the languages involved in Mark, Matthew, Hebrews and Revelation - can include Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...ion-must-be-in-greek.11489/page-2#post-881554

Hi Shoonra, I do appreciate that you discuss this coherently, since the forum usually gets blah-blah :) from the Greek-Onlyist position.

The inscription on the cross shows Latin, Greek and Hebrew, all were in use. Aramaic was also a commonly used language, but the Hebrew inscription would be understandable to those whose primary language was Aramaic. Clearly, it is unlikely that autographs involved any other languages than those four.

Mark wrote to Rome, where he assisted Peter, according to ancient colophons, so it is very likely that Latin was part of his writing (e.g. it could be in Latin, or two editions, or a Graeco-Latin dialect.) The text does have the sense of being translation Greek. Some scholars have theorized that his original was in Aramaic, however the Latin contribution theory appears to be much stronger.

Hebrews was specifically written to the Jews, this is discussed in the Eusebius section I quoted earlier, that is why it is likely that Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and Luke his amanuensis brought the text to Greek, as Eusebius learned from Clement of Alexcandria.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjvo-tenets.11276/post-878503

Revelation has its own evidence for a Hebrew origin. Note, I just discussed this with a Revelaion scholar, Dean Furlong, and he sees this as a sensible proposition.

Matthew - The proposition of a Hebrew Matthew edition is well known, discussed by many early church writers, and almost certain. However that Hebrew edition was likely a different text than our canonical Matthew, based on the reports of Jerome. He saw it at the library at Casesarea and/or from Syrians with whom he was in touch.

CARM - inscription on the cross
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjvo-tenets.11276/post-878503
 
Last edited:
E

ebion

Member
There's a well-researched book on "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek" that is freely available:

This shows Aramaic as the base even of the Paulines, not just Matthew.

It's not in there, but I think there is an Aramaic explanation for Philemon 7 (KJV):

7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

"bowels" being replaced by "love"
 
E

ebion

Member
Steven Avery said:
Revelation has its own evidence for a Hebrew origin. Note, I just discussed this with a Revelaion scholar, Dean Furlong, and he sees this as a sensible proposition.
Click to expand...

In what you wrote above, could you clarify if/which uses of the word Hebrew mean "Hebrew or Aramaic" rather than "Hebrew not Aramaic". Not trying to be pendantic, as they ware very close, but I've seen examples where you can definitely make the case for "Aramaic not Hebrew" and they outnumber the opposite many-to-one.

I'm also trying to figure out Papias' (150-170 C.E.) quote:
​
Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated​
as he was able. (quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)​

where the dialect is not language, and is taken to mean the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic, that is to say the dialect used around Jerusalem and Judea. I'm wondering if there was a Hebrew and an Aramaic version of Matthew around pre-Jerome, as I think I saw a quote of Jerome's that said he translated both versions, both translations now lost.

Finally, in those books you cite above, could you subjectively rate their Greek for if they have a "sense of being translation Greek" or rough Greek, for those of us who do not read Greek. I've been around Greek speaking bible readers and say that at least Revelation reads really roughly, to the point that it is assumed not to be written by the same author as the Gospel of John.
​
 
Last edited:
E

ebion

Member
ebion said:
There's a well-researched book on "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek" that is freely available:
Click to expand...

The author makes the book freely downloadable from his website, with a big disclaimer:

"Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?: A Concise Compendium of
the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta
Primacy" argues that the New Testament was originally written in
Aramaic. It is the first of two books I wrote long before I had decided
to become a bona fide scholar and commenced post-graduate Religious
Studies. Some of my unjustified assumptions were that Christianity is
the true faith, that Jesus’ speaking Aramaic would somehow mean that
the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, that the Bible is
the inerrant word of God, and that Jesus even existed as a historical
figure (my scholarly work reveals that this may not be the case).​
​
I have all but disowned this work, but still allow others to view it,
in the interests of transparency, as an example of how religious
motives and beliefs can result in poor scholarship, because despite
these assumptions there are still some interesting points and the
conclusion could actually be correct, and for the interest of the few
Aramaic primacists that remain. In fact, this book still serves some
good purpose, in introducing the theory, in revealing the corrupt and
contradictory nature of the Bible, in revealing the suspect methods and
motives of many Biblical scholars, as well as clearing up the meaning
of many confusing Biblical passages (Aramaic idioms are typically
misunderstood by mainstream Church-goers).​

You're right Steve: his theology has now turned toward mythiscm, and his new book is called: "There was no Jesus, and there is no God."

That being said, are there any specific criticisms you have of the examples he cites in the first 2 major sections that call into question his scholarship?
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top