Semitic vs Greek Primacy for the New Testament

I've talked about my thoughts on New Testament Linguistic Primacy disputes before, but I've perhaps slightly changed my mind on some things since then, I'm going to give a sort of Tier list style break down here.

New Testament books that based on their stated original audience and/or who wrote them I am 100% certain were originally written down in Greek.

Luke-Acts, all 13 Epistles that Explicitly Self identify as being written by Paul, 1 Peter and Revelation.

Books that I think were more likely then not written in Greek but are at least open to dispute.

The Fourth Gospel and the 3 Epistles definitely by the same author as the Fourth Gospel, 2 Peter and Jude.

Books that I feel are 50/50 on if they were Greek or something else.

Mark and James.

Books that based on what the oldest Church Sources say on the subject I am 100% certain were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Matthew and Hebrews.

For Greek texts I still favor Textus Receptus Primacy and for Semitic Texts I favor Peshita Primacy not random Medieval Hebrew manuscripts of dubious origin.  And the Latin Mark theory I've already talked in depth about.

There is a theory that Mark's Gospel was originally written in Latin.

I've already argued on this Blog from Biblical References that John Mark spent time in Rome but not Peter.

Mark contains over half of the New Testament's Laitnisms, Laitnisms are inevitable just because of Rome's influence at the time.  But Mark a couple of times actually explains Semitic words using Latin ones.

Now I should clarify that no one proposing this thinks The Vulgate version of Mark is the original Latin version of Mark.  That text is still viewed as Jerome's translation of a Greek Mark as it is for the rest of the New Testament.

David Bruce Gain is one scholar who's been a proponent of this theory.  He has made his own personal reconstruction of what he thinks the original Latin text was, and his own English Translation of that Latin version.  I do disagree with him sometimes, for one he ends Mark with Mark 16:8 which is a theory I reject and may be the subject of it's own post in the future.

And on the subject of Mark 16:1 I disagree with "the Sabbath was past" being an interpolation "based on Matthew 28:1".  What Mark says here is distinct from how it's phrased in Matthew, and because neither Latin or Greek had a word for "week" in the first century this detail was necessary to clarify that the Sabbath following the Passion was over.  Torah literate readers would see it as referring to the instructions for First Fruits.

There is a limit to how much I'd be willing to change Mark based on this theory.  If Mark was originally in Latin I still feel the Textus Receptus (not any Alexandrian manuscripts) version of Mark is a very accurate Greek Translation of that Latin.  And I also think the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of the original Latin not the Greek.

I believe the Simon of Matthew 16 and Mark 14 was a Jar-Maker not a Leper, what that would mean for the textual history of Mark or Matthew (which I believe was originally written in Hebrew) I can't say for certain yet.  Though the ablity of the Peshita to get it right if it was using a Latin source even though the Greek got it wrong from the same source implies that Latin text transliterated rather then translated the title.

The robe placed on Jesus at his Trial and Execution I believe was a red robe that the soldiers described as purple mockingly and that's how we reconcile apparent contradictions there.  What's interesting is how only Mark mentioned the Color Purple.  So Mark has Jesus seemingly clothed in Purple with a Crown of Thrones and a staff, and presumably blood on his face.  Mark is making Jesus look like the Triumphitor of a Roman Triumph.  Yet there are two roles in the Triumph Jesus is playing, he's also the enemy of Rome (proclaimed King of The Jews) being humiliated and sacrificed to the Heavenly Father.

Now there are reasons why my Universal Salvation allies might be a little worried about suggesting any book was originally in Latin, we like to blame Latin translations for the issues we have with how certain passages read in modern English.

However Mark has no equivalent to Matthew 25's parables, I have argued for Universal Salvation being compatible with the KJV, and again we don't think the Vulgate is the original.  4th and 5th Century Latins are a factor in these problems, but Greek speakers like Cyril of Alexandria also helped.  I think we've perhaps been too hard on Tertullian for example.

David Bruce Gain's translation of his reconstruction of Mark 3:29, the only verse in Mark where the KJV uses "Eternal" in reference to punishment.  "but one who blasphemes against the dedicated breath will be penalized.He will be guilty of wrongdoing for ever".

This reading fits pretty well with how I interpret the "unpardonable sin" issue based on studying it mainly via Matthew.  This is the one sin where you can't get out of the punishment by genuinely repenting.  But that doesn't mean the punishment is Endless Torment or Annihilation.

Later in Chapter 9 David Bruce Gain's proposed original Latin does use a Latin transliteration of Gehenna every time you see Gehenna in the Greek, it's never simply "translated" infernus like the Vulgate often does.  I don't know if he has pre-Vulgate texts to support that or if it's just an inference.

However I do feel Gain is wrong on verse 49, he removed all references to Salt and has that verse just refer to being consumed by fire.  Now I think it's possible his version of verse 50 could be correct, but even he still has salt being referenced in verse 50, he has pay off with no set up.

He recognizes that this section is drawing on the very last verse of the book of Isaiah.  But that's not the only Old Testament reference in mind here, there is also Leviticus 2:13 and Deuteronomy 29:23., and maybe also Ezekiel 16:4, 43:24 and 47:11.

Update:  I'm starting to feel like I'm guilty of some hypocrisy in how I treated the Vulgate up above.

I strongly advocate for favoring the Received Text when it comes to the Greek (Textus Receptus over Alexandrian variations) the Aramaic (Peshita) and even for favoring the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter over the Akhmim manuscript IF I were to entertain treating it as canonical.  But once I became aware of the possibility of a book being originally in Latin the anti Vulgate sentiments of my Protestantism clouded my judgment.

My interpretation of Mark 3:29 is perfectly compatible with the Vulgate reading, since the word it uses in place of the KJV's "Damnation" is "delicti" which Google translate says simply means "offense" and "in danger of " actually means "guilty of".  So "is guiltily of an eternal offense" works perfectly.  I still consider Matthew closer to what Jesus actually said, but this can be a valid expression of the same idea.

Also, I was flat out wrong on Gehenna, the Vulgate never "translates" it Infernus, every single time Gehenna is in the Greek the Vulgate says Gehenna too.  Now David Bruce Gain's reconstruction has a different transliteration, but that's not a difference worth slipping hairs over.

Hades is what the Vulgate likes to "translate" infernus, but Hades doesn't appear in Mark.  Hell in the context of what Hel/Hella was in Norse mythology was originally a perfectly fine equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades, it's using the same word for Hades that caused what Hell means to be confusing.  In 1 Corinthians 15:55 the Hades/Grave/Hell half of the verse is dropped entirely which mutilates the very poetic structure of the passage.  Somehow the Vulgate uses both inferni and tartarum in 2 Peter 2:4.

My belief that Infernus was fundamentally wrong was a mistaken understanding of Latin combined with my nerdy reasons for thinking it should have been Orcus.  I had it in my head that it meant fiery first and became a name for Hell when used in Bible translations.  It's the reverse however, it's literal Latin meaning is "the lower world".   The Aeneid, a Latin epic poem inspired by Homer's epics uses Infernus of Hades.

I think every place where I explicitly expressed disagreement with Gain would put me in agreement with the Vulgate.

Except for what I hypothesized about Simon the Leper, the Vulgate like Gain definitely says Leper here.  I'm also starting to doubt Hebrew Matthew will support the Jar-Maker reading given what I've seen from people talking about the known texts so far.  So it seems like the Peshita may be the one guilty of a scribal error there.

The fact that the name of Bethany probably comes from "House of the Poor" or "House of affliction" supports the idea that Lepers would be concerned.  I do believe the Bethany siblings themselves were wealthy, probably devoting much of their time to helping the poor in this area.  It's possible Simon wasn't called "The Leper" because he was a Leper but because of an association with helping and caring for them.

Maybe the meaning of the name of Simon/Simeon/Simonis is the key, which means hearing or to regard.  Maybe it meant the House of hearing the Lepers?

There is also the theory that Simon the Leper and Lazarus are the same person.  I've long been unsatisfied by the theory that the etymology of Lazarus is a form of the Hebrew Eleazer, every Hebrew name that begins with El still has the E in their NT Greek forms.  And Josephus used Lazarus in Wars 5.18.7 even though he used Eleazar often.  Well the Hebrew word Leper used in the Torah in Leviticus 13 and 14 is Tsara or Zara, the Hebrew letter Tzadi usually becomes a Zeta in Greek.  And L' is a Hebrew prefix usually interpreted to mean "to" but seems to sometimes be used as an alternate definitive article.  During Greco-Roman times if people knew the Hellenic/Latin words for this condition began with an L the L prefix here could have been wordplay.  The other Lazarus in The Bible in Luke 16 seems to be described as a Leper even though traditionally no word for Leper is used there, and since it's a parable personal names shouldn't be used there.

Another Update: Vetus Latina

I had thought that Pre-Vulgate versions existed only in fragments.  But this is an independent received tradition that existed along side the Vulgate virtually until Trent, and there is a roughly 350 dated manuscript of the Gospels.

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?