James Trimm

I'm certainly not reading them.

I am actually trying to keep my own posts short at this point, unless I am responding to a long post. (And there were two of those recently).

Too bad. They would have been interesting.

Without court transcripts, are there any legal documents that are accessible to the

public that stated the settlement,

or is the settlement something we have to completely accept your word on?

WordWolf,

Rest assured that if I have lied about the settlement, or its terms, both here and on our own Social Network with over 1,000 members (http://www.nazarenespace.com) and several other places on the internet, TWI and its attorneys would be all over me!

TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK

ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT

(and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account)

1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek.

RESPONSE:

Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews

(the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle

ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament

books date back to the 4th century C.E..

However there are some important facts that those making the above

argument fail to account for.

To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947

our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated

back

only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books

were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have

argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak.

Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our

oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th

century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to

the

Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original

language of Ester was Greek.

The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester

to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is

about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to

our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest

Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial

composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the

original.

Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found

among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri

fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old

Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments

of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not

among any

discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect

Hebrew

Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better

preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT

Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew

books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which

we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no

Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more

significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old

Testament" books among them.

The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a

fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment

agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement

with the Aramaic Old Syriac text.

Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the

fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic

manuscripts of NT books.

The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be

dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments

that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

2. The NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament".

RESPONSE: 1) Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT.

The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic

Text and the Pedangta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do

not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have

been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such

agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts

rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX.

3. Testimonials "Such-and-such scholar said so".

RESPONSE: These do not prove anything. In fact once can also quote

various scholars which have declared that parts or all of the NT were

written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

4. Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek.

RESPONSE: Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl.

Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic

dialect.

5. Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus".

RESPONSE: Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from

37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such

as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic.

6. Greek was the common language of Jews at the time.

RESPONSE:

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 Scolls 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 beteween 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 coloquial, 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.)

But regarding Paul's letters to the diaporia, Aramaic is the issue.

It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the

diasporia, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at

Rome, Pompei and even England.

(see Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology "Note on a

Bilingual Inscription in Latin and Aramaic Recently Found at South

Shields"; A. Lowy' Dec. 3, 1878; pp. 11-12; "Five Transliterated

Aramaic Inscriptions" The American Journal of Archaeology; W.R.

Newbold; 1926; Vol. 30; pp. 288ff)

7. Paul was a helenist and would have written in Greek.

RESPONSE:

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 conqured 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

parrallel 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 Hellenist 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

Hellenist 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 geneological 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 "Hellenists." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenists" here are

Hellenist 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 Hellenists and Hebrews which are

clearly non-Hellenists. Hellenists were not called Hebrews, a term

reserved for non-Hellenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew"

he is claiming to be a non-Hellenist, and when he calls himself

a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Hellenist.

This would explain why Paul disputed against the Hellenists and why

they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus

(Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Hellenist 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 Hellenist. 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

expresion 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 Hellenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed

to Hellenism. 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

Hermaneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first

rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Hellenist would

have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center

of Pharisaic Judaism.

8. Paul wrote to groups in their own languages.

RESPONSE:

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 diasporia. 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. Certain passages in

the Corinthian Epistles are clearly aimed exclusively at Jews (1Cor.

10:1-2 for example.) Paul was writing first and foremost to the

Jewish leadership of mixed congregations.

If Paul wrote his Epistle's in 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

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 (see The Words of Jesus By Gustaf Dalman; Edinburg, England;

1909) 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.

9. There are built in explainations of Hebrew and Aramaic words in

the NT and there would not be if it had been written in Hebrew and/or

Aramaic.

RESPONSES: These "expanations" are an added feature to the Greek

translations and are not a feature of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

10. The NT was written for use by Gentiles and Gentiles of the time

spoke Greek.

RESPONSE: The original believers in Yeshua were Jews. The first

gentile "Christians" were centered at Antioch in SYRIA (Acts

11:26). Syrians spoke Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. These "first"

groups would have had a need for Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Even *IF* parts of the NT were intended for gentiles, this does not

mean they were initially Greek speaking Gentiles. To the contrary

the ealiest Gentile believers were Aramaic speaking Syrians and

Assyrians.

MATTHEW - Written according to Origen "for the Jewish believers...

in Hebrew" (Origen quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25) and

according to Jerome "in Hebrew... for the benifit of those of the

circumcision who had believed" (Jerome; Of Illustrius Men 3). This

book may have been addressed to Pharisees.

MARK - Mark probably wrote his Gospel for use by Gentile Assyrians

he encountered while in Babylon with Kefa (Peter) (1Kefa 5:13).

LUKE/ACTS - Luke a Syrian (Eccl. Hist. 3:4) wrote his Gospel to

Theophilus who had been the Jewish High Priest from 37-41 CE

(Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3).

YOCHANAN - To the "chosen lady" (2Jn. 1:1) a euphamism for Israel.

Yochanan (John) probably wrote his "mystical" Gospel to

the "mystical" Essene sect of Jews.

JAKOV (JAMES) - "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad"

(James 1:1)

KEFA (Peter) - "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus,

Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, the Chosen..." (1Pt. 1:1-2)

I.E. The scattered Chosen people, Israel.

Y'HUDAH (Jude) - Probably written to the Jews.

PAULINE EPISTLES (Except Hebrews) - Written to core groups of Jewish

leaders in mixxed congregations throughout the world. For example

1Corinthians is written to a group whose "fathers were under the

cloud and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto

Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1Cor. 10:1-2) These would be

Jewish Corinthians not native Corinthians.

Hebrews - Obviously written to Jews.

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_two.htm

The Original Language of the New Testament

Part Two

By Gary F. Zeolla

In Part One on this article, it was stated that some claim the New Testament (NT) was not originally written in Greek as is commonly believed. They claim the NT was actually originally written in Aramaic. One major proponent of this view was George Lamsa, as seen in the introduction to his Lamsa's Bible.

However, it was shown in Part One that the NT writers knew Greek and most likely were writing in Greek from their use of the Septuagint and from information contained within the NT. This second part of this two-part article will continue this discussion.

Note: All Scripture references are taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition (ALT).

The Language of the Early Church

Lamsa was quoted in Part One as claiming, "For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews." (p.xi). But there is much evidence within the pages of the NT, particularly in the Book of Acts, that his was not the case. Very early in time, the Church became more and more Greek, not Jewish.

This can be seen starting with Acts 6:

1And in these days, the disciples increasing [in number], there came to be a complaint from the Hellenists [fig., Greek-speaking Jews] towards the Hebrews [fig., Aramaic-speaking Jews], because their widows were being overlooked in the daily service [fig., distribution of food]. 2So the twelve having summoned the congregation of the disciples, said, "It is not desirable [for] us, having left the word of God, to be serving tables. 3Therefore, brothers [and sisters], look for seven men from [among] you*, being well spoken of, full of [the] Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint over this need [or, necessity]. 4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

5And the word was pleasing before the whole congregation. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of [the] Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolaus, a proselyte [i.e. convert to Judaism] from Antioch, 6whom they set before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.

7And the word of God kept spreading, and the number of the disciples kept being increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a large crowd of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.

I quoted this passage through verse 7 to show that this dispute occurred in Jerusalem. So it was while the Church was still mainly found in Jerusalem that there was a sufficient number of Greek-speaking Jews as to cause problems within the congregation. And once the Gospel began to spread beyond Jerusalem, the number of Greek-speaking Jews entering the Church continued to grow.

19Then indeed the ones having been scattered because of the affliction [or, persecution], the one having occurred over Stephen, passed through as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only. 20But some of them were male Cyprians and Cyrenians, who having entered into Antioch, began speaking to the Hellenists [fig., Greek-speaking Jews], proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. 21And [the] hand of [the] Lord was with them, and a large number having believed turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19-21).

About this time, a major change occurred in the Church. Rather than the Gospel only being proclaimed to Jews, it began to be proclaimed to Gentiles. This began with Peter proclaiming the Gospel to Cornelius.

1Now [there] was a certain man in Caesarea, by name Cornelius, a centurion of a garrison [of soldiers], the one being called Italian [fig., a captain of the Italian Regiment], 2devout and fearing God [i.e. a worshipper of the one true God, but not a full convert to Judaism, also called "God-worshiping"] together with all his house, and doing [or, giving] many charitable gifts to the people and imploring God through all [fig. continually]….

34Then Peter having opened his mouth, said, "Truly, I comprehend that God is not One to accept faces [fig., to be prejudice], 35but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him….

44While Peter [was] still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all the ones hearing the word. 45And the believing ones from the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the free gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues [fig., other languages] and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, 47"Surely no one is able to forbid the water, can he, [for] these not to be baptized who received the Holy Spirit just as we also [did]?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they urgently asked him to stay several days (Acts 10:1,2,34,35, 44-47).

It is very doubtful that Cornelius, a Gentile, knew Aramaic. So this is further proof to add to what was seen in Part One that Peter knew Greek. But more importantly, we now have Gentiles becoming part of the Church. And these Gentiles knew Greek, not Aramaic. And as the Book of Acts continues, it becomes clear that the Church is becoming more and more composed of Greek-speaking people.

1Now it happened in Iconium [that] they entered by the same [way] into the synagogue of the Jews, and they spoke in such a manner [that] a large number of both Jews and Greeks believed (Acts 14:1).

1Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And look! A certain disciple was there, by name Timothy, a son of a certain believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2who was well spoken of by the brothers [and sisters] in Lystra and Iconium (Acts 16:1,2).

4And some of them believed and were joined with Paul and Silas, both a large number of the God-worshiping Greeks and not a few [fig., a large number] of the first [fig., prominent] women (Acts 17:4)

4Now he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath, and he was persuading Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4).

10Now this took place for two years, with the result that all the ones living in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:10).

17Now from Miletus, having sent to Ephesus, he summoned the elders of the assembly. 18Then when they came to him, he said to them, "You* know from [the] first day from which I set foot in Asia how I was with you* all the time, 19serving as a slave to the Lord with all humility and many tears and trials, the [trials] having happened to me by the plots of the Jews; 20how I did not keep back any of the [things] benefiting [you*, but I] declared to you* and taught you* publicly and in every house, 21solemnly testifying both to Jews and to Greeks [about] repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus (Acts 20:17-21).

So it clear that by the time the Book of Acts closes (circa 63 AD), the Church is now composed of just as many if not more Greeks than Jews. And again, many of even the Jews would have been Greek-speaking Jews. So it is safe to say that within a few decades, the Church had more Greek speaking members than Hebrew speaking members. The importance of this will be seen as we look at when the NT books were written.

Dating and "Target Audiences" of NT Books

Lamsa claims, "[The Gospels] were written a few years after the resurrection and some portions were written by Matthew while Jesus was preaching. They were not handed down orally and then written after the Pauline Epistles, as some western scholars say; they were written many years before those Epistles" (p.ix).

As the Church became more and more composed of Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles rather than Aramaic-speaking Jews, it becomes more likely that the Gospels would have been written in Greek. It simply would make no sense for them to be written in Aramaic if the "target audience" mostly spoke Greek. So Lamsa needs to claim the Gospels were written very early. But his claim goes counter to most any Biblical scholar of today.

This can be seen in the introductions to the Gospels contained in study Bibles and commentaries. They will almost unanimously date the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to between 50-70 AD. And John's Gospel is usually dated much later, around 90 AD. And it should be noted that these are the dates given by conservative Bible scholars. Liberal scholars would probably date the Gospels even later.

There is not sufficient space in this article to go into all of the proofs given for these dates. So I will refer the reader to any of the wealth of study Bibles and commentaries currently available.

Further is the target audience of the Gospels. Again, information in this regard can be found in study Bibles and commentaries. But it is generally agreed that Matthew was probably directed towards Jews. So a case could be made on this basis that it was written in Aramaic. However, Mark was most likely addressed to Gentiles living in Rome. And Part One of this article discussed that Luke (along with Acts) was addressed to Theophilus, a Gentile (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). So Mark, Luke, and Acts would most logically have been written in Greek.

John's Gospel seems to be the most universal of the Gospels, with his many references to the Gospel being for "the world" (e.g. 1:9-13, 29; 3:16,17; 4:42; 6:14,33,51; 8:12; 9:5; 11:49-52; 12:46; 17:21). With this universal emphasis, it would seem most likely that John would be written in the universal language of the time, which was Greek, not Aramaic.

John's epistles and the Revelation are also generally dated to the 90's AD. And 1John and the Revelation also have a universal aspect to them (e.g. 1John 2:2; Rev 5:9,10; 7:9,10; 14:6,7).

As for Paul, Lamsa claims that his epistles were directed towards Jews. Lamsa writes, "Paul, in nearly all of his epistles, speaks of the Hebrew fathers, subjugation in Egypt, crossing the Red sea, eating manna, and wandering in the desert. This proves beyond a doubt that these letters were written to members of the Hebrew race and not to the Gentile world who knew nothing of Hebrew history and divine promises to them (p.xi).

However, most of Paul's epistles were written to churches that he had founded and had extensive ministry among. And this ministry would have included the teaching of the OT. So even his Gentile readers would have familiar with the OT.

Furthermore, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9). He always presented the Gospel "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16); but invariably, the Jews for the most part would reject the Gospel, so Paul then turned to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts 13:46). So the churches he directed his epistles towards would have been primarily made up of Gentiles.

Moreover, there were many Greek-speaking Jews outside of Jerusalem. So many of even Paul's Jewish converts mostly likely spoke Greek. So the majority of the readers of Paul's epistle would have spoken Greek. All of this argues for Paul writing his epistles in Greek.

That leaves the general epistles. I've already mentioned about John's epistles. The rest were written between 50-70 AD. So my comments about the synoptic Gospels would apply here.

Now Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, but he would have been writing to Jews outside of Judea. This can be seen from his reference to "the Dispersion" (1:1). As I indicate in the ALT, this is the scattering of Jews outside of Judea. And as was discussed previously, Jews outside of Judea were more likely to be speaking Greek than Aramaic. Peter also mentions about his being "in Babylon" (5:13). Opinions vary as to what city Peter meant by this, but it most definitely was not in Judea.

James is possibly the earliest book of the NT to be written, and it most likely was written to Jews. But these were "scattered abroad" (1:1). So they also would have been living outside of Judea.

Jude is closely related to 2Peter. Which came first is a matter of debate. But both books appear to have been somewhat later, in the 60's AD.

So overall, the dating of the NT books and their target audiences strongly argue for them being written in Greek not Aramaic. Again, much more on these points can be found in study Bibles and commentaries.

Manuscript Evidence

There are over 5000 extant Greek manuscripts of the NT. And some of these date to the early second century. Meanwhile, only a handful of Aramaic texts exist, and these date from the fourth to the seventh centuries (Aland, pp. xxxiv-xxxv). With this limited amount of manuscript evidence, it is hard to determine the original Aramaic text.

Believing in the providence of God as I do, this would be a rather intolerable situation. What God has preserved for us is a wealth of Greek manuscripts. And through textual criticism we can determine very accurately what the original Greek NT contained. See my book Differences Between Bible Version for much in this regard.

Matthew 19:24

One last claim Lamsa makes is that there are verses that don't make much sense in the Greek text but that make more sense in the Aramaic. He claims this is due to the Greek text having been "mistranslated" from the Aramaic.

One such example he gives is Matthew 19:24, "Now again I say to you*, it is easier [for] a camel to pass through an eye of a needle, than [for] a rich [person] to enter into the kingdom of God."

Lamsa states that the Aramaic word for "camel" resembles the word for "rope." So he claims the original Aramaic had "rope" but the alleged translator mistook the word and rendered it as "camel." So his implication is that "rope" makes more sense here than "camel."

But the use of "camel" in this verse makes perfect sense. Jesus was using hyperbole by referring to the largest animal in Judea and how ridiculous it would be to try to thread it through a needle. He uses a similar hyperbole when He declares to the Pharisees, "Blind guides! The ones straining out the gnat, but swallowing the camel! (Matt 23:24).

Conclusion

Overall, the only book of the NT for which there is any significant possible evidence of an Aramaic original is Matthew. But even then, there are good contrary arguments. But for the rest of the NT, the evidence strongly supports what is generally taught and believed in the Church, that the NT was originally written in Greek. It is for this reason that so many in Church history have taken the time to learn Greek.

And feeling it is important for even non-Greek readers to get as close as possible to this original Greek text, I translated my Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament. If I hadn't believed in the originality and importance of the Greek text, I would not put in the time and effort involved in producing this translation.

References:

All Scripture references taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible: Second Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org). Previously copyrighted © 1999, 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla.

Aland, Kurt, et. al. The Greek New Testament: Third Corrected Edition. Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1983.

Barker, Kenneth, general editor. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985.

Carson, D. A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8). Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985 And other volumes in Expositor's.

Lamsa, George M. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (a.k.a. Lamsa's Bible). Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1957.

Sproul, R. C. general editor. New Geneva Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995.

The above article originally appeared in the free Darkness to Light newsletter.

It was posted on this Web site in May 2, 2005.

James, I am happy you are here too. I think we believe differently and I also think that is cool. I completely respect where you are coming from and have been honored to learn from you and about what you believe. I appreciate it. Please stick around.

On another note, is there anyway for me to get my paws on court transcripts? If you could post them here you would gain a lot of insight from folks here.

If you can't I understand. Really, all I need is the courthouse and I am happy to do the rest.

There are no court transcripts because after discovery and depositions and TWI chose to settle the case before we actually got into the court room.

Simply put, sin is falling short of observing the Torah. As the Tanak says:

And if any one sin, and do any of the things which YHWH has commanded not to be done, though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

(Lev. 5:17 HRV)

But Yahu took no heed to walk in the Torah of YHWH, the Elohim of Yisra’el, with all his heart; he departed not from the sins of Yarov’am, with which he made Yisra’el to sin.

(2Kings 10:31 HRV)

With my whole heart have I sought You; O let me not err from Your commandments.

Your word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against You.

(Ps. 119:10-11 HRV)

When we apply this understanding to the teachings of Yeshua, we find that Yeshua came to bering an end to Torah violation:

And on the day that followed, Yochanan saw Yeshua, who was walking toward him, and said, Behold, the lamb of Eloah who takes away the sin of the world.

(Jn. 1:29 HRV)

If I had not come and spoken to them they would not have had sin. But now they have no cause for their sin.

(Jn. 15:22 HRV)

Those arguing a Greek origin for the NT will often claim that the NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament".

Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT. The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do

not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX.

It has often been claimed by the Hellenists, 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, Pedangta New Testament and Crawford Revelation) tend to agree in many places

with the Pedangta 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 earlier 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 [the Greek Septuagint],

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!

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 Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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." However the phrase "In the beginning of the book..." is a unique reading from the Pedangta 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 Pedangta version of Hebrews is a hybrid text sometimes agreeing with the LXX against the Masoretic Text and Pedangta Old Testament, and sometimes agreeing with the Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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 Pedangta reading as a substitute. This quote therefore, is not a translation from Greek nor a substitute inserted from the Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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 judgment,

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 Pedangta Old Testament. "from prison" agrees with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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

Pedangta 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 Pedangta 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 Pedangta ARamaic of Mt. 4:4 agrees with the LXX against both the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta 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 Pedangta has MARYA (which the Aramaic consistently uses for YHWH) in agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Pedangta Old Testament against the LXX. Also the manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew also have YHWH. Thus, it is clear that the Pedangta 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 including 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 invisible word ET in the text it would look like this:

...they shall look upon me {ET} whom they have pierced...

Now the Aramaic translator of the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak version of Zech 12:10 striving for a word for word translation, translated the untranslatable ET with an Aramaic word meaning "at-him" (attempting to convey the idea of a pointer to the direct object). The result is that the Aramaic Pedangta Tanak has:

...they shall look upon me at-him whom they have pierced...

Now when the quote appears in Yochanan it appears 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 tradition and 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 Pedangta New Testament could not have been simply translated from

Greek as the Hellenists claim.

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm

The Original Language of the New Testament

Part One

By Gary F. Zeolla

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. This is what I have been taught and believed as long as I have been a Christian. But there are some who claim the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. This would mean the Greek manuscripts are just translations of this Aramaic original. This two-part article will look at this and related claims.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition (ALT).

Interest in Aramaic

For the most part, the Old Testament (OT) was originally written in Hebrew. On this, there is little debate. But there are a couple of small sections that were written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Daniel chapters 2-7, and one verse in Jeremiah). Aramaic is similar but not identical to Hebrew. By the time of Christ, Jews living in Judea for the most part spoke Aramaic. This is seen in the movie The Passion of the Christ with the entire dialog being in Aramaic (with English subtitles). It is possibly due to this movie that there has been a resurgence of interest in Aramaic.

But long before this, one notable proponent of the idea of an Aramaic original for the New Testament (NT) was George Lamsa. His Lamsa's Bible (published in 1957) was translated from the Syriac Pedangta. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. In the introduction to Lasma's Bible are claimed evidences for an Aramaic Original for the NT.

Papias

One commonly cited evidence for an Aramaic original for the NT is a statement made by the Church Father Papias. The translation of this statement is rather difficult as will be discussed in a minute. But below is the translation of this statement as found in the book The Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot and Harmer.

So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he could (p. 529).

This quote is used as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. This claim is discussed in depth in the introduction to the commentary on Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8, pages 3-17). I cannot repeat all of the arguments from these pages here. But I will give a couple of highlights.

As stated, the translation of the sentence is difficult. First, the word "Hebrew" could also be rendered "Aramaic." But most important is the word "oracles." The Greek word is the plural form of "logos." It's most basic meaning is "word" or "saying." So it seems likely Matthew is referring to the words of Jesus. But the Gospel of Matthew includes much more than this. It also includes narrative by Matthew and accounts of the actions of Jesus.

Now Luke does use a form of "logos" to refer to his Gospel (Acts 1:1). But it is in the singular, not plural. And Luke specifically says that what he wrote included the things "which Jesus began both to be doing and to be teaching." So it is generally rendered as "account." But by putting it in the plural, Papias seems to indicate he is not referring to a singular, complete "account" as Luke is but of specific "words." Hence "sayings" seems to be the best translation.

So it's possible that Papias is referring to something other than the canonical Gospel. One theory is it is the so-called "Q" source of the sayings of Jesus that some have theorized the Gospel writers used. Or maybe it was an earlier draft by Matthew that he himself later used to compose his Gospel. Or it is even possible that Matthew wrote two versions of his Gospel, one in Greek and one in Aramaic.

So there are various possibilities as to what is meant by Papias' statement. As such, this one vague statement does not necessary prove that canonical Gospel Of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Moreover, the statement only refers to the Gospel of Matthew. It has no bearing on the original language of the rest of the NT.

The Use of the Septuagint

Expositor's goes into detail on the various reasons the Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Aramaic. One of the strongest is that Matthew quotes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT from the third century B.C. It is abbreviated as "LXX." The name and abbreviation are based on the tradition that 70 or 72 Jewish scholars worked on the translation, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

For the second edition of the ALT, I carefully reviewed all of the quotes in the NT from the OT. I included the notation "LXX" after the OT verse reference when the wording of the quote in the NT differed from the wording of the source verse in the Hebrew but was similar or even identical to that of the LXX. And there were many such instances in Matthew and the rest of the NT, far more than I had originally thought. For instance, there are six places in the Gospel of Matthew where the OT quote is clearly from the LXX (3:3; 12:21; 13:14,15; 15:8,9; 19:5; 21:16).

It should also be noted that there are also many times when the wording of the NT quotation is basically identical to that of the Hebrew text but differs from the LXX. So in those passages the NT writer was obviously quoting from the Hebrew (e.g. Matthew 2:15). And there are times when the quote in the NT, the Hebrew, and the LXX are all basically the same. So the NT writer could have been quoting from either the Hebrew or the LXX (e.g. Matthew 1:23).

So having studied the issue, it is apparent the NT writers were familiar with both the Hebrew text of the OT and with the LXX, and they freely quoted from either of these. But if Matthew were writing in Aramaic for a strictly Aramaic speaking audience, it would have been more logical for him to have used the Hebrew Scriptures throughout. Moreover, as Expositor's states, "It cannot be argued that the alleged translator decided to use the LXX for all OT quotations in order to save himself some work, for only some of them are from the LXX" (p.13).

Moreover, there are also cases where only the form of the OT verse as it appears in the LXX would "fit" in the context in which the NT writer is quoting the verse.

For instance, Matthew 21:14-16 reads:

14And lame and blind [people] came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous [things] which He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "We give praise to You, the Son of David," they expressed indignation. 16And they said to Him, "Do You hear what these [ones] are saying?" But Jesus says to them, "Yes, did you* never read, ‘Out of [the] mouth of young children and nursing infants You prepared praise for Yourself?'" [Psalm 8:2, LXX].

Verse 16 includes a quotation from Psalm 8:2. This verse reads in the NKJV (which is translated from the Hebrew), "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength." Not only is this significantly different from how the quote appears in the NT, but this wording would not "fit" in the context. The passage is talking about "praise" not "strength."

However, this verse reads in Lancelot Brenton's translation of the LXX, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise." The differences in wording between this translation and how I translated the quote is simply due to translation differences; the Greek text is identical in the LXX and in NT.

So in this passage, the quote is clearly from the LXX and only the way the verse is worded in the LXX would fit in the context. So the LXX is clearly the original source for the quote, not the Hebrew text. And what makes this particularly interesting is this a statement of Jesus. So it was Jesus who originally used the LXX in his discussion with the "the chief priests and the scribes." More on the import of this in a minute. But here, it should be noted that this use of the LXX only makes sense if the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. And similar instances could be given for other books of the NT.

The Language of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Writers of the NT

Lamsa claims, "The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jewish people in Palestine and in the Greco-Roman world" (p.ix). And further, "For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews. All of the apostles and the evangelists were Jewish" (p.xi).

So Lamsa is claiming Jesus, the apostles, the Gospel writers, and their audience spoke Aramaic. And further he is claiming that the Church was primary Jewish and remained so for centuries. And it is true that Jesus and the original apostles were Jews. And it is true that for the most part Jews in Palestine at that time spoke Aramaic.

However, Luke, the writer of two NT books (the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) was most likely a Gentile. Luke's writings were directed towards "most excellent Theophilus." This is a Greek name and title for a person of rank in the Roman government (see Acts 23:26; 24:30). So Theophilus was most likely a Gentile who spoke Greek.

Furthermore, Luke writes in Acts 1:18,19:

18(This one indeed then acquired a field by [the] payment of [his] unrighteousness, and having fallen headfirst, he burst open in the middle and all his inward parts were poured out. 19And it became known to all the ones living in Jerusalem, with the result that that place is called, in their own language [i.e. Aramaic], Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

This paragraph appears within a discourse by Peter. However, I put these verses in parentheses in the ALT as they do not seem to be a part of Peter's discourse. They are most likely comments added my Luke for the benefit of the readers of the Book of Acts.

In this comments Luke refers to "their own language." I added the explanatory note that this is Aramaic. Again, for the most part this is true. But note that Luke then translated the Aramaic term for his readers. So it appears he was writing in Greek for people who knew only Greek. If he had been writing in Aramaic to Aramaic readers, it would have been unnecessary to provide a translation.

It should also be noted that Luke's translation of "field of blood" appears in Lamsa's Bible as well. So it cannot be claimed that the supposed translator of the Aramaic original into Greek added this translation. It appears in the Aramaic text. This only makes sense if in fact the Book of Acts was written in Greek and was then translated into Aramaic. And with Acts being a follow-up to the Gospel of Luke, it is only logical that Luke was written in Greek as well.

Going back to the Gospel of Matthew, it contains this interesting bit of information about Matthew, "And passing by from there, Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax-office, being called Matthew, and He says to him, "Be following Me!" And having stood up, he followed Him" (Matthew 9:9).

Matthew was collecting taxes from Jews for the Roman government. To engage in such a business would have required him to have known Aramaic to be able to speak to the Jews, but he also would had to have known Greek (and maybe Latin) to have spoken to the Roman officials.

Then there's this interesting exchange in John 12:20-22:

20Now [there] were some Greeks from the ones going up so that they should prostrate themselves in worship at the feast. 21Then these [Greeks] came to Philip, the [one] from Bethsaida of Galilee, and were asking him, saying, "Lord [or, Sir], we desire to see Jesus." 22Philip comes and tells Andrew, and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

So Philip, one of the apostles, was able to converse with Greeks. And it appears he brought these Greeks to Andrew and then to Jesus. Jesus' subsequent discourse is then addressed to "them" (v.23). The "them" probably included these visiting Greeks. So it's very possible Jesus' subsequent discourse was in Greek.

As for Peter, the difference between the Greek of his two epistles is instructive. The first is written in very stylistic Greek while the second is written in very simple Greek. So the first appears to be written by someone very familiar with the Greek language while someone for whom Greek was a second language probably wrote the second. Some have used this difference to claim that 2Peter was not actually written by Peter. But a better explanation is seen in the text itself.

1Peter ends with the following:

12By Silvanus, the faithful brother as I consider [him], through [whom] I wrote a few [words], encouraging and testifying this to be [the] true grace of God in which you* have stood firm (5:12).

"By Silvanus … through [whom] I wrote a few [words]" indicates that Peter probably dedicated his first epistle to Silvanus. In writing down the dictation, Silvanus probably "cleaned up" Peter's crude Greek. But the second epistle contains no such "by" line. So it was written directly by Peter and contains the kind of Greek you would expect from a fisherman for whom Greek was a second language.

So Jesus, at least some of the apostles, and the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke most likely knew Greek. Similarly, Paul, the writer of half of the books of the NT, clearly knew both Aramaic and Greek.

This is seen in the following passage from Acts:

37And Paul being about to be brought into the barracks says to the commanding officer, "Is it permitted for me to speak to you?" Then he said, "Do you know Greek? 38So you are not the Egyptian, the one having incited a riot before these days and having led the four thousand men of the assassins into the desert, are you?" 39But Paul said, "I indeed am a man, a Jew of Tarsus of Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant [fig., an important] city. Now I implore you, permit me to speak to the people."

1"Men, brothers and fathers, now pay attention to my defense to you*." 2Now they having heard that in the Hebrew dialect he was speaking to them, they gave [him] even more silence. (Acts 21:37-22:2).

And finally, to re-iterate from before, OT quotes that are clearly taken from the LXX appear throughout the NT. Quotes from the LXX appear in all four Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Ephesians, 2Timothy, Hebrews, James, and 1Peter. So writers of all of these books had to have known Greek and have been writing in Greek.

The most interesting book in this list is the Epistle to the Hebrews. There are seven quotes from or clear references to the LXX in Hebrews (1:6; 2:13; 8:12; 10:6,7; 11:20; 12:5,6; 12:12). So although written to Hebrews, the writer was clearly writing in Greek and most likely to Greek-speaking Jews.

The Original Language of the New Testament

Part Two

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_two.htm

References:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible: Second Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org). Previously copyrighted © 1999, 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla.

Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986.

Carson, D. A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8). Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985 And other volumes in Expositor's.

Lamsa, George M. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (a.k.a. Lamsa's Bible). Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1957.

Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmar. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek and English. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

New King James Version (NKJV). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1982.

In addition to these factors we must also consider the Eastern spread of Christianity. We have heard much about the so called "Westward spread of Christianity" but little is written of the equally profound Eastward movement. While Paul made missionary journeys from his headquarters in Antioch Syria, into the Western world, most of the emissaries (apostles) traveled eastward. Bartholomew traveled eastward through Assyria into Armenia, then back down through Assyria, Babylon, Parthia (Persia) and down into India where he was flayed alive with knives. Thaddeus taught in Edessa (a city of northern Syria) Assyria and Persia, dying a martyr by arrows either in Persia or at Ararat. Thomas taught in Parthia, Persia and India. He was martyred with a spear at Mt. St. Thomas near Madras in India. To this very day a group of Christians in India are called "St. Thomas Christians. Finally Kefa (Peter) traveled to Babylon and even wrote one of his letters from there. That the emissaries brought Semitic New Testament Scriptures eastward with them is affirmed to us by the Church fathers. Eusebius writes:

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported

hat he found the Gospel according to Matthew, 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 preached, and left them

the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.

And as Jerome writes:

Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve

emissaries, had there [in India] preached the advent of our

Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew,

which was written in Hebrew letters...

This entire region of the Near East stretching from Israel through Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Persia (Parthia) and down into India, became known as the "Church of the East." At its high point the Church of the East stretched as far east as China! By the fifth and sixth Centuries Christological debates had split the Church of the East into two major factions, Nestorians and Jacobites . Today, the Church of the East has been split into even more groups: Nestorians , Jacobites , Chaldean Roman Catholics, and Maronites. All of whom continue to use an Aramaic New Testament text. When the Roman Catholic Portuguese invaded India in 1498 they encountered over a hundred churches belonging to the St. Thomas Christians along the coast of Malabar. These St. Thomas Christians, according to tradition, had been there since the first century. They had married clergymen, did not adore images or pray to or through saints, nor did they believe in purgatory. Most importantly they maintained use of the Aramaic New Testament which they claimed had been in use at Antioch .

Concepts abound...im wondering about actual lifestyles, practices...and otherwise demonstrable results that live up to what is being said and claimed about "Essenes" here and throughout history.

Honestly...if you are going to spend this much time writing all this stuff...can you at least say why your message is so supreme in the bloody red here and now? Can you use words to describe what your Torah looks like in life besides words about words about words about words?

Most anyone here can Google the world these days and find a garden of modern day "Essene" claims and interpretations. Care to say anything about how your concept fits or relates to that picture?

Seems some Essenes quite easily agree that the Way, the Torah, the Tao, the Middle Way, the Golden Mean, Higher Laws and Dharmas and such are all pointing in the same general direction...and we do well not to look only at the finger of God and miss the way the word of God is pointing...and i simply cant help but agree.

By Essenes I spoke of the ancient Essenes not any of the modern New Age groups identifying themselves as Essenes.

As Nazarenes we are Torah Observant. The word Torah is generally translated as "law" but really means "guidance or instruction".

We keep the Seventh Day Sabbath from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. We eat kosher. We keep the Biblical Jewish feasts and abstain from Pagan holidays and practices.

In effect we practice Judaism with the inclusion of Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.

So I see what you are saying now. You agree with my reasoning, at least I think you do, but you say there was a core group of Aramaic speaking people who believed in Jesus Christ in all these Greek speaking cities that I just named. I have never heard of that.

I researched this a bit and now I see there were a few Jewish people in Corinth, as one example who would have spoken Aramaic, Acquila and Prescilla. Of course, the main language was still Greek, but nevertheless.....

CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE

When Paul left Corinth 18 months later, a Christian congregation flourished. The congregation was composed primarily of former pagans (1 Cor 12:2), most of them apparently from the lower classes (1 Cor 1:26 f). Some were slaves (1 Cor 7:21). A few wealthier persons (1 Cor 11:22-32) and Jews, however, (8) were among the believers.

(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

And get this:

1Cor. 10:1 "OUR FATHERS were all under the cloud and all passed through the [Red] sea...."(with Moses, see 10:2)

When did Greek Gentile Corinthians cross the Red Sea with Moses?

Clearly the target audience was a core group of Jews...

I wonder what has become of our good friend Dr. James Trimm here with the anti-semitism questions? He seemed to get all excited about posting here, and then disappeared.

I guess some of your research types are more comfortable with interacting with thousand year old texts than they are with people.

I am still here, two of my threads were moved to the Doctrinal section. On this thread I am doing a lot of listening.

God first

thanks James Trimm

can you read?

because what the verse says John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."

Pilate said is truth and Jesus Christ him not

this verse is about Pilate question Jesus

this verse is about Pilate understanding of truth

it does say whether Pilate was right or not

it does not matter

it was just telling a part of a story

with love and a holy kiss Roy

Does it matter what Pilate said or thought?

Scripture tells us the answer to the question "What is truth?"

The Torah is truth, all of the commandments are truth (Ps. 119:142, 151)

Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles and he spent time in the various cities. There primary language was Greek. To communicate with them he had to have spoken Greek. To write epistles to them he had to have written them or had them written in Greek. I doubt if the majority or even very many of people in Corinth, Thessalonica, Phillippi, Ephesus, Rome and Galatia even knew Aramaic. In fact, likely that very few if any of the people of these cities knew Aramaic. However, they would have known Greek. Even people of Rome with their Latin language would have had as a second language Greek.

SO what, you think Romans was written Latin and Galatians was written in Gallic? Read what I already presented above, Paul wrote to core groups of Jews in each community.

Actually the Aramaic of the Pauline Epistles contain many word plays. Also the Greek translations of the Pauline Epistles even go so far as to transliterate Aramaic words into the text. Aramaic words like ABBA (Father) and even phrases like MARON ATTA (Our Lord Comes).

Another misunderstanding common in the church today is the concept that Torah and Grace are mutually exclusive ideas. For example one author writes:

A believer can not be under law and

under grace at the same time.

(God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 83)

Now let us be noble Bereans to see if this is true. Let us ask ourselves: "How were people saved in 'Old Testament' times? Were they saved by works or by grace?

The fact is that often when Paul speaks of how we are saved by grace through faith he often cites the Tanak to prove his point. Two of his favorite proof texts for this concept are from the Tanak:

And he believed in YHWH;

and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Gen. 15:6 = Rom. 4:3, 22; Gal. 3:6)

...the just shall live by his faith.

(Hab. 2:4 = Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11)

So Paul is arguing from the Tanak that one is saved by faith alone appart from works. In fact the real truth is that men of the "Old Testament" times were just as under grace as we are today:

But Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH.

(Gen. 6:8)

...you have also found grace in my sight....

...for you have found grace in my sight...

(Ex. 33:12, 17)

...and now I have found grace in your sight...

(Judges 6:17)

The people... found grace in the wilderness...

(Jer. 31:2)

Thus as noble Bereans we learn from the Tanak that people in "Old Testament" times were saved by grace through faith. They could not have earned their salvation any more than we could today, as Paul writes:

Knowing that a man is not justified by works

of the law, but by the faith of Yeshua the Messiah,

even we have believed in Yeshua the Messiah,

that we might be justified by the faith of Messiah,

and not by works of the law; and by the works

of the law shall no flesh be saved.

(Gal. 2:16)

In fact the "New Testament" contains more commandments than the "Old Testament". The New Testament contains1050 commandments [as delineated in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible; By Finnis Jennings Dake; N.T. pp.313-316] while the "Old Testament" Mosaic Law contains only 613 (b.Makkot 23b; see Appendix). Thus faith and grace are in the "Old Testament" and law and works can be found in the New Testament. People in Old Testament times were saved by grace through faith just like people in New Testament times. Now many anomians will agree to this fact on the surface, but lets follow this thought through to its fullest conclusion. Lets go beyond the surface and really think this through. If what we have shown to be true is true, then the people in the wilderness in the days of Moses were saved by grace through faith. Now lets look at the full impact of that statement. That means that people were under grace, and saved by faith alone and not by works, when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the Torah! Obviously then being saved by grace through faith in no way affects Torah observance.

So if grace and faith do not negate the observance of Torah, then what is the true nature of faith and grace? What is faith? What is grace? Let us once again turn to the scriptures for answers.

Now part of the reason that many people have come to think that there is more "grace" in the New Testament than in the Old Testament is a translation bias in the KJV and many other English versions.

There are two words for "grace" in the Hebrew Tanak. The first word is CHEN (Strong's 2580/2581) which means "grace or charm". The other word is CHESED (Strong's 2616/2617 ) which carries the meaning of "grace, mercy or undue favor."

These two words closely parallel the meanings of the two Greek words used for grace in the Greek Bible. These are CHARIS (Strong's 5485/5463) which means "grace or charm" and ELEOS (Strong's 1651/1653) meaning "grace, mercy or undue favor."

Obviously Hebrew CHEN = Greek CHARIS and Hebrew CHESED = Greek ELEOS. Now the KJV tends to translate CHEN/CHARIS as "grace" but tends to translate CHESED/ELEOS as "mercy". Now when we think of "grace" in biblical terms we are ussually thinking of the concept of CHESED/ELEOS "undue favor".

Now if we follow with the KJV translation scheme then it appears that there is much more grace in the New Testament than the Tanak, since CHEN only appears 70 times in the Tanak while CHARIS appears 233 times in the New Testament. But remember, the concept of "undue favor" is actually CHESED/ELEOS. CHESED appears 251 times in the Tanak, while ELEOS appears only 50 times in the New Testament. If anything there is far more "grace" in the Tanak than in the New Testament.

Now let us turn to the Tanak to get a better understanding of what grace really is. According to the Scriptures there is a close connection between "grace" and the "fear of YHWH":

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,

so great is his grace (CHESED)

toward those who fear him.

(Psalm 103:11)

Oh let those who fear YHWH say,

"His grace (CHESED) is everlasting.

(Psalm 118:4)

By grace (CHESED) and truth

iniquity is atoned for,

and by the fear of YHWH

one keeps away from evil.

(Proverbs 16:6)

And the fear of YHWH, according to the Tanak, includes Torah observance:

...that he may learn the fear of YHWH his God,

to keep all the words of this Torah

and these statutes, to do them:

(Deut. 17:19)

...that they may hear, and that they may learn,

and fear YHWH your God,

and observe to do all the words of this Torah.

(Deut. 31:12)

Therefore there is clearly no conflict between grace and Torah. In fact the Torah is closely connected to grace.

The next word we need to examine is "faith". The Hebrew word is EMUNAH. EMUNAH can mean "belief, faith or trust" and is best translated "trusting faithfulness". When we speak of "faith" in YHWH we are not merely speaking about "belief" but "trusting faithfulness". If someone were to ask you if you are faithful to your spouse, you would not reply by saying "Yes, I believe my spouse exists." That is because it is clearly not an issue of what you believe but in whether you are faithful. Imagine a man who stays out late at night every night committing adultery with various women. Each night he comes home to his wife and tells her how much he loves her, and insists that since he believes in her existence that he therefore is faithful to her. Is this man faithful to his wife? Absolutely not! This understanding is confirmed to us in the Scriptures as follows:

Remove the false way from me,

and graciously grant me your Torah.

I have chosen the way of faith;

I have placed your ordinances before me.

(Psalm 119:29-30)

Now I want to make it clear that we are not saying that one earns ones salvation by keeping Torah. At times I have been asked "Do I have to keep Torah to be saved?". I reply by saying "Of course not.... do you have to get cleaned up to take a bath?"

You may ask, "Well if we don't keep the Torah for salvation, then why do we keep the Torah?" First of all, keeping the Torah SHOWS our faith (Titus 3:5-8; 1Jn. 2:3-7; James 2:14-26). Secondly there are rewards for keeping the Torah (Titus 3:8). The Psalms tell us that it "restores the soul" (Ps. 19:7). Yeshua promises that those who keep the Torah and teach others to do so will be called first in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:19). Additionally, Jews who keep the Mosaic Torah are given a long list of other promises (Deut. 28).

Now if the Torah is good and everlasting then it stands to reason that it should be observed. Paul tells us that we should not use grace as an excuse to sin (Rom. 6:1-2, 15) and that the only way to know sin is through the Torah (Rom. 7:7). Yeshua tells us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-25; 15:10). The fact that we are saved by faith is all the more reason that we should keep the Torah, as the Scriptures tell us:

..not by works of righteousness which we have done,

but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing

of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom

he poured out on us abundantly through Yeshua the Messiah

our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should

become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is

a faithful saying, and I want you to affirm constantly, that those

who have believed in God should be careful to maintain

good works. These things are good and profitable to men.

(Titus 3:5-8)

And by this we know that we know him, if we keep his

commandments. He who says, "I know him," and does not

keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in

him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is

perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He

who says he abides in him ought himself to walk just as he

walked. Brothers, I write no new commandment to you,

but an old commandment which you have had from the

beginning. The old commandment is the word which you

heard from the beginning.

(1Jn. 2:3-7)

God first

thanks everybody

Lets study something wrote in a Book "What is truth? (John. 18:38)

Let us look back to the Tanak to find the answer to Pilate's question:

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,

and your Torah is truth.

(Psalm 119:142)

You are near, O YHWH,

and all your commandments are truth.

(Psalm 119:151)

>The dominant language of the first century

>when the New Testament was written was Greek.

>This was often the second language for the

>majority of people, in particular the Jews.

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."

>Luke the writer of Acts and the gospel of

>Luke was a Gentile.

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

It is commonly argued that Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek.

Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect.

It is often also argued that Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus".

Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm

But the most obvious is why would the writer (Paul) of 1 and 2 Corinthians or the book of Ephesians originally write them in Aramaic when they were originally sent to be read by Greek speaking people? Paul was highly educated and likely could also write in Greek. Either that or he had to work with a Greek translator while he was writing these books. Even this would still make the original copies in Greek because the original had to have been written in the language of the people that they were sent to.

The above link is a study which looks to be helpful in determining the original language of the New Testament.

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.

Now in Instalment four we have already quoted some Church Fathers as

indicating that Paul wrote at least some of his material in Hebrew or

Aramaic. In this instalment I intend to reinforce that point and

open the door for the internal evidence for a Hebraic-Aramaic for the

entire NT (including Paul's Letters) which will be presented in

future instalments.

Paul and Tarsus

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.

Was Paul a Helenist?

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.

The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles

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.

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.

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm

The above link is a study which looks to be helpful in determining the original language of the New Testament.

I suggest you read the book

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

It makes a thorough and completely documented case.

That the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic is further verified by the history of the early believers in Yeshua as the Messiah. The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" . Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua called "Christians" appeared . This first congregation of Gentile Christians formed in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where some of the people spoke Greek and almost all spoke Aramaic, which is also called "Syriac". Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the Nazarenes from their center at Jerusalem to Pella. Eventually, they established communities in Beroea, Decapolis, Bashanitis and Perea. These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures and in the fourth century Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew Matthew. As a result, while at least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very early on Aramaic and Greek New Testament books were needed.

I'm hoping you didn't misunderstand me there James, with what I wrote concerning the Torah.. I am not seeking conversion. I certainly am not seeking to join anything.. I have studied in my past with a number of Messianic groups, possibly some you were a part of or even there at the same time(seeing we both lived in the same city), however I never felt a need to "join", only it was a great place to discuss and learn other's perpective. Which I did always find refreshing since most were very willing to openly discuss and didn't mind my weird questions.

Just thought I'd say that since it looked like your post was in response to mine...

Sounds good :-)

"And, finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself;

that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and

has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition

disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate,

errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Thomas Jefferson

TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS"

All of the "Church Fathers", both East and West, testified to

the Semitic origin of at least the Book of Matthew, as the following

quotes demonstrate:

Papias (150-170 C.E.)

Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each

translated as he was able.

(quoted by Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3:39)

Ireneus (170 C.E.)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in

their own dialect.

(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)

The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same

that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of

Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish

believers, wrote it in Hebrew.

(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Eusebius (c. 315 C.E.)

Matthew 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.

(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:24)

Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported

that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, 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 Matthew in

Hebrew letters.

(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 5:10)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)

They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew

quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still

preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew

letters.

(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)

"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 [the Greek Septuagint],

but

that of the Hebrew."

(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve

emissaries, had there [india] preached the advent of our Lord

Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which

was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to

Alexandria, he brought with him."

(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)

His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of

Palestine,

and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in

Hebrew...

(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)

Other "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 [Clement of Alexandria] 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)

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 Matthew put the

setting forth of the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament

in the Hebrew language and letters." (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3)

Epiphanius does, however, tell us that the Jewish believers would

disagree with him, and point out the existence of Hebrew copies of

John and Acts in a "Gaza" or "treasury" [Genizah?] in Tiberius,

Israel. (Epipnanius; Pan. 30:3, 6) Epiphanius believed these

versions to be mere "translations" (Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3, 6, 12) but

admitted that the Jewish believers would disagree with him.

(Epiphanius; Pan. 30:3) The truth in this matter is clear, if Greek

had replaced Hebrew as the language of Jews as early as the first

century, then why would fourth century Jews have any need for Hebrew

translations. The very existence of Hebrew manuscripts of these

books in fourth century Israel testifies to their originality, not to

mention the fact that the Jewish believers regarded them as authentic.

James, if you dont mind me asking...I'd like to know more about the actual lifestyles and practices of this way of the Nazarene and Essene Judaism you are pointing to. How did/do they live their doctrine? How are these different enough from the "false way" to live up to their legendary qualities in living practical reality today? How are these different enough from TWI in ways that are more than mere differences in translation and interpretation?

The basic concept is that Yeshua did not come to create a new religion, but to be the Messiah of the old one.

There is a lot of talk these days about getting back to the New Testament Church... but two things the New Testament Church did not have...

A "New Testament" (it was still being written) and s "Church" (they met in homes and synagogues)

Here are some free resources:

NazareneSpace

It's like MySpace or FaceBook for those interested in Hebraic Roots of the Faith

http://www.nazarenespace.com

(Over 1,000 members worldwide!)

I ESPECIALLY recommend this free book:

The Apostasy and Restoration

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8676000/8676568/2/print/restore2.pdf

Test your Faith Bible Quiz

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2324000/2324355/1/print/biblequiz.pdf

Davar Bible School: Free Bible correspondence Course

http://nazarenespace.ning.com/group/davarbibleschool

Is the Torah for Today?

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2276000/2276560/1/print/booklet.pdf

What do you mean... "Church"?

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2277000/2277151/1/print/church.pdf

What is Nazarene Judaism?

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2277000/2277304/1/print/naz.pdf

Which Day is the Sabbath?

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/2286000/2286389/2/print/sabbath.pdf

What do you mean... "Salvation"?

Amazing...Abi, i cant help but wonder how those four ways of interpretation might be related to the "four faces of being" in scripture (ezekial, revelation) and elsewhere...or how they might be related to the natural "seasonality" of life and the 4 basic stages we move through in how we interpret scripture and everything.

You hit the target dead on!

First of all it is important to realize that the four Gospels give the account of the life of Yeshua on each of the four levels:

(The following is from the introduction to my Hebraic Roots Commentary on Matthew at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as PRDS. PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden.

The word PRDS is also an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikon") for:

[P]ashat (Heb. "simple") The plain, simple, literal level of understanding.

[R]emez (Heb. "hint") The implied level of understanding.

[D]rash (Heb. "search") The allegorical, typological or homiletically level of understanding.

od (Heb. "hidden") The hidden, secret or mystical level of understanding.

These are the four levels of understanding. The Four Gospels each express one of these four levels of understanding of the life of Yeshua. Each also expresses a different aspect of the Messiah and corresponds to each of the four faces of the living beings in Ezekiel 1.

The Pashat Gospel is Mark. Mark wrote a simple, brief, concise, pashat account of Yeshua’s life for the Goyim (Gentiles) while he was in Babylon with Kefa (1Kefa 5:13). He wrote his Gospel in the Syriac dialect of Aramaic for his Syrian and Assyrian readers in Babylon. Mark thus compiled material from Matthew and Luke and simplified it to create a simple version for Goyim. Mark presents the Messiah as the servant (the servant who purifies the Goyim in Is. 52:13, 15) the “my servant the Branch” of Zech.3:8 who is symbolized by the face of the Ox in Ezekiel 1 (the Ox being a servant, a beast of burden). Mark does not begin with an account of the birth of Messiah as do Matthew and Luke because, unlike the birth of a King, the birth of a servant is unimportant, all that is important is his work as a servant which begins with his immersion by Yochanan. Thus Mark’s simplified account omits any account of Yeshua’s birth or preexistence and centers on his work as a servant who purifies the Goyim.

The Remez Gospel is Luke. Luke wrote a more detailed account for the High Priest Theophilus (a Sadducee). The Sadducees were rationalists and sticklers for details. Luke presents Yeshua as the “Son of Man” and as “the man whose name is the Branch” (Zech 6:12) who is presented as a High Priest and is symbolized by the face of the man in Ezekiel 1. Luke wants to remind by remez (by implication) the High Priest Theophilus about the redemption of the filthy High Priest Joshua (Zech. 6) and its prophetic foreshadowing of a “man” who is a Messianic “Priest” and who can purify even a High Priest.

The Drash Gospel is Matthew. Matthew presents his account of Yeshua’s life as a Midrash to the Pharisees, as a continuing story tied to various passages from the Tanak (for example Mt. 2:13-15 presents an allegorical understanding of Hosea 11:1).. As a drash level account Matthew also includes a number of parables in his account. Matthew presents Messiah as the King Messiah, the Branch of David (Jer. 23:5-6 & Is. 11:1f) symbolized by the face of the lion in Ezekiel 1.

The Sod Gospel is Yochanan (John). Yochanan addresses the Mystical Essene sect and concerns himself with mystical topics like light, life, truth, the way and the Word. Yochanan includes many Sod interpretations in his account. For example Yochanan 1:1 presents a Sod understanding of Gen. 1:1. Yochanan 3:14; 8:28 & 12:32 present a Sod understanding of Num. 21:9 etc.). This is represented by the eagle that flies above the earth and sees from above.

These same four categories parallel the four faces as shown on page 12 of the appendix to the Hebraic Roots Version

Mark portrays Messiah as the servant

God first

thanks James Trimm

The Way is nothing and they are something

light no more than darkness is

there no true darkness and no true light

darkness is illusion I play in the light/darkness because it takes light to see even color black

with love and a holy kiss Roy

As I said earlier there is a spiritual battle taking place between light and darkness. Paul writes:

...what communion has light with darkness?

And what concord has Messiah with Belial...

(2Cor. 6:14b-15a)

Throughout the New Testament there are extended metaphores revolving around light and darkness. Believers are called "sons of light" (Lk. 16:8; Jn. 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1Thes. 5:5). The full armour of God is also called the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). The New Testament speaks of those "who walk in darkness" (Jn. 8:12; 12:35).

But what does this idiomatic use of the terms light and darkness mean? For the answer let us turn to the Tanak:

For the commandment is a lamp;

and the Torah is light...

(Prov. 6:23)

Your word is a lamp to my feet,

and a light to my path.

(Psalm 119:105)

To the Torah and to the testimony;

if they speak not according to this word,

it is because there is no light in them.

(Isaiah 8:20)

...for a Torah shall proceed from me,

and I will make my judgement to rest

for a light of the people.

(Isaiah 51:4)

So according to the Tanak the Torah is a light for our paths. Those that walk in the Torah walk in the light. This is why the New Testament speaks of those who walk in darkness (Jn. 8:12; 12:35; 1Jn. 1:6; 2:11). These are those who do not walk by the light of Torah. Of these John writes:

And if we say that we have fellowship with him,

and walk in darkness,

we are liars and we do not walk in truth.

(1Jn. 1:6)

Notice that John equates "walking in truth" with walking in the light.

As we noted previously "the Torah is truth" (Ps. 119:142) thus if "walking in the light" means "walking in truth" then both phrases refer to walking in the Torah. This takes us back to our passages from the Tanak given above. John also confirms this by writing the parallel statements:

...walking in truth.

...walk according to his commandments.

(2Jn. 1:4, 6)

Now lets look back at a moment to the full armour of God. As we have noted Paul also calls this armour the "armour of light" (Rom. 13:12). According to Paul we are involved in a spiritual battle with "the rulers of the darkness of this world." (Eph. 6:12) and thus he instructs us to put on this "armour of light" (Eph. 6:13 & Rom. 13:12)

Now several of the items of the "armour of light" also tie in with the Torah:

• The Belt of Truth

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,

and your Torah is truth.

(Psalm 119:142)

You are near, O YHWH,

and all your commandments are truth.

(Psalm 119:151)

• The Breatplate of Righteousness

What great nation is there that has

statutes and judgements as righteous

as this whole Torah which I am setting

before you today?...

(Deut. 4:6)

• The Shield of Faith

Remove the false way from me,

and graciously grant me your Torah.

I have chosen the way of faith;

I have placed your ordinances before me.

(Psalm 119:29-30)

• The Sword of the Word

...For the Torah will go out from Zion;

and the word of YHWH from Jerusalem.

(Isaiah 2:3)

Thus the Armour of Light is the armour of the Torah which lights our path. There are two paths before us, one of darkness and one of light. On the one hand one may "walk in darkness" on the other hand one may "walk in the light" of Torah. The "son's of light" put on the "armour of light" and walk in the light of Torah, while the "sons of darkness" walk in the Torah-lessness which is the darkness of this dark world.

The Torah is Truth (Ps. 119:142) and Yeshua said:

... if you continue in my word,

then are you my disciples indeed.

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth shall make you free.

(John 8:31-32)

Therefore the Torah brings freedom. This is completely contrary to what most people have been taught. The common wisdom is that the Torah is bondage and that "freedom in Christ" means freedom from Torah. For example one author writes:

Many Christians today would return to Sinai.

They would put upon the church the yoke of

bondage, the Law of Moses.

(God's Plan of the Ages; Louis T. Tallbot; 1970; p. 66)

However as we shall see the scriptures teach that exactly the opposite is true.

The central story of Judaism is that of the Exodus from Egypt. The children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt. God promised to gring them out of bondage and give them freedom. Upon leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, YHWH led them to Mt. Sinai where he delvered the Torah to them. Note that the theme of this central story is that God promised freedom from bondage and gave the children of Israel Torah. Now why would YHWH lead the people out of bondage in Egypt, lead them to Mt. Sinai, and deliver them right back into bondage again? And why would he at the same time promise them freedom. God is no liar. He promised the people freedom and he gave them Torah because the Torah is freedom from bondage. The Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142) and the truth will make you free (John 8:31-32).

This truth is proclaimed by the Psalmist:

So shall I keep your Torah continually forever and ever,

And I will walk in freedom: for I seek your precepts.

(Psalm 119:44-45)

As well as by Ya'akov HaTzadik (James the Just) who called the Torah "the Torah of freedom" (James 1:25; 2:12).

However the ANOMOS teachers today teach that the Torah is bondage and that Torah-lessness is freedom. They have exchanged the truth (Torah) of God for a lie (Torah-lessness) (Rom. 1:25). Of these 2Peter 2:19 states:

While they promise them freedom,

they themselves are servants of corruption:

for of whom a man is overcome,

of the same is he brought into bondage.

according to Kefa these men "turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2Peter 2:21) they promise freedom but deliver bondage.

By contrast Yeshua said:

Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden,

and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you,

and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in

heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.

(Mat. 11:28-30)

Now many of the teachers of Torah-lessness use this this passage as a proof text. To them this passage refers to freedom from the bondage of Torah. However notice the boldfaced portion. This bolfaced portion of Yeshua's statement is a quotation from the Tanak. A quotation which gives a great deal of context to Yeshua's statement. Lets look at this Tanak passage:

Thus said YHWH, stand you in the ways, and see,

and ask for the old paths, where is the good way,

and walk therein, and you shall find rest for

your souls. But they said, we will not walk therein.

(Jer. 6:16)

Notice that this "way" which gives "rest" is "the old path". Now lets read a little further down in Jer. 6 to obtain more context:

But they said, we will not walk therein (Jer. 6:16)...

...they have not hearkened unto my words,

nor to my Torah, but rejected it.

(Jer. 6:19)

Notice that the "old path" that brings "rest for your souls" to which they said "we will not walk therein" (Jer. 6:16) is identified by YHWH as "my Torah". This takes us up a bit further in the text of Jeremiah:

...they are foolish, for they do not know

the way of YHWH, the requirements of

their God. So I will go to the leaders and

speak to them; surely they know the way

of YHWH, the requirements of their God."

But with one accord they too had broken

off the yoke and torn off the bonds.

(Jer. 5:4-5 see also Jer. 2:20)

Here we find that the "yoke" which brings rest is the yoke which was being rejected. The yoke of Torah. Now lets look again at Yeshua's saying:

Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden,

and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you,

and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in

heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my load is light.

(Mat. 11:28-30)

The yoke that Messiah asks us to take on ourselves, the yoke that will give us rest for our souls is the Torah. The Torah is freedom from the bondage of Torah-lessness. The freedom of Torah is freedom from the bondage to sin that results without Torah. Without Torah there is no true freedom, only bondage. True liberty does not include a license to sin (Rom. 3:8; 6:1-2, 15)

Yes the Pashat is the literal

The Remez is the implied

The Drash is the homiletic of allegorical

The Sod is the hidden or secret meaning

The four letters spell PaRDeS (Hebrew is written without vowels) meaning "Paradise" :-)

An excerpt from my book:

HERMENEUTICS: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (2Tim. 2:15)

http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

The Hebrew/Aramaic word PARDES is spelled in Hebrew and Aramaic without vowels as sdrp (PRDS). PaRDeS refers to a park or garden, esp. the Garden of Eden. The word appears three times in the Aramaic New Testament (Lk. 23:43; 2Cor. 12:4 & Rev. 2:7).

The word PRDS is used in Jewish hermeneutics as an acronym (called in Judaism "notarikoni6) for:

Pashat (Heb. "simple")

Remez (Heb. "hint")

Drash (Heb. "search")

Sod (Heb. "hidden")

In Jewish hermeneutics these four terms indicate the four levels of understanding of the Scriptures. Each layer becomes deeper and more intense than the last. Digging deeper and deeper into these four levels of understanding is like digging through the layers of an onion. Each layer is more intense than the last.

THE PASHAT

The first level of understanding is PASHAT (simple). The Pashat is the simple, basic, literal meaning of the text. It is similar to what Protestant hermeneutics calls "Grammatical Historical Exegesis" and also similar to what Protestant Heremeneutics calls "The Literal Principle." Generally speaking the Pashat of a passage is either an axiom itself or the conclusion of a sound deductive argument.

The PASHAT is the plain, simple meaning of the text; understanding scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the words being used, in accordance with the primary exegetical rule in the Talmud that no passage loses its PASHAT (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a). While there is figurative language (like Ps. 36:7) symbolism (like Rom. 5:14); allegory (like Gal. 4:19-31) and hidden meanings (like Rev. 13:18; see also ICor. 2:7) in the Scriptures, the first thing to look for is the literal meaning or PASHAT.

The following rules of thumb can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its PASHAT:

1.When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative.

For Example: "The name of YHWH is a strong tower..." (Prov. 18:10)

2.When life and action are attributed to

an inanimate object the statement is figurative.

For Example: "...the trees of the field shall clap their hands." (Isaiah 55:12)

3.When an expression is out of character

with the thing described, the statement is figurative.

For Example: "Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings," (Ps. 17:8)

The PASHAT is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the PASHAT we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding. We are left with a no-holdsbarred game of pure imagination in which we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis) (see 2Pt. 1:20-21; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). Thus the Talmud twice warns us:

"No passage loses its PASHAT" (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a).

THE REMEZ

The next level of understanding is called in Hebrew REMEZ (hint). This is the implied meaning of the text. A conclusion reached through inductive reasoning would be a REMEZ understanding. On the REMEZ level details in the text are often regarded as implying a deeper truth than that conveyed by its PASHAT. In many cases a "corollary" would be a REMEZ understanding. A corollary is a sound conclusion that is drawn from a premise which was itself the conclusion of another sound argument. An example of implied "REMEZ" meaning may be found in Ex. 21:26-26-27 where we are told of our liability regarding eyes and teeth. By the "REMEZ" understanding we know that this liability also applies to other parts of the body as well.

THE DRASH

The next level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "drash" meaning "search", this is the allegorical, typological or homiletically application of the text.

On the DRASH level creativity is used to search the text in relation to the rest of the Scriptures, other literature, or life itself in such a way as to develop an allegorical, typological or homiletically application of the text. This process often involves eisogesis (reading ideas into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in sound exegesis as well. The term "midrash" generally refers to a commentary which is built upon drash understandings.

Three important rules of thumb in utilizing the drash level of understanding a scripture are:

1. A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its PASHAT meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict any PASHAT meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states "No passage loses its PASHAT." (b. Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a)

2. Let scripture interpret scripture.

Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.

For example Mt. 13:3-9 gives the parable of the seed. One need not speculate about what the elements of this parable mean because the text goes on in 13:18-23 to define the meanings of the primary elements of this parable.

Another Example: Rev. 1:12-16 mentions seven candlesticks and seven stars. Rev. 1:20 tells us what they represent.

Another example: Rev. 17:2-8 mentions seven heads, seven mountains, a beast with ten horns, a woman and waters. Rev. 17:9-18 explains what all of these elements refer to.

3. The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.

SOME EXAMPLES OF DRASH UNDERSTANDINGS:

Mt. 2:14-15 gives a drash understanding of Hosea 11: 1:

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of YHWH by the prophet, saying: "Out of Egypt I have called my son."

Now if we go look at Hosea 11:1 we will see that in the PASHAT the "son" of Hosea 11: 1 is Israel:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

This is a drash use of the text which allegorically likens Messiah to Israel. So how is the Messiah allegorically like Israel?

* Both made a major impact on the world.

* Both were born through a biological miracle on their mother's womb.

* Both were taken into Egypt to save their lives.

* Both are called up out of Egypt.

* Both have been despised and rejected by man.

* Rome attempted to execute each of them.

* Both are resurrected never to die again.

Other examples of the Drash level of understanding used in the "New Testament'":

Rom. 5:14 (14-2 1) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 3:1-24 comparing Adam with Messiah.

"Puffed up" in I Cor. 4:6 implies a drash understanding of unleavened bread (see Exodus 12).

Gal. 4:24(21-3 1) gives a drash understanding of Gen. 17-22 comparing Sarah and Isaac with the Torah and comparing Hagar and Ishmael with the "under the law" heresy.

Col 2:17 indicates a drash level meaning to the Jewish festivals.

Heb. 8:5 gives a drash understanding which compares the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of Messiah.

Heb. 9:9, 24 gives a drash on the Tabernacle which compares the Tabernacle with the heavenly holy of holies.

Heb. 10:1 gives a drash understanding which compares elements of the Torah with the death of Messiah.

Heb. 11:19 gives a drash understanding of Gen. 22:1 f

I Pt. 3:21 gives a drash understanding of the events in Gen. 6-9

SOD

The final level of understanding the Scriptures is called in Hebrew "SOD" meaning "hidden". This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. (See I Cor. 2:7-16 esp. 2:7). This process often involves returning the letters of a word to their prime-material state and giving them new form in order to reveal a hidden meaning. An example may be found in Rev. 13:18 where the identity of the Beast is expressed by its numeric value 666. As on the drash level this process often involves eisogesis (reading ideas into the text) of the text but should be constrained by having some foundation in sound exegesis as well. See the 29th rule of Eliezer in Chapter 6.

Some examples of SOD level interpretations are:

GEMATRIA - This involves interpretations based on the fact that letters in Hebrew are also numbers, thus each letter and word also have numerical values. This method will be discussed in more detail under the 29' Rule of Eliezer.

NOTARIKON - This involves interpretations based on an acronym, anagram or an acrostic in the original Hebrew. This method will be discussed in more detail under the 30"' Rule of Eliezer.

AL-TIKREI - Literally "do not read but . This method involves changing the vowel points (which were unwritten in the original text) with other vowels to convey another meaning. For example in b.Ber. 64a "your sons" in Is. 54:13 is interpreted to mean "your builders".

In the Dead Sea Scrolls (11Q13) the word "peace" (shalom (Strong's 7999)) is understood as "retribution" (shillum (Strong's 7966)):

How fair upon the mountains are the feet of the herald who proclaims `Shalom! (peace)', the herald of good tidings who proclaims `Salvation'! who says to Zion, `Your Elohim has now claimed His kingdom! (Isa. 52:7), for the word shalom may also be read shillum, `retribution'... (11Q13; Col. 2 Line 16) ' As given in The Dead Sea Scriptures 3' Edition by Theodore H. Gastor p. 435; 1976

ATBASH- This method involves writing each of the 22 letters down and then writing them next to each other in reverse. The result is a table that is used to decode hidden messages in the Scriptures. Each letter is replaced by the corresponding letter on the table so that ALEF is exchanged for TAV, BEIT is exchanged for SHIN etc.. Thus the name for this method is ATBASH. An example if found in the Hebrew of Jer. 51:1 where we read 'n7 :1 L7 "Leb-kamai" for M'7= "the Chaldeans". Another example is in Jer. 25:26 and 51:41 7= "Sheshach" is understood to mean L7::M "Bavel/Babylon"

TEMURAH- This method is similar to ATBASH except that the tables are drawn with the two sets of 22 letters off-set only by one letter. Thus ALEF is exchanged for BEIT; BEIT is exchanged for GIMEL etc..

SKIP CODES - Moses Cordevaro wrote "The secrets of the Torah are revealed... in the skipping of letters." This method seeks out equidistant letter sequences within the Hebrew letters of Scripture. For example a skip interval of 50 (skipping 49 (7*7) letters) starting with the first TAV (7) in the Torah spells the Hebrew word

Torah. A skip interval of 26 (the Gematria of "YHWH"') spells "Elohim". At various intervals the word "Elohim" can be found 147 times in the book of Genesis. Through the same method the name of Aaron is found imbedded 25 times in the text of the first portion of Leviticus. These skip intervals are often laid out in arrays of lines of equal length such that words can be found in the text much like a seek-and-find word puzzle. For example the name Yitzach Rabin is found encoded only once in the entire Torah (running from Deut. 2:33-24:6 at an interval of 4,772 letters. When these letters are laid out in array of lines of 4,772 Hebrew letters, the Hebrew phrase "assassin will assassinate" is found running crossways through his name. When Rabbin was in fact assassinated as this Scripture Code predicted, a great deal of attention was turned to the phenomena of such codesR

A number of noted scholars have argued that at least portions of the New Testament were originally penned in a Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

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 [of scholars], 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 [Old Syriac] 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

yes. I remember USENET and 300 baud modems.

I would postulate to you that the most effective and efficient way to present a response is to formulate it in a way that it will be read, as opposed to a way that it will not be read. The problems with carrying on a conversation in this fashion are as follows:

1) Utilizing 20 years of pre-compiled arguments is that you place the others you are discussing the topic with at a disadvantage as they don't have 20 years worth of pre-compiled arguments. If you do this consistently, people will stop conversing with you.

2) Without reviewing and editing the pre-compiled arguments so that they exactly match the discussion you are having it is a shotgun approach - there is content both on topic and off topic. Many specific questions in the conversation are not answered, just loose high level topics are matched up.

3) Messages on forums to be considerate of fellow posters should be short and to the point with links to external background information should participants in the discussion choose to want more background information. This respects everyone's time as equally valuable. With the shotgun approach, you are indirectly communicating that your time is more valuable than others on a forum so you don't want to spend it editing ideas you've had 20 years ago to make them pertinent to the current conversation.

So as an engineer's son, my challenge to you is this. If you design the most perfectly constructed bridge that nobody will travel over, of what genuine value is it? The location of a bridge is at least as important as the engineering of the bridge.

Of course if someone gives an original argument against the Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the NT that I have never heard before. I will compose an original response.