Featured Could the Aramaic NT be the original autographs?

Great claims sells books. No doubt it is a valuable edition of Gods Words, but it is not the original text.

 

The notion the original autographs on the New Testament were written in Aramaic undermines any real authority the Greek texts being the autographs. They would only be mere translations.

 

"Publish or perish" can have bad effects, as can the lures of fame or fortune.

 

Bauscher himself seems to make similar claims in The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English with Psalms & Proverbs (evidence indicates he wrote the "Introduction").

There is more, but that is an example of what he writes.

 

So the Lord would choose to have His words written and recorded down in a language that few outside of their region would even know, and not use the Universal language of that time to get the message of thje Good news out?

 

Wack-a-doodle claims are a dime a dozen.

 

One of some critical evidences for Aramaic Primacy is Matthew 26:6

which says Simon the Leper.
Problem is that the lepers couldn't live in the village or in town. ( Lev 13:45, Numbers 5:3)
There was no mentioning that Jesus healed the leper Simon.
The tense there was the present.
But in Aramaic it can be translated into Potter instead of Leper because
In Aramaic, Garibo means Potter, and Garobo means Leper
As they didn't use Vowel but write only Consonants, it could be read both and Greek translators
chose to use Garobo.
If we translate Simon the Potter, it is OK.
The more problem is that Eusebius testified that Apostle Thomas went to India carrying the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew.
Apostle Paul spoke with Jesus in Hebrew ( Acts 26:14)
So, there are some rooms for the study on the issue which language the NT was written in

Eliyahu

 

One of some? My Peshitta English Translation has "leper" in Matthew 26:6. What about Mark 14:3? Eusebius is early 4th century, not first century. I will nevertheless lpok further at these issues. If the Greek NT is not what was the original inerrant word of God? Big problem.

That was name by which Simon who owned that house was known. There is no evidence he still had leprosy.

 

My Peshitta Aramaic has Potter in Mt 26:6 and in Mk 14:3

Eusebius quoted Papias

Eusebius refers to Papias only in his third book, and thus seems to date him before the opening of his fourth book in 109. Papias himself knows several New Testament books, whose dates are themselves controversial, and was informed by John the Evangelist[citation needed], the daughters of Philip and many "elders" who had themselves heard the Twelve Apostles. He is also called a companion of the long-lived Polycarp (69–155).[4] For all these reasons, Papias is thought to have written around the turn of the 2nd century.


The apparent claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—which in Greek could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic[26]—is echoed by many other ancient authorities.[27] Modern scholars have proposed numerous explanations for this assertion, in light of the prevalent view that canonical Matthew was composed in Greek and not translated from Semitic.[25][28] One theory is that Matthew himself produced firstly a Semitic work and secondly a recension of that work in Greek. Another is that others translated Matthew into Greek rather freely. Another is that Papias simply means "Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ" as a Hebrew style of Greek. Another is that Papias refers to a distinct work now lost, perhaps a sayings collection like Q or the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews. Yet another is that Papias was simply mistaken.
Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, 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 Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]

He (Shaul) 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.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]

First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]

Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia


Don't panic just because you encounter what you don't know as you don't know everything in the world or at least in the ancient history.

Eliyahu

 

The Peshitta English Translation that I have did not.

 

Paul Younan's Interlinear Translation (Aramaic Peshitta) - Gospel of Matthew 1 to Acts 16 : Paul Younan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

You can check Matthew 26:6 which mentions Shimon Potter on the page 116 of 135 pages for Matthew

You can check Mark 14:3 which mentions Shimon of Potter on the page 72 of 89 pages for Mark

In fact there are many issues which cannot be resolved by Greek texts but can be understood and resolved by Aramaic Texts

Eliyahu

 

Like . . . .
Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3.
I am not convinced the Greek text is wrong.

 

You can believe the Leper could live in the village or in town even though the Law prohibited the inhabitation of the lepers in the village or in the camp ( Lev 13:45, Numbers 5:3)
Moreover, you may believe Jesus stayed in the house of the leper.
Usually, the Bible writers would mention the leper was healed by Jesus.
But it is not mentioned there. Then Jesus stayed in the house of the leper without healing him!

I will give you up to your own belief!

Eliyahu

 

There is no Biblical evidence that person known by the name Simon the leper, was then.a person who had leperesy.

 

I am going to say that no, the original NT could not have been Aramaic. Why? Because the NT in Greek quotes quite a fe3w times from Aramaic, then translates the Aramaic word or phrase. Thus, if we recognize those Aramaic quotations as Scripture (and we do, right?), then the NT was originally written in Greek.

The prime example is the statement of Jesus on the cross: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46).