The Bible was written in Aramaic

Post by p***@hotmail.com
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com

<snip blather>

It is Bullshit in whatever language it is written.

--
rb #2187

Michael Gray

2005-08-17 09:01:30 UTC

Possibly because they are Christians, and by definition will believe
any old nonsense.

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Because the New Testament was written in Aramaic, the language of
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jewish and Syrian believers, who were the
first Christians (Israel and Palestine).
My free book "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?" proves
the Aramaic primacy, solves Greek contradictions, highlights Semitic
poetry in the "Greek" Bible and shows us the historical as well as
linguistic evidence.
Also available free at this website are many Bible research tools so
you can figure out this for yourself. We have no less than 4 English
translations from the Aramaic, including the legendary LAMSA BIBLE and
the excellent Younan version.
Check it out. Did I mention all the resources are free?
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com
Regards,
Chris
p.s. Please don't see this as spam. I make no money off this (costs me
money). I just want to promote the Bible version that clears up so many
Greek problems and has even saved people's faiths.
p.p.s. Anyone who is already an Aramaic/Peshitta primacist and wishes
to help with evidence, forum moderating etc do email me.

Gregory Gadow

2005-08-17 13:23:07 UTC

Post by p***@hotmail.com
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com
Hi there!
Most people think that the New Testament was written in Greek. Yet
there is no one Greek version, and they are full of errors,
contradictions and confusing teachings. WHY?
Because the New Testament was written in Aramaic, the language of
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jewish and Syrian believers, who were the
first Christians (Israel and Palestine).

Entirely incorrect. All of the books of the New Testament were written in
Greek specifically for Greek speaking Christian communities. Where
variations exist between different texts of the same scripture, the
variations are minor and attributeable to copyist errors (a writer, making
a copy of an existing text, mistakes an epsilon for an iota, or puts down
an extra sigma.) Where variations exist on the same story in different
texts.
--
Gregory Gadow
***@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be
mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not
consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists
in professing to believe what one does not believe. It
is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may
so express it, that mental lying has produced in society.
When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the
chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared
himself for the commission of every other crime."
- Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"

s***@yahoo.com

2005-08-17 13:53:53 UTC

I'm curious, have you read George Howard's "The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew"?
It's the translation and exploration of a gospel contained in a 14th
century polemic called "Even Bohan". Mr. Howard makes (to me) a
persuasive case that, although much of the text is harmonized, or
reflects a longer, more intricate theology, there is much of it which
makes sense (in Hebrew) of puzzling passages of the Matthew text.

I'm not a scholar on the topic, but it's fascinating -- mostly because
it suggests that the earliest rendition of Matthew would have been in
Hebrew, not Greek. Which would effectively upend most of the long held
assumptions about the origins of the gospels, and even the order in
which they were generated.

Sunny

Gregory Gadow

2005-08-17 14:33:08 UTC

I'm curious, have you read George Howard's "The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew"?
It's the translation and exploration of a gospel contained in a 14th
century polemic called "Even Bohan". Mr. Howard makes (to me) a
persuasive case that, although much of the text is harmonized, or
reflects a longer, more intricate theology, there is much of it which
makes sense (in Hebrew) of puzzling passages of the Matthew text.
I'm not a scholar on the topic, but it's fascinating -- mostly because
it suggests that the earliest rendition of Matthew would have been in
Hebrew, not Greek. Which would effectively upend most of the long held
assumptions about the origins of the gospels, and even the order in
which they were generated.

I sit corrected. Matthew -- and possibly Q, the presumed source document for
Matthew and Mark, and likely Luke -- was written in Hebrew. There is a great
deal of textual and historic evidence that Matthew was written as a response to
the growing influence of Gentiles in the Jesus movement; the Ebionites in the
3rd and 4th centuries were a prominant "Jews for Jesus" movement that accepted
only the Gospel of Matthew (in Hebrew) and rejected the other gospels that
circulated at the time, as well as vehemently rejecting the Letters of Paul. My
bad for forgetting.

It is a fact, however, that Paul wrote in Greek; he was, after all, writing to
Greek speaking communities consisting almost exclusively of gentile Christians
who would never have learned either Aramaic or Hebrew. It is a fact that the
author of Luke and Acts wrote using Greek, as he states clearly that he is
writing to a Greek (Theophilus, which translates as "one who loves God") and
frequently uses Greek metaphors and expressions that would not have been found
in a document originally witten in any other language. Likewise, the Gospel of
John. Likewise, the book of Revelations. Even the Letter to the Hebrews was
written in Greek: where the Hebrew scriptures are quoted, the author
consistently uses the Greek Septuagent as his text.
--
Gregory Gadow
***@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson

s***@yahoo.com

2005-08-17 17:39:07 UTC

<snip>

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I'm curious, have you read George Howard's "The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew"?
It's the translation and exploration of a gospel contained in a 14th
century polemic called "Even Bohan". Mr. Howard makes (to me) a
persuasive case that, although much of the text is harmonized, or
reflects a longer, more intricate theology, there is much of it which
makes sense (in Hebrew) of puzzling passages of the Matthew text.
I'm not a scholar on the topic, but it's fascinating -- mostly because
it suggests that the earliest rendition of Matthew would have been in
Hebrew, not Greek. Which would effectively upend most of the long held
assumptions about the origins of the gospels, and even the order in
which they were generated.

Well, it's sort of counter to the conventional wisdom of the day.
I recall learning that the scholarly consensus was that Mark was
written first of the extant gospels; then Matthew and Luke used Mark
nearly verbatim (though Luke corrected his Greek). If Mark was
originally in Greek (as I've read it appears to be, a sort of Greek
vernacular that doesn't give the appearance of being a translation),
then the author of Matthew couldn't have copied it into Hebrew -- could
he? The text I have here seems to include a whole lot of Hebrew poetic
devices, which would have arguably been missing from the Marcan text.

If Matthew was written in Hebrew, then I'm frankly perplexed how all
the differing sequences can be harmonized. Unless we use that handy
hypothetical Q document, and claim it as a source for both -- except
that still doesn't explain the verbatim passages. I would, however,
put the writing of the first gospels considerably earlier than 70 ad.

All of which, it seems to me, has some profound effects on what is
presently commonly accepted insofar as the gospels are concerned (like
the motivation for the first writing, the dating of the first writing,
even the accuracy or authenticity of the first writing, etc)

OH, and it *also* makes even more puzzling the weird misreading of lots
of the Septuagint present in Matthew (you know, the colt/colt stuff),
unless the present version is somehow a compilation of several
disparate texts.

I know you don't know "the" answer, but I'd sure love to read any
comments you might have.

Sunny

Papa Theo

2005-08-18 02:21:26 UTC

I'm curious, have you read George Howard's "The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew"?
It's the translation and exploration of a gospel contained in a 14th
century polemic called "Even Bohan". Mr. Howard makes (to me) a
persuasive case that, although much of the text is harmonized, or
reflects a longer, more intricate theology, there is much of it which
makes sense (in Hebrew) of puzzling passages of the Matthew text.
I'm not a scholar on the topic, but it's fascinating -- mostly because
it suggests that the earliest rendition of Matthew would have been in
Hebrew, not Greek. Which would effectively upend most of the long held
assumptions about the origins of the gospels, and even the order in
which they were generated.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has always maintained
that the original gospels were written in Aramiac
called the "Peshitta". I have a translation of it
by George Lamsa, and it certainly addresses parts
that seem confusing. The Aramaic word for "camel"
looks very similar to "rope". According to Lamsa,
that verse should had translated as "It is easier
for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than
it is for a rich man to go to heaven." Also "lead
us not into temptation" translates to "let us not
be led into temptation", which seems appropriate.

Michael Gray

2005-08-18 11:47:12 UTC

Post by Papa Theo

I'm curious, have you read George Howard's "The Hebrew Gospel of
Matthew"?
It's the translation and exploration of a gospel contained in a 14th
century polemic called "Even Bohan". Mr. Howard makes (to me) a
persuasive case that, although much of the text is harmonized, or
reflects a longer, more intricate theology, there is much of it which
makes sense (in Hebrew) of puzzling passages of the Matthew text.
I'm not a scholar on the topic, but it's fascinating -- mostly because
it suggests that the earliest rendition of Matthew would have been in
Hebrew, not Greek. Which would effectively upend most of the long held
assumptions about the origins of the gospels, and even the order in
which they were generated.

Lest you should dismiss this out of hand, it is, in fact a serious
enquiry:
I have been attempting to source any original and authenticated
Aramaic documents that purport to be part of the Gospels.
Lamsa must surely have access to such, but I cannot find more than a
few of unauthenticated scraps, that cover almost nothing.
I have hopes of obtaining such, so that I might translate them myself,
as the few bits that I have been able to lay my hands on, suggest that
Lamsa's "interpretation" of the text, was highly coloured by his
assumptions and beliefs, to say the least.
I am led to understand that there are some documents in Princeton
University, and others in Oxford.
I'm sure that in the interests of Biblical accuracy you are bound to
cooperate.

Darrell Stec

2005-08-18 19:26:18 UTC

After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 18 August 2005 7:47 am

Post by Michael Gray

Post by Papa Theo