The Issue of Semitic Primacy for the New Testament

One of the issues to emerge out of the Hebrew Roots movement is attempting to argue the entire New Testament was written in either Hebrew and/or Aramaic rather then Greek.

As an opponent of how much Platonic and Aristolen Philosophy seeped into the Church via the Greco-Roman perspective of the "Early Church Fathers" I sympathize.  But I can't ultimately support this agenda, for the most part.

Yes all but one of the New Testament's Human Authors were Jewish.  But Acts 2 shows that Jews living outside Judea did not speak Hebrew all that well anymore, it would have been entirely Jews in the audience, people attending the Feast of Shavuot., but the reason the Gift of Tongs was needed was because their native languages were now those of the Gentile regions they lived in.  Following the conquests of Alexander, Greek was the International Language of the Eastern Mediterranean.  So even in places where both Greek and Aramaic were spoken, native Semites who knew Greek outnumbered Greeks who knew any Semitic language.

Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, multiple Early Church sources affirm that.  But they affirm that as something that makes it distinct from the others, at least the other Gospels.

I personally think Hebrew Matthew was possibly Q, a common source for both Greek Matthew and Luke.  Some Early Church comments about Hebrew Matthew imply it was only a collection of Sayings of Jesus making it fit the Q mold even better.

Luke was a Macedonian, writing his Gospel and Acts to a Theophilus, possibly partly as back ground information for Paul's trial before Nero (Nero was a total Hellenophile and so would have had no trouble reading/understanding Greek).  Luke and Acts were certainly written in Greek.

All of Paul's Epistles but maybe Hebrews would have to have been written in Greek (here is an article on why Romans wasn't in Latin).  Likewise with Revelation which was written to Seven Churches in the same region as three of Paul's letters, and 1st Peter was written to that region as well.  Paul wrote to three cities in Greece, to three men with Greco-Roman names, and to staunchly Greek parts of Asia Minor.  Acts itself reminds us how Greek the city of Ephesus was being devoted to Artemis.  Pergamon was the capital of a Hellenic Kingdom, and Laodicea was founded by a Seleucid ruler.

I'm very open to possible Aramaic Primacy for Mark.  As well as Hebrew or Aramaic Primacy for Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter.  For Hebrews I'd consider Hebrew more likely and for 2 Peter Aramaic more likely.  Jude and James would be 50/50.  The Gospel and Epistles of John I still think are Greek, I'll return to that later.

For any books that I'm open to Aramaic Primacy, I strongly favor the Peshita (http://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/) over Old Syriac manuscripts like the the Four Gospels found on Sinai, an origin that parallels one of the Alexandrian Greek Texts.  Basically the Peshita should be viewed as the Textus Receptus of the Aramaic tradition.  The Peshita of Mark contains none of the common Alexandrian deviations for Mark, and yes that means it has all of Mark 16, however the Peshita versions of some other books do echo Alexandrian corruptions.

My reason for being interested in an Aramaic origin for Mark is that Mark is said by Papias to have been written based on what Peter preached.  Later traditions corrupted that to be in Rome but Papias originally didn't mention Rome. Peter was in fact in Mesopotamia, where Aramaic had been the main language since Neo-Assyrian times, and indeed Aramaic is the Language of the Peshita because it's The Bible of the Assyrian Church.  The first interesting implication I've noticed for the Peshita possibly being closer to the original for Mark is Simon The Leper being instead called Simon the Jar Maker.

The Gospel according to John and the Three Epistles that likely have the same author I also feel were likely to have been in Greek. Things like their stopping to explain certain Semitic key words to the reader.  Cepha/Kefa was a word both Hebrew and Aramaic had, it wasn't necessary to explain, same with Messiah since Christ is Meshika in the Peshita, and Rabbi is basically Aramaic in origin.  Now you might think that argument is hypocritical because of Revelation 9:11 identifying both a Hebrew and Greek name, but in that verse neither Name is used outside of being tied to it's language.  John says a Semitic word and then explains it in Greek.  The Peshita of John simply doesn't have the explanation in these verses which allows one to argue the translator added them, but our Greek of Matthew and Mark doesn't do that for "Messiah" or Peter's new name.  Matthew 1:23 is interpreting a name from Isaiah 7:14 that most Jews probably interpreted differently at first.  Mark 15:22 in the Peshita gives an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Golgotha, likewise with Mark 15:34.

The Peshita of John 8 lacks the story of the Adulteress and for 1 John lacked it's declaration of The Trinity.  Disputed passages I plan to make defenses of in future posts on this blog.

Also, based on the little bit of Aramaic that pops up in the Hebrew Bible, I feel that Memar/Memra should be the Aramaic equivalent of Dabar and Logos.  But the key Logos verses in the Peshita of John use Miltha.  Though the emphasis some Peshita proponents make on Miltha being Feminine is interesting in light of another study I'm working on, Memra could just as easily be said in a Feminine form.

I haven't yet done enough research into the Peshita versions of texts I'm open to an Aramaic origin for.  So I'm cautious to in any way sound like I'm strongly endorsing it.

But one major issue is the Peshita lacks two of those books, 2 Peter and Jude.  2 Peter could have been written to Peter's usual audience rather then the specifically identified Greek audience of 1st Peter.  And it being originally in a different language could help explain why it seems to scholars like Peter's Epistles can't have the same author.  The name of Tartaros being in 2 Peter may be odd if it wasn't originally in Greek, but it could have mentioned a Mesopotamian equivalent.  The most possibly distinctly Greek detail in Jude is referring to "Wandering Stars" a Greek astronomical term, equivalents of which may have existed elsewhere but likely wouldn't translate to that directly.

One website on the subject of Semitic Origins for the New Testament I used to visit a lot is www.Ancient-Hebrew.org but I can't agree with everything there.

More recently is the Nazarene Judaism website.  It's a peculiar form of the Hebrew Roots movement that I've mentioned before.  Again I can't agree with them on everything.

On the subject of Aramaic Texts they side against the Peshita unlike me.  They are similar to me on the subject of existing Hebrew texts for Matthew however, except they are not quite as strongly anti Shem-Tov as I am.

The Shem-Tov is more like the Aramaic Targums of the Old Testament then a proper Hebrew version of Matthew.  I think the key to figuring out the original Hebrew of Matthew is the DuTillet, Muster and Cinuarbres manuscripts.  There is also a Muster text of Hebrews.

But again, I mention these with caution since I really can't study them directly and haven't read enough of what has been studied.  My strong support of the Textus Receptus over the Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus for the Greek texts still means that even books that might not have been originally in Greek were preserved well in the Textus Receptus.  Any difference in these Semitic texts that effects major doctrines I have to be very hesitant to accept.  Also the very same quotes from Eusebius about Clement saying Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew also say it was Luke who made the Greek translation, so in that context I trust Luke to have translated it right.

What I've heard about Hebrew Matthew's version of the "Eye of the Needle" expression, and Matthew 24 saying "The Last Generation" (saying  L'Dowr Acharown from Psalms 48, 78 and 102, which English Bibles usually don't translate accurately but Jewish ones will say "The Last Generation"), only help support how I already interpret those verses as they appear in the Greek.

I have a number of questions I'm curious about if anyone who does know a lot about them stumbles upon this.

1. Might the Hebrew Matthew references to Simon The Leper also agree with the Peshita saying Jar Maker?  Or maybe something else entirely?

2. Are all appearances of Aion/Aionios/Aionion some form of Olam in the Hebrew texts?  And can the Aramaic words used in the Peshita also mean Age/Eon?  The Aramaic Scriptures Website translated Eternal in the key Eternal verses but doesn't phonetically tell me what the Aramaic word was.

3. Similarly with the "Hell" words.  In this case I'm confident the true Hebrew should say Sheol for Hades and in some way identify the Valley of Hinomm where Gehenna appears. 

4. Which of the at least 5 different Hebrew words for "South" is used when Jesus calls the Queen of Sheba the Queen of the South?  If it's Teman, Yamin, or Yam that could further verify Sheba is in Yemen, but if it's Negev that would help how Velikvoskians use that verse.  If it's Darowm that wouldn't help clarify the issue at all, but Darowm is what I would half way expect of a Hebrew translation of the Greek.

5. Matthew 21:43, in the KJV "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Other translations will sometimes render this "a fruitful nation".  British Israelists and Two Hosue Theologists often want to imagine Jesus said the name of Ephraim here, but Ephraim means "double fruit".  It may help a developing pet theory of mine if He said Ephratah but it's not something I want to build a vital doctrine on.  So do the Hebrew Matthew texts use either of those words here?

6. When Jesus says Ego Eimi in Matthew 14:7 ("It is I" in the KJV) is that Ehyeh (I Am) in the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew?  I already know it's Ena-Na in the Peshita.

I may be editing this in the future to add more such questions.  New Questions would be added above this sentence not to the P.S. section.

P.S.  Hell in the Peshita?

For the Peshita on Gehenna I did verify it's transliterated as Gihana in all three Mark 9 verses.  While James 3:6 has simply dropped Gehnna out of it (the Greek refers to Fire of Gehenna but the Peshita just to fire).  Maybe an Aramaic Primacy supporter could theorize Gehenna got added to the Greek in James because of a marginal note connecting it to the Gehenna Fire of Matthew.  Is this verse of James one that's different in other Greek texts?

Hades doesn't appear in any books I consider plausible for Aramaic primacy, none the less it looks like The Peshita renders Hades as Sheul.

While Revelation isn't in the Peshita an Aramaic text of it has popped up that some think could represent an Aramaic Original.  A problem for an Aramaic origin for Revelation is in fact Revelation 9:11, clearly the Language of the book wouldn't be left out of that list of names?  Does this Aramaic Revelation add an Aramaic name like how some Catholic Bibles add Exterminans?  And does it say Sheul for Hades like the Peshita?

Update: I have learned that the Peshita, even the books I'm open to Aramaic primacy for, uses the Greek word Evangelion (rendered Evangeliun).  How do Peshita Primacy supporters explain that?

There was Greek presence in first century Mesopotamia, like the city of Seleucia which was always predominantly Greek.  So it's not impossible texts written there could have been written in Greek.  But also not impossible for some Greek to wind up in Aramaic texts written there.

2020 Update: So an issue with specifically Peshita Primacy is that's a specific dialect of Aramaic that is very Mesopotamian.  So of books I'm open to Aramaic Primacy for only 2 Peter and Mark originated in the part of the world where it would have been that form of Aramaic.  And 2 Peter isn't part of the preserved Peshita.  I have considered that maybe 1 Peter had both a Greek and Aramaic form given the broad range of regions it was directed to.

For Mark the appearance of the word Evangeliun in the first verse of the Peshita is evidence that text is a translation.  However that is specifically a Latin for of the word Euangelion, and some have argued for Mark being originally written in Latin, and Latin texts do use forms of Evangelion.  So maybe the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of a Latin text?