How do Aramaic primacists respond to Greek primacy arguments? [closed]

Question

Background: This question is related to another question here on BH.SE. It is an effort to bring balance, strength and integrity to this discussion on BHSE. It is my hope that by having to face the opposing view, any areas where logic breaks down on either side of the discussion will be brought to light.

How do the Aramaic primacists respond to the Greek primacy arguments, especially the strong ones posted on the related page?

Answer 1

Greek Primacy Point A) How is it possible for Apostle Paul to speak Aramaic especially in Greek regions and in Rome? How is it also possible for Paul to speak Aramaic when early Christians were Greek such as Timothy and Titus?

AP Response: Through Acts 16-18, we read that Apostle Paul was preaching to Jews in Greek regions like Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, etc. In Antiquities of Jews XX XI, Josephus points out that Jews didn't speak Greek and Jewish Nation didn't encourage the learning of Greek language. According to Flavius Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Jewish Wars 5:9:2).

In Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 (of Greek NT manuscripts) point out that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus. But Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 of Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) tell us that they were actually Arameans. Arameans are Aramaic speaking Gentiles. Greeks called Arameans "Syrians." This was mentioned by Greek Historian and Geographer Strabo (64 BC- 23 AD) in his book Geography

Greek Primacy Point B) How is it possible that Jesus could not have spoken Greek since we see a Greek woman born in Syrian Phoenicia begging Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter in Mark 7:26?

AP Response: In Greek NT manuscripts, we read that the woman is Greek. But in Aramaic Peshitta, it says the woman was heathen.

Mark 7:26 (Greek NT and NIV Translation of Greek NT) - "The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.”

But in Mark 7:26 of Aramaic NT says this - "But the woman was a heathen, from Phoenicia in Syria; and she besought him to cast out the demon from her daughter.”

Side note - Whenever a "Heathen", or "Aramean" or "Arameans" is mentioned in Aramaic Peshitta, it is replaced by "Greek" or "Greeks" in Greek NT manuscripts.

Greek Primacy Point C) Church Fathers points out that New Testament is written in Greek with exception of Matthew. What is the response of Aramaic primacists on that?

AP Response: This requires a detailed answer. Church Fathers can be totally wrong too. Greek NT Manuscripts are filled with errors and confusions that are solved by Aramaic. Here are several examples:

1) 1 Corinthians 13:3

1 Corinthians 13:3 (KJV) says: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

The ISV of 1 Corinthians 13:3 says: “Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.”

Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay- Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIVUK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).

The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.

Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.

The reading (kauchswmai, “I might boast”) is in Greek manuscripts like Ì46 Í A B 048 33 1739*.

The competing reading, (kauqhsomai, “I will burn”), is found in Greek manuscripts such as C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: (kauqhswmai) (“I might burn”) and καυθη∋ (“it might be burned”) read by 1505.

Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root yqd can mean “to burn”, but can also mean “to boast”. It is clear that the disagreement in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic original. Here is the verse from Aramaic Peshitta, translated by Aramaic scholar Paul Younan:

“And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

2) Romans 5:7-8 (Translated from Greek NT) - "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; though for the good man perhaps some one would even dare to die; but God renders his love for us conspicuous in this, that, we being yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Notice the word "righteous." This is confusing, because righteous and good are synonyms.

I believe H T Anderson's English translation of Greek NT manuscript Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD) is one of the easiest to access on Internet.

Here is Aramaic Peshitta translation of Romans 5:7-8.

Romans 5:7-8 (Etheridge Translation) - "for hardly for the wicked one dieth; for on account of the good one may perhaps dare to die. Nevertheless Aloha hath manifested his love for us, in that, when we were sinners, the Meshiha for us died."

Unlike Greek NT which says "righteous", Aramaic Peshitta says "Wicked." Why is that?

This error in Greek NT happened due to a horrible mistranslation from Aramaic Peshitta which is explained in the below 5 minute youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w

3) Simon the leper or potter/jar maker? – Matthew 26:6 / Mark 14:3

The KJV says (Matthew 26:6): “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,”

The KJV says (Mark 14:3): “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.”

The Greek reads ("Simônos tou leprou"), which literally means "Simon the Leper" or "Simon the Skin-Diseased" ("λεπρου" (leprou, or lepros in the nominative case) can stand for various skin diseases like it's Hebrew-Aramaic counterpart). This seems strange, because according to the Law laid down in Leviticus, Lepers are not allowed within the city:

Leviticus 13:45-46 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.

Garibo' can easily be confused with Garobo' since Aramaic at that time was written without vowel markers.

Gariba' means POTTER or JAR MERCHANT where, Garoba' means LEPER or SKIN DISEASE

But both are spelled with the same consonants: Gomal - Reesh - Beyth – Alap

In addition, why was there no record of Jesus healing Simon? If he were a leper, it would be very dangerous for His disciples and other people in the house. Leprosy is a very contagious disease and not worth the risk of catching. Here the Aramaic sheds some light on a story whose host was a non sequitur of the circumstances.

Since Aramaic was written without vowels in first century AD, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words. Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.

Side note - While Aramaic words are identifical, they are not in Hebrew. The Hebrew for a potter is יוצר (yotser) while leper is צרוע (tsaru'a). There goes the idea that Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

4) Bed or Coffin (Revelation 2:22)

The KJV says: “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.”

We also read "Bed" in all of Greek NT manuscripts. One of the earliest Greek NT manuscripts in existence is Codex Sinaiticus. Even Codex Sinaiticus has Bed.

Revelation 2:22 (Translated from Greek NT) - "Behold, I cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with her into great affliction, unless they repent of her works."

Let's take a look at the context of this verse:

Revelation 2: 18-23 (Translated from Greek NT) - "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These things says the Son of God, who has his eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet like burnished brass: I know thy works and thy love and thy faith and thy service and thy patience, and thy works the last more than the first. But I have against thee that thou sufferest thy wife Jezebel, who says that she is a prophetess, and teaches and leads my servants astray to commit lewdness and to eat idol-sacrifices. And I gave her time to repent, and she will not repent of her lewdness. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with her into great affliction, unless they repent of her works. And her children will I kill with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searches the reins and the hearts; and I will give to you, to each one, according to your works."

In Aramaic Revelation, the word for "bed" is 'arso, which can mean bed, but can also mean "rubbish heap," or "coffin."

This would also complete the parallel between the two halves of verse 22 (Jezebel in a coffin (dead), her consorts under tribulation), and in verse 23 (her children dead). With this in mind, the verse would read:

"Behold, I cast her into a coffin, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works."

And the latter reading just makes more sense. Why would God throw her into a nice comfy bed (where she can continue to pervert others) when He can throw her into the coffin?

5) Eunuch or believer? – Matthew 19:12 / Acts 8:27

The KJV says (Matthew 19:12): “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

The KJV says (Acts 8:27): “And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,”

The word in the Aramaic Peshitta mhymna , translated as “eunuch” by Greek translators, also means “believer”, as well as other similar words.

The word in question is ευνουχος (eunoukkos) which is where our word "eunuch" comes from. The fact of the matter is that ευνουχος (eunoukkos) shouldn't be here at all. Also note that the Ethiopian eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship. This makes things even stranger when we take a quick look at Deuteronomy 23:1

Deuteronomy 23:1 [KJV] He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Deuteronomy 23:1 [NIV] No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

How could this be then? What is a eunuch doing in Jerusalem? He can't worship in the temple, because such behavior was forbidden.

Perhaps our Messiah meant it this way: "For there are believers who from the womb of their mother were born that way, and there are believers who, from men, became faithful and there are believers, they whom crossed over their souls believing for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven..." -- Matthew 19:12

Taking into account the word's large range of definition, and the fact that eunuchs are forbidden from worshipping in the temple, this passage should most likely be rendered:

Acts 8:27 – "So he [Philip] started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian believer, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship…"

6) Hate or Put aside? Luke 14:26

This is an awesome example, as it solves one of the biggest problems/contradictions of the Greek New Testament. The command to hate others and ourselves!

The KJV says: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

Greek NT manuscripts say the same. Here is the verse from the translation of Fourth century Greek manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus."

Luke 14:26 (H T Anderson Translation of Codex Sinaiticus)- "If any one comes to me and hates not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

The argument goes, "How could one follow someone who claims that you need to hate your family and OUR SELF and only love him? Didn't he say to love your neighbor?"

The answer lies in the Aramaic word sone'.

Aramaic word sone' can mean to put aside or to hate. It depends on the context.

This also makes sense of 1 John 4:20

“If a man says, I love God, and yet hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?”

So with this in mind, the more correct translation of Luke 14:26:

"If any man comes to me, and doesn't put aside his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

This contradiction in Greek can also be seen in Romans 9:13.

7) Romans 9:13

KJV - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

NIV: “Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."”

This error is in all Greek NT manuscripts. But let me use an ancient Greek papyrus.

In Greek Papyrus "P46"(dates around 175 AD - 200 AD), we see this error in Romans 9:13 -"As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

As I pointed out, the answer lies in the Aramaic word "sone". It can mean “to put aside” or “to hate.” It depends on the context.

Romans 9:13 (English translation of Peshitta): “As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I set aside.”

As this error is caused by a mistranslated word, it is an example of a semi-split word.

There are several errors and confusions like these in Greek NT manuscripts. So it is necessary to look into the subject rather than follow the quotes of so called Church Fathers who claim New Testament is written in Greek.

Another thing that must be noted is Words in Aramaic were also borrowed into Greek and became Greek words. For Example, Barbaros in Greek (Barbarian in English). Today, Barbaros is believed to be a Greek word. But Barbaros actually comes from Aramaic word "Barbaraya" which means "outer son" or "distant son." In Aramaic, Bar means son and Baraya can refer to distant or outer. Strabo (64 BC- 23AD) points out that Arameans are called Syrians by Greeks and popularly known throughout the world as Syrians. Just like that, Shaul was popularly known as Paul. Another example is "Asartha." Aramaic word "Asartha" was popularly known as Pentecost among Roman Empire and people who are not familiar with Judaism and celebrations in Judaism. More informations are available in Strong Arguments for Aramaic Primacy page.