Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An Aramaic original to the book of Hebrews?
Ok, silly as this may seem, I do have one question: Is there definitive proof that Hebrews was written originally in Aramaic? (Because, I only found one strange thing in the Greek -- though I cannot say it helps Aramaic primacy.)

GREEK book of Hebrews Wrote:
Hebrews 8:10 Wrote:?For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days,? says the Lord;
?I will put my laws into their mind(s),
I will also write them on their heart(s).
Hebrews 10:16 Wrote:?This is the covenant that I will make with them:
?After those days,? says the Lord,
?I will put my laws on their heart(s),
I will also write them on their mind(s);?

Notice how verse 16 disagrees with 8:10 -- it also disagrees with Jeremiah 31:33 (Masoretic Text and Peshitta OT)

But...both verses are consistent in the Peshitta, unlike the disagreement in the Greek.

(And I already do know about Hebrews 3:1 (kahna and kumrea) and Hebrews 8:11 variants (fellow citizen or neighbor) -- but I feel like the Greek primacist can make up [good] reasons about those two verses.)

**Logically, Hebrews should have been written in Aramaic, needs proof to defend that position.** there definitive proof that Hebrews was written originally in Aramaic?

About hebrews, the list gets so long it requires a book I think.
Just one sample:
Hebrews 6:4 The hebrew word for enlightment and baptize are very much alike, but not in Greek.
May I ask, how does that promote Aramaic primacy for Hebrews?
The translation enlightment and baptism are in Greek totally different words. Just as in English.
But the Aramaic word for Enlightment and for Baptism are very 'look alike' written in Aramaic. A translator easily could misread.
So, the Greek form can be explained as a misreading. Otherwise it cannot be explained as a simple misreading from Greek to Aramaic.


The early Greek Church spoke of Baptism as being "enlighenment" those being Baptised "Enlightened", this is seen to be taught by Justin Martyr in about 140 A.D. and to this day the Greek Church speaks of it in these terms.

Hebrews 6:4 "But those are not able who one time descended unto Baptism and tasted of the Heavenly gift and recieved the Spirit of Holiness." (Literal translation from the Khabouris Codex)

Hebrews 6:4 "It's impossible for those once enlightened, who moreover having tasted of the heavenly gift, and partakers of the Holy Spirit,..." (Literal translation from the Greek version)

Hebrews 10:32 "Remember therefore the former days, those in which you recieved Baptism, and endured great conflict of sufferings, reproach and afflictions." (Literal translation from the Khabouris Codex)

Hebrews 10:32 "Remember moreover the former days in which being enlightened, you endured much conflict of sufferings." (Literal translation from the Greek version)

Quote:The hebrew word for enlightment and baptize are very much alike

Distazo...can you show us the words and how close they look alike?

I cannot. This forum does not support unicode.
That Martyr spoke of enlightment is not surprising. He obviously used a Greek source.

You can check it.
Try the english words baptism and illumination. You'll see that the Aramaic words are very look-alike.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Hi distazo,

May you also please list the "list that requires a book" -- it would be very helpful.

And thanks for the CAL link -- looks interesting.

And one question the the people who know history -- would it be illogical for the writer to write his epistle in Greek to the Hellenistic Jews instead of an Aramaic document to "the Hebrews"??

"Illumination" is the term used by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, with the later two quoting the verses in Hebrews that have that reading, while Justin Martyr speaks thus about it...

Quote:Chapter LXI.?Christian baptism.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ?Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.? Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers? wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: ?Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.?

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

To think that all this tradition which goes back to at least the early 2nd century in the Greek part of the Church and perhaps the Latin (being that Tertullian mentions it), is based only on a mistranslation of the two verses in the book of's not an easy thing to accept, even if true.

Are you saying that the Greek translators got it wrong in both verses right from the start and it never got noticed? If so, talk about a HUGE mistake.

I remember one proof for Aramiac primacy being Hebrews 12:3. In the Peshitta every line of that verse rhymes.

Yes it is a huge mistake.

Did you compare using Cal?
Syr: mamodita/masboita (Baptism)
Syr: Masmehuta (Illumination)

Greek: Fotizo (Illumination)
Greek: Baptiza (baptism)

As you see and could see if you compare the Hebrew letters from 1st century, a mistake easily could be made, but NOT from Greek.

To summarize the latin and the tradition is not really a huge argument. If the mistake is done in the 1st century, it would copy through the later ages.

What book would I recommend?
I have made my own list of differences from which many point to Aramaic primacy. However, it is Dutch. Sorry.
Many differences are based on those which G.D. Bauscher lists (English).

Speaking about primacy, revelation and Hebrews and Matthew is (I think) having the best qualifications for having an Aramaic origin. I simply do not have the time and energy to discuss and argument all the items. As is evident, tradition and 'huge mistakes' are already mentioned here. Yes,

But if the sample using CAL does not convince you, I would not bother to investigate since a lot of arguments are like that, they are simply misreadings from an Aramaic handwritten document. (Though other arguments include wordsplays and poetic lines)

Therefore, I would suggest you to continue your investigation. G.D. Bauscher is a good start.

There also is a an e-book from Rafa?l Lataster. (Was the new testament really written in Greek)
Yes, I have read Raphael's book.

But, perhaps the 'baptism' and 'illumination' thing is no good. (I feel like the evidence is doubtful. CAL only showed the words transliterated, I need to see the real Aramaic to believe.)

Ok, if a Greek primacist claims that Hebrews was written in Greek to Hellenistic Jews, can that argument stand? Did Hellenistic Jews have anything to do with the temple system?

And Akh Paul, do you happen to know if Hellenistic Jews were associated with offerings and the temple system?
Hebrews is written to the converted Essenes.
They indeed did not have anything with the temple. Yigael Yadin (a famous Jew as you might know) has suggested this.

The Jews in Greece or Asia were not ignoring the temple as many jews (Acts mentions this) attended the jewish festivals/feasts and the essenes did not.

I have attended a lecture about this, and Hebrews has all signs that it was written to Essenes
1. They hated boosting so, the author left out his name
2. They hated the Jerusalem temple and the corrupt priests
3. They were exaggerating obedience and believe in angels
4. They hated Jerusalem itself (therefore, they lived isolated)
5. They must have met John the Baptizer since he lived isolated in the wilderness as well.

there were more things. But Hebrews is MORE than other books in the Bible having an Aramaic source.

About illumination. How can one descend to illumination?
Me thinks that this in combination with 2 Peter 1:19 that being a illuminated luciferian is not a bad thing at all.

quote from The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, by G. D. Bauscher
[Image: hebrews6v4.png]

Another sample: Hebrews 12:18 (this is a variation between byzantin and alexandrian roots)
The explains itself:
[Image: hebrews12v18.png]

If these two samples do not convince you, why should the other (estimate) 50 examples convince you? might just believe that the original was in Greek. it would make your life more simple <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Ok, it is settled. Hebrews was written in the "Hebrew" tongue. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Paul's letter to Hebrews was written in Aramaic language.

Check Page 102 of this website for an example.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)