05-30-2014, 05:51 PM
Here is my collection of Aramaic primacy evidence:
1. The language of first century Israel, according to the historian Josephus, was not Greek but Aramaic. The countrymen did not encourage the learning of foreign languages. He actually translated for the Romans. Shouldn't the Jews have been able to speak to the Romans themselves? Josephus lived in Rome and even stated that he could not speak Greek very well. He composed The Wars of the Jews in the Aramaic language and later translated it into Greek. This does not mean that Jesus and the apostles did not speak any Greek, but that they were not fluent in it. The New Testament also affirms that the language of Israel during the time of the Messiah and the apostles was Aramaic:
"And this was known to all that dwelt at Jerusalem; so that the field was called, in the language of the country, Aceldama, which is interpreted Field of Blood."- Acts 1:19, Murdock's Translation of the Peshitta
2. The Septuagint was not popular among Jews in Israel. In fact, a time of mourning was declared by them when the Septuagint's version of the Torah was completed because they felt that the Torah could not be captured adequately in other languages. While sometimes the Septuagint appears to be quoted, sometimes it appears that the New Testament writers are quoting the Targums or simply paraphrasing on their own. The quotes that match the Septuagint could easily be a proto-Masoretic text that matches it.
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1122- Paul Younan analyzes New Testament quotes of the Tanach and compares them to the Septuagint.
3. The Greek New Testament itself testifies of an Aramaic speaking audience to the Epistles. Aramaic words and phrases such as satana (Satan/the Accuser), amen (truly), maran ata (Our lord, come) appear in the Pauline Epistles.
4. Luke is said in the early church histories to have been a Syrian from Antioch, which was a bilingual city that primarily spoke Aramaic and Greek. Luke's Greek is said to be very good, but the Greek versions of Luke and Acts also have Aramaic words appear in them like mammona (wealth), Beelzebub (lord of the flies), korin (dry measure), Patzkha (Passover), shikera (strong drink).
5. Matthew and Hebrews are agreed by the church fathers to have been written in "the Hebrew dialect", which would be the Aramaic language spoken among the Jewish people in Israel.
6. Peter ministered primarily to Jews in the East. I Peter was written from Babylon (I Peter 5:13) , which not only had the largest Jewish population outside of Israel but also was an Aramaic speaking city. John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, was also with Peter (I Peter 5:13 again). Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs, which would have been mostly in Aramaic. So why wouldn't Aramaic be the language of Mark's Gospel?
7. The Semitic style of the Greek New Testament hints at an Aramaic original underlying it.
8. There are places where it seems like an Aramaic word was mistaken for another, resulting in multiple (or just odd) readings in the Greek manuscripts, or places where the Aramaic appears to have simply been mistranslated.
9. The Diatessaron of Tatian (AD 175) matches the Peshitta. It is more logical to say that the Diatessaron was based on the Peshitta instead of the other way around.
1. The language of first century Israel, according to the historian Josephus, was not Greek but Aramaic. The countrymen did not encourage the learning of foreign languages. He actually translated for the Romans. Shouldn't the Jews have been able to speak to the Romans themselves? Josephus lived in Rome and even stated that he could not speak Greek very well. He composed The Wars of the Jews in the Aramaic language and later translated it into Greek. This does not mean that Jesus and the apostles did not speak any Greek, but that they were not fluent in it. The New Testament also affirms that the language of Israel during the time of the Messiah and the apostles was Aramaic:
"And this was known to all that dwelt at Jerusalem; so that the field was called, in the language of the country, Aceldama, which is interpreted Field of Blood."- Acts 1:19, Murdock's Translation of the Peshitta
2. The Septuagint was not popular among Jews in Israel. In fact, a time of mourning was declared by them when the Septuagint's version of the Torah was completed because they felt that the Torah could not be captured adequately in other languages. While sometimes the Septuagint appears to be quoted, sometimes it appears that the New Testament writers are quoting the Targums or simply paraphrasing on their own. The quotes that match the Septuagint could easily be a proto-Masoretic text that matches it.
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1122- Paul Younan analyzes New Testament quotes of the Tanach and compares them to the Septuagint.
3. The Greek New Testament itself testifies of an Aramaic speaking audience to the Epistles. Aramaic words and phrases such as satana (Satan/the Accuser), amen (truly), maran ata (Our lord, come) appear in the Pauline Epistles.
4. Luke is said in the early church histories to have been a Syrian from Antioch, which was a bilingual city that primarily spoke Aramaic and Greek. Luke's Greek is said to be very good, but the Greek versions of Luke and Acts also have Aramaic words appear in them like mammona (wealth), Beelzebub (lord of the flies), korin (dry measure), Patzkha (Passover), shikera (strong drink).
5. Matthew and Hebrews are agreed by the church fathers to have been written in "the Hebrew dialect", which would be the Aramaic language spoken among the Jewish people in Israel.
6. Peter ministered primarily to Jews in the East. I Peter was written from Babylon (I Peter 5:13) , which not only had the largest Jewish population outside of Israel but also was an Aramaic speaking city. John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, was also with Peter (I Peter 5:13 again). Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs, which would have been mostly in Aramaic. So why wouldn't Aramaic be the language of Mark's Gospel?
7. The Semitic style of the Greek New Testament hints at an Aramaic original underlying it.
8. There are places where it seems like an Aramaic word was mistaken for another, resulting in multiple (or just odd) readings in the Greek manuscripts, or places where the Aramaic appears to have simply been mistranslated.
9. The Diatessaron of Tatian (AD 175) matches the Peshitta. It is more logical to say that the Diatessaron was based on the Peshitta instead of the other way around.