Talk:Aramaic original New Testament theory

message: Unfortunately I just removed some material that originally came from Christopher Lancaster's book on the Peshitta.  We can put it back in only if we have his permission, due to copyright. Jdavidb 14:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it might have been Chris Lancaster who put that it there!  I had edited it a bit to make it more NPOV, but it still wasn't perfect, and perhaps should have been put under Rabbulas with a link from Aramaic Primacy. User:Carltonh
That's great, and I was hoping you'd say that.  If Lancaster himself put it there, then by all means, have him declare so on this talk page and expressly grant permission for his material to be redistributed under the GNU FDL. Jdavidb 17:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: We have three Semitic utterances of Jesus. Indeed there are Aramaic words in them, but that is not enough to conclude for Aramaic as the language of Jesus. Why? Because the used forms of the verbs speek for normal Hebrew. 
The form 'koum' (in Talitha koum) is equal in Hebrew and in Aramaic and is not decisive.
:Agreed. But then again, it could also be Arabic. :-) However, talitha the word that precedes it, is the Aramaic form for "little girl" or "maiden." --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is shvaqtani/shbaqthani which is directly transliterated from Aramaic, not Hebrew. The shin became a sigma (as Greek does not have an "sh" sound), the beth became a beta. The qof became a kappa. The tau became a theta, the noon a nu, and the final yodh an iota. Vowels are liquid in Greek transliteration, especially between manuscript types. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The word could also be ethfathakh which is Aramaic. Alap, ayin, khet, and he were all pronounced similarly (like he) in Galilean Aramaic (or so claims the Mishnah). I can see that one could argue that it's too close to call between them, but not that it's exclusively Hebrew. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a mighty large claim to make without the qualification of evidence to support it. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Describing that group as Hebrew-speaking is up to much debate. To make a truth claim either way concerning it would ignore all of the research that has been done on the subject. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there's very little evidence (given where he came from (Galilee), and the semitic-speaking cities he visited) that he knew much Greek at all. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Taking a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can see that Hebrew was no longer the vernacular language. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll is riddled with Aramaic words, spellings, and grammar, as if the scribes spoke in Aramaic and knew Hebrew as an academic language. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This assumes too much to be a strong argument (ex: That Hebrew was a spoken language, that Jesus learned Hebrew at home, that he used it selectively, that other people at the time learned Hebrew at home, that talitha koum is exclusively Hebrew, etc.). --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest that you read up on the Aramaic phenomena of Jesus' discourse as well as the narrative elements in the Gospels. There was at least one Aramaic source employed in writing each of the Gospels as well as Paul's letters, regardless of what language they ended up in :-) --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has the "original words of Jesus." We don't know of any scribe that sat down and wrote out what he talked about verbatim, nor do we have any works from his own pen. To say that any one group has the "authentic words of Jesus" is misguided, in my humble opinion. It would be like us saying that we have the original words of Socrates. --Steve Caruso 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three semitic utterances of Jesus are not Aramaic 

message: Bob_A, what do you feel needs to be revised? --Steve Caruso 13:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the counter arguments section is underdeveloped, and its arguments are rather weak. Bob A 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert Needed? 

message: About Stephen Silver, he owns and operates;   http://www.dukhrana.com/    a Syriac/English website that's devoted to the Khabouris Codex.  By User Albion_ G (Albion Guppy) 22:44 18 July 2007. 
Is the Stephen Silver mentioned here the Stephen Silver the name links to? This seems to be a disconnect to me. --Steve Caruso 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I will remove it, and then if someone wants to prove there is a Stephen Silver significantly involved in Aramaic Primacy, somehow independently of other well-known writers who know of each other, then it could be added back. Carltonh 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Silver 

message: Since it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to mess with references to oneself, I bring up the following request here on the talk page. AramaicNT.org is listed as a "collection of amateur articles on Aramaic priimacy." I do translate Aramaic professionally, it is my vocation, so to say "amateur" is misleading. However, I fully accept that my hypotheses are not mainstream. Also, "primacy" is misspelled, but I think that I'll go ahead and fix that as I doubt that it would draw criticism. :-) --אמר Steve Caruso 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an academic field, a professional Aramaicist has qualifications in the field: money certainly is not the issue. I really do wonder how these blog and tatoo websites actually measure up to Wikipedia:External links. — Gareth Hughes 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware with how the academic field works, my problem was with the term "amateur" as it bears multiple connotations in this context. Also AramaicNT.org is not a blog. Wordpress just happens to be the Content Management System it runs on. Most of the articles posted there (which are now being reformatted and reposted one at a time as it has only recently been switched over to Wordpress) have been reviewed by other scholars, or are from authors who are published. Google ranks it 5th out of 50,700 sites. My personal website, The Aramaic Blog is a blog, albeit a research blog where Aramaic Designs is strictly a commercial site, so I believe that neither AramaicNT or Aramaic Designs would be appropriate here. אמר Steve Caruso 02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AramaicNT.org 

message: It's odd that the article doesn't even mention the hypothesis which has had some degree of "mainstream" academic respectability (at least in past decades) -- namely, the idea that while none of the canonical gospels were originally written in Aramaic, there did exist a very early written Aramaic "sayings document" (or largely unordered list of Jesus quotes) which had a certain direct or indirect influence on at least some of the canonical gospels... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this comment is a bit late and after the fact, but yes I agree totally. This article needs a complete overhaul to express the growing body of consensus among academics and a change of title to "Aramaic Source Criticism" as a whole. אמר Steve Caruso 15:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely: the Criticism section isn't very critical at all, and the same arguments present in the Criticism section of Greek Primacy are used here to refute all criticisms, and stand unrefuted in that page.  Reading these sections, one comes away with the feeling that Aramaic Primacy should be the majority opinion! --Wtrmute (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing position

message: "The fact that the Gospel of Mark in the Greek also has Jesus quoting Psalms 22:1 in Aramaic as shown above, is confirmation that an Aramaic rendering of the Old Testament already had established itself in popular oral tradition as documented by Zeev ben-Hayyim and others. Accordingly, other instances of Greek New Testament manuscripts not following the Hebrew text when they quote the Old Testament, indicate that further evidence exists to support Aramaic primacy in the spoken Word, if not the written. For example, not only do they not follow the Hebrew in all such instances, but they supply Greek readings that faithfully represent the Aramaic text even to the extent of contradicting the Hebrew. While such evidence is nonetheless inconclusive for any Gospel to have been written first in Aramaic, it is as impossible for oral accounts in Aramaic of Gospel events not to have been known to Gospel authors so as not to have influenced Greek readings, as it is impossible for oral accounts of official acts of war or terror to be unknown to its target audience, let alone non-existent in their native tongue, before they document it in a foreign one, as exemplified by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews."
(Moved from main page. Needs integration into the other sections of the article rather than a section of itself and removal of OR synthesis.) אמר Steve Caruso 14:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic oral primacy 

message: Please, someone, help me find an Aramaic or Syriac dictionary that translates "reshyana" (רשינא ܪܫܝܢܐ) as "righteous"!
I doubt it exists :) and therefore this claim should be removed.
Chdn777 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True... Another issue is that Hebrew Aramaic was never written in Syriac script. I will remove the whole section for now.--Rafy talk 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "righteous" (רשינא ܪܫܝܢܐ) 

message: Aramaic Primacy of the Gospel of Matthew
According to some accounts of Jesus in the Talmud one account of the life and teachings of Jesus dating from this time was written by a person named Matityahu.Bernhard Pick, date? reprint 2006 The Talmud: What It Is and What It Knows of Jesus and His Followers, Kessinger Publishing, pp 122, 125-129 The book of Acts records a certain Matthias (Greek form of Matityahu) was chosen specifically for this task, while according to the Church Fathers, the author was instead the Apostle Matthew, but his account was written in Hebrew Eusebius Church History 3 . 39 . 14. Origen wrote, "The very first account to be written was by Matthew, once a tax collector, but later an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Matthew published it for the converts from Judaism and composed it in Hebrew letters." Eusebius Church History, 6 . 25 . 4  Eusebius adds insight by explaining that the Apostles "were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.  Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the gospel to writing in his native language.  Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."  Eusebius Church History, 3 . 24 . 6 Irenaeus gives us further insight into both the date and circumstances of this gospel by explaining, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3 .  i .  1 Jerome wrote that Matthew, the tax collector and later an Apostle, composed his gospel near Jerusalem for Hebrew Christians. It was then translated into Greek but the Greek copy was lost. The Hebrew original was preserved at the Library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. The Nazarenes transcribed a copy for Jerome which he used in his work.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3
 Jerome adds that Matthew's gospel was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews or sometimes the Gospel of the Apostles,  and was used by the Nazarene communities.Jerome, Against Pelagius 3 . 2
 Jerome and Epiphanius both wrote how the Nazarene sect existed in their day,Lives of Illustrius Men Ch.3Panarion 29.7.7 however, little is known concerning the disposition of the Gospel of the Nazarenes.The Anchor Bible Dictionary , Vol. 4. New York, NY : Doubleday , 1992.  PP 1049-1052
:See also Jewish-Christian Gospels
END OF PASTE
In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Section moved from [[Nazarene (sect)]]

message: I've moved the Nestorian church Patriarch's statement above into the article and made the Nestorian church the first section. I've also tagged the followings sections with OR. Most of that content basically needs deleting. But a couple of months should be given - even though the article has a sources needed banner from 2008.  In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nestorian church text block, as above moved into article

message: In early Semitic languages, א is a glottal stop sound, while ע is a voiced pharyngeal, and these are two completely distinct and separate consonants.  It's true that there came to be dialects of Aramaic which merged ע with א, but it's very dubious whether such dialects would have been widespread or prestigious in New Testament times... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: punning between the words אבא, אברהם, עבד

message: Well, finally did it, and moved from the self-referring Wikipedia neologism to a title which can be found in WP:RS. Following the discussion on the Talk page I hope it will be an uncontroversial move. If not we can revert and have an RM. The move gives opportunity to have a lede about something that actually exists - the Aramaic New Testament, while marshalling the various hypotheses underneath. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greek primacy article should be similarly renamed as well.--Rafy talk 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from "Aramaic primacy" to Aramaic New Testament

message: The following quote seems to have been added by a Greek Primacist and I don't believe is either NPOV or factual: The work in Greek is Kosmou, it does not mean "land or Earth", it means "world", what's going on here? As for "unlikely meaning", says who?  The Greek Primacist in the source text? Even if it said "land", why would it only mean "Land of Israel" as in the borders of the Hasmonean kingdom as opposed to the surrounding regions as well? Why not address on WHY it is unlikely. This should be edited or deleted.
"However the same is true for Greek ge which can mean land or earth depending on context. Also since "all the kingdoms of the land of Israel" is seen as an unlikely meaning most commentators on Matthew have seen "all the kingdoms of the land of earth" as being either hyperbole or a vision.[15]"
Can anyone justify this being in the article? Very shady sounding. - B  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what exactly is a "Greek primacist"? You mean someone who accepts mainstream academic sources? And what specifically is "shady" about the above? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "All the kingdoms of the earth"

message: Removed a large chunk of IP edits. Probably need to go through the article further back and take out similar. This article needs to reflect academic mainstream and keep the Aramaic original theories to a small chunk at the bottom, along with why scholars dismiss such views as fringe. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Aramaic original POV

message: The article says:
:Perhaps the most well known example that advocates of an Aramaic urtext for the Gospels cite is the parable of the "camel (καμηλος) through the eye of a needle." (Mark 10:25, Matthew 19:24, Luke 18:25) In Aramaic, the word for "camel" (גמלא) is spelled identically to the word for "rope" (גמלא), suggesting that the correct phrase was "rope through the eye of a needle," 
What Aramaic dictionary has this definition of the word גמלא? It's not in Jastrow's dictionary (which is of Jewish Aramaic which Jesus would have used), nor is it in Payne Smith's dictionary of Syriac. Not only that, but in the Eye of a needle article
:Cyril of Alexandria claimed that "camel" is a Greek misprint; that kamêlos (camel) was a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable". However evidence for such a Greek term is weak, there is little or no Greek manuscript support, and it goes against the standard principle of textual criticism that errors tend to happen towards the easier reading, not against it.
So it looks like this whole thing about a camel being a rope argument, was referring to Greek words in the first place, and had nothing to do with Aramaic?Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Camel through eye of needle?

message: The word "epiousios", usually rendered as "daily" in the Lord's Prayer, has been described as a hapax legomenon in Greek.  Can people here reference any discussion of what the Aramaic or Syriac versions of the prayer use in this position?  Can epiousios potentially be recognized as having an Aramaic origin? Wnt (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epiousios 

message: Removed, yet again, large chunk of "Aramaic original" original research arguing against the unanimity of scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Same old

message: The article in its current form doesn't seem to deal with the fact that the language of Jesus and his earliest followers -- 1st century Judean and/or Galilean Aramaic -- belonged to the subgrouping of Aramaic languages now called "Western Aramaic" by linguists, while the Aramaic New Testament under discussion in this article was written in Syriac, which is one of the Eastern Aramaic languages.  Some "Aramaic primacy" advocates seem to blur such distinctions... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic linguistic issue

message: There needs to be a section of modern versions/translations (although how we get reliable academic sources on Internet versions is a problem). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Aramaic NT versions

message: There is one question I want to know about the various proposed Hebrew of Aramaic versions of Matthew (or other Gospels) when Jesus calls the Queen of Sheba the "Queen of the South" which of the up to 5 different Hebrew words of South is used? This issue has the potential play into debate about Sheba. The standard Yemen view has it likely Jesus said Yamin or Teman or possibly Yam. But those who try to make her an Egyptian Pharaoh would want to see Negev here to support their tying this quote of Jesus into Daniel 11. Meanwhile references to the South Wind like Luke 12:55 and 13:29 would probably use Darom.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Queen of The South 

message: it feels the article is pure OR. All the authorities quoted seem not to hold those theories; in fact, they seem not to even talk about it. Veverve (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I get, the only notable person to hold the view the NT was originally written in Aramaic are George Lamsa, and allegedly Shimun XXI Eshai (the source does not look realiable, and I have not found this quote elsewhere). The rest of the article is pure fluff, rambling, and OR to make it look credible. I think the article should be deleted, if only for WP:TNT. Veverve (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Well, yes and no. The debate can be broken down in three points:
* Those who think that the Peshitta is the original New Testament text. It's a fringe theory, whose main supporter was George Lamsa;
* Those who think that the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were originally composed in Aramaic, but reject the identification with the Peshitta. It's a minority opinion, supported by some respectable scholars (like the late Jean Carmignac of the École Biblique and the scholars of the Exegetic School of Madrid);
* Those who think that the New Testament was composed in koine Greek, but used Aramaic sources. That's a position that has received the support of many respectable scholars, like Martin Hengel, Maurice Casey and John P. Meier.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks a lot for the clarification. So, the article is only about the fringe theory of Lamsa and the authors of the two theories after (Jean Carmignac, Martin Hengel, Maurice Casey) are used as fluff. Therefore, I maintain the article should be deleted. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   not deleted, but re-written. The "Peshitta primacy" of Lamsa should be strongly reduced and more space should be given to the other theories.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you are going to change the subject, almost entire content and title of an article, I think you might as well TNT it. Veverve (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  so, what are you planning to do with this article? Veverve (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think WP should have an article on this theory, but unfortunately the article as it stands does not describe the theory and who supports it, but rather, attempts to promote, or at least evaluate the theory. The article should not be providing evidence for the theory, but rather describe the theory and the reactions to it, and its place in scholarship. Ashmoo (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Interesting. I do not know of any sources. I am just an interested amateur. Is the theory has no support in academic it should be reported as such (provided we can find a source that states this). Ashmoo (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article not pure OR? 

message: The lead should be completely rewritten...  —PaleoNeonate – 04:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: could you give more details on how you would change it? As a sidenote, the whole article needs to be completely rewritten. Veverve (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  Problems I can see: it's not a summary of the article's body, it includes strange claims like about political correctness, meaningless mention of "popular view" (is this the scholarly consensus, a popular view about the particular translation, etc).  It extensively uses quotes, it contains a bullet list...  —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have cleaned up the lede :). Veverve (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a small start.  —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Consider article from The Assemblies of Yahweh, published in the late 1970s, now available online as a pdf at  https://assembliesofyahweh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/D-2-Exploding-the-Inspired-Greek-New-Testament-Myth.pdf
Article argues convincingly that Yahshua's disciples spoke and wrote in Aramaic, not Greek, so Greek copies came much later, but no original manuscripts or earliest copies (in any language) are extant; only copies of copies. 2600:6C5E:5500:730:5C60:76EC:69E7:526F (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic Likely Original Language of New Testament, Not Greek 

message: It seems to. If that is the message then perhaps it should be stated explicitly and no left for the reader to assume. 2600:8801:BE01:2500:F45B:FCC9:DC39:5DCF (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the article insinuate that Paul wrote his epistles in Greek?