and explain their meaning whilst the peshitta merely gives the entire thing in Aramaic.

Hope this helps
Harrison,

Welcome to the forum ! Here is a link to an article I wrote a while ago on Peshitta Primacy:
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457

There is much more on the forum. Paul Younan has lots of great stuff that will be helpful.

More later .


[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nxrwb[/font]
Blessings,

Dave B
Shlama hkoehli,

I've had a few arguments with some Zorbanaic Scholars over Aramaic primacy in the past few weeks, specifically with Conservative Evangelicals. They gave me quotes from scholars who engaged in speculative reasoning which said that the Aramaic words were "thrown into" the Greek text as some sort of inspirational translation. I find it extremely unlikely since some instances do not have any specific cultural reference what so ever. Such is the case with "raca"; which is a word we do not even know for certain what it means. It is obviously important, since Jesus said whoever says it is answerable to the sanhedrin. He would not have said a word that no Jew understood. It was the Greek translator that did not understand.
shlomo,

hkoehli Wrote:Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks,
Harrison

In regards to Matthew, there's a problem with what they said. It's a scholarly consensus that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
Saint Papias in the year 130AD said that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, and that the various Greek translation have errors.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
I wouldn't agree about Matthew being an aramaic source, nor am I sure about this so-called scholarly concensus. If I remember, the old church fathers and other sources cited matthew being a Hebrew source.
Shlomo,

Dave Wrote:I wouldn't agree about Matthew being an aramaic source, nor am I sure about this so-called scholarly concensus. If I remember, the old church fathers and other sources cited matthew being a Hebrew source.

Here's a quote from the Catholic Navarre Bible St Matthew Texts and commentaries: "Written testimonies going back as early as the beginning of the second century assure us that St Matthew was first to write down the Gospel of Jesus Christ "in the language of the Hebrews".

Are you denying St Papias who in the year 130AD claimed an Aramaic St Matthew origin?

The Catholic Church as well as others have claimed an Aramaic origin to the Matthew Gospel.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Quote:Origen
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW

FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF THE COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John

Language of the Hebrews could be Hebrew or Aramaic as your aware they are sister languages. Here we have Origen stating plainly Hebrew (as some special texts for religious usage were written in, and it would not be beyond Matthew the tax collector and learned person to utilize)

Papias was not the only person to write for future generations to come.

I think there are a few others who stated the same "Hebrew" language usage by Matthew, if one wants to do some digging on the internet.

EDIT: This is not a crusade here for me, I just remember a few quotes from church fathers when I was double checking things on Trimms usage of his Hebrew texts. For me, I see the usage of the semetic form as the priority and the Greek as something to compare to the semetic. If I have the semetic form in Hebrew and The Lord witnesses it to me as faithful, am I to say "no Lord your lying to me?"

Uhhhh, no.
Here, found a site that had quite a few quotes:

Quote:Hebrew of Matthew

The testimony of early Christian writers furnishes us with conclusive witness that Matthew wrote a Gospel, or some portion thereof, in Hebrew or Aramaic. Here are some quotes:

... but with regard to Matthew he (Papias) has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could....
Fragments of Papias, Fragment VI, (Quoted by Eusebius)

... Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect ... .
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I (This Quote is also found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII)

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue ... .
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXIV, ?? 6

3 Pantaenus ... is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter X, ?? 3

4 "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XXV, ?? 4 (quoting Origen)

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."
Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III

Pantaenus, a philosopher of the stoic school, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew characters.
Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter XXXVI

2. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find ... .
Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book III, ?? 2

... I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters.... I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts....
Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament
{Here it appears that Jerome, (circa 383) had to work with the Greek copy of Matthew.}

The first evangelist is Matthew, the publican, who was surnamed Levi. He published his Gospel in Judaea in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake of Jewish believers in Christ, who adhered in vain to the shadow of the law, although the substance of the Gospel had come....
Jerome, The Commmentaries, Matthew
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Dave Wrote:Language of the Hebrews could be Hebrew or Aramaic as your aware they are sister languages.

You make a good point in that it could be either Hebrew or Aramaic. Let me explain why I feel that it was Aramaic that was meant by Papias.

Firstly, The Greek words used by Papias are MATQAIOS MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TA LOGIA SUNETAXATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

The word highlighted in red, DIALEKTWi, means "dialect" and not "language." Obviously, as it would be redundant to have a "Hebrew dialect" of the Hebrew language, the only thing that can be meant is a "Hebrew Dialect" of Aramaic....in other words, the dialect of Aramaic that was common to the Judeans, as opposed to the myriad of other dialects in the area.

Secondly, who would have been Matthew's intended audience? That the common Jewish folk no longer spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic, after their return from Babylon is well documented hundreds of years before Meshikha ( Neh. 8:8 ). Who would benefit from, or be able to understand, a Hebrew Gospel?

Finally, if Matthew really composed his Gospel in Hebrew and not Aramaic, then his Gospel is merely a translation of the Aramaic words of Meshikha, and not a first-hand account of the actual words Meshikha spoke - not much better than the Greek translations.
very interesting points Paul!!! That would make me lean towards the Aramaic more.

I posted many of the quotes I found at one site. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a diehard "it has to be Hebrew!" fan here. I did find some interesting variants within what Trimm was working on but not to the point that anyone could say that his texts he was working on were original. His critical text is an interesting comparison tool only. At least he is attempting to bring out some texts that still remain untranslated, for whatever reason he has behind it, not that I am a part of that camp.

I'm not truley sold on any pariticulars here Paul, which could put me in a rather abstract position, but I'm looking for the conviction within as I read, and there was some interesting things The Lord showed me in many different texts, the Greek included (although the greek mainly witnesses to the background it was translated from). I don't have the knowledge of different languages as you Paul, but The Lord aims to utilize me in this manner, so I let Him open it up to me. Takes a lot of patience on my part but I don't find Him in any hurry.

Believe me, I have to be careful when I step out in front of folks such as yourself Paul with my convictions. Very easy for me to insert my foot in my mouth.
Hey, don't worry about saying anything in front of me. I was explaining mostly for the benefit of others who have asked the same question in the past, or will in the future. In fact, I added this to the "F.A.Q." because there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic.

I'd be a staunch Hebrew primacist, if Meshikha had delivered this message in that most blessed of tongues. I have nothing against it at all.

But I do have a problem with an Apostle writing a Gospel in any other language than the one Meshihka spoke.

If that were the case, we would have to come to terms with the fact that the account we have in our hands is only a record, at best once removed, from the original teaching. And that's too much for me to accept, be it Greek or Hebrew.
Quote:If that were the case, we would have to come to terms with the fact that the account we have in our hands is only a record, at best once removed, from the original teaching.

In many respects Paul, what we have is a record/account. I tend to think that Matthew and Mark compliment themselves. Mark seemed to cover areas that Matthew didn't or just glossed over and vice versa, they go together it seems. Luke, from what I can tell, was not an eyewitness to The Lords works so he collected what he could from the Apostles and the people who still were living at the time, and collated it together. At least what I gather from his words. John is the most removed in relation to the other gospels and is not considered one of the synoptics by some. I asked The Almighty if this was a true eyewitness one time, for Him to show me somehow that it was. Wouldn't you know it, I caught myself utilizing certain sentences and having certain events that related to the very things John had put in writing. I was like "Ok Lord, I get the hint."

Didn't mean to get off track there. Was just an interesting quote that conjured up ideas.
Quote:and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism

I got to thinking of your example and your reasoning Paul. Here I show the original quote from Origen, who was from around the same time frame as Papias. Here he is clearly saying Hebrew tongue, not dialect.

What sayest thou ???

Beyond any of our reasoning here,...foremost and first, none of us was there at the time and it is a crapshoot for us to figure out. Was any of these written in Hebrew? Was any of them written in Greek? Was everything written in Aramaic, or was all of them written in Greek? Really, we have no idea because we were not there at the time. If we go off the church fathers who did write something down, were they being biased or were they telling the truth? Was they relating opinion or fact? Again, we really don't know. We can try to reason it with what proof we are able gather and give an educated guess, but to make a "for certain" statement, I don't think any of us can.
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Dave Wrote:What sayest thou ???

I sayeth, ask modern Assyrians what language they speak and 9 out of 10 will tell you "the Assyrian language."

Linguists, of course, will laugh at that answer. There is no such thing as the "Assyrian language" - ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian and modern Assyrians speak neo-Aramaic.

People will tend to identify the language they speak with their particular ethnicity.

That Aramaic was called the "Hebrew tongue" by Hebrews, or by those descibing what the Hebrews at the time spoke, should be expected.

If you ask some people in the middle east what language Americans speak - they will look at you funny and say "the American language, of course!"

Well, as silly as it seems on the surface - you DO speak the American language. It is different from the language spoken in England. Only technically-minded linguists would insist to call it the "American dialect" of English. (or, "Australian dialect", "Canadian dialect", etc.)

If people spoke Hebrew at the time, Akhi, there would have been no need for the numerous Aramaic Targums of scripture. There would have been no need to pen the Talmuds (both of them, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem) in Aramaic - they would have written these things in Hebrew.

Even their script changed when they came back from Babylon, Akhi. They no longer wrote in Paleo-Hebrew, but in the Aramaic script we all recognize today.

Again, I ask: who would Matthew have intended as his audience for a Hebrew Gospel? A few dozen priests, maybe, who still understood it?

You've heard that modern Hebrew was resurrected sometime last century after the return of the Jews to the land of Israel. I ask you: when did Hebrew die out, finally? There was a point in which it did - otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to "resurrect" it! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Pages: 1 2 3