Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:The problems I see with Aramaic primacy is the fact that most of the New Testament epistles (with the possible exception of Hebrews) were written to multi-lingual or Greek-speaking congregations (especially Paul). Why would Paul, bringing an important message to the churches to which he wrote, use a Eastern and Semitic language (for the whole letter) to write to a church that mainly consisted of Greek speakers?

Many of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, from the 2nd century to the 8th Century testified to the Semitic origin of the Book of Mattith-YaHu, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Papias (150-170 C.E.)
Mattith-YaHu composed the words in the Hebrew dialect,
and each translated as he was able.#1

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Mattith-YaHu also issued a written Gospel
among the Hebrews in their own dialect.#2

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first [Gospel] is written according to Mattith-YaHu,
the same who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yehoshuah the Messiah;
who having published it for the Yehudish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.#3

Mattith-YaHu also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew,
when on the point of going also to the other nations,
committed it to writing in his native tongue,
and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.#4

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India,
where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu,
which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah,
to whom Bartholomew, one of the emissaries, as it is Said, had proclaimed,
and left them the writing of Mattith-YaHu in Hebrew letters.#5

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They [the Nazarenes], have the Gospel according to Mattith-YaHu,
quite complete in Hebrew:
for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written ?
in Hebrew letters.#6

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Mattith-YaHu, who is also Laywee,
and from a tax collector came to be an emissary;
first of all evangelists, composed a Gospel of Messiah in Yehudea,
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 [the Greek Septuagint],
but that of the Hebrew."#7

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve emissaries,
had there [India] preached the advent of our Lord Yehoshuah the Messiah
according to the Gospel of Mattith-YaHu, which was written in Hebrew letters,
and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him."#8

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His [Mattith-YaHu's] book, was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands, in Hebrew...#9

#1 quoted by Eusebius Eccl. History 3:39
#2 Ireneus; Against Heresies 3:1
#3 quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. History 6:25
#4 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:24
#5 Eusebius; Eccl. History 5:10
#6 Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4
#7 Jerome; Of Illustrious Men 3
#8 Jerome; De Vir. 3:36
#9 Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels

Other "church fathers" have testified to the Semitic origin of at least one of Shaul's/Powlos's[Paul's] epistles. These "church fathers" claim, that Powlos'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 [Clement of Alexandria], has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, he asserts, was written by Powlos,
to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue,
but that it was carefully translated by Loukanus, and published among the Greeks.#10

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Powlos had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his Country,
some say that the evangelist Loukanus; others that Clement, translated the epistle.#11

Jerome (382)
"He (Powlos), 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.#12

#10 Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. History 6:14:2
#11 Eusebius; Eccl. History 3:38:2-3
#12 Lives of Illustrious Men, Book V

It should be noted that these church fathers, did not always agree that the other books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew. Epiphanius for example, believed "that only Mattith-YaHu?, put the setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament, in the Hebrew language and letters."#13 Epiphanius does however, tell us, that the Yehudish believers would disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of Yo-Khawnawn and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius, Yisra-Ail.#14 Epiphanius believed these versions to be mere "translations,"#15 but admitted that the Yehudish believers disagreed with him.#16 The truth in this matter is clear: If Greek had replaced Hebrew as the language of Yehudeem as early as the 1st Century, then why would fourth century Yehudeem have any need for Hebrew translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these books in 4th Century Yisra-Ail, testifies to their originality, not to mention the fact that the Yehudish believers regarded them as authentic. Also not only does the Church of the East testify that they received the Gospels directly from the Apostles in a Semitic, not Greek, language but the Targums[Commentaries] of the Hebrew Scriptures are all written in Aramaic! So if the Hebrew people had been so familiar with Greek why would they need Commentaries of the Scriptures in Aramaic? Would they not known Aramaic? And if Aramaic had also fallen to the way side why are there still people to this day still using it handed down to them from antiquities?

#13 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3
#14 Epipnanius, Pan. 30:3, 6
#15 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3, 6, 12
#16 Epiphanius, Pan. 30:3

In addition to the statements made by the early Christian church fathers, the ancient Yehudish Raybbees, also, hint of a Hebrew original for the Gospels. Both the Yerushalayim and Babylonian Talmuds and the Tosefta, relate a debate among Rabbinic Yehudeem over the method of destruction of manuscripts of New Testament books.#17 Specifically mentioned is a book called by them as "Gospels".#18 The question which arose was how to handle the destruction of these manuscripts, since they contained the actual name of Eloheem. It is of course, well known that the Greek New Testament manuscripts do not contain the Divine Name but use the Greek titles "Kurios" as a substitute. This is because the Divine Name is not traditionally transliterated into other languages, but instead is (unfortunately) rendered to an equivalent of "Lord", just as we have it in most English Bibles, and just as we find it in our late manuscripts of the Septuagint.#19 The manuscripts these Raybbee's were discussing, must have represented the original 1st Century Hebrew/Aramaic#20 Text, from which the Greek were with out question translated from.

#17 t. Shab. 3:5; b. Shab. 116 a; j. Shab. 15c
#18 (b.Shab. 116a) The word "Gospels" is part of the title of the Old Syriac manuscripts,
and is also used in some passages of the PeshittA (such as Markos 1:1) and may be a loan word,
from the Greek word for "Gospel" and in Hebrew and in Aramaic may mean "a powerful scroll?.
The exact same spelling is used both in the Talmud, the Old Syriac, and the PeshittA.
#19 Greek translation of the "Old Testament"
#20 Being the Hebrew letters are now a days actually the Ancient Aramaic script when Mattith-
YaHu and Shaul/Powlos were said to have written in Hebrew it could have very well have been they wrote with the Aramaic Script.

The Aramaic Targums
The Aramaic Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of Tanak books. These paraphrases were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew. The official targum of the Torah is Targum Onkelos, and the official targum of the Prophets is Targum Jonathan. There is no official targum of the Ketuvim, but there were targums of most of the books of the Ketuvim. The only books that lack targum versions
are Ezra and Daniel, portions of which were written in Aramaic in the first place.

All things are to be establish by of 2 or 3 eyewitnesses.
We have more than 3 ancient witnesses that established the FACT that Mattith-YaHu and Shaul/Powlos wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic font. With all the above mentioned ancient witnesses (more than 3) to the fact that Mattith-YaHu and Shaul/Powlos wrote their Books in the Hebrew/Aramaic language all the 20th and 21st Century speculations can not change the FACT that the Gospels where first written in Hebrew/Aramaic. And the FACT that the Targums were written in Aramaic as well as the eastern PeshittA renewed Covenant shows that the Aramaic language had not fallen to the way side and as well that the all so coveted Greek language of today was not so important to the Yehudeem back then!

With all of the testimonies, textural evidence, and the facts that most of the targeted people of the Renewed Covenant were Aramaic speaking people I see no reason for any one to believe one Book was written originally in Greek.

The main reason I have come across as to why some people are still wanting to believe that the Renewed Covenant was first penned completely in Greek is because they do not like how the Aramaic Text reads, and they would prefer the heresies with in the perverted Greek texts over the truths in the Eastern Aramaic!

As attested too all textural evidence, backed by ancient witnesses, show that the Greek texts are, at best, translations of the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA's Parent Text, or, at the least, the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA itself!!!

And even the Western 5 Book of the Renewed Covenant, although they have only survived to this day in the Greek language, are attested to by many scholars to have an underlying Semitic flavor to them, as with the rest of the Renewed Covenant. Especially the Greek Book of Romans is said to be the most Semitic in nature out of the rest, imagine that out of all the Books the one written to people in Rome has the best chance, according to modern Greek scholars to have been originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

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 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

For more on the fact that Aramaic had never took second place to the Greek language amoung the Hebrew people as well as many other converts to the faith in Yehoshuah see the following webpage and read through the first 9 PDFs on the subject:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Also you can read the rest of the PDFs on the textural issues that should make a believer out of even the most hard core Greek suprimist even when considering the following words of wisdom -

Keep in mind -
"All truth passes through three stages.
1)First, it is ridiculed,
2) second it is violently opposed, and
3) third, it is accepted as self-evident." <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->
-- Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations,
the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic." <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
-- Dresden James

The TRUTH is stranger than fiction only because we have been indoctrinated with a lie. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->

When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth, <!-- s:oha: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/oha.gif" alt=":oha:" title="Oha!" /><!-- s:oha: -->
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

And Remember:
Wisdom Never Lies Inked To The Pages Coddled By A Book
But Rather At Rest Supply About The Inside Of Open Minds
That Render The Confounds Thereof. <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->
-- The Texas R.A.T. (2000 AD) --

Seek And Ye Shall Find
Yea Unto Therefore
Read The Word of YHWH Ore And Ore ...Extolling Ever Again
To Thine Be The Splendor
Hallelu-Yah, Awmain[Strong?s H#543]

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

Messages In This Thread
Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - by The Texas RAT - 10-24-2012, 06:29 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)