FWIW, the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was not a "book." They were both collections of writings that were assembled after being codified into a "canon" of scripture.
Keeping that in mind, it is pretty apparent that some books would logically be written in different languages. For example, the Gospel According to St. Matthew was likely originally written in Aramaic, as it's audience was likely the Jews.. While it's likely that the Gospel According to St. Luke was likely written in Greek (Luke was from the town of Troas...a Greek city). Note it was written to "Theophilus" -- beloved of God -- in Greek. And so on...
while it is true that Estrangelo is the script the Aramaic was written in,
twi taught that the NT was originally written in "Estrangelo Aramaic",
said as if that was a specific dialect of Aramaic,
like Palestinian Aramaic (which was spoken in Jesus' time)
or Eastern Aramaic (which twi used for their books.)
Yup, you're right. It did sound that way. I think the only way that you'd find out (within TWI) that Estrangelo was just a script was by hearing it from one of the big research heavies, certainly not from the mouth of Wierwille or Martindale. I know that I knew it while still in TWI, and I didn't do any outside research back then.
twi taught that the ENTIRE NT was originally written in Aramaic FIRST,
and translated to Greek later.
Towards the end of his reign, Martindale was telling the Corps that he thought that it was Timothy who had done the translating from Aramaic to Greek.
Koine Greek was the 'lingua franca' in the eastern part of ther Roman Empire in the times of Jesus . The lingua franca is the common language of the people and the language used for trade and commerce. Jesus, Paul and the other disciples/apostles would have been fluent in both Greek and Aramaic( Arabic). Being a Roman citizen, Paul would probably have spoken Latin as well.
By the time of Jesus, Palestine had long been Hellenized. The Septuagint (the Greek OT) was the version of the OT most widely accepted by the hellenized Jews of Jesus' time. It is probably the Septuigant that Jesus read from.
Why would Paul write to the churches at Corrinth, Galatia, etc in Aramaic when these folks didn't speak or understand it?
My bet is that most of the NT was originally penned in Greek. There is evidence that Matthew may have been penned in Matthew's native tongue. (Hebrew ? Aramaic?)
I dount that VPW "lied" about this. His research was just sloppy and biased IMO.
If I remember correctly, Hebrew was not the language of the common people in Jesus' time, but more of an ecclesiastical language. I believe that Aramaic was the tongue that was spoken in Babylon and was taken up by the captives.
Is that the look of being baffled ? If so - by what ?
------------------------
Roy, not everyone has or uses that gift the way you do. --- Could you imagine the confusion if everyone interpreted the scriptures straight from the "gift of Christ" while ignoring or refusing to go to readily available resources - like older extant texts? If everyone did that we would need no English Bible ... the spirit could just translate/interpret the Greek texts for us and give it meaning. ... I know you said it was only for you ...
Any any case, how do you address the question of whether the NT was wrtitten in Greek or Aramaic? That was the topic ...
Yes, Goey, I think I am. I am baffled by the mere fact that it took me 15 years to remember the passion and zeal I use to have learning about God.
Once I took PFAL, I thought I was done. That I had it, and I didn't need to look any further. I went in "passive" mode. And I literally stopped thinking.
Now, I am the way I use to be before. WACKO
I guess it really doesn't matter what language it was. I am trying to peice this "research ministry?" puzzle out. I talked to a staffer recently, who, although knows of many evils, still thinks that Doc vic had it all figured out, and they package it better than anyone else out there!
I have friends that have been out for years, but still think "the Way'' packaged it the best, so they can't find anything.
I am dismantling this "package" every time you all tell me a "plagerism, forgery, ignorance, sloppy, research" thing he did.
So, if he use to teach that it was E.Aramaic, then, Greek, with the intention to "sound smart".........and in actuallity it was a lot more than that, it is just a script, many spoke only Greek....etc..............
it is like his "research house of cards" keeps crumbling in front of me.
Most people don't go to these lengths like I do. Therefore, they will defend the mans methods, can't blame them. I am just a nosey research gal.
Have you seen Goey's research on Ordination? It's awesome. Or the discussion JBarrax started on the errors in PFAL? He started out trying to defend PFAL and the thread is a great discussion and a transformation of Jerry to seeing PFAL for what it is.
There could be some great discussions launched from the information in that thread.
JBarrax said earlier on a PFAL Class thread:
Belle stated that I started the PFAL Review as a proponent of the class. For the record, that's not exactly the case. I started my online discussions with people as a Weirwillite and staunch supporter of PFAL, and in trying to quote the class to prove others wrong, I started finding inconsistencies in the class. Hebrews chapter 12 vs. VP's "faith of Jesus Christ" teaching was what started the ball rolling. When I found that error, some WC who were impressed with my desire to study and learn the Bible to the best of my ability, had just given me a copy of the class on VHS, so I decided to take a closer look. I was shocked and apalled at the amount of clear documentable error in it. So that's when I started the PFAL Review thread. I started by seeing that VP's facts didn't line up with the Scripture. Eventually, I figured out that the Scripture's not about facts after all.
Maybe everyone does not let the spirit teach them but maybe they should
PS I just wanted to add the spirit within can not lie So if every reach for the spirit we have only one church
they should, but maybe you are wanting to live in the year 2027, maybe that is the 3rd heaven and earth ... unfortunately the current one is much dirtier ...
of course the "it is written" idea is good ... but it has its limitations as well ... the US constitution is pretty good ... what is that thing about we have the something written in our heart? Rules can be changed but you have to write something down and discuss it ...
I was thinking aramaic was the lower class language ... greek more the legal language ... I guess mark says different areas were ... different.
those are my "deep thoughts"
the breathalyzer says I should quit posting now :)
The following is from How We got the Bible, 3rd Edition, revised and expanded, by Neil R. Lightfoot, co. 1963, 1988, 2003, Baker Books, pages 27-29:
"…Aramaic is a kindred language to Hebrew and after the time of the exile [c.500 B.C.] became the common tongue in Palestine. [Nehemiah 8:8 is usually read with the assumption that the people did not know pure Hebrew and therefore needed a translation into the familiar Aramaic.] Because Aramaic was spoken by the Jews several centuries before Christ, it is not surprising to find some portions of the Old Testament in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. Aramaic sections of the Old Testament include two words as a place name in Genesis 31:47; one verse I n Jeremiah 10:11; about six chapters in the Book of Daniel [2:4b-7:28]; and several chapters in Ezra [4:8-6:18; 7:12-26]. If someone looks at a copy of the Hebrew Bible, these sections in Aramaic will appear no different from the other parts of the Old Testament. This is true because the Aramaic characters are like those of the Hebrew, or to be more exact, the square-shaped Hebrew letters are actually borrowed from the Aramaic. So there is no difference in appearance between Hebrew and Aramaic, but the two are distinct languages…
…Aramaic continued for centuries as the vernacular of Palestine. The New Testament preserves for us Aramaic expressions of Jesus, such as talitha cumi ["Little girl, get up."] in Mark 5:41; ephphatha ["Be opened."] in Mark 7:34; and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani ["My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?"] in Mark 15:34 [cf. Matt. 27:46]. Jesus habitually addressed God as Abba [Aramaic for "Father"], which did not fail to leave its mark on the vocabulary of the early church [cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 6:4]. Another common phrase of the early Christians was Maran atha, which means "Our Lord, come!" . These expressions clearly show that the language normally spoken by our Lord and his Jewish followers was Aramaic…
…Although the spoken language of Jesus was Aramaic, the books that comprise our New Testament were written in Greek. There is little question today on this point, although a few scholars have maintained that some portions of the New Testament were issued at first in Aramaic. It was in the providence of God, since the gospel was to be proclaimed to every creature, that the New Testament writers made use of a language that was known throughout the Mediterranean world. Greek in the first century, as English is today, was the "universal" language…
…The Greek of the New Testament exhibits certain linguistic peculiarities…the language of the New Testament is more correctly termed "Hellenistic" or "Koine" [common] Greek. We have been brought to this unmistakable conclusion largely because of discoveries among the ancient Greek papyri…These papyri were written by ordinary people in colloquial Greek. This Greek of the marketplace appears in the New Testament, but by and large its language is more literary than spoken Greek. In addition, the Greek New Testament has ingrained in it a peculiar Jewish or Semitic element. Most of its authors were Jews, who often thought and wrote in Semitic idiom. This is noticeable even to the English reader in such expressions as "truly [amen] I say to you," "it came to pass," "behold," "and…and," – expressions that are characteristically Semitic…"
PS I just wanted to add the spirit within can not lie So if every reach for the spirit we have only one church
Roy, it's not a question of whether the spirit of God lies or not. It's a question of whether or not people who claim the be taught by the spirit of God - actually are.
There are lots of folks like yourself claiming that the spirit taught them something - yet these things many times disagree from person to person - same spirit. IIs the spirit lying?
It seems these days that the "prophets" many times get conflicting information from the same spirit ..... or maybe they aren't getting it from the spirit in first place?
So, I see your approach no less prone to error and misunderstandings than an approach that does not ignore scripture, historical facts and other evidences - things that can be learned by the "five senses".
Certainly the Christ within can help lead us to greater understanding of spiritual things, but if I want learn if the Bible was originally written in Greek or Aramaic, I am not going to ignore documented history, cultural information, scripture and abandon rational thinking and just let the spirit teach me ....I think all these things work together.
The five senses are a tool that God gave us but research, reading, and others are man made tools
While that does not mean the spirit will not moved one to use these tools
I still read to find questions to ask God about by the way of the spirit
I look at Hebrew and Greek at times when the spirit moves me too
I research history, words, figure of speech, times, customs and other things as the spirit moves me or just to have something to ask God about
Yes it is true some lie about whether the spirit told them or they came up with it on their own but they are looking for personal glory
And yes we all make miss takes but if we get truthful we either really received word of prophecy or we do not
Some fake being stoned in the holy spirit because they do not want to look out of place and others virture went out of them and they call it being stone with the spirit
But it we all walk by the spirit we all walk in love but most will not because there no money in that
Some like Way leaders want to get money more than walking in love
I do not have all the answers but I learning as I divided what I know from what is true
I used to be a spirituare and verse person but now I am how can we walk in love of God together
The following is from How We got the Bible, 3rd Edition, revised and expanded, by Neil R. Lightfoot, co. 1963, 1988, 2003, Baker Books, pages 27-29:
"…Aramaic is a kindred language to Hebrew and after the time of the exile [c.500 B.C.] became the common tongue in Palestine. [Nehemiah 8:8 is usually read with the assumption that the people did not know pure Hebrew and therefore needed a translation into the familiar Aramaic.] Because Aramaic was spoken by the Jews several centuries before Christ, it is not surprising to find some portions of the Old Testament in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. Aramaic sections of the Old Testament include two words as a place name in Genesis 31:47; one verse I n Jeremiah 10:11; about six chapters in the Book of Daniel [2:4b-7:28]; and several chapters in Ezra [4:8-6:18; 7:12-26]. If someone looks at a copy of the Hebrew Bible, these sections in Aramaic will appear no different from the other parts of the Old Testament. This is true because the Aramaic characters are like those of the Hebrew, or to be more exact, the square-shaped Hebrew letters are actually borrowed from the Aramaic. So there is no difference in appearance between Hebrew and Aramaic, but the two are distinct languages…
…Aramaic continued for centuries as the vernacular of Palestine. The New Testament preserves for us Aramaic expressions of Jesus, such as talitha cumi ["Little girl, get up."] in Mark 5:41; ephphatha ["Be opened."] in Mark 7:34; and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani ["My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?"] in Mark 15:34 [cf. Matt. 27:46]. Jesus habitually addressed God as Abba [Aramaic for "Father"], which did not fail to leave its mark on the vocabulary of the early church [cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 6:4]. Another common phrase of the early Christians was Maran atha, which means "Our Lord, come!" . These expressions clearly show that the language normally spoken by our Lord and his Jewish followers was Aramaic…
…Although the spoken language of Jesus was Aramaic, the books that comprise our New Testament were written in Greek. There is little question today on this point,
although a few scholars have maintained that some portions of the New Testament were issued at first in Aramaic.
It was in the providence of God, since the gospel was to be proclaimed to every creature, that the New Testament writers made use of a language that was known throughout the Mediterranean world. Greek in the first century, as English is today, was the "universal" language…
…The Greek of the New Testament exhibits certain linguistic peculiarities…the language of the New Testament is more correctly termed "Hellenistic" or "Koine" [common] Greek. We have been brought to this unmistakable conclusion largely because of discoveries among the ancient Greek papyri…These papyri were written by ordinary people in colloquial Greek. This Greek of the marketplace appears in the New Testament, but by and large its language is more literary than spoken Greek. In addition, the Greek New Testament has ingrained in it a peculiar Jewish or Semitic element. Most of its authors were Jews, who often thought and wrote in Semitic idiom. This is noticeable even to the English reader in such expressions as "truly [amen] I say to you," "it came to pass," "behold," "and…and," – expressions that are characteristically Semitic…"
I just wanted to add a few things.
A) I recommend this book heartily, particularly the 3rd edition mentioned here.
B) I bolded the part that mentions what Mark and I said,
that is, that part of the gospels was probably written first in Aramaic.
My position is not based on "twi said it", but partly on looking around
OUTSIDE twi. I found a copy of "the Aramaic Origin of the 4 Gospels"
in my college's library, back when. (The thing looked old and dog-eared,
and I don't know if it's been reprinted since the 1950s or earlier.)
If that is true-that at least one of the Gospels was written first in Aramaic,
it explains certain problems with the text that are resolved if they were
just a mis-read from Aramaic. (The camel/rope thing, and the Samaritan/devil thing.)
I've never seen evidence to support a position that
"the New Testament was written first in Aramaic",
unless you count "vpw said it, I believe it" as "evidence".
So, if he use to teach that it was E.Aramaic, then, Greek, with the intention to "sound smart".........and in actuallity it was a lot more than that, it is just a script, many spoke only Greek....etc..............
it is like his "research house of cards" keeps crumbling in front of me.
Here's the recap.
Almost the entire New Testament was written first in (Koine) Greek.
We're debating whether some of the Gospels were in Aramaic first,
but everything else is pretty solidly documented as Greek first.
vpw said it was first in Aramaic-specifically the Palestinian Aramaic
dialect used in Palestine (duh).
Twi used the EASTERN Aramaic dialect for research-
specifically the Peshi++a text, which featured Estrangelo script.
IIRC, the sole reference to any of this was one mention in the
Orange Book which makes several errors concerning the historical
documents of Scripture, but DID correctly identify "Estrangelo"
as a lettering style and not a dialect.
However, vpw never reinforced this anywhere else, so the entire
corps (excepting a few in the research dept) all learned it wrong-
that "Estrangelo Aramaic" was a dialect like "Eastern" or
"Palestinian."
=====
Those of you who wonder what lcm taught should go back and
re-listen to his old tapes.
Tape 1055: "Believing Images of Victory" was the one where
he said
"I'd like to close in Romans,
chapter 8,
reading the entire chapter,
in Estrangelo Aramaic."
*waits while audience chuckles*
As you can tell from the structure of the sentence,
(and the following one, where he suggests Bernita might
actually do this later), lcm was pretty clear that
Recommended Posts
markomalley
FWIW, the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was not a "book." They were both collections of writings that were assembled after being codified into a "canon" of scripture.
Keeping that in mind, it is pretty apparent that some books would logically be written in different languages. For example, the Gospel According to St. Matthew was likely originally written in Aramaic, as it's audience was likely the Jews.. While it's likely that the Gospel According to St. Luke was likely written in Greek (Luke was from the town of Troas...a Greek city). Note it was written to "Theophilus" -- beloved of God -- in Greek. And so on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
TWI taught that the NT was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
Estrangelo was the script that the Aramaic was written in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
while it is true that Estrangelo is the script the Aramaic was written in,
twi taught that the NT was originally written in "Estrangelo Aramaic",
said as if that was a specific dialect of Aramaic,
like Palestinian Aramaic (which was spoken in Jesus' time)
or Eastern Aramaic (which twi used for their books.)
twi taught that the ENTIRE NT was originally written in Aramaic FIRST,
and translated to Greek later.
Most evidence shows that the Greek came first for the NT,
with the possible exception of the Gospels.
Mark's answer that at least one Gospel (Matthew) was written first
in Aramaic, and at least one Gospel (Luke) was written first in Greek,
makes a lot of sense to me, and helps explain disparate POVs from
people who actually studied the stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw parroted George Lamsa on the subject.
Lamsa is the one who pushed the "Aramaic first" position.
This was advantageous to Lamsa, as he put forth he was THE
Aramaic expert,
which would make himself THE Bible expert.
For Lamsa, I think this was a deliberate attempt to inflate
his own importance.
vpw was NEVER a good researcher. His "best work" was photocopies
of the work of others, and often the deeper things showed a lack
of understanding of what he was copying.
(That's why his definition of "word of knowledge" is INCORRECT,
despite being derived from Leonard's definition, which IS correct.)
So, when Lamsa made a convincing-sounding case for Aramaic,
vpw lifted Lamsa's claims entirely.
If vpw had done his own research, he would have seen that his
own claims of the earliest texts being from the FOURTH century
were off by at least 200 years,
as was known at least 20 years before he put this error in writing.
See,
in Bullinger's time, (a century ago),
such a claim would fly.
The last century, however, has seen many new manuscripts
come to light, and the dates of the earliest texts now can reach VERY
far back, compared to what was available before then.
So, I think it was LAZINESS and BAD RESEARCH.
====
Another possibility-which is not exclusive, BOTH may be true-
was that it was what he WANTED to say,
since it was the opposite of what the establishment was saying.
Remember that twi was marketed as counter-establishment
and counter-culture, back when.
Making a case that sounds convincing and says most Christians
are WRONG was right up vpw's alley.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Koine Greek was the 'lingua franca' in the eastern part of ther Roman Empire in the times of Jesus . The lingua franca is the common language of the people and the language used for trade and commerce. Jesus, Paul and the other disciples/apostles would have been fluent in both Greek and Aramaic( Arabic). Being a Roman citizen, Paul would probably have spoken Latin as well.
By the time of Jesus, Palestine had long been Hellenized. The Septuagint (the Greek OT) was the version of the OT most widely accepted by the hellenized Jews of Jesus' time. It is probably the Septuigant that Jesus read from.
Why would Paul write to the churches at Corrinth, Galatia, etc in Aramaic when these folks didn't speak or understand it?
My bet is that most of the NT was originally penned in Greek. There is evidence that Matthew may have been penned in Matthew's native tongue. (Hebrew ? Aramaic?)
I dount that VPW "lied" about this. His research was just sloppy and biased IMO.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved all
God loves you all
I try not to go back to Aramaic. Hebrew. Greek, or and other tongue to understand the New or Old Testament better
I go straight to the gift of Christ in me
For it is the spirit within me that shows me whether I looking at a poor translation from one tongue to another or I have over look something
but this is me
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Bliss,
Is that the look of being baffled ? If so - by what ?
------------------------
Roy, not everyone has or uses that gift the way you do. --- Could you imagine the confusion if everyone interpreted the scriptures straight from the "gift of Christ" while ignoring or refusing to go to readily available resources - like older extant texts? If everyone did that we would need no English Bible ... the spirit could just translate/interpret the Greek texts for us and give it meaning. ... I know you said it was only for you ...
Any any case, how do you address the question of whether the NT was wrtitten in Greek or Aramaic? That was the topic ...
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Yes, Goey, I think I am. I am baffled by the mere fact that it took me 15 years to remember the passion and zeal I use to have learning about God.
Once I took PFAL, I thought I was done. That I had it, and I didn't need to look any further. I went in "passive" mode. And I literally stopped thinking.
Now, I am the way I use to be before. WACKO
I guess it really doesn't matter what language it was. I am trying to peice this "research ministry?" puzzle out. I talked to a staffer recently, who, although knows of many evils, still thinks that Doc vic had it all figured out, and they package it better than anyone else out there!
I have friends that have been out for years, but still think "the Way'' packaged it the best, so they can't find anything.
I am dismantling this "package" every time you all tell me a "plagerism, forgery, ignorance, sloppy, research" thing he did.
So, if he use to teach that it was E.Aramaic, then, Greek, with the intention to "sound smart".........and in actuallity it was a lot more than that, it is just a script, many spoke only Greek....etc..............
it is like his "research house of cards" keeps crumbling in front of me.
Most people don't go to these lengths like I do. Therefore, they will defend the mans methods, can't blame them. I am just a nosey research gal.
Thanks all of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Bliss,
Have you seen Goey's research on Ordination? It's awesome. Or the discussion JBarrax started on the errors in PFAL? He started out trying to defend PFAL and the thread is a great discussion and a transformation of Jerry to seeing PFAL for what it is.
There could be some great discussions launched from the information in that thread.
JBarrax said earlier on a PFAL Class thread:
This is a link to his compilation of the studies: Biblical Analysis of PFAL
And a post he made regarding it: PFAL Review
You'll even recognize some names from here on there .... all the way back to 2000! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Goey
God loves you my dear friend
Is the NT even a New Testament or do we have just a lot of books wrote as the holy spirit the gift of Christ told them what to write
Or the so called Old Testament are they just books wrote by the holy spirit over showering a man of God
Maybe everyone does not let the spirit teach them but maybe they should
My answer was neither Aramaic. Hebrew. Greek, or any other tongue make any differ but what does the gift of holy spirit whether above them or in us
If you walk by the spirit then your understanding comes as the spirit leads you not as you reach for a five sences understand by research
It not about working for the right understanding but its about the spirit teaching us
We received truth by grace not my works
It grace that we were even told about God and his son and we were told out of love
We did not have to work for the knowlege Jesus is the son of God it was shared with us
We may have work to understand things better but I have learn more by letting Jesus the Christ being my teacher
The gift of holy spirit is the comforter and understanding is a comfort
I stop here but like I said no one has to believe like I do and this is just me a man reaching for truth
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
PS I just wanted to add the spirit within can not lie So if every reach for the spirit we have only one church
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
they should, but maybe you are wanting to live in the year 2027, maybe that is the 3rd heaven and earth ... unfortunately the current one is much dirtier ...
of course the "it is written" idea is good ... but it has its limitations as well ... the US constitution is pretty good ... what is that thing about we have the something written in our heart? Rules can be changed but you have to write something down and discuss it ...
I was thinking aramaic was the lower class language ... greek more the legal language ... I guess mark says different areas were ... different.
those are my "deep thoughts"
the breathalyzer says I should quit posting now :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
A friend had recently sent me these links to some very well done articles on the topic of Aramaic
at Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus
Enjoy.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I've seen PFAL review, but not the research on ordination. Could be interesting. Link?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved rhino
God loves you
Yes its not the year2027 and I am living in the year2006 were I seem to sin and far short the glory of God but that why I live by grace
I am reaching for the coming of the third heaven and earth but I am not there yet
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The following is from How We got the Bible, 3rd Edition, revised and expanded, by Neil R. Lightfoot, co. 1963, 1988, 2003, Baker Books, pages 27-29:
"…Aramaic is a kindred language to Hebrew and after the time of the exile [c.500 B.C.] became the common tongue in Palestine. [Nehemiah 8:8 is usually read with the assumption that the people did not know pure Hebrew and therefore needed a translation into the familiar Aramaic.] Because Aramaic was spoken by the Jews several centuries before Christ, it is not surprising to find some portions of the Old Testament in Aramaic instead of Hebrew. Aramaic sections of the Old Testament include two words as a place name in Genesis 31:47; one verse I n Jeremiah 10:11; about six chapters in the Book of Daniel [2:4b-7:28]; and several chapters in Ezra [4:8-6:18; 7:12-26]. If someone looks at a copy of the Hebrew Bible, these sections in Aramaic will appear no different from the other parts of the Old Testament. This is true because the Aramaic characters are like those of the Hebrew, or to be more exact, the square-shaped Hebrew letters are actually borrowed from the Aramaic. So there is no difference in appearance between Hebrew and Aramaic, but the two are distinct languages…
…Aramaic continued for centuries as the vernacular of Palestine. The New Testament preserves for us Aramaic expressions of Jesus, such as talitha cumi ["Little girl, get up."] in Mark 5:41; ephphatha ["Be opened."] in Mark 7:34; and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani ["My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?"] in Mark 15:34 [cf. Matt. 27:46]. Jesus habitually addressed God as Abba [Aramaic for "Father"], which did not fail to leave its mark on the vocabulary of the early church [cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 6:4]. Another common phrase of the early Christians was Maran atha, which means "Our Lord, come!" . These expressions clearly show that the language normally spoken by our Lord and his Jewish followers was Aramaic…
…Although the spoken language of Jesus was Aramaic, the books that comprise our New Testament were written in Greek. There is little question today on this point, although a few scholars have maintained that some portions of the New Testament were issued at first in Aramaic. It was in the providence of God, since the gospel was to be proclaimed to every creature, that the New Testament writers made use of a language that was known throughout the Mediterranean world. Greek in the first century, as English is today, was the "universal" language…
…The Greek of the New Testament exhibits certain linguistic peculiarities…the language of the New Testament is more correctly termed "Hellenistic" or "Koine" [common] Greek. We have been brought to this unmistakable conclusion largely because of discoveries among the ancient Greek papyri…These papyri were written by ordinary people in colloquial Greek. This Greek of the marketplace appears in the New Testament, but by and large its language is more literary than spoken Greek. In addition, the Greek New Testament has ingrained in it a peculiar Jewish or Semitic element. Most of its authors were Jews, who often thought and wrote in Semitic idiom. This is noticeable even to the English reader in such expressions as "truly [amen] I say to you," "it came to pass," "behold," "and…and," – expressions that are characteristically Semitic…"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Roy,
Roy, it's not a question of whether the spirit of God lies or not. It's a question of whether or not people who claim the be taught by the spirit of God - actually are.
There are lots of folks like yourself claiming that the spirit taught them something - yet these things many times disagree from person to person - same spirit. IIs the spirit lying?
It seems these days that the "prophets" many times get conflicting information from the same spirit ..... or maybe they aren't getting it from the spirit in first place?
So, I see your approach no less prone to error and misunderstandings than an approach that does not ignore scripture, historical facts and other evidences - things that can be learned by the "five senses".
Certainly the Christ within can help lead us to greater understanding of spiritual things, but if I want learn if the Bible was originally written in Greek or Aramaic, I am not going to ignore documented history, cultural information, scripture and abandon rational thinking and just let the spirit teach me ....I think all these things work together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Goey
God loves you my dear friend
The five senses are a tool that God gave us but research, reading, and others are man made tools
While that does not mean the spirit will not moved one to use these tools
I still read to find questions to ask God about by the way of the spirit
I look at Hebrew and Greek at times when the spirit moves me too
I research history, words, figure of speech, times, customs and other things as the spirit moves me or just to have something to ask God about
Yes it is true some lie about whether the spirit told them or they came up with it on their own but they are looking for personal glory
And yes we all make miss takes but if we get truthful we either really received word of prophecy or we do not
Some fake being stoned in the holy spirit because they do not want to look out of place and others virture went out of them and they call it being stone with the spirit
But it we all walk by the spirit we all walk in love but most will not because there no money in that
Some like Way leaders want to get money more than walking in love
I do not have all the answers but I learning as I divided what I know from what is true
I used to be a spirituare and verse person but now I am how can we walk in love of God together
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I just wanted to add a few things.
A) I recommend this book heartily, particularly the 3rd edition mentioned here.
B) I bolded the part that mentions what Mark and I said,
that is, that part of the gospels was probably written first in Aramaic.
My position is not based on "twi said it", but partly on looking around
OUTSIDE twi. I found a copy of "the Aramaic Origin of the 4 Gospels"
in my college's library, back when. (The thing looked old and dog-eared,
and I don't know if it's been reprinted since the 1950s or earlier.)
If that is true-that at least one of the Gospels was written first in Aramaic,
it explains certain problems with the text that are resolved if they were
just a mis-read from Aramaic. (The camel/rope thing, and the Samaritan/devil thing.)
I've never seen evidence to support a position that
"the New Testament was written first in Aramaic",
unless you count "vpw said it, I believe it" as "evidence".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's the recap.
Almost the entire New Testament was written first in (Koine) Greek.
We're debating whether some of the Gospels were in Aramaic first,
but everything else is pretty solidly documented as Greek first.
vpw said it was first in Aramaic-specifically the Palestinian Aramaic
dialect used in Palestine (duh).
Twi used the EASTERN Aramaic dialect for research-
specifically the Peshi++a text, which featured Estrangelo script.
IIRC, the sole reference to any of this was one mention in the
Orange Book which makes several errors concerning the historical
documents of Scripture, but DID correctly identify "Estrangelo"
as a lettering style and not a dialect.
However, vpw never reinforced this anywhere else, so the entire
corps (excepting a few in the research dept) all learned it wrong-
that "Estrangelo Aramaic" was a dialect like "Eastern" or
"Palestinian."
=====
Those of you who wonder what lcm taught should go back and
re-listen to his old tapes.
Tape 1055: "Believing Images of Victory" was the one where
he said
"I'd like to close in Romans,
chapter 8,
reading the entire chapter,
in Estrangelo Aramaic."
*waits while audience chuckles*
As you can tell from the structure of the sentence,
(and the following one, where he suggests Bernita might
actually do this later), lcm was pretty clear that
"Estrangelo" wasnt just a style of writing,
because that would NOT affect reading it ALOUD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.