• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Could the Aramaic NT be the original autographs?

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In assertions that seem to have been written by Timothy Mitchell who edited The Holy Peshitta Translated by Glenn David Bauscher, the following claims were made after an introduction to the book of Revelation and under the heading "The Nature of the Crawford Manuscript":

"I have uncovered evidence recently, which overwhelms all Greek primacy claims and proves (and I use that word as appropriately as it can be used) that the original New Testament was written In Aramaic."

"Suffice it here to say that the Peshitta NT plus Gwynn's edition of The General Epistles and Revelation are demonstrated to be the original autographs of the Apostles."

"The Aramaic text presented in The Aramaic-English Interlinear NT is what I believe is the letter perfect Divinely written original word of The Living God."

Bauscher, Glenn David. The Holy Peshitta Translated. Editor--Timothy Mitchell. Lulu Publishing, 2018.
 

Conan

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

37818

Well-Known Member
In assertions that seem to have been written by Timothy Mitchell who edited The Holy Peshitta Translated by Glenn David Bauscher, the following claims were made after an introduction to the book of Revelation and under the heading "The Nature of the Crawford Manuscript":

"I have uncovered evidence recently, which overwhelms all Greek primacy claims and proves (and I use that word as appropriately as it can be used) that the original New Testament was written In Aramaic."

"Suffice it here to say that the Peshitta NT plus Gwynn's edition of The General Epistles and Revelation are demonstrated to be the original autographs of the Apostles."

"The Aramaic text presented in The Aramaic-English Interlinear NT is what I believe is the letter perfect Divinely written original word of The Living God."

Bauscher, Glenn David. The Holy Peshitta Translated. Editor--Timothy Mitchell. Lulu Publishing, 2018.
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.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In my opinion, Timothy Mitchell would seem to be a lot like KJV-only advocates.

He may take a little information and a few facts and attempt to conclude way too much. He may be jumping to a broad-sweeping over-generalization based on this too little information and may be ignoring or dismissing other information and facts that would conflict with it.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is an example of where scholars consider the Peshitta to have been translated from a Greek NT manuscript that had a copying error at John 6:11, but Timothy Mitchell would likely ignore or dismiss it because it would conflict with his unproven assertion.

Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible and Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you."
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In assertions that seem to have been written by Timothy Mitchell who edited The Holy Peshitta Translated by Glenn David Bauscher..that the original New Testament was written In Aramaic.
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").
It makes no sense whatever to suppose the original Gospels were written in Greek. The first Christian churches were established by Jewish disciples and converts of the Messiah Yeshua in Israel, Samaria, in Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia, and later in the cities of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi, etc., all of which were inhabited by colonies of Jews who had been dispersed there centuries before by the Babylonian, Persian and Greek persecutions of each respective empire over a period of seven centuries. page 5
There is more, but that is an example of what he writes.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In my opinion, Timothy Mitchell would seem to be a lot like KJV-only advocates.

He may take a little information and a few facts and attempt to conclude way too much. He may be jumping to a broad-sweeping over-generalization based on this too little information and may be ignoring or dismissing other information and facts that would conflict with it.
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?
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.

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
 

37818

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
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
 

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I am a little puzzled about the comments on the Peshitta, which is in Classical Syriac, a language not indigenous to Palestine, where other variants of Aramaic were in common use at the time of the writing of the New Testament. (In fact, classical Syriac did not yet exist, Old Syriac being the dialect that became Classical Syriac.) It seems therefore that the Peshitta must be a translation, either of Greek or Aramaic originals or exemplars.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
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
 

37818

Well-Known Member
<snip>
In fact there are many issues which cannot be resolved by Greek texts but can be understood and resolved by Aramaic Texts
Like . . . .
Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3.
I am not convinced the Greek text is wrong.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
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
 
Last edited:

37818

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In assertions that seem to have been written by Timothy Mitchell who edited The Holy Peshitta Translated by Glenn David Bauscher, the following claims were made after an introduction to the book of Revelation and under the heading "The Nature of the Crawford Manuscript":

"I have uncovered evidence recently, which overwhelms all Greek primacy claims and proves (and I use that word as appropriately as it can be used) that the original New Testament was written In Aramaic."

"Suffice it here to say that the Peshitta NT plus Gwynn's edition of The General Epistles and Revelation are demonstrated to be the original autographs of the Apostles."

"The Aramaic text presented in The Aramaic-English Interlinear NT is what I believe is the letter perfect Divinely written original word of The Living God."

Bauscher, Glenn David. The Holy Peshitta Translated. Editor--Timothy Mitchell. Lulu Publishing, 2018.
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).
 
Top