An Open Letter to Gary Mink concerning his paper: THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK
( https://www.crosswinds.net/~thename/NTisGreekContents.htm ) In which you allege that the claim "of an original Hebrew New Testament" is "baseless". (This open letter is being posted to the discussions at www.eliyah.com ; www.peshitta.org ; various YahooGroups and various Nazarene.net groups as well as sent to Gary Mink) Mr. Mink having read your paper on this subject I must say that your paper is filled with information that ranges from misleading too outright false. As the author of the book THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and as the translator of the HEBRAIC-ROOTS VERSION of the New Testament (Translated from Hebrew and Aramaic Sources) see https://www.nazarene.net/hrv I believe that I am most qualified to expose the misleading and false claims made in your paper. In your first argument you say: Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13
When Jesus said of himself,
"I am Alpha and Omega,"
he was speaking Greek.
Alpha is the first letter of the Greek
Alphabet. Omega is the last.
He uses these Greek letters to make his point. "I am the first and
the last." "I am the beginning and the end." He graphically
illustrates his point with this figure of speech. This argument is a classic case of circular thinking and demonstrates
that you know little or nothing about the Aramaic text itself.
In reality it is only the GREEK text that has Yeshua saying "Alpha
and Omega". In the Aramaic Crawford manuscript Yeshua says that he
is "ALEF and TAV" which are the first and last letters of the
Hebrew/Aramaic Alphabet. You make the mistake here of circular
thinking in that your premise assumes that your conclusion is true. In
order to make this point, you would have to show us that the ARAMAIC
text has Yeshua saying "Alpha and Omega" (which it does not). You also write: Don't be surprised when Jesus speaks Greek.
He is the God of creation. He created all things.
That would include the Greek language. This argument is a bit silly. While we might say Greek was "created"
is was not part of creation as such. One could use your argument
above to make Yeshua the creator of English, the Koran, the Book of
Mormon or even the creator of a volume of pornography. You go on to argue that the region was multilingual and that Greek
was one of its spoken languages. Part of his proof falls once again
back into circular thinking as you cite John 7:35 as it appears in
the NIV translation from the Greek NT. However the Aramaic NT reads: The Judeans were saying among their nefeshot,
Where will this man go that we will not find him?
Indeed, will he go to the regions of the Goyim
and teach the Pagans?
(Yochanan 7:35 HRV) Unlike the Greek NT the Aramaic makes no mention of Greeks in this
verse whatsoever. The Middle East, through all of its political turmoil, has in
fact been dominated by a single master from the earliest ages until
the present day. The Semitic tongue has dominated the Middle East
from ancient times, until the modern day. Aramaic dominated the
three great Empires, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian. It endured
until the seventh century, when under the Islamic nation it was
displaced by a cognate Semitic language, Arabic. Even today some few
Syrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans speak Aramaic as their native
tongue, including three villages north of Damascus . The Jewish people, through all of their persecutions,
sufferings and wanderings have never lost sight of their Semitic
heritage, nor their Semitic tongue. Hebrew, a Semitic tongue closely
related to Aramaic, served as their language until the great
dispersion when a cognate language, Aramaic, began to replace it.
Hebrew, however continued to be used for religious literature, and is
today the spoken language in Israel. Some scholars have proposed that the Jews lost their Hebrew
language, replacing it with Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity.
The error of this position becomes obvious. The Jewish people had
spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt yet they did not stop speaking
Hebrew and begin speaking Egyptian, why should they exchange Hebrew
for Aramaic after only seventy years in Babylonian captivity? Upon
return from the Babylonian captivity it was realized that a small
minority could not speak "the language of Judah" so drastic
measures were taken to abolish these marriages and maintain the
purity of the Jewish people and language One final evidence rests
in the fact that the post-captivity books (Zech., Hag., Mal., Neh.,
Ezra, and Ester) are written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Some scholars have also suggested that under the Helene
Empire Jews lost their Semitic language and in their rush to
hellenize, began speaking Greek. The books of the Maccabees do
record an attempt by Antiochus Epiphanies to forcibly Hellenize the
Jewish people. In response, the Jews formed an army led by Judas
Maccabee This army defeated the Greeks and eradicated Hellenism .
This military victory is still celebrated today as Chanukkah, the
feast of the dedication of the Temple a holiday that even Yeshua
seems to have observed at the Temple at Jerusalem in the first
century . Those who claim that the Jews were Hellenized and began
speaking Greek at this time seem to deny the historical fact of the
Maccabean success.
During the first century, Hebrew remained the language of the
Jews living in Judah and to a lesser extent in Galilee. Aramaic
remained a secondary language and the language of commerce. Jews at
this time did not speak Greek, in fact one tradition had it that it
was better to feed ones children swine than to teach them the Greek
language. It was only with the permission of authorities that a
young official could learn Greek, and then, solely for the purpose of
political discourse on the National level. The Greek language was
completely inaccessible and undesirable to the vast majority of Jews
in Israel in the 1st century.70a Any gauge of Greek language outside
of Israel cannot, nor can any evidence hundreds of years removed from
the 1st century, alter the fact that the Jews of Israel in the 1st
century did not know Greek. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100
C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first
century Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was
the language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first
hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According
to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the
Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2)) . Josephus
gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people
during his time: I have also taken a great deal of pains
to obtain the learning of the Greeks,
and understanding the elements of the Greek
language although I have so long accustomed
myself to speak our own language,
that I cannot pronounce Greek with
sufficient exactness: for our nation
does not encourage those that learn
the languages of many nations.
(Ant. 20:11:2) Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even
speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language." Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by
Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins
were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All
of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other
inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and
various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language
during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about
that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the
Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters. The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more
than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls
are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular
scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew. The Bar Kokhba letters are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba
and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These
letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all
written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in
Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One
of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar
Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have
no one who knows Hebrew here." The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only
include first and second century Hebrew documents, but give an even
more significant evidence in the dialect of that Hebrew. The dialect
of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach (Old
Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220
C.E.). The Hebrew of these documents is colloquial, it is a fluid
living language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary
process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew of
the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a
Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean
Hebrew. Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of
geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead
language. Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew
and Aramaic can be found in other documents of the period, and even
later. These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts in Aramaic (66-70
C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c. 30 - 110 C.E.), Wars
of the Jews by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in
Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.) Your final argument in part one is the most illogical yet. You
cite the Greek of Rev. 22:16 in order to "prove" that Yeshua said
his own name in Greek. This is the single clearest case of circular
thinking that you have used so far. Here you cite the Greek NT
to "prove" that Yeshua spoke his own name in Greek. But in the
Aramaic Crawford text of Revelation in Rev. 22:16 Yeshua says his
name in ARAMAIC NOT in Greek! In part two your first argument is that the constant usage of the
word "Jews" proves that Yochanan was addressed to a Greek audience. This is absolutely not true although it may indicate that the book
was written to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. But remember,
the earliest Gentile believers were Aramaic speaking Syrians and
Assyrians in places like Antioch. The message did not Go out to
Greeks until Acts 17. So even if we admit that Yochanan was written to a mixed audience,
that audience would likely have been Aramaic speaking Syrians and
Assyrians. Mink makes the same observation regarding the book of Acts, but again
it only points to a mixed audience and not to a Greek origin. In part 3 you say: Since Luke was a Gentile doctor in
an empire of Greek speakers, there
can be no doubt at all of his fluency
in the Greek language. He was
very likely a Greek by birth. He most
certainly was Greek by language
and education. He wrote his books,
which he dedicated to Theophilus,
in the Greek style and in the Greek language. Again your arguments are full of false assumptions. One common
argument for Greek primacy has been that since Luke was educated and
a physician he had to have been a Greek speaker. Just think how anti-
semitic this argument is. Why else would one assume that an educated
man could not be a Hebrew speaking Jew or an Aramaic speaking Syrian? You say that Luke was "very likely a Greek by birth" but all of
the "Church Fathers" indicate that Luke was from Antioch, the capitol
of Syria. Syrians were Aramaic speaking peoples and in fact the
Romans called the Aramaic language "Syriacos." Yes Luke addresses his books to a man with a Greek name, but that
does not mean that he wrote in Greek. In fact certain Jewish Rabbis
mentioned in the Talmud had Greek names who were certainly not Greek
speakers. My own wife has a Sweedish name (Ingrid) yet she is not
the least bit Sweedish and does not know a word of Sweedish. Even if we accept that Theophilus was not a Jew by birth this would
not mean that he was not an Aramaic speaking Syrian or Assyrian. You accent your argument with more circular thinking. For example
you cite Luke 9:36 as it reads in the Greek saying that Luke "proves"
he is writing in Greek when he explains that the Aramaic
word "Tabitha" means "Dorcus". But again this only occurs in the
Greek NT, in the Aramaic text Luke does not explain the meaning of
Tavita at all. In part four you constantly use your old error of circular thinking.
You constantly quote passages from the Greek NT which inject parenthetical prases explaining the meanings of
Hebrew and Aramaic words. All of these areguments are meaningless
because they only appear that way in the Greek New Testament. In
Hebrew Matthew and in the Aramaic NT there are no such parenthetical
phrases. In Part Five you that Paul was a Greek speaker who wrote in
Greek to Greek speakers. The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the
Pauline Epistles were first written in Greek. This position is held
by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers" admitted the
Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome)
admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's
Epistles . Still, Paul is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from
Tarsus who Hellenized the Gospel. So strong has this image of Paul
been instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have argued
for a Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament
have rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline
Epistles. For example David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish
Bible (which is translated from the Greek), admits that "there is
good reason to think that several of the books of the New Testament
eother were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source
materials in those languages..." (CJB p. xxxi) but he then goes on to
say "Sha'ul (Paul) whose letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew
on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote." (ibid). In this and future instalments I intend to show that Paul did in fact
draw on his native Jewish and Hebraic though forms, including his
native languages of Hebrew and Aramaic and that he did NOT write in
Greek. Several of the "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin
of at least one of Paul's epistles. These "church fathers" claim
that Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was translated into Greek from a
Hebrew original, as the following quotes demonstrate: Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,...
the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews,
in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully
translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes;
referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 6:14:2) Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3) Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5) In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must
first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking
city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as
a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the
great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the
Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that
Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including
Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the
chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first
century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck
at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions
on them .
Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great
question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just
incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3: I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,
but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,
taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah.
and was zealous toward God as you all are today. Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his
being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by
scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have
argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key,
however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel
passage in Acts 7:20-23: At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God;
and he was brought up in his father's house for three months.
And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away
and brought him up as her own son.
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians... Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic =
ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic =
itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di).
Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the
language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in
Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being
raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely
born at Tarsus. The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a
misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen,
Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever
Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have
left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem.
Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of
Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It
is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first
century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as
a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts
6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and
the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here
are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward
non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts
6:1 a clear contrast is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are
clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were not called Hebrews, a term
reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew"
he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself
a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist.
This would explain why Paul disputed against the Helenists and why
they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus
(Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in
Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.
Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt
that he was in any way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee,
the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a
second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek
mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic
expression meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a
second or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept
that he had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were staunchly
opposed to Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation
Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of
Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head
of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna
states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity
and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under
Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian
Hermeneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first
rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would
have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center
of Pharisaic Judaism.
Paul's audience is another element which must be considered
when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were
addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora. These
congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a
complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was
just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians . It is
known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the
Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at
Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew
or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then
passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might
give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then
to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more light on
the passage which Paul writes:
What advantage then has the Jew,
or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way!
To them first, were committed the Words of God.
- Rom. 3:1-2 It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues
of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a
Latin original of Romans.
One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin
of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul
intended the purpose of his Epistles to be: 1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27) 2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37) All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and
Aramaic Paul would not have written material which he intended to
be read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all
religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal)
authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have
expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority
he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or
Aramaic. Another factor which should be considered in determining the
origin of the Pauline Epistles is the Semitic style of the text.
This Semitic style can be seen through Paul's use of Semitic poetry,
Semitic idioms, Hillelian hermeneutics and Semitic terms. These
factors neutralize the claim that Paul was a Helenist writing in
Greek with Hellenistic ideas and style.
Paul's use of Semitic poetry also points to a Semitic background for
his epistles. The following are just a few examples of Paul's use of
the Semitic poetic device known as parallelism: Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law
and make your boast in God, and know his will
and approve the things that are more excellent,
being instructed out of the Law
and are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind
a light of them which are in darkness,
an instructor of the foolish
a teacher of babes
which has the form of knowledge
and of the truth in the Law You therefore which teach another,
teach you not yourself?
You that proclaim a man should not steal,
do you steal?
You that say a man should not commit adultery,
do you commit adultery?
You that abhor idols,
do you commit blasphemy?
You that makes your boast of the Law,
through breaking the Law, dishonor you God?
(Rom. 2:17-23) Now there are diversities of gifts,
but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations,
but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations,
but it is the same God which works all in all.
(1Cor. 12:4-6) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not love,
I have become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries
and all knowledge,
and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains,
and have not love,
I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not love,
it profits me nothing.
(1Cor. 13:1-3) Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion has light with darkness?
and what concord has Messiah with B'lial?
or what part has he that believes with an infidel?
and what agreement has the Temple of God with idols?
(2Cor. 6:14-16a) Finally, my brothers, be strong in the Lord,
and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God.
that you may be able to stand against the whiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities,
against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places. Therefore, take unto you the whole armour of God,
that you may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth,
and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation
of the goodnews of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith,
wherewith you shall be able to quench
all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take up the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God.
(Eph. 6:10-17)
Paul clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions.
Paul uses the term "word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor.
12:8) Paul also uses the Semitic form of magnification by following
a noun with its plural form. This is used in the Tenach (Old
Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies." Paul uses this idiom
in such phrases as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5); "King of kings"
and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).
Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised
up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to
core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold
doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little
doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were
later translated into Greek.
In part six you only succeed in proving that the authors of NT
books are writing to a partly Gentile audience.
In part seven you fall into your old error of circular thinking
by attempting to prove that the NT quotes the Greek LXX Tanak by
quoting the Greek NT. It has often been claimed by the Helenists, that the several
quotes in the Greek New Testament which agree with the LXX prove the
Greek origin of the New Testament. This argument is faulty however,
for two important reasons. First of all, the premise of this argument presumes the
conclusion to be true. It is only in the Greek New Testament that
such neat agreements with the LXX occur. Hebrew Matthew (Shem Tob
and DuTillet) tends to agree with the Masoretic Text, While the
Aramaic versions of New Testament books (Old Syriac Gospels, Peshitta
New Testament and Crawford Revelation) tend to agree in many places
with the Peshitta Old Testament. In fact the 4th century "Church Father" Jerome esentially admitted
that the Greek translaers had inserted the LXX readings into the
Greek NT. As we had noted in Instalment four Jerome wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi,
and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists
composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea
in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision
who had believed, who translated it into
Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is
preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr
Pamphilus so diligently collected.
I also was allowed by the Nazarenes
who use this volume in the Syrian city
of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist...
makes use of the testimonies of the
Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators
, but
that of the Hebrew."Here Jerome effectively admits that the Tanak quotes in the original
Hebrew of Matthew did NOT agree with the LXX but that the Greek
translator had ALTERED the Tanak quotes as they appear in the Greek
to agree with the LXX. The Helenists have been caught red handed!
As this instalment continues you will se that there is evidence of
this, not just in the book of Matthew but in every portion of the New
Testament, even in the Pauline letters. The second fault with this argument is that recent discoveries in the
Dead Sea Scrolls have produced first century Hebrew mss. of Old
Testament books which in places agree with the LXX against the
current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic text) and at times agree with the
Peshitta Old Testament against the Masoretic text or the LXX. Thus
many, but not all agreements of the New Testament with the LXX may be
due to these first century Old Testament texts which contained such
agreements. An examination of four sample Old Testament quotes as they
appear in the Aramaic New Testament will demonstrate two important
facts. First, the Aramaic text of the Old Syriac and Peshitta New
Testament could not have been translated from the Greek New
Testament. Second, the Aramaic New Testament, as we have it today
has been altered in some places so as to agree with the Greek. Heb. 10:5-7 = Ps. 40:7-9 (6-8) With sacrifices and offerings You are not pleased
But You have clothed me with a body
And burnt offerings which are for sins You have not asked for.
Then I said, Behold I come,
In the beginning of the book it is written concerning me
I will do your will, Eloah.
(from Aramaic) Here the phrase "But You have clothed me with a body" best
agrees with the LXX which has "You have prepared a body for me," a
radical departure from the Masoretic Text which has "Ears You have
cut/dug for me." but agreeing with the Zohar which alludes to the
passage saying "Your eyes behold me ere I was clothed in a body and
all things are written in your book". However the phrase "In the
beginning of the book..." is a unique reading from the Peshitta Old
Testament. The Hebrew has "In the roll of the book..." while the LXX
has "In the volume of the book..." agreeing with the Greek of
Hebrews.
Thus, this quote in the Peshitta version of Hebrews is a
hybrid text sometimes agreeing with the LXX against the Masoretic
Text and Peshitta Old Testament, and sometimes agreeing with the
Peshitta Old Testament against both the LXX and the Masoretic Text.
In fact this hybrid nature looks just like what such a quote might be
expected to look like, in light of the hybrid texts of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. This quote could not contain agreements with both the LXX
and the Peshitta Old Testament if it were translated from the Greek
New Testament. If this passage were translated from the Greek it
would either have agreed with the LXX only as does the Greek, or
inserted the standard Peshitta reading as a substitute. This quote
therefore, is not a translation from Greek nor a substitute inserted
from the Peshitta Old Testament but is a reading which originated
apart from the Greek text.
1Peter 1:24-25 = Isaiah 40:6-8
Because of this all flesh is grass
And all its beauty like a flower of the field
The grass dries up and the flower withers
and the Word of our Eloah abides forever
(from Aramaic) Here the line "And all its beauty like a flower of the field"
agrees with the Peshitta Old Testament and Masoretic Text against the
LXX and Greek New Testament which has "and all the glory of man like
the flower of grass." In fact this quote agrees with the Peshitta
Old Testament exactly except for the omission of Isaiah 40:7 which
agrees with the LXX. Like the previous example, it could not have
been translated from the Greek text.
Acts 8:32-33 = Isaiah 53:7-8
Like a lamb he was led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep before its shearer is silent,
Even thus he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was led from prison and from judgement,
And who will declare his generation?
because his life has been taken from the earth/land
(from the Aramaic) In the first two lines the words "lamb" and "sheep" are
reversed in the LXX and Greek Acts but not here, where they agree
with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament. "from
prison" agrees with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament
against the LXX, but "In his humiliation" agrees with the LXX against
both. The final line contains a special problem. In this line the
Peshitta Acts agrees with the LXX and Greek Acts, but this passage
could not have merely come from a variant Hebrew text. In this
passage the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament agree
against the LXX with "He was cut off out of the land of the living."
An examination of the two versions makes it clear that the LXX
translator misunderstood the Hebrew grammar here and took the
word "life/living" to be a direct object rather than a modifier.
Thus this phrase could only have come from the LXX. It is apparent
however, because of the agreements with the Masoretic Text and
Peshitta Old Testament against the LXX in the preceding lines, that
this quote could not have been translated from the Greek. Thus, we
may conclude that the Peshitta New Testament has been revised in
places to agree with the Greek text, as our last example will further
demonstrate.
Mt. 4:4 = Deut. 8:3
Man does not live by bread alone,
but by every word which comes from the mouth of YHWH. The word "God" here in the Greek of Mt. 4:4 and even the
Peshitta ARamaic of Mt. 4:4 agrees with the LXX against both the
Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Old Testament. It might first appear
that this passage was merely translated from the Greek of Matthew.
However, a look at the Old Syriac version, which is recognized by
most scholars as the ancestor of the Peshitta has MARYA (which the
Aramaic consistantly uses for YHWH) in agreement with the Masoretic
Text and the Peshitta Old Testament against the LXX. Also the
manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew also have YHWH. Thus, it is clear that
the Peshitta was revised here to agree with the LXX and the more
primitive text of the Old Syriac retains the original, unrevised
reading.
Zech. 12:10 = Jn. 19:37
...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced... (Zech.
12:10)
...they shall look upon him whom they have pierced... (Jn.
19:37) The origin for this variance between the New Testament and
the Old appears to originate in the Aramaic versions. This is easier to show with Hebraic-Aramaic fonts but I will attempt
to demonstrate it without them. The original Hebrew of this passage (in Zech. 12:10) employs a Hebrew
word that cannot be translated into any language includuding
ARamaic. The Hebrew word is ET (alef-tav). This word is a special
preposition which points to the next word as the direct object
recieving the action of the verb. If we show the invisable word ET
in the text it would look like this: ...they shall look upon me {ET} whom they have pierced... Now the Aramaic translater of the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak version of
Zech 12:10 striving for a word for word translation, translated the
untranslateable ET with an aramaic word menaing "at-him" (attempting
to convey the idea of a pointer to the direct object). The result is
that the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak has: ...they shall look upon me at-him whom they have pierced... Now when the quote apears in Yochanan it apears to have passed
through another change. The Aramaic of Jn. 19:17 agrees with the
Aramaic of Zech 12:10 except for the word meaning "upon-me" which is
omitted. Aparently a later scribe found the phrace "upon-me at-him"
to be redundant and dropped the phrase "upon-me" from the quote.
Thus both the Aramaic and the Greek of Jn. 19:37 have "at him" and
not "upon me" in their quotations of Zech. 12:10. This change from "upon me" to "at him" can CLEARLY be demonstrated to
have occurred in the Aramaic traditiona nd then to have been
TRANSLATED into Greek.
From the above examples it is clear that Old Testament quotes
as they appear in the Aramaic New Testament demonstrate that the
Peshitta New Testament could not have been simply translated from
Greek as the Helenists claim.
In part eight you say: 1. There are over five thousand
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
2. There are zero manuscripts of a
Hebrew New Testament. You go on to say: To the five thousand plus Greek manuscripts,
we add more than ten thousand quotations
by ancient writers. That is a staggering s
um of witnesses to the Greek New Testament.
It is especially impressive because advocates
of a Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament can find exactly
zero evidence Whenever I present the idea of a Hebraic-Aramaic origin for the NT I
am often confronted with two objections/questions: 1. There are no Hebrew and Aramaic NT manuscripts. 2. The oldest NT manuscripts are in Greek Objection one is simply made out of ignorance and is easily answered. Objection two is not totally correct and presupposes false
information. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Hebrew
manuscripts of any Tanak books only dated to the middle ages.
Moreover prior to that time the oldest manuscripts of the Tanak were
Greek LXX manuscripts from the 4th century CE! Yet NO ONE would have
argued, based upon those facts that the Tanak had originally been
written in Greek and that the Hebrew manuscripts from the Middle Ages
were only Hebrew translations of the Greek! So even IF the oldest
manuscripts were Greek it would in NO WAY indicate that the Greek was
original and the Hebrew and/or Aramaiac was a translation. However the fact is that while our oldest Hebrew manuscripts of
Matthew date to the Middle ages (as was the case with all Tanak books
until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) our oldest complete
Aramaic NT manuscript dates to the fourth century just as our oldest
complete Greek manuscript does. Greek supporters will point to the existence of 5,309 extant Greek
manuscripts as evidence of a Greek origin. However there are over
10,000 Latin Vulage manuscripts an no one argues for a Latin origin.
Moreover the 5,309 Greek manuscripts start to evaporate when we look
closely. of the 5,309 mss. 2,143 are not Greek NT manuscripts at all
but lectionaries which quote from the NT. 2,764 are in the late
Minuscule script meaning that they all date from the nineth century
CE or later (well into the middle ages). Almost 100 of them atre not
manuscripts at all but small Papyri fragments. Only 267 of the Greek
NT manuscripts predate the 9th century CE. (This compares to about
350 Aramaic manuscripts of comparable age). The term "ancient" is
usually reserved for the 4th Century CE or before. Using this
definition there are only six complete ancient Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament. Greek supporters will point to the famous John Ryland's fragment
(p52) and argue that the oldest fragment of any portion of the New
Testament is in Greek. We have already shown why that is in itself
of limited importance. However it should be noted that the Greek
teaxt that appears on p52 is a Western Text and agrees with Codex
Bezae. This is important because MANY scholars (Such as Matthew
Black) have maintained that Codex Bezae is a Greek translation made
from the Old Syriac Aramaic Version. Thus the John Rylan's fragment
actually testifies to the age of the Aramaic more than it does to the
Greek. You refer to 10,000 citations from the "Church Fathers" which he
claims serve as witnesses to the Greek NT. There are also many other factors which must be considered. For
example when the Alexandrian Greek "Church Father" Origin quotes from
Hebrews 2:9 in the early third Century, his quotation agrees with the
reading of that verse as it appears in the Aramaic of the Peshitta
and NOT with any known Greek manuscript reading. Ultimately it is internal evidence which will reveal the original.
THE SEMITIC NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES:
Hebrew Sources DuTillet Matthew The DuTillet version of Matthew is taken from a Hebrew manuscript of
Matthew which was confiscated from Jews in Rome in 1553. On August
12th, 1553, at the petition of Pietro, Cardinal Caraffa, the
Inquisitor General , Pope Julius III signed a decree banning the
Talmud in Rome. The decree was executed on September 9th (Rosh
HaShanna) and anything that looked like the Talmud, that is, anything
written in Hebrew characters was confiscated as the Jewish homes and
synagogues were ravished. Jean DuTillet, Bishop of Brieu, France was
visiting Rome at the time. DuTillet was astounded to take notice of
a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew among the other Hebrew manuscripts.
DuTillet acquired the manuscript and returned to France, depositing
it in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. It remains there to this
day as Hebrew ms. No. 132.
While most scholars have ignored the DuTillet Hebrew version
of Matthew, two scholars, Hugh Schonfield and George Howard, have
stated their opinion that this Hebrew text underlies our current
Greek text. Schonfield writes: ...certain linguistic proofs... seem to show that the Hebrew
text underlies the Greek, and that certain
renderings in the Greek may be due to a misread Hebrew
original.
(An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927, p.
17)
Munster Matthew
The Munster Hebrew Text of Matthew was published in 1537 by Sebastian
Munster. Munster claimed to have received his Hebrew text from the
Jews. Munster also noted that he received the text "in defective
condition, and with many lacunae (holes)" which he himself filled
in. Unfortunately Munster did not take steps to preserve his
manuscript source which is now lost, and he did not make note of
those places where he filled in missing text.
Shem Tob Matthew
The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew was transcribed by
Shem Tob Ben Yitzach Ben Shaprut into his apologetic work Even Bohan
sometime around 1380 C.E.. While the autograph of Shem Tob's Even
Bohan has been lost, several manuscripts dating between the fifteenth
and seventeenth centuries still exist, complete with the transcribed
text of Hebrew Matthew. George Howard writes of Shem Tob's Hebrew
Matthew: ...an old substratum to the Hebrew in Shem Tob is a prior
composition, not a translation. The old substratum, however,
has been exposed to a series of revisions so that the present
text of Shem-Tob represents the original only in an impure
form.
(The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text;
1987;p.223) It might appear from the linguistic and sociological
background to early Christianity and the nature of some
theological tendencies in Shem-Tob's Matthew that the
Hebrew text served as a model for the Greek. The present
writer is, in fact, inclined to that position.
(ibid p. 225) Shem-Tob's Matthew... does not preserve the original in a pure
form. It reflects contamination by Jewish scribes during the
Middle Ages. Considerable parts of the original, however,
appear to remain...
(Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; 1995; p. 178
Aramaic Sources
The Old Syriac Gospels Another relatively unknown fact to much of Christendom is the
existence of two ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the Four Gospels
dating back to the Fourth century. The first was discovered by Dr.
William Cureton in 1842. It was found in a monastery at the Naton
Lakes Valley in Egypt. This manuscript is known as Codex Syrus
Curetonianus or, the Cureton and is catalogued as British Museum Add.
No. 14451. The second was discovered by Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis in
1892. It was found at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of
traditional Mount Sinai in Egypt. This manuscript is known as Codex
Syrus Sinaiticus or the Syriac Siniatic and is catalogued as Ms.
Sinai Syriac No. 30. After making his profound discovery Dr. Cureton
studied the Old Syriac text of the manuscript in detail. Cureton
concluded that at least the version of Matthew found in the Old
Syriac has its basis in the original Semitic text and was not merely
a translation from the Greek or Latin. Cureton published his
findings to the world saying: ...this Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built
upon
the original Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle
himself.
(Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in
Syriac;
1858; p. vi)
The Peshitta New Testament
The Peshitta Bible is an Aramaic version of the Scriptures
which is used throughout the Near East. The birth of the Peshitta
looms beyond the horizon of antiquity.
Although one tradition has the Tanak portion of the Peshitta
being translated at the time of Solomon at the request of Hiram, and
another ascribes the translation to a priest named Assa sent by the
king of Assyria to Samaria . More likely is that the Peshitta Tanak
was prepared at the edict of King Izates II of Abiabene who with his
entire family converted to Judaism. Josephus records that at his
request, King Izates' five son's went to Jerusalem to study the
Jewish language and customs . It was probably at this time that the
Peshitta Tanak was born.
The New Testament portion of the Peshitta was added to the
Peshitta Tanak in the earliest Christian centuries. It is
universally used by Jacobite Syrians; Nestorian Assyrians and Roman
Catholic Chaldeans. The Peshitta must predate the Christological
debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, since none of these groups
would have adopted their rival's version. Thus, this version
certainly originated in the pre-Nicean Church of the East. It
includes all of the books except 2Peter; 2John; 3John; Jude and
Revelation. These books were not canonized by the Church of the
East. The Peshitta is not merely a translation from the Greek text,
but rather a revision of the Old Syriac, as Arthur Voobus writes: ... the Peshitta is not a translation,
but a revision of an Old Syriac version.
(Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac; 1951; p. 46 see
also pp. 54-55). There are about 350 Peshitta manuscripts which predate the nineth
century, the oldest of which date to the fourth century (the same age
as the Oldest complete Greek NT manuscripts) The Crawford Manuscript of Revelation The Crawford Aramaic version of Revelation is a very rare, little
known version. How the manuscript made its way to Europe is
unknown. What is known is that the manuscript was purchased by the
Earl of Crawford around 1860. In the Earl of Crawford's possession
the ms. became catalogued Earl of Crawford's Haigh Hall, Wigan, no.
11. It has since come into the possession of the well known John
Rylands Library of Manchester, England. The manuscript contains a
complete Peshitta text supplemented by the extra-Peshitta epistles
and this unique version of Revelation . Concerning the variants of
this version John Gwyn Writes: Two or three... are plausible readings; and might well be
judged worthy of adoption if there were any ground for
supposing the Apocalypse to have been originally written,
or to be based on a document written, in an Aramaic idiom.
(The Apocalypse of St. John in a Syriac Version Hitherto
Unknown;
1897; p. lxxix) And to this we may add to show that there is ground for "supposing
the Apocalypse to have been originally written, or to be based on a
document written, in an Aramaic idiom.": ...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,
and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original."
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church
1941; p. 160 We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse
as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...
- RBY Scott; The Original Language of the Apocalypse
1928; p. 6 When we turn to the New Testament we find that
there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii In part nine you put a lot of eggs into the claim that a Greek
fragment of Mark was found among the Qumran scrolls, however most
scholars reject that claim and even if it were true it would not
prove a Greek origin. In part ten you quote some Scholars who claim a Greek origin
for the NT. Here I will respond by showing that some scholars also
claim a Hebrew and/or Aramaic origin: Although Stern uses the UBS Greek New Testament text and NOT the
Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts as the source for his Jewish New
Testament version (Which also appears in THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE)
(JNT p. xxii; CJB p. xxxi) he also admits: Nevertheless, there is good reason to think
that several books of the New Testament either
were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon
source materials in those languages; this case
has been made by one scholar or another for all
four Gospels, Acts, Revelation and several of the
General Letters.... In fact, some phrases in the
New Testament manuscripts make sense unless one
reaches through the Greek to the underlying Hebrew
expressions.
(David Stern; Complete Jewish Bible p. xxxi)
(an almost identical statement appears in JNT p. xvii) (It should be noted that Stern also indicates his belief, with which
I do not agree, that the Pauline Epistles were composed in Greek. I
will deal with the issue of the Pauline Epistles in a future
instalment) Stern is absolutely correct in the above statement. A number
of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New
Testament were originally penned in a Semitic tongue. The following is just some of what these scholars have written on the
topic: When we turn to the New Testament we find that
there are reasons for suspecting a Hebrew or Aramaic
original for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John
and for the apocalypse.
- Hugh J. Schonfield; An Old Hebrew Text
of St. Matthew's Gospel; 1927; p. vii
The material of our Four Gospels is all Palestinian,
and the language in which it was originally written
is Aramaic, then the principle language of the land...
-C. C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels; 1936 p. ix
The pioneer in this study of Aramaic and Greek relationships
was
Charles Cutler Torrey (1863-1956),... His work however fell
short
of completeness; as a pioneering effort, in the nature of the
case,
some of his work has to be revised and supplemented. His main
contention of translation, however, is undeniably correct. ...
The translation into Greek from Aramaic must have been made
from
a written record, including the Fourth Gospel. The language
was
Eastern Aramaic, as the material itself revealed, most
strikingly
through a comparison of parallel passages. ... One group , which originated in the nineteenth
century
and persists to the present day <1979>, contends that the
Gospels
were written in Greek... Another group of scholars, among them C. C. Torrey ... comes
out flatly
with the proposition that the Four Gospels... including Acts
up to 15:35
are translated directly from Aramaic and from a written
Aramaic text.... My own researches have led me to consider Torrey's position
valid and convincing that the Gospels as a whole were
translated
from Aramaic into Greek.
- Frank Zimmerman; The Aramaic Origin
of the Four Gospels; KTAV; 1979 Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle
the question of the original language of the Fourth Gospel;
and quickly convincing himself that the theory of an
original Aramaic document was no chimera, but a fact
which was capable of the fullest verification...
- Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin
of the Fourth Gospel; 1922; p. 3 ...this Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least
to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work
of the Apostle himself.
- William Cureton; Remains of a Very
Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels
in Syriac; 1858; p. vi) ...the Book of Revelation was written in a Semitic language,
and that the Greek translation... is a remarkably close
rendering of the original."
- C. C. Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church
1941; p. 160 We come to the conclusion, therefore that the Apocalypse
as a whole is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic...
- R. B. Y. Scott; The Original Language of the
Apocalypse
1928; p. 6
The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular
interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to
portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his
account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke
himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a
Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states:
In regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the
Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest
and most constant evidence of being a translation.
- C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix Mr. Mink in this short open letter I have shown MANY cases in which your paper contains information which is either misleading or plainly false. In my book THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT there is a great deal more documented evidence for the Hebraic-Aramaic origin of the New Testament,
evidence which serves as the basis for the HEBRAIC-ROOTS VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT which is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic sources. Much of this evidence is represented in the INTRODUCTION and footnotes to this translation. See https://www.nazarene.net/hrv In a recent review of the HEBRAIC-ROOTS VERSION in Petah Tikvah Magizine Rick Chaimberlin wrote: ...Trimm presents considerable evidence
that the original NT was written in
Hebrew and Aramaic...
(Petah Tikvah Oct.-Dec. 2001 - Vol. 19 No. 4 p. 24) In light of the information presented in this open letter I would suggest that your entire premise that the theory of a Hebrew original of the New Testament is baseless is totally flawed. I suggest that your suggestion that there is "no evidence" to support this theory are also totally incorrect. Moreover I propose that if one eliminates all of the false and misleading arguments from your paper, your paper is left without any real support for its conclusions. The theory of a Hebraic-Aramaic origin of the New Testament is not just a theory, but a fact capable of clear verification. Mr. Mink please do the right thing and remove this false and misleading paper from your web site. There is no reason to mislead people. James Trimm
|
