Aramaic original New Testament theory

Tatian died in A.D. 175. Reasoning and textual evidence suggest that Tatian started with the 4 Gospels in the Aramaic Peshitta, and interwove Gospel passages into one consolidated harmonized narrative to get his Diatesseron, in the process quoting three-fourths of the 4 Gospels. We presently lack Tatian's Diatessaron in its original Aramaic, but do have it in translation in Arabic, a language related to Aramaic. A large number of parallels exist between the Peshitta's 4 Gospels and what is in the 'Arabic Diatessaron.' Paul Younan says, "It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic Gospels. .... Since the Arabic translation by Ibn al-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta..., and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn – I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta. Occam's Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best. The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. ....if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation... the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian. And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D."

The Arabic Diatessaron has been translated into English, Latin, French, and German.[21]

Advocates of the Aramaic being written first, and then translated into Greek, have pointed out the geographical details present in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.; those advocates ask what's the best explanation for the presence of those geographical details in the Peshitta, but lacking in Greek mss.

Johann David Michaelis states:[22]

In the Curæ, in Act. Apost. § vi. p. 73, 74. I have taken notice of certain traces in the Syriac version, which lead to the supposition of its having been made by a native Jew.  To the reasons alleged in that treatise, which I submit to the determination of my readers, I will add, that the Syriac translator appears to have been so well acquainted with Palestine, that he must at least have visited that country, for he has frequently restored geographical names in the Greek Testament to their true Oriental orthography. Capernaum is written in the Syriac Testament ... , that is, the village of Nahum; Bethania, is written ... ; Bethphage is written ... , which perfectly corresponds to its situation, for ... , in Arabic, signifies 'a valley between two opposite mountains,' an etymology which alone removes a contradiction which was supposed to exist between the New Testament and the Talmud ; and Bethesda, John v. 2. is written ... , which is probably conformable to the derivation, whether we translate it 'place of favour,' or 'place of the conflux of waters.'  The Syriac version therefore is the surest, and indeed the only guide, in discovering the etymology of geographical names, for the Arabic versions are too modern, and in other translations it was impossible to preserve the orthography of the East.

William Norton states:[4]

— In the names of places, the Peshito shows the same independence of the Greek. ....in Acts xxi. 7, the Gk. has, Ptolemais; the Syriac has, Acu.

Mr. Jer. Jones, in his work on the Canon, 1798, contends that the use of the name Acu, for Ptolemais, is a decisive proof that the Peshito must have been made not far in time from A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. (vol. i. p. 103.) He says that the most ancient name of this place among the Israelites was Aco, or Acco, Judges i. 31; that this name was afterwards changed to Ptolemais; that some say it had its new name from Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 250 B.C. He says it is certain that the old name Aco, was antiquated and out of use in the time of the Romans, and that the use of the old name Acu, in the Peshito, can be accounted for in no other way, but by supposing that the persons for whom the version was made were more acquainted with it, than with the new name Ptolemais; that upon any other supposition it would have been absurd for him to have used Acu. He says, that until the destruction of Jerusalem, one may suppose that the Jews may have retained the old name Aco still, out of fondness for its antiquity; but, he says,

"how they, or any other part of Syria, could, after the Roman conquest, call it by a name different from the Romans, seems to me impossible to conceive. . . To suppose, therefore, that this translation, in which we meet with this old name, instead of the new one, was made at any great distance of time after the destruction of Jerusalem, is to suppose the translator to have substituted an antiquated name known to but few, for a name well known to all" (pp. 104, 105.)

Mr. Jones says that a similar proof that the Peshito cannot have been made much after A.D. 70, is found in the fact that the Peshito often calls the Gentiles, as the Jews were accustomed to do, profane persons, where the Greek calls them the nations, that is, the Gentiles. The Peshito calls them profane, in Matt. vi. 7; x. 5; xviii. 17; Mark vii. 26; John vii. 35; Acts xviii. 4, 17; 1 Cor. v. 1; x. 20, 27; xii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 3. The expression is used, therefore, throughout the Peshito. Mr. Jones says, that it shows that the writer was a Jew, for no other person would have called all the world profane; and that after the destruction of the temple, all Hebrew Christians must have seen that other nations were not to be reckoned unclean and profane in the Jewish sense, and that therefore this version must have been made either before, or soon after, A.D. 70. (On Canon, Vol. i., pp. 106–110.)

Torrey opines that Revelation was originally in Aramaic, and points to grammatical monstrosities therein as evidence that it was not originally written in Greek:

For the Apocalyptist the language of the New Dispensation of the Christian Church was Aramaic only. It is most significant that the numerous hymns and doxologies sung or recited by the saints and angels in heaven, in chapter after chapter of the book, are composed in Aramaic (wherever it is possible to decide), not in Hebrew; though the writer could have used either language. ....

There is excellent reason, however, for one conclusion he [R.H. Charles] reaches—expressed in similar words by many before him—namely, that "the linguistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique." The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature. It is only in the Greek that they are apparent, for it is the form, not the sense, that is affected. A few of the more striking solecisms are exhibited here in English translation, so that any reader may see their nature.

1:4. “Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come” (all nom. case). 1:15. “His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gend., dative case) as in a furnace purified (fem. gend., sing. no., gen. case)” 11:3. “My witnesses (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth.” 14:14. “I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a son-of-man (accus.), having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown.” 14:19. “He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem.), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God.” 17:4. “A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things (accus.).” 19:20. “The lake of blazing fire (“fire,” neut.; “blazing,” fem.). 20:2. “And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.), who is the Devil and Satan and bound him.” 21:9. “Seven angels, holding the seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues.” 22:5. “They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.).”

This apparent linguistic anarchy has no explanation on the Greek side. It is hardly surprising that to some readers it should have seemed open defiance of grammar, to others a symptom of mental aberration. Nevertheless there is method to it all. The more grotesque these barbarisms, the more certain it is that they are not due to lack of acquaintance with Greek.[23]

An argument that at least one of the Greek books of the New Testament have been translated out of the Aramaic comes from a textual analysis of those attributed to the Apostle John. Their variation in writing style is so considerable, that it would preclude them having been written in Greek by the same author. St Dionysius of Alexandria lent support to this argument, when pointing out how John's style of writing differs so markedly between his Gospel and Revelation. He concluded that the sophisticated writer of the former could not have written the clumsy Greek of the latter. Thus, the only way for John to have been the author of Revelation is for it to have been penned by a translator. However, Dionysius himself left open the possibility that it was written in Greek "by a holy and inspired writer" other than John.[24]

Some have argued that the Aramaic gospels are older than the Greek gospels, and that the Aramaic NT wasn't derived from the Greek NT. William Norton commented in 1889:[25]

"Faust Nairon, a Maronite, is often referred to by J. S. Asseman as a writer of eminence. He was one of the two editors of the edition of the Peshito Syriac Version, printed by the side of an Arabic Version of the N. T., in 1703, by command of the Roman Congregation De propaganda fide, for the use of the Maronites. He also wrote the preface. In this he said, (p. 2.) 'The Syriac text excels in antiquity all other texts. By it very many places which in these are obscure, may be made plain.' He proceeds to endeavour to prove that the Syriac text is more ancient than the Greek text of the Gospels. He mentions the common opinion that the Syriac Gospels were translated from the Greek, and says that there are better reasons for concluding that the Greek Gospels were translated from the Syriac. [....] F. Nairon says in proof that THE PESHITO, AS A WHOLE, IS NOT A MERE TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK COPIES, that the number of books in it is different from that of the Greek text, which has 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. That the order of books is also different from their order in most Greek copies; for James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, follow the Acts; and that the Greek text has passages which the Peshito has not."

Norton later adds (on p. xlvii):

Persons familiar with the Peshito admit the truth of Faust Nairon's remark, that the Peshito does really sometimes "make clear, things difficult or doubtful in the Greek." (Introduction, p. 9.)

Bishop Walton quotes with approval the remark of De Dieu, that "the true meaning of phrases which often occur in the N. T., can scarcely be sought from any other source than the Syriac." (Polyg. Prol. xiii. 19.)

J. D. Michaelis says, "the Syriac Version leads us sometimes to just and beautiful explanations, where other help is insufficient." (Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 44.)'

Norton mentions (on lix–lx) additional scholars who had high regard for the Aramaic, and gives a fuller exposition of Michaelis:

Jacob Martini was Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg, and wrote a preface to the N. T. Peshito-Syriac, in which he said, "It is a version, but of all, it is the first and most ancient. . . It is a version, but made either by one of the Evangelists, or at least, of those who . . . had the Apostles themselves present, whom they could consult and hear, respecting many of the more obscure places. To this only, therefore, when some obscurity or difficulty occurs in Greek copies, can we safely go. This only, when doubt arises respecting the meaning or translation of any passage, can be consulted with safety and freedom from error. By this only, the Greek Text is truly illustrated, and rightly understood." (See Gutbier's Preface to his Syriac N. T., 1663, p. 26.) J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the N. T., 1787, chap, vii., sec. 4., says, "The Syriac Testament has been my constant study." In sec. 8., he says, "The Peshito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraem and Bar Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure. . . . It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original." "What is not to be regarded as a blemish, it differs frequently from the modern modes of explanation; but I know of no version that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray a weakness and ignorance in the translator; and though in many other translations the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must be ever read with profound veneration." "The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine is so great, as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke." "The Syriac New Testament is written in the same language [as that of Christ], but in a different dialect, ... in the purest Mesopotamian.".... Professor Wichelhaus, 1850, dwells much on the worth of the Peshito. He calls it, "The most ancient witness, a version most accurate, untouched and untarnisned, ever transcribed and preserved by the Syrians with the greatest care." (p. 236.) He did not see why, with some few exceptions, it should not be "most like to the autographs of the Apostles." (p. 264.)

Papias provides a very early source for the idea that the canonical Gospels were either based on some non-Greek written sources, or (in the case of Matthew) possibly "composed" in a non-Greek language. The relevant fragments of Papias' lost work An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Logiōn kuriakōn exēgēsis, c. 110–140) are preserved in quotations by Eusebius. In one fragment, Papias cites an older source who says, "When Mark was the interpreter [hermēneutēs, possibly "translator"] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds." Papias' surviving comment about Matthew is more tantalizing, but equally cryptic: "And so Matthew composed [or collected] the sayings [or record] in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [hērmēneusen, possibly "translated"] them to the best of his ability."[26] A similar claim comes out more clearly in a text by Irenaeus, but this testimony is later than (and may be based on) Papias.

Even if they do imply non-Greek originals, these accounts have been doubted, in part with an argument that the literary quality of the Greek of these books indicates that the Greek would be the original. (However, even if a text has high-quality Greek, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was originally composed in Greek: Josephus wrote in Aramaic, and had native Greek speakers polish his material that had been translated into Greek. Also, Torrey has observed that the Greek for the 4 gospels and the first half of Acts isn't that great. The Greek for Revelation is atrocious in its quality.) This argument extends to the other books where the Church Fathers accepted Greek as the original without debate. The Greek New Testament's general agreement with the Septuagint is also counted as evidence by majority view scholars. Aramaic primacists point to quotations from the Hebrew (Masoretic) Old Testament in the Alexandrian text type that indicate at one point a non-Greek speaking audience was addressed (See Matthew 2:15, 2:18, 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; John 19:37; Acts 13:18; Romans 9:33, 11:35; 1 Corinthians 3:19; 1 Peter 2:8).[27] Aramaic primacists question why the New Testament would quote from the Hebrew Old Testament and not from the Septuagint if it was written in Greek originally. Quotes from the Hebrew Old Testament are present in Alexandrian texts that are thought to predate Jerome's use of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Vulgate.

There are also alternative explanations for the cases where Aramaic primacists claim that the Aramaic seems to read better. One example is in the case of the "camel through the eye of a needle." In Jewish and Christian literature we see the following:

"...who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle."

—Babylonian Talmud, Baba Mezi'a, 38b

"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."

—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 55b

"13 There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders? Andrew said: Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions. He was angry and put his garment about Andrew's neck and began to beat him, saying: You are a wizard, why should I do so? 14 Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said: I see you are wiser than he. What do you say? Peter said: I tell you this: it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

—Apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew.

Aramaic primacists, most notably Lamsa, generally respond that these sources are late compared to the account in Q, as the Mishnah, the base document of the Babylonian Talmud was compiled in 200, where the Acts of Peter and Andrew is a 3rd-century work and therefore the original mistranslation of גמלא (gamlâ) predates and is potentially the source of these subsequent paraphrases. The Aramaic word for camel can also mean "rope" thus saying "it easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle".

Advocates of Aramaic primacy note that the best evidence of Aramaic being the original would be mistranslations in the Greek translation. Some grant that 'camel through the eye of a needle' is a more-striking metaphor than 'rope through the eye of a needle,' but go on to claim that accurate translations of the original Aramaic remove several mistranslations present in Greek manuscripts:

• mistranslation at Mt 1:16

Greek manuscripts of Matthew's genealogy list 14, 14, and 13 generations. In Aramaic mss. of Matthew's genealogy, with Mt 1:16's "gbra" correctly translated as father/guardian, Matthew's genealogy lists 14, 14, and 14 generations. Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph). Native Aramaic speaker Paul Younan detected this mistranslation.

• mistranslation at Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3

Greek mss. have Jesus and his disciples visiting the house of a leper. The Greek translation from Aramaic has leper at Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3, while the Aramaic allows for potter. Lepers were unclean and weren't allowed to have guests over. It's actually Simon the potter. To continue to call someone a leper even after he'd been healed of leprosy would have constituted slander.

• mistranslations at Mt 7:6

For Mt 7:6, it's actually 'hang earrings on dogs,' not 'give a holy thing to dogs.' Native Aramaic speaker Paul Younan noticed the two mistranslations in this verse.

• mistranslation at Mark 9:49

Mark 9:49 (HCSB) "For everyone will be salted with fire. [a: Other mss add and every sacrifice will be salted with salt]" The complete text was present as of A.D. 175. Arabic Diatessaron 25:23: "Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt."

The original Aramaic has the complete text; when translated well Mk 9:49 (based on Younan) reads: "For with fire everything will be *vaporized*, and with salt every sacrifice will be *seasoned*." Vaporized and seasoned, the root MLKh can mean 'to salt, season' or 'to destroy, vaporize, scatter.' The intended meaning shifted between the first and second lines—the Messiah plays on the dual meaning of MLKh. See Mk 9 PDF of Paul Younan at http://dukhrana.com

• mistranslation at Lk 14:26

The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Lk 14:26, which when translated well reads: "He who comes to me [Jesus] and does not *sena* [put aside; contextually improper here: hate, have an aversion to] his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even himself, is not able to be a talmida [student] to me."

• mistranslation at John 13:13

Jesus spoke in Aramaic what became John 13:13a. Greek mss. have Jesus say, "ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με Ὁ διδάσκαλος καί Ὁ κύριος" (W&H, NA28 variants). "φωνεῖτέ" ('to call out') was an incorrect word choice for the Greek rendition of his remark: "Ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με Ὁ διδάσκαλος καί Ὁ κύριος [you call me, Teacher and Lord] is bad Greek, just about as astonishing as if one should say in English: "you cry me teacher and lord." The right word, which John knew quite well, would have been καλεῖτε. Why did he ever write φωνεῖν?"[28]

• mistranslation for Acts 2:24

When translated well it reads: "But Allaha [God] loosed the cords of Sheol [the Grave/Death] and raised him [Yeshua/Jesus] because it was not possible that he be held in it, in Sheol." The Greek versions mistranslated the word "cords" as 'pain.' (cf. Jn 2:15 & 2 Samuel 22:6) —Paul Younan

• mistranslation for Acts 5:13

The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 5:13: "And there was a great fear in all the eidta [congregation], and in all those who heard. And many mighty deeds and signs occurred by the hands of the Shelikha [Apostles] among the people. And they were all assembled together in the Porch of Shlemon [Soloman]. 13. And of other men, not one dared to *touch* them, rather the people magnified them. The word translated by "touch" can mean "join/commune" but also "touch," the latter undoubtedly being the correct reading. The Greek versions mistranslated this word as "join".—PY

• mistranslation for Acts 8:23

The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 8:23: "But repent of this your evil and beseech Allaha [God]. Perhaps you [Simon the sorcerer] will be forgiven the guile of your heart. 23. For I [Shimon Keepa/ Simon Peter] see that you are in bitter *anger* and in the bonds of iniquity." The Aramaic word kabda can mean gall/liver/anger. The Greek versions mistranslate "bitter kabda" as "gall of bitterness" instead of the more contextually proper "bitter anger".—PY

• mistranslation for Acts 8:27

The Greek manuscripts have a mistranslation for Acts 8:27, which when translated well reads: "And he [Pileepos/ Philip] arose (and) went and met a certain *mahaymina* [believer] who had come from Cush, an official of Qandeq, the malkta [queen] of the Cushites, and he was an authority over all her treasures. And he had come to worship in Urishlim." Re: MHYMNA, it can mean either 'believer' or 'eunuch'—or many similar things. The Greek versions mistranslate this as 'eunuch' instead of the more contextually correct 'believer'.—PY. The Ethiopian believer was intending to worship in Jerusalem, presumably in the temple there—which eunuchs were prohibited from doing by Deut 23:2. Cf. Mt 19:12.

• mistranslation at Rev 1:13

The mistranslation says Jesus has female breasts: Rev 1:13, Common English Bible: "In the middle of the lampstands I saw someone who looked like the Human One. He wore a robe that stretched down to his feet, and he had a gold sash around his chest.[aj]" The Greek word used here is mastos and is used exclusively for a woman's breasts.

• mistranslation at Rev 2:22

The Greek mistranslation rendered a word as "bed," thereby having an adulterous woman being thrown into a bed. (It should have used "bier."). The KJV translators translated Rev 2:21–22: "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."

The NASB added "of sickness" in italics, thereby indicating to the reader that they had added it beyond what the Greek has: "I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds."

It would make more sense if she'd been said to have been thrown onto a mortuary couch i.e. a bier—and doing such is possible translating from the Aramaic Revelation.

• mistranslation at Rev 10:1

The mistranslation says "feet" were like 'columns/pillars of fire,' while the Aramaic better allows for the correct rendition, "legs like columns/pillars of fire."

Revelation 10:1 (KJV) And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet [Greek: podes/πόδες/feet] as pillars of fire:

• mistranslations at Mt 5:13 and Lk 14:34 (but not at Mk 9:50)

Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34 in Greek mss. have an erroneous translation of the original Aramaic th-p-k-h by rendering it as μωρανθῇ/ foolish. In contrast, Mark 9:50 in Greek mss. correctly render Jesus' remarks about salt that becomes ἄναλον/ unsalty.[29]