Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evidence for Galatians be penned in Aramaic?
Im wondering what evidence there might be for Galatians being penned in Aramaic?
Shlama akhi,

I can give you a list of word-plays and variants in the Greek resolved by the Peshitta for this book.
I will post them tomorrow.


here's a list, just a bit late! surely there are more, but these are one's i've run across while reading, so don't consider it comprehensive - especially the word-plays, since my eye caught them but there are probably more to be found.


1:18 and after three years went to Uwreeshlem, that I might see Keepha, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.

Concerning the name ?Keepha,? a variant exists in the Greek texts that is reconciled with the Aramaic. Greek texts p46 p51 Aleph* A B 33 424c 467 823 920 1739 1912 contain the reading of KEEPHAN, which is the properly-inflected Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name Keepha. Greek texts Alephc D F G K L P contain the reading PETRON, which is the Greek equivalent in meaning (stone) of the Aramaic ?Keepha? (stone). There is no explanation as to why a variant would exist in this manner over the name of an individual, unless there was an issue of transliteration / meaning-equivalence taking place from an Aramaic source, which is exactly the type of situation that is contained in the Greek of this passage. Thus, the Peshitta holds water as a powerful answer to the dissident Greek readings. This particular variant is one that is repeated a few more times in this book, which lends further weight that the different Greek readings arose from a singular Aramaic copy.

2:9 And when they recognized the goodness that had been given to me, Yaquwv and Keepha, and Yuwkhanan - those that are considered that they are pillars - the right hand of partnership they gave to me, and to Barnawa - that we might be among the peoples, and they among the Gezuwrta,

Here the variant renderings in the Greek of Keepha?s name are KEEPHAS, the Greek for ?Cephas? (in Byz WH), and PETROS, the Greek for ?Peter? (in p46 itI). The only viable explanation lay in the reading of KEEPHA from the Peshitta as the source-text, since the Greek KEEPHAS is merely a transliteration of the Aramaic ?Keepha,? and the Greek PETROS is a translation of the meaning of the Aramaic ?Keepha.? There is no explanation why two Greek-based variants of an Aramaic name if the original text was really in Greek. However, it makes complete sense for the two variants in the Greek texts to exist if those texts were originally working from an Aramaic original, since one is a transliteration, and one is a translation of the same Aramaic name.

2:11 But when Keepha came to Anteeyawkee, in his face I rebuked him, because they were stumbling in him.

The variant KEEPHAS appears in texts Aleph A B C H P 33 103 104 181 263 424c 436. The variant PETROS appears in texts D F G K L Byz. Again, as it is with the explanations contained in the notes to 1:18 and 2:9, the only viable explanation lay with the Peshitta as the source-text.

2:14 And when I beheld that they were not walking uprightly in the truth of the Glad Tidings, I spoke to Keepha in the eyes of everyone, ?If you, that are a Yeehuwdaya, live as an Armaya, and not as a Yeehuwdaya, how do you obligate for the peoples that they should live as a Yeehuwdaya??

Yet another instance of a Keepha variant in the Greek texts. This one presents different renderings than the others that have been catalogued here: A seamless transliteration from the Aramaic, yielding KEEPHA, is found in texts p46 Aleph A B C H 10 33 88 255 263 424c 467 1319 2127. The other is PETRO in texts D F G K L P. The Peshitta is obviously the source-text for such variants as this and also those found in 1:18, 2:9, and 2:11. The Aramaic alone accounts for the different Greek readings as transliterations and translations of the same Aramaic name of ?Keepha.?

3:14 that in the peoples there should be the blessing of Awraham in Yeshu'a the M'sheekha, and so we might receive the declaration of the Ruwkha in trust.

A variant exists here in the Greek texts for ?declaration? which the Aramaic reconciles. Greek texts p99 Aleph K L P 0150 0278 6 33 81 88mg 104 181 256 263 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 contain the reading EPAGGELIAN, which has the meaning of ?promise / announcement.? Greek texts p46 D* Dc F G 88* 489 contain the reading EULOGIAN, which has the meaning of ?declaration / blessing.? The Peshitta contains the reading of SHUW?WDAYA, which has the meaning of both ?promise? and ?declaration,? thus solving how the Greek variant came into being.

3:19 Why, therefore, the Instruction? It was added because of the transgression, until the Seed should come to him which was the declaration. And the Instruction was given by the hand of messengers, by the hand of a mediator.

A variant exists here in the Greek texts for ?transgression? which the Aramaic reconciles. Greek texts Aleph A B C D2 K (L) P 075 0150 0176vid 6 33 81 104 256 263 365 424 459 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739 1852 1881 1962 2127 2200 contain the reading PARABASEON, which has the meaning of ?violate, break, transgress.? Texts D* itax itd itf ito Jerome, and Augustine contain the reading PARADOSEON, which has the meaning ?betray, commit.? The Peshitta?s term MASTYANUWTHA has the idea of ?transgress, go away,? which explains the Greek variant.


2:12 For before there came men from Yaquwv, he was eating with the peoples, yet after they came, he withdrew, and separated his soul, because he revered those that were from the Gezuwrta.

The text here gives further hint to the obvious nature of his action. Pawlaws tells us that Keepha ?separated? himself, the term being literally WAPHRASH, an inflection of the same term which yields the title P?REEYSHA, meaning ?Pharisee? - ?Separated One.? Pawlaws was thus cleverly telling his Aramaic readers that Keepha was acting like a Pharisee in this action!

3:3 Are you thus so foolish that your beginnings were in the Ruwkha, and now in the flesh are your completions?

There is a wordplay at work in the term ?began,? D?SHAREEYTUWN, which comes from the word SHARA, meaning ?begin, loose,? but if taken as from the root SHAR, could instead mean ?strengthened, established, made firm.? The intent of the verse works with both ideas: having begun, or having been established in the Ruwkha, do the people really think there is any way to complete it in the flesh?

4:5 that those that were under the Instruction He should purchase, and we should receive the position of sons.

Since the term translated as ?position? - SEEYMATH also has the idea of a foundation for a structure, a simple play off reading the word B?NAYE ?sons? as BANYA ?building? creates the allusion to us receiving ?the foundation of the building,? instead of the ?position of sons.?

5:1 You must stand, therefore, in the freedom of which the M'sheekha freed you, and do not be restrained furthermore in the yoke of servant-hood.

The term ?restrained? is the Aramaic TETHKADNUWN, which also has the definition of ?yoke.? This makes for a Janus Parallelism, wherein the term is understood as ?restrained? when taken with the previous thought of being ?freed,? and then as ?yoke? with the subsequent idea of being literally ?yoked.? In contrast, the Greek text contains the respective terms of: ENEKHESTHE (hold in/entangle) and ZYGO (yoke). There is no Janus Parallelism taking place in the Greek text.

6:9 And while we are performing that which is good, do not let it become wearisome for us, for there shall be the season that we shall harvest, and it will not be wearisome for us.
6:10 Now, therefore, while the season is for us, we should cultivate good towards every man - especially towards the sons of the house of trust.

Another Janus Parallelism wordplay is at work here: the term ?cultivate? is NEPHLUWKH, a word that also means ?labor,? ?service,? and ?work.? The dual meaning of ?cultivation? for harvest, and ?laboring? is obviously intended, given the context and the surrounding imagery; the choice of cultivate comes first due to harvest, then service is intended due to the relevance of the sons / people -- you don't cultivate people, you serve them. This precise wordplay is used elsewhere in Pawlaws? writings, so it is no surprise to see him employ it in this relevant passage.

i hope these evidences help you.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Thanks Jeremy!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)