Aramaic Peshitta Primacy - 2008

2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?

A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and !ternal
"idences of Aramaic #eshitta #rimacy
#u$lication dition %a& May 2''(
Compiled $y Raphael Christopher )ataster
dited $y wan Mac)eod
Co"er desi*n $y +tephen Me,a
- Copyri*ht Raphael Christopher )ataster 2''(
.oreword /
Foreword
A New and Powerful Tool in the
Aramaic NT Primacy Movement Arises
I wanted to set down a few words a$out my collea*ue and fellow Aramaicist
Raphael )ataster& and his new $ook 0Was the New Testament Really Written
in Greek?1 2a"in* written two $ooks on the su$3ect myself& I can honestly say
that there is no $etter free resource& $oth in terms of scope and le"el of detail&
a"aila$le on the Internet today4 Much of the research that myself& #aul
5ounan and so many others ha"e done is here& cate*ori,ed con"eniently $y
topic and issue4 What Raphael thou*h has also accomplished so e!pertly is to
link these e!amples with a simple and unam$i*uous narrati"e style that
lea"es little dou$t that the #eshitta Aramaic New Testament is in fact the
ori*inal that Christians and Na,arene6Messianics ha"e $een searchin* for& for
so lon*4
The fact is& when Raphael decides to e!plore a topic& he is far from content in
pro"idin* 3ust a few e!amples and lea"in* the rest to the readers7
ima*ination4 Instead& Raphael plum$s the depths of the Aramaic New
Testament& and offers dozens of examples that speak to a particular type. .lip
throu*h the 0split words1 and 0semi6split words1 sections alone and you will
see what I mean4 The e!amples come in lock6step& one after the other&
$ecomin* an a"alanche of proof $y the time he is finished4 And when that
topic is well6esta$lished& Raphael does the same thin* with the ne!t area of
focus& and the one after that& and so on4
0Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek1 is also written in a manner
free of scholarly 3ar*on and confusin* *rammatical terminolo*y that takes the
lay6person from where they currently are and plun*es them into the depth of
clarity and e!citement that only comes from understandin* the nati"e
lan*ua*e of 57shua and his disciples4 In other words& you don7t need a de*ree
to ha"e at your fin*ertips a resource that truly does 3ustice to the $readth of
e"idence for Aramaic New Testament primacy4 I can also say for a fact that all
the *rammatical claims Raphael makes ha"e $een scrupulously checked out
and "erified& not to mention cross6documented in my works and those of
others in the field4
.inally& 0Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek1 also *oes to places
that I ha"e ne"er seen fully discussed elsewhere $ut that add immensely to
the o"erall scholarly picture it paints4 .or e!ample& we at #eshitta4or* ha"e
known for some time a$out the e!cellent work of Re"erend 9auscher on the
Aramaic NT 9i$le Codes4 2owe"er& it is Raphael7s selection of this material&
married to*ether with his e!cellent commentaries that really pro"ide the
pro"er$ial icin* on the cake to the rest of his e!cellent thesis4
.or my part then& I will $e happy to endorse 0Was the New Testament Really
Written in Greek1& and $elie"e it will $ecome a key resource for +emitic
researchers in the years to come4 In particular& the work represents an
e!cellent introduction and primer to the no"ice on the *rand and stunnin*
issues of Aramaic #rimacy in the New Testament4 Its online "ersion should $e
re:uired ;and free<= readin* for all who may $e interested in learnin* more
a$out the ori*inal lan*ua*e of the Messiah4
n3oy<
#eace and $lessin*s
Andrew Ga$riel Roth
+eptem$er 8
th
& 2''8
Introduction >
Introduction
This $ook is not a$out reli*ion4
This $ook is not a$out whether or not Christianity is the ?true faith?4
This $ook is not a$out whether we were created $y God or $y chance4
This $ook is a$out whether the New Testament was written in Greek& or in
Aramaic4
There are many $ooks out there on Aramaic #rimacy ;the $elief that the New
Testament was ori*inally written in Aramaic= $y a handful of authors such as
@r4 Geor*e )amsa and @r4 Rocco rrico4 All pro"ide proofs of Aramaic
#rimacy and are fine works4 2owe"er& they ha"e one thin* in common4 They
all cost money4
This work is a$solutely free4 5ou may distri$ute it freely& unchan*ed& without
the author7s permission& as lon* as no money is char*ed for it4 This $ook is to
$e a"aila$le free indefinitely ;downloada$le from my we$site=4
Matthew 10:8 [amsa!
02eal the sick& cleanse the lepers& cast out demonsA freely you ha"e recei"ed& freely
*i"e41
Another $i* difference $etween this $ook and others of its kind& is the
denomination of its author4 I ha"e none4 The works of people can often $e
$iased $y their $eliefs4 Many people $elon*in* to a denomination will $e
B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
$iased& and they tend to chan*e the 9i$le to suit their $eliefs4 As I am non6
denominational& I chan*e my reli*ious $eliefs& to suit the 9i$le4 +o you can
rest assured that when I try to con"ince you that the Aramaic says somethin*&
I ha"e no hidden a*enda& it really does say it4
This $ook was ori*inally created so that the Christian community could ha"e
timely access to this "ital information& without ha"in* to spend a dime4 As
someone who comes from a poor economic $ack*round& I assure you that it is
not God7s plan for only the wealthy to share in 2is truth4 It is also created
with simple lan*ua*e ;you will $e a$le to tell that I am no author=& $ein*
written $y a layman& for laymen4
2owe"er& as my knowled*e $ase of the su$3ect *rew at an ama,in* rate
;thanks to friends who ha"e dedicated much of their li"es to the field= it
$ecame apparent that this work would not only $e distin*uished from others
$y its price C $ut also $y its contents4 With all humility ;most of the internal
proofs I did not disco"er myself C they ha"e $een disco"eredDsupplied $y
"arious contri$utors=& I $elie"e this is the most comprehensi"e $ook out there
on the topic of Aramaic primacy4
+o what is this really all a$out? Well& the ma3ority of people $elie"e that the
New Testament was ori*inally penned in Greek4 There is one little pro$lem
with this $elief4 There is no proof4 It has 3ust $een taken for *ranted& in much
the same way as it has $een taken for *ranted that the Eld Testament was
written in 2e$rew ;e"en thou*h for a lon* time& we had no widespread
access to a 2e$rew Eld Testament=4 Fnfortunately& while 2e$rew ET
primacists were ri*ht& Greek NT primacists were wron*4 The New Testament
was ori*inally written in Aramaic& not Greek4 And that makes a whole lot of
sense4 Gesus& 2is Apostles& and the earliest Christians were +emites& speakin*
the +emitic lan*ua*e of Aramaic C the main ton*ue of Gesus7 day4 That later
and numerous manuscripts of the NT were found written in Greek& pro"es
Greek primacy no more than the widespread reach of the Hin* Games 9i$le
pro"es n*lish primacy4
There are many Christians who $elie"e that the New Testament was written
in Aramaic& particularly in the ast ;Christianity is after all& an astern
reli*ion=4 9ut they ha"e $een a rather silent minority4 It is time to raise our
"oices& and present the e"idence4 While there is no e"idence of Greek #rimacy
;sa"e the so6called ?manuscript e"idence? and the opinions of some ?Church
fathers?=& there are mounds of proofs for Aramaic primacy4
Introduction I
This $ook will show you many errors and contradictions in the Greek te!t&
which are sol"ed $y the Aramaic4 It will show you "ariants in the many Greek
manuscript families that are e!plained $y the #eshitta4 It will show you how
scri$al errors in the Greek translations ha"e led to confused $eliefs& compared
to crystal6clear teachin*s in the Aramaic4 It will e!plain many of Gesus7 idioms
that ha"e $een misunderstood $y those uninitiated in the +emitic lan*ua*es4
It will show you how the ori*inal Aramaic New Testament preser"es Gesus7
poetic teachin*s4 It may e"en sa"e your faith4
I ha"e recei"ed emails from Christians who were disillusioned with their
contradiction6filled Greek6$ased 9i$les& sayin* that this information ;this
$ook was ori*inally a series of articles& distri$uted on "arious #eshitta
#rimacy we$sites= finally *a"e them peace4
I hope that this $ook will increase your knowled*e of the true Word of God4
Raphael )ataster& 94#harm& A@.+& G#
www4Raphael)ataster4com
Ac"nowled#ements:
While I ha"e worked hard on this pro3ect& most of the internal e"idences were
disco"ered or supplied to me $y "arious people4 The lar*est contri$utor ;who
also has o"erseen& edited and appro"ed much of this $ook= has $een
renowned #eshitta translator and Aramaic e!pert& #aul @a"id 5ounan& who
has my deepest appreciation for his efforts4 Great appreciation is also *i"en to
my $rother& Andrew Ga$riel Roth& Aramaic and 2e$rew e!pert& and former
contri$utor to the Aramaic 9i$le +ociety& who has $een such a help in the
creation of this $ook and has supplied many of the proofs4 Thanks also to
wan Mac)eod who has edited this $ook& helped to *et it pu$lished and has
completed numerous other pro3ects for Aramaic primacy4 Thanks also *o out
to my nephew& +tephen Me,a& who desi*ned such a wonderful co"er4 Great
thanks are also *i"en to the followin*J )arry Helsey& @r4 Games Trimm& +te"e
Caruso& Goseph Kiel& Ro$ Kanhoff& @r4 Geor*e )amsa& Glenn @a"id 9auscher&
and Kalentin +an, Gon,ale,4
( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Notes:
#icture C The picture on the co"er pa*e is the Alef and the Tau ;the first and
last letters of the Aramaic alpha$et=& in the stran*elo script C the script of
Aramaic that the #eshitta was $elie"ed to ha"e $een written in4 As it is
Aramaic& it is read from ri*ht to left4
References C Fnless otherwise stated& 9i$le references are usually from the
)amsa "ersion& the most relia$le complete n*lish translation of the Aramaic
#eshitta4
Lor$a C ?Lor$a? is a name *i"en to the people who translated the Aramaic into
Greek& as it is more con"enient to say than ?the ori*inal translators of the
Aramaic New Testament into Greek?4 No racial slur is intended to the Greeks
C it came a$out amon* Aramaic #rimacists as it is more con"enient to say
?Lor$a?& especially as we do not know who these translators were4 Many
Greeks a*ree with the content of this $ook& as the comments section shows4
+acred names C I don7t think you will *o to 2ell for sayin* ?Gesus? or ?God?
e"en when you know that these are not the ori*inal desi*nations4 2owe"er& I
do $elie"e that if we know the proper names& we may as well use them4 +o&
you will often find me referrin* to Gesus and God $y the 2e$rew andDor
Aramaic pronunciations4 5eshua ;Aramaic and 2e$rew= is used to refer to
Gesus& while Alaha ;Aramaic= and loha ;2e$rew= are used to refer to God4
Contact C peshittaMenthusiastNhotmail4com
We$site C .or the latest edition of this $ook ;includin* free downloads=& other
#eshitta6related materials& and free tools for researchin* the "arious Aramaic&
2e$rew& Greek and n*lish 9i$le "ersions& "isitJ
httpJDDwww4aramaicpeshitta4com
Introduction O
Table of Contents
.oreword44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/
Introduction444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy4444444444444444444444444444444%/
1. Burn or boast? 1Corinthians 13:3...................................................................................................15
. Be an imitator or be zealous? 1!eter 3:13........................................................................................1"
3. !o#er or co$erin%? & 1Corinthians 11:1'...........................................................................................1(
). *er children or her deeds? +atthe# 11:1, - .uke /:35 - Colossians 3:"&/.....................................'
5. 0o compare or to represent? +ark ):3'...........................................................................................)
". 0hose #ho are stron% or #ho ha$e po#er? 1e$ ":15......................................................................."
/. 2ayin% or thinkin%? 3ohn 11:31.......................................................................................................(
(. 0hrou%h the %ate or door? .uke 13:).............................................................................................,
,. 2uffer or tolerate? 1e$elation :'...................................................................................................31
1'. 0o hope or #ait? 1omans (:).......................................................................................................3
11. 4n *im5 on *im or into *im? 3ohn 3:15.......................................................................................3)
1. 6n%ry or merciful? +ark 1:)1......................................................................................................35
13. Because5 #hen or since? 3ohn 1:)1...............................................................................................3/
1). Be%innin% or firstfruits? 0hessalonians :13..............................................................................3(
15. 7e shall or let us? 1Corinthians 15:),.........................................................................................3,
1". 7hatsoe$er place or as many as? +ark ":11.................................................................................)1
1/. 8isre%arded or heard? +ark 5:3"..................................................................................................)
1(. 4 or she? .uke /:)5.........................................................................................................................))
1,. 7alkin% or passin% on? +ark 1:1"................................................................................................)5
'. !araptoma or hamartia? 3ames 5:1"..............................................................................................)/
1. 9f sal$ation or of life? +atthe# 1":1"..........................................................................................)(
. 6lms or ri%hteousness? +atthe# ":1............................................................................................),
3. *eart or understandin%? :phesians 1:1(......................................................................................5'
). Bo#els or lo$e? !hilippians 1:(5 :1 - Colossians 3:1 - !hilemon /5 15 ' - 13ohn 3:1/ -
Corinthians ":1...................................................................................................................................51
5. 2it or d#ell? 1e$elation 1):".........................................................................................................53
". 2hout or $oice? 1e$elation 1):1(...................................................................................................5)
/. 0o permit or send? +atthe# (:31..................................................................................................55
(. +ar$elled or afraid? +atthe# ,:(.................................................................................................5"
,. 7earied or harassed? +atthe# ,:3"..............................................................................................5/
3'. 6nother or the next? +atthe# 1':3............................................................................................5/
31. Commandment5 #ord or la#? +atthe# 15:"................................................................................5(
3. 0he Bi% 9ne; 6 <=681=!.: split #ord. !risoner5 ser$ant5 bondsman5 apostle or >prisoner
apostle?5 of @eshua? !hilemon 1:1.......................................................................................................5,
33. Belo$ed or sister? !hilemon 1:....................................................................................................."
3). Ai$en to her or it? 1e$elation 13:15.............................................................................................."3
35. 0he :$en Bi%%er 9ne; 6 2:!0=!.: split #ord. 4ntemperate5 unclean5 unBust5 >unBust
intemperance?5 co$etousness5 #ickedness or iniCuity? +atthe# 3:5..............................................")
3". 7eddin% or #eddin% hall? +atthe# :1'...................................................................................""
3/. 6nother or nei%hbor? 3ames ):1..................................................................................................."/
3(. 4rritated or denied? 6cts 3:1)........................................................................................................"(
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444I%
%' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
1. *ardly die for a ri%hteous man or a #icked man? 1omans 5:/......................................................./
. 7hy hast thou forsaken me or #hy ha$e you spared me? +atthe# /:)" - +ark 15:3)................/3
3. Camel or rope? +atthe# 1,:) - +ark 1':5 - .uke 1(:5............................................................./"
). Ai$e not a holy thin% or han% not earrin%s? & +at /:"......................................................................//
5. 2imon the leper or potter-Bar maker? +atthe# ":" - +ark 1):3..................................................../,
". :unuch or belie$er? +atthe# 1,:1 - 6cts (:/.............................................................................('
/. *ate or put aside? .uke 1):".........................................................................................................(
(. 2alted or scattered-destroyed? +ark ,:),........................................................................................(3
,. 0his %eneration or this family? +ark 13:3'....................................................................................()
1'. !ains or cords? 6cts :)..............................................................................................................(5
11. Bed or coffin? 1e$elation :'.......................................................................................................((
1. *ouse or amon%? +atthe# 11:(....................................................................................................(,
13. Doice or sound? 6cts ,:/................................................................................................................(,
1). 0eacher or my %reat one? +atthe# 3:(.......................................................................................,'
15. !erform repeatedly or re$ert? 1omans :1&3.................................................................................,
1". Ai$en up to $ile passions or diseases of dis%race? 1omans 1:"...................................................,3
1/. Cities or talents? .uke 1,:1/&1,....................................................................................................,)
1(. Aall or an%er? 6cts (:3................................................................................................................,)
1,. Eeet or foot soldiers? 1omans 3:15................................................................................................,5
'. 7orld or land of 4srael? 6cts 11:(...............................................................................................,"
1. Aood and food or much and cheer? 6cts 1):1/..............................................................................,/
. !eace or culti$ated land? 3ames 3:1(.............................................................................................,(
3. !eace or culti$ated land? 6%ainF 6cts 1:'............................................................................1''
). 3oin or touch? 6cts 5:13...............................................................................................................1'1
5. !erfected or finished? .uke 13:3................................................................................................1'
". 7alk or #ork? .uke 13:33...........................................................................................................1'
/. !riest or priests? +ark 1:))........................................................................................................1')
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444%'>
1. 0he beauty that is >3anus !arallelism? +atthe# 13:31&3...........................................................1'"
. 6 #ord play of common roots for lo$e5 o#e and nei%hbour 1omans 13:(.....................................1'(
3. 0he .ordGs !rayer +atthe# ":,&13................................................................................................1',
). !aul the poet; !hilippians ):(........................................................................................................11'
5. 3esus on mithla and miltha .uke (:11............................................................................................111
". 0he Beatitudes +atthe# 5:3&1.....................................................................................................111
/. 3esus the poet; .uke /:3................................................................................................................11
(. 9ceans of #ordplay .uke 1..........................................................................................................113
,. 2i%ns and miracles 3ohn ):)(.........................................................................................................115
1'. HhGda o$er the Hhad .uke 15:)&5.................................................................................................11"
11. 7e are not forsaken Corinthians ):(&,......................................................................................11"
1. 2eparatin% !harisees .uke 1/:1(&'............................................................................................11/
13. 2impler and prettier in the 6ramaic 1omans ):5......................................................................11(
1). 0riple sla$ery #ord play .uke /:(................................................................................................11(
15. 6mazin% poetry #ith a hidden meanin% 10imothy 3:1".............................................................11(
1". :$en foxes ha$e holes .uke ,:5(..................................................................................................11
1/. Concentrated poetry 10imothy 5:1'............................................................................................11
1(. 6#esome foursome #ord play .uke /:)1&)................................................................................11
1,. 0riple #ordplay to 2emites in 0hessalonica 10hessalonians 1:3&5.............................................1
'. @ou did not dance nor lament +atthe# 11:1/............................................................................13
1. 2tephen the poet; 6cts /:)&"....................................................................................................13
. Aod re#ards >non&bra%%ers? +atthe# ":3&)..............................................................................1)
Introduction %%
3. !arallelisms in the Aospels +atthe# 5:)5...................................................................................1)
). 1e$ealin% poetry 1e$elation 1/:1/..............................................................................................15
5. 2emitic rhymin% *ebre#s 1:3....................................................................................................1"
". Crumbs from the table .uke 1":1...............................................................................................1"
/. Creati$e 2emitic #ritin% to 0itus >the Areek? 0itus 3:)&5.........................................................1/
(. 6fflicted one 6cts ,:33&3)............................................................................................................1,
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444%/%
1. !ick up snakes +ark 1":1(............................................................................................................133
. Cut it off and pluck it out +ark ,:)3&)/.......................................................................................133
3. :yes of your heart :phesians 1:1(.................................................................................................13)
). 9f the household :phesians :1,...................................................................................................135
5. Bo#els of 3esus !hilippians 1:(5 :1 - Colossians 3:1 - !hilemon /5 15 ' - 13ohn 3:1/ -
Corinthians ":1.................................................................................................................................13"
". *is face #as set .uke ,:53.............................................................................................................13/
/. 0heir phylacteries and borders +atthe# 3:5...............................................................................13(
(. 7ho shall declare his %eneration? 6cts (:33.................................................................................13,
,. !ressed in the spirit 6cts 1(:5.......................................................................................................1)'
1'. 2on of its hour +atthe# 13:5......................................................................................................1)1
11. *i%h mountain +atthe# ):( - .uke ):5......................................................................................1)1
1. 0o %o 3ohn 1:11..........................................................................................................................1)
13. 2on of peace .uke 1':".................................................................................................................1)3
1). 2lo# of heart and heart burn .uke ):5 - .uke ):3................................................................1)3
15. *o# your breath should depart .uke 1:11&1...........................................................................1))
1". 2on of his city *ebre#s (:11........................................................................................................1)5
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P
More444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444%8I
1. Iumerous 6ramaic loan #ords in the Areek .uke 1:15 - +atthe# 1:1' - .uke :)1 et al.........1)/
. .ambs5 sheep5 sheep? 9r lambs5 sheep5 %oats? 9r lambs5 rams5 e#es? 3ohn 1:15&1/.................1),
3. +iracle or miracles? 3ohn ":1)......................................................................................................15'
). Bad Areek %rammar in 1e$elation 1e$elation...............................................................................151
5. 0he Areek I0 Cuotes the 2eptua%int? +atthe# 11:1'.................................................................153
". 7hich or no #hich? 6cts 1':3".....................................................................................................15)
/. 2emitic parallelisms in the supposedly Areek Bible 1!eter :1) et al............................................155
(. 3esus the non&.e$itical hi%h priest *ebre#s 3:1............................................................................15/
,. Burnished brass? 1e$elation 1:15 - 1e$elation :1(.....................................................................15(
1'. Eor5 but or and? Corinthians :1...............................................................................................1"1
11. Areek !rimacist =nited Bible 2ociety >Bumpin% ship?? 6cts 1':3"...........................................1"
1. 0he Areek I0 Cuotes the 2eptua%int? 6%ain? +atthe# :))..................................................1"3
13. 6 cro#d or the cro#d? 3ohn 1:1...............................................................................................1"3
1). 6bba abba Aalatians ):"...............................................................................................................1")
15. 0hief or thie$es? 10hesssalonians 5:)..........................................................................................1"5
1". 0he alpha and the 9 1e$elation 1:( - 1e$elation 1:" - 1e$elation :13..................................1""
1/. Iot e$en missin% +atthe# (:1'..................................................................................................1"(
1(. CanGt you lea$e the old readin% alone? *ebre#s 1:3...................................................................1/'
1,. 6s someone some#here testified *ebre#s :".............................................................................1/1
'. 6ramaic explainin% 6ramaic is no proof of Areek primacy +ark 3:1/ - +ark 15:3) - 6cts 1:1,
...............................................................................................................................................................1/
1. Aalilee of the Aentiles5 Areeks or 6rameans? +atthe# ):15......................................................1/3
. Contention or contentions? 0itus 3:,..........................................................................................1/)
3. +ust the 2criptures be #ritten in a >%lobal lan%ua%e?? 0imothy 3:1" - 6cts 1/:1'&11..........1/)
%2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
). Chief and chief? 9r chief and elder? 6cts 1(:(5 1/......................................................................1/5
5. !eshitta =nori%inal? 4f so5 it is 204.. 2uperior5 8ue to @eshuaGs 7ords....................................1/"
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444%IO
1. 0he 6ramaic lan%ua%e......................................................................................................................1/,
. 0he 6ramaic Bible.............................................................................................................................1(3
3. 7hat the ancient reli%ious authorities said of the ori%inal Bible......................................................1(5
). 7hat the modern authorities say......................................................................................................1,'
5. 0he 2eptua%int..................................................................................................................................1,/
". 0he Areek I0: a pale imitation.........................................................................................................1,,
/. 9ther 6ramaic $ersions....................................................................................................................'1
(. Erom *ebre#5 to 6ramaic5 to... 6rabic? 7hereGs the Areek;?.........................................................',
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy44444442%/
1. 0he Aenealo%ies of @eshua +at 1:"&1" - .uke 3:1&31.................................................................1)
. 8id 3oseph name @eshua? +atthe# 1:1 - .uke 1:31...................................................................1/
3. 8oes Aod lead us into temptation? +atthe# ":13 - +atthe# ):3 - 10hessalonians 3:5...............1(
). 4s #isdom $indicated by her children? +atthe# 11:1, - .uke /:35..............................................'
5. 7as the :thiopian a eunuch? +atthe# 1,:1 - 6cts (:/ - 8euteronomy 3:1...........................1
". Can #e be teachers or not? +atthe# 3:( - +atthe# (:1,&'....................................................3
/. 7as 2imon really a leper? +atthe# ":" - +ark 1):3 - .e$iticus 13:)5&)".................................)
(. 7as it really 3eremiah the !rophet? +atthe# /:,&1' - Jechariah 11:13....................................5
,. 7as 3esus forsaken? +atthe# /:)" - +ark 15:3) - !salms 3/:5&( - 3ohn 1":3...................../
1'. 7as she Areek or not? +ark /:" - +atthe# 15:....................................................................(
11. 2hall #e sinners maim oursel$es? +ark ,:)3&)/ - 1Corinthians ":1,&'..................................,
1. 4s that %eneration still ali$e? +ark 13:3'....................................................................................3'
13. 7hy does 3esus #ake up !eter5 3ames and 3ohn5 after tellin% them to >sleep on?? +ark 1):)1 -
+ark 1):)............................................................................................................................................31
1). 8o #e need to hate to become %ood Christians? .uke 1):" - 1omans ,:13 - 13ohn 3:15 - 13ohn
):'&1..................................................................................................................................................3
15. 4s the Aospel really foolish? 1Corinthians 1:1 - 0imothy 3:15&1"...........................................3)
1". 6 medley of 9ld 0estament apolo%etics..........................................................................................35
1/. Aod blinded their eyes? 3ohn 1:)' et al......................................................................................3/
1(. 8ebatin% about the la# and-or 0orah is unprofitable and $ain? 0itus 3:, - +atthe# 5:1/&1(. .3,
Chapter (4 I @on7t Hnow Aramaic& What 2ope is There for Me?4444444444444444444444444444444444428/
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444428I
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy4444444444444444444444444444444444444442I/
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/2/
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine
Inspiration44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/8>
Appendi! A C The @ecepti"e Nature of Greek #rimacy4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/I/
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/II
Appendi! C C Reader Comments444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444/O>
Appendi! @ C The Aramaic #eshitta +a"es .aiths444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444448%>
Appendi! C )amsa .amily ndorses This 9ook4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444448%O
Appendi! . C Notes for .uture ditions44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444482%
Appendi! G C A$out Raphael )ataster44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444482/
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy %/
$ha%ter 1& '%lit (ords )
*ndenia+le ,vidence of
Peshitta Primacy
We shall start our in"esti*ation with one of the most con"incin* forms of
proofJ 0split words14
+plit words are in"alua$le to the Aramaic primacists as they show the
Aramaic to $e superior to GreekA show how Greek "ariants are caused $y
different translations of the AramaicA and often sol"e
QanomaliesDerrorsDcontradictions7 within the New Testament& $y allowin* for
more correct renderin*s4
0+plit words1& are polysemous words ;polysemy C ha"in* multiple
meanin*s=4 The rele"ance of polysemy in the case for #eshitta primacy ;the
$elief that the New Testament was written not in Greek& $ut in Aramaic& and
that the #eshitta is the closest 9i$le we ha"e to the ori*inal= is mind6$lowin*4
In a more *eneral sense& a split word isn7t confined to Greek "ariants where a
sin*le Aramaic word or root is in :uestion4 !amples where Greek translators
clearly confused two similarly spelt Aramaic words& leadin* to "ariances in
the Greek are also split words& as are e!amples where a "ariant is caused $y
differin* translations of an Aramaic idiom4 This is how it worksJ
When comparin* different Greek NT ;New Testament= manuscripts andDor
the n*lish translations of said manuscripts& many differences are apparent4
+ometimes& there is 3ust a one6word difference amon* "erses from different
manuscripts4 In $asic cases& some Greek te!ts will ha"e the word 051 ;as an
e!ample= and some will ha"e the word 0L14 Now this one word often chan*es
the meanin* of the "erse& so these "ariants are :uite important4 Now& suppose
we ha"e a manuscript that has as the word in :uestion& the word known as
0R14 +uppose also that this manuscript is in another lan*ua*e& an ancient
+emitic lan*ua*e& and that 0R1 in this lan*ua*e can $e translated to mean 051
and 0L1< Which manuscript would $e more relia$le? The one that says 051&
0L1 or 0R1?
Ef course& 0manuscript R1 would clearly $e superior to the 0manuscripts 5
and L1& and it is also clear that $oth the 05 and L manuscripts1 are translated
from 0manuscript R1& as the 0manuscript R1 happens to $e in another
lan*ua*e& and happens to $e in a lan*ua*e used $y Gesus& the Apostles and
the earliest Christians& Gudeans and other +emitic peoples< It is also clear& that
the differences $etween the Greek manuscripts are CAF+@ $y different
translations of the one 0R manuscript14 Ef course& the 0R manuscript1 I speak
of is the #eshitta& the New Testament& as ori*inally written in Aramaic4 What
would the pro$a$ility $e that this phenomenon 3ust occurred $y chance?
What if this phenomenon occurs twice? It could happen4 Thrice? .i"e times?
)ooks like it7s more than 3ust chance& ri*ht? Ten times? May$e $y the tenth
time& you should think a$out throwin* away your Greek "ersion& especially
in li*ht of the other forms of e"idence ;0semi split words1& poetry& idioms&
etc=4 There are so many occurrences& it defies chance& and I will only $e
discussin* a mere handful4
In case my e!planation of Qsplit words7 is not sufficiently clear& let7s look to
the definition from the man who coined the termJ
-In the $ody of the Greek New Testament& there are MAN5 "ariances4 +cri$es
o"er the years ha"e made ;what they thou*ht were= corrections& words were
misread for others in copyin*& and ;in some rare cases= words were inserted
or remo"ed to fit people?s doctrine4 We ha"e the technolo*y today to trace
most of these "ariances $ack and find out where they came from& $ut some
3ust seem to pop up out of nowhere4
+ometimes the entire $ody of the Greek New Testament is di"ided ri*ht
down the middle with a "ariance& half of them containin* one word& while
half of them contain another4 These are known as S+plit Words4S And&
surprisin*ly enou*h& a lot of them seem to $e e!plaina$le $y an Aramaic
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy %>
word that& when translated& has two separate and distinct meanin*s4. C +te"e
Caruso
NoteJ .or con"enience& I *i"e "erses from n*lish 9i$les ;translated from the
Greek "ersions= and list some main 9i$les where a particular readin* occurs4
This is not to $e taken as e"idence of split words4 The e"idence lies in the
Greek manuscripts4 Also& please do not $e led into thinkin* that $ecause a
"ariant is represented in 2> n*lish "ersions& that it is superior to a "ariant
represented in % or 2 n*lish "ersions& and so forth4 Most of the popular
n*lish "ersions are translated form the same few Greek manuscripts& so
num$ers of n*lish translations with a particular "ariant are not important4
What is important is that there are Greek manuscripts with the "ariants in
:uestion4
Now let us look at the e"idence<
1. Burn or boast ? 1Corinthians 13:3
The HGK saysJ 0And thou*h I $estow all my *oods to feed Kthe poorL& and
thou*h I *i"e my $ody to $e $urned& and ha"e not charity& it profiteth me
nothin*41
The I+K saysJ 0"en if I *i"e away all that I ha"e and surrender my $ody so
that I may $oast $ut ha"e no lo"e& I *et nothin* out of it41
Kersions that say $urned or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& AM#& A+K& 99& CKT&
@AR95& @ouay6Rheims& +KT& Gene"a& GodsWord& 2olman& HG2%& HGK&
)ITK& MHGK& M+G& NA+9T& NIKT& NIK6FH& NHGKT& R+K& TK& W
;Worldwide n*lish=& We$ster& Weymouth& W5C ;Wycliffe=& 5)T ;5oun*7s
)iteral Translation=4
The "ersions marked $y an asterisk& T& ha"e footnotes that mention that early
mss ;manuscripts= ha"e $oast or a "ariation thereof& rather than $urn4 It is
noteworthy that the Ale!andrian NF Te!t says $oast also4
Kersions that say $oast or a "ariation thereofJ I+K& N)T ;New )i"in*
Translation=& Rotherham4
%B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root dqy can mean 0to $urn1& $ut
can also mean 0to $oast14 It is clear that the disa*reement in the Greek te!ts
points to the Aramaic ori*inal4 2ere is the "erse from the #eshitta& translated
$y #aul 5ounanJ
0And if I *i"e all my possessions to feed Uthe poor&V and if I surrender my
$ody so that I may $oast& $ut do not ha"e lo"e& it profits me nothin*41
The readin* io,;ocot ;kauchswmai& 0I mi*ht $oast1= is in Greek
manuscripts like W8B X A 9 '8( // %I/OT4
The competin* readin*& ioO;ooot ;kau:hsomai& 0I will $urn1=& is found
in Greek manuscripts such as C @ . G ) (% %%I> %((%T and a host of patristic
writers4 A few other 9y,antine Greek readin*s includeJ ioO;ocot
;kau:hswmai= ;0I mi*ht $urn1= and ;0it mi*ht $e $urned1= read $y
%>'>4
@r4 9ruce Met,*er ;famous Greek primacist= notes that the latter readin* is a
0%rammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to !aul1 MB. +. +etz%er5
0extual Commentary5 pa%e ),(N.
This is clear e"idence of the Aramaic roots of the "arious Greek te!ts4
2. Be an imitator or be zealous ? 1Peter 3:13
The @AR95 saysJ 0And who shall in3ure you if ye ha"e $ecome imitators of
that which YisZ *ood?1
The NA+9 saysJ 0Who is there to harm you if you pro"e ,ealous for what is
*ood?1
Kersions that say imitators& followers or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& @AR95&
Gene"a& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NHGK& We$ster& W5C& 5)T4
Kersions that say ,ealous& ea*er& or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& CK&
@ouay6Rheims& +K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& Rotherham& R+K& TK&
Weymouth4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy %I
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word 0nn= can $e taken to mean
0to $e ,ealous1& $ut can also mean 0to imitate14 It is clear that the
disa*reement in the Greek te!ts& points to the Aramaic ori*inal4
+ome Greek te!ts ha"e tjtot ;imitators= in %st #eter /J%/ and some ha"e
jctot ;,ealous=4
If we could show $y a le!icon that the word used in the #eshitta te!t can
mean +oth& we would ha"e *ood support for Aramaic primacy of %st #eter4
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta te!t is ?tanana4?
)et?s take a look at the Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon under its root code
?Tnn?J
Tnn N Tnn=
% +yr ,eal
2 +yr en"y
Tnn K
'2% G)AGal to moisten
Tnn[2 K
'%% +yr to $e aroused
'%2 +yr to +e /ealous
'%/ +yr \$\ to en"y
'%8 +yr 0+0 to imitate
'8% +yr to come to en"y
'2% +yr to arouse someone?s ,eal
'>% +yr to suffer from ,eal
'/% +yr to arouse someone?s en"y
'/2 +yr to make to emulate
Tnn A
% +yr ,ealous
2 +yr champion
/ +yr emulator
8 +yr en"ious
That?s why you ha"e Greek "ariants that don?t look anythin* alike e!cept for
the ?6tai? endin*4 We ha"e 0mimetai1 "ersus 0,elotai1 C 0imitators1 "ersus
0,ealous14
%( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The te!ts that ha"e ?mimetai? ;imitators= are the %>>' +tephens Te!tus
Receptus& the %(O8 +cri"ener Te!tus Receptus and the 9y,antine Ma3ority
Te!t4
The Ale!andrian Te!t has ?,elotai? ;,ealous= as well as theseJ
%#et /J%/4 Read S$e ,ealousS instead of S$e imitatorsS4 ) T Tr A W W2 N NA
)])achmann %(82& T]Tischendorf %(BO& Tr]Tre*elles %(>I& A]Alford %(8O as
re"ised in %(I%& W]Wordsworth %(>B as re"ised in %(I'& W2]Westcott P
2ort %((%& N]Collation in pro*ress of Nestle %O2I as re"ised in %O8% ;%Ith=4
NA]Nestle6Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
3. Power or covering ? - 1Corinthians 11:10
The HGK saysJ 0.or this cause ou*ht the woman to ha"e power on her head
$ecause of the an*els41
The N)T saysJ 0+o a woman should wear a co"erin* on her head as a si*n of
authority $ecause the an*els are watchin*41
Kersions that say power or a "ariation thereofJ @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a& HG2%&
HGK& We$ster4
Kersions that say co"erin*& "eil or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& CK& GodsWord&
N)T& R+K& TK& W& Wycliffe4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word 0sholtana1 ; 0n=lw4 = can
mean 0power1& $ut can also refer to a 0co"erin*14 It is clear that the
disa*reements in the Greek te!ts& points to the Aramaic ori*inal4
+o why would one translator use 0power1 and the other 0co"erin*1? The
answer has to do with how the apostle #aul thinks in a +emitic framework4
In the #eshitta NT the word used is 0sholtana14 In most cases& this word does
in fact mean 0power1& and so we can see how it mi*ht $e translated as such
into Greek4 2owe"er& sholtana also has a secondary meanin* of how power is
reflected in the person who has or does not ha"e it4 +o& if the person is a kin*&
his crown is his co"erin* AN@ his authorityDpower4 .or a woman then& in the
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy %O
conte!t of $ein* su$missi"e& her "eil is her si*n of authority and her co"erin*
as well4
Now& in the Greek& the word for power used in this "erse is 0e!ousia1& which
did not ori*inally ha"e the secondary meanin* of 0co"erin*14
.or proof of this assertion& I turn to what is pro$a$ly the lar*est collection of
ancient Greek manuscripts and study tools a"aila$le anywhereJ the #erseus
#ro3ect at Tufts Fni"ersity4 Their interacti"e dictionaries show all the shades
of meanin* of a Greek word where"er it appears in the literature& and not
once is this 0co"erin*1 meanin* usedJ
e!ous6ia& h^& ;e!esti= power& authority to do a thin*& c4 inf4& chairein kai nosein e4
paresti +4.r4((4%% codd4A aut_i e4 ^n saph_s eidenai & cf4 A e!ousian ho nomos ded_ke
permission to do 4 4& A e4 poiein & etc4A e4 la$ein & & etc4A la$_n e4 h_ste 4 4 A epi tî t^s eir^n^s
e4 with the freedom permitted $y peace& J c4 *en4 o$3ecti& e4 echein thanatou power of
life and death& #oll4(4(BA pra*ma hou t^n e4 echousin alloi control o"er 4 4& @io*4Een4>IA
e4 tinos power o"er& licence in a thin*& tou le*ein A en me*alî e4 tou adikein I9I@]au]&
cf4 ti]A kata t^n ouk e4 t^s a*_nise_s from want of :ualification for 4 4& J a$s4& power&
authority& 4.r4I(84
24 a$use of authority& licence& arro*ance& hu$ris kai e4 & cf4 au]& A h^ a*an e4 I9I@]au]]lrA
ametros e4 EGIBBO4>% ;i A4@4=4
/4 )it4 Crit4& e4 poi^tik^ poetic licence& +tr4%424%I& Gul4Er4%4%'$4
II4 office& Ma*istracy& archai kai e4 A hoi en tais e4 A hoi en e4 ontes I@M]A hoi ep?
e!ousi_n )RR@a4/42A h^ hupatik^ e4 the consulate& & etc4A also h^ hupatos e4 @424I4%A h^
tamieutik^ e4 the :uaestorship& @424(4IIA d^marchik^ e4& "4 d^marchikosA h^ tou
thalamou e4& in the Roman empire& )ER@ship of the $edcham$er& 2dn4%4%24/4
24 concrete& $ody of Ma*istrates& @424%%4/2A hai e4 ;as we say= the authorities&
"4)uc4%24%%&al4& #lu4#hil4%I4
$4 h^ e4 as an honorary title& #E!y4%%'/ ;i" A4@4=& etc4
III4 a$undance of means& resources& e!ousias epidei!is A ploutos kai e4 & cf4 A endeester_s
^ pros t^n e4 A t_n anankai_n e4 A e!cessi"e wealth& opp4 ousia& Com4Adesp42>a4>@4
IK4 pomp& #lu4Aem4/84
Now the Greek +chool will counter& 09ut this is Hoine& not Classical Greek1&
and that is my point as well4 This alle*ed 0Hoine1 was $orn in Ale!andria&
2' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
*ypt& with the translation of the +eptua*int .REM 29RW +EFRC+4
This secondary meanin* was NEW2R pre"iously& and came from the
dou$le meanin* of sholtana444
This is clearly a word play rooted in +emitic and not 2ellenistic
understandin*4 I say that $ecause another word for 0power1 also used
elsewhere in the pistles does not ha"e the secondary meanin* of 0"eil1
;[2>I%6 kalumaA see 2 Corinthians /J%/6%B=& and "ice "ersa& ;dunatos& hupo&
ischus& kratos=4 In either case& #aul would ha"e sufficient control in the
translation process to pick either an e!clusi"ely "eil6like or an e!clusi"ely
power6like word without creatin* confusion4 The reason he did not is
$ecause& a*ain& the translator who did it did not ha"e the $enefit of this
understandin*4 All he knew was that sholtana was starin* $ack at him from
the pa*e4 A few years later& when the second letter came to his church& either
the skill of the translator had impro"ed in the interim or he was replaced with
another who had a $etter of *rasp of the lan*ua*e4
. !er chil"ren or her "ee"s ? #atthew 11:1$ % &u'e (:3) %
Colossians 3:*-(
This split word is :uite ama,in* ;and :uite len*thy=& as it not only points to
an Aramaic ori*inal throu*h Aramaic ori*ins of Greek "ariants& $ut it also
pro"ides an Aramaic solution for apolo*ists workin* on these "erses& as well
as e!posin* much corruption in the Greek te!ts4 This is further complicated
$y the oddity that the "ariant is found in the wron* "erse<
The HGK saysJ
Matthew 11:11
0The +on of man came eatin* and drinkin*& and they say& 9ehold a man *luttonous&
and a wine$i$$er& a friend of pu$licans and sinners4 9ut wisdom is 3ustified of her
children41
u"e 2:34
09ut wisdom is 3ustified of all her children41
The NA+9 saysJ
Matthew 11:11
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 2%
0SThe +on of Man came eatin* and drinkin*& and they say& ?9ehold& a *luttonous man
and a drunkard& a friend of ta! collectors and sinners<? 5et wisdom is "indicated $y
her deeds4S1
u"e 2:34
0S5et wisdom is "indicated $y all her children4S1
Kersions that say children ;Greek ] QTeknon7=& followers& sons or "ariations
thereof& in Matthew %%J%OJ @AR95& @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a& I+K& HG2%& HGK&
)ITK& MHGK& NHGK& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say deeds ;Greek ] Qr*on7=& works& actions or a "ariation
thereof& in Matthew %%J%OJ A)T& A+K& 99& CK& +K& GodsWord& 2olman&
NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& Rotherham& R+K& TK& W& Weymouth4
Kersions that say children& followers& sons or "ariations thereof& in )uke IJ/>J
A)T& A+K& 99& CK& @AR95& @ouay6Rheims& +K& Gene"a& 2olman& I+K&
HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)T& Rotherham& R+K&
TK& We$ster& Weymouth& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say deeds& works& actions or a "ariation thereof& in )uke IJ/>J
GodsWord& W4
In the Aramaic of the #eshitta "ersion of )uke& the word used is hynb ;[/2/8
6 N5T,: The e6ical $oncordance is incorrect7 it erroneously lists the root
as 0rb when in reality7 it is 0nb 89 :38;0 <to +uild<&=
What is the si*nificance of this root& 0nb ;?to $uild& works& etc4?=? hynb was
confused $y the Greek translators of )uke for Ynb ;[/2/%= which means ?son&
children& offsprin*74 They thou*ht the endin* ?2eh? h indicated possession
;see Ta$le % Grammar section S#ossessi"e #ronounsS=& and that the root was
Ynb& when in reality the root is 0nb with the endin* ?Alaph? 0 dropped and
the S5odh62ehS hy endin* indicatin* possession4
There you ha"e it4 A simple mistake that e"ery $e*inner makes in Aramaic
has caused this "ariant readin*4
+o the readin* should not $e 0Wisdom is "indicated $y her children1 $ut
0Wisdom is "indicated $y her deeds41
#roof of this comes from +cripture4 Check Matthew %%J%O 6 the parallel
passa*e& where Matthew used the more specific Aramaic word for 0deeds1 6
hydb9 ;[%>'('=4
+o the Greek translator;s= of Aramaic )uke mistranslated hynb as 0children1&
when it should ha"e $een 0deeds41
@on?t $e fooled into thinkin* that )uke himself made this mistake4 It?s easy to
tell that )uke himself wrote in Aramaic and it was initially correct4 2ow can
we know this? 9ecause the Greek manuscripts themsel"es disa*ree
concernin* this readin*< It is a mark of translation4
The followin* Greek "ersions contain the correct readin* 6 '7 =7 (7 and f13&
while the erroneous readin* is contained in 6 =: $ > ? @ >elta Theta Pi f1
:8 33 4;4 200 81: 1010 and& not surprisin*ly& =5TA of the so6called 0Eld6
+yriac1 manuscripts ;Cureton P +inaitic=4
To ela$orate`
)et?s start off with the two roots in :uestionJ
0nb S9naS 6 As a Ker$al root it means 0o build5 0o #ork& as a noun ;i4e4&
9inyan& 9naya& etc4= it means Buildin%5 7ork5 etc.
Ynb S9nayS 6 means 9ffsprin%
Boot 1
Fsin* root %& 0nb & if you wanted to say ?2er work& her $uild;in*=& etc4? 6
followin* the rules of Ta$le 2 in the #ossessi"e #ronoun section of the
Grammar 6 the endin* 0 is dropped and a /rd6person feminine suffi! of hy is
appended4 5ou now ha"e hynb 6 S2er works& deeds& $uild;in*=& etc4S
Boot :
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 2/
Fsin* root 2& Ynb & if you wanted to say ?2er offsprin*? 6 followin* the rules
of Ta$le % in the #ossessi"e #ronoun section of the Grammar 6 a /rd6person
feminine suffi! of h is appended4 5ou now ha"e hynb 6 S2er offsprin*4S
$onclusion
=5TA words 3ust happen to $e spelled the same way $y chance< This is the
pro$lem the translators of )uke had4 This word can mean either one& $ut I
think it is clear from Matthew that the real readin* is 0deeds1 ;see #ayne
+mith& a Compendious +yriac @ictionary& and also compare the translation $y
@r4 Geor*e )amsa=4
+o& to $e*in with& the "erses in the #eshitta a*ree4 9oth "erses should read
0deeds14 9ut not only is this yet another contradiction sol"ed $y the #eshitta&
it is also a split word4 In fact& since much of the "ariants in the Greek are
caused $y a false interpretation of )uke in the first place& and "ariants occur
in $oth "erses& it may $e re*arded as a 0dou$le split word1<
The NF Fnited 9i$le +ociety?s Greek te!t reads 0er*on1 meanin* 0works1
while the 9y,antine which reads 0teknon1& meanin* 0children14 The 0dou$le
split word1 comes in as most of the Greek6$ased "ersions read 0children1 in
)uke4 The Ale!andrian $ased "ersions then tend to read 0deeds1 in Matthew&
while the )ATR 9y,antine6"ersions ;while the usual Ale!andrian "ersions
are more recent than famous 9y,antine "ersions like the HGK and Gene"a& the
Ale!andrian te!ts are older= read 0children1 in Matthew4 This is clearly a case
of tamperin* with the te!t& in order to harmoni,e the readin*s in Matthew
and )uke4 Fnfortunately for the 09y,antine Greek primacists1& the wron*
"erse was edited< They should not ha"e $rou*ht the Matthew readin* in line
with the corrupted )uke readin*& $ut should ha"e made the "erse in )uke
read 0deeds1 or 0works1<
It is worth reiteratin* that the 0Eld +yriac1 ;an Aramaic "ersion of the New
Testament& which some $elie"e is the true Aramaic ori*inal instead of the
#eshitta= contains the same error as the Greek& which lends more wei*ht to
the superiority of the #eshitta& the ori*inal Aramaic4
This is powerful proof that not only is the Aramaic #eshitta superior to the
Greek mss& $ut also that $oth the Ale!andrian and 9y,antine families of
Greek mss& were $oth translated from the #eshitta4
NoteJ A similar situation is found in the $ook of Colossians4
)i"in* in children or deeds? C Colossians /JB6I
HGKJ 0.or which thin*s? sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of
diso$edienceJ In the which ye also walked some time& when ye li"ed in
them41
That doesn7t really make a whole lot of sense does it? The Greek has us
walkin* INTE children and )IKING in them4
.rom the Aramaic #eshitta& we see that the walkin* and li"in* was done in
deeds of diso$edience& not children of diso$edience4
). +o com,are or to re,resent ? #ar' :30
The HGK saysJ 0And he said& Whereunto shall we liken the kin*dom of God?
or with what comparison shall we compare it?1
The Weymouth saysJ 0Another sayin* of 2is was thisJ S2ow are we to picture
the Hin*dom of God? or $y what fi*ure of speech shall we represent it?1
Kersions that say compare or a "ariation thereofJ @AR95& @ouay6Rheims&
Gene"a& GodsWord& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NHGK& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say represent& demonstrate& set forth& or a "ariation thereofJ
CK& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& TK& Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word hyltmn can $e translated to
mean 0to compare1 and 0to demonstrate1& once a*ain& pointin* to an Aramaic
ori*inal4
The 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t as well as the +tephens and +cri"ener Te!tus
Receptus ha"e this phrase in the latter half of Mark 8J/'66
jrvnotonopopojnopopocrvotjv which Geor*e Ricker 9erry
translates as S444or with what para$le shall we com%are it?S in his Greek6
n*lish Interlinear4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 2>
The Ale!andrian te!t has ttvtotjvnopopojOcrvwhich 9erry
translates as S444what para$le shall we re%resent it?
$i$le6researcher4com chooses ?set it forth? instead of ?re%resent4?
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta is hyltmn which means 0can we
com%are it41
The root of this word is ?mtl? in CA) ;the Comprehensi"e Aramaic le!icon C
an online resource= code and the results from their le!icon are as followsJ
mtl N mtl=
% G)AGal&+yr&G9A para$le
2 +yr tale
/ +yr pro"er$
mtl[2 N mtl=
% +yr *ift
mtl K
'%% #alestinian&+yr&G9A to com%are
'%2 +yr to re%resent sym$olically
'%/ G9A&G)AGal&+yr to use a para$le
'8% +yr&G9A to +e com%ared
'2% +yr to com%are
'>% +yr to $ecome like
'>2 +yr to +e com%ared
'>/ +yr to $e si*nified
'>8 +yr to $e predicated
'/% +yr to use a simile
'/2 +yr to use a pro"er$
'// +yr to com%are
'/8 +yr to re%resent alle*orically
'/> +yr to tell a tale
'/B +yr to demonstrate ;this 3i"es with ?set it forth? mentioned in the /rd para*raph of
this post=
'/I +yr to predict
'/( +yr to fa$ricate
The editions that ha"e ?represent D set forth? as opposed to ?compare? are as
followsJ
2B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
)achmann %(82& Tischendorf %(BO& Tre*elles %(>I& Alford %(8O as re"ised in
%(I%& Westcott P 2ort %((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle %O2I as re"ised in
%O8% ;%Ith=4 Nestle6Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
*. +hose who are strong or who have ,ower ? -ev *:1)
NoteJ That stron* and powerful are "ery similar words is not the point& as
similar words do not detract from the power of a split word4 The point is that
once a*ain& two different readin*s from Greek mss can $e traced to one word
in the Aramaic4
The @AR95 saysJ 0And the kin*s of the earth& and the *reat& and the
chiliarchs& and the rich& and the stron*& and e"ery $ondman and freeman& hid
themsel"es in the ca"es and in the rocks of the mountainsA1
The N)T saysJ 0Then the kin*s of the earth& the rulers& the *enerals& the
wealthy people& the people with *reat power& and e"ery sla"e and e"ery free
person66all hid themsel"es in the ca"es and amon* the rocks of the
mountains41
Kersions that say stron* or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& AM#& A+K& 99&
@AR95& @ouay6Rheims& M+G& NA+9& R+K& W& W5C4
Kersions that say power or a "ariation thereofJ CK& +K& GodsWord&
2olman& I+K& )ITK& N)T& TK& Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word 0w?Hhaylowtha1 ; Fwlyxw =
can $e translated as Qstron*7 and Qpowerful7& two different words in the Greek
mss4
+tephens %>>' Te!tus Receptus and the +cri"ener %(O8 Te!tus Receptus use
the word ?dunatoi? in Re"elation BJ%> which Geor*e Ricker 9erry in his Greek6
n*lish Interlinear New Testament translates as ?%owerful4 The 9y,antine
Ma3ority te!t and the Ale!andrian te!t use a word that doesnCt loo" 5B
sound anythin# li"e Cdunatoi&C These two te!ts use the word ?ischuroi which
Geor*e 9erry translates as ?stron#? in his footnotes4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 2I
Lor$a has $een cau*ht red6handed< The correspondin* word
SwC?haylowthaS in the #eshitta re"eals how he came up with two words that
are totally different in written form AN@ "ocali,ation4 2ere are the entries
from the +yriac lectronic @ata Retrie"al Archi"e ;+@RA= and the
Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon4
Word Num$erJ I'/O
#ronunciationJ ;astern= EH2a5)aEaT&aA ;Western= EH2a5)aEoT&oA
Meanin*JJ mi*hty work& force& stren*th& power& "irtue
!yl N !yl=
% arlyImpAr&G)AT*&G9A army
2 ImpAr* military unitD*arrison
/ passim %ower& force
8 G)AGal&+yr metaphJ stren#th& essence
> G)AGal multitude
B +yr miracle
!yl[2 N !yl=
% +yr cry for help
2 +yr help
!yl[/ N !yl=
% +yr name of plant
!yl K
'2% +yr to corro$orate
'22 G)AT*&G9A to stren#then
'>% +yr to +e stron#
'>2 G)AT*&C#A&+am&+yr to +e made stron#
'>/ +yr to recover stren#th
'>8 +yr to contend
'>> +yr to carry on war
'>B +yr to carry on sacred military ser"ice
The Greek editions that ha"e ?ischuroi?6;stron*= as opposed to ?dunatoi?6
;powerful= are as followsJ
Gries$ach %('>& )achmann %(82& Tischendorf %(BO& Tre*elles %(>I& Alford
%(8O as re"ised in %(I%& Wordsworth %(>B as re"ised in %(I'& Westcott P 2ort
%((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle %O2I as re"ised in %O8% ;%Ith=& Nestle6
Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=& 2od*es P .arstad %O(2 as corrected in %O(>4
2( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
(. .a/ing or thin'ing ? 0ohn 11:31
The HGK saysJ 0Then the Gews who were with her in the house& and
comfortin* her& when they saw that Mary rose up :uickly and went out&
followed her& sayin*& S+he is *oin* to the tom$ to weep there4S1
The I+K saysJ 0When the Gews who had $een with her& consolin* her in the
house& saw Mary *et up :uickly and *o out& they followed her& thinkin* that
she had *one to the tom$ to cry there41
Kersions that say sayin* or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& @AR95& @ouay6Rheims&
Gene"a& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NHGK& W& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say thinkin*& assumin* or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99&
CK& +K& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& M+G& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T&
Rotherham& R+K& TK& Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word 0se$aro1 ; wrbs = can $e
translated to mean $oth<
In Gohn %%J/% some Gews were consolin* Mary after the death of )a,arus& and
when they saw that she :uickly rose up and went out& they followed her444
Now comes the part where the Greek te!ts differ4 The +tephens and +cri"ener
Te!tus Receptus and the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t ha"e ryovtr; ;sayin#=S+he
is *oin* to the tom$ that she may weep there4S The Ale!andrian te!t a*rees
with the #eshitta ;howe"er there is another shade of meanin* of the Aramaic
root that the Greeks were confused a$out that we?ll e!plore in a minute=4 The
Ale!andrian te!t has ooovtr; ;thin"in#=4 The Comprehensi"e Aramaic
)e!icon re"eals the mistakeJ
#ronunciationJ ;astern= +9&aRE ;Western= +9&aRE
Meanin*JJ consider& think& suppose& hope
s$r N s$r=
% #alestinian&+yr opinion
2 +yr suspicion
/ #alestinian a =pyn b s$rN=pyn N
s$r[2 N s$r=
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 2O
% G)AGal&C#A&+am&+yr hope
s$r K
'%% 9i$Ar@an&#alestinian&+yr to e!pect
'%2 #alestinian&+yr to hope
'%/ G)AT* to intend
'%8 #alestinian&C#A&+am&+yr to thin"
'%> #alestinian to meditate
'%B #alestinian&G9A to understand
'%I G)AGal&G9A to +e of the o%inion
'%( G9A to reason
'%O G9A to a*ree with
'8% +yr to $e considered
'82 +yr to seem
'8/ G)AGal&G9A \mst$rh\ it is reasona$le
'88 #alestinian to $e understood
'2% +yr to hope
'22 +yr to $e of the opinion
'/% +yr to hope
'/2 +yr to thin"
'// +yr to e!pect
'/8 +yr to supplicate
'/> +yr to make to hope
'/B +yr to make to think
'/I #alestinian&G9A to e6%lain444one that mi*ht ha"e *otten confused444
s$r[2 K
'%% +yr to +rin# news
'%2 +yr to %reach the #os%el
'>% +yr to receive news
'>2 +yr to +e announced
5ou can see how ?le*ontes? ;sayin*= and ?do!antes? ;thinkin*= ha"e common
*round in the word ?se$aro? of the #eshitta4
1. +hrough the gate or "oor ? &u'e 13:2
The HGK saysJ 0+tri"e to enter in at the strait *ateJ for many& I say unto you&
will seek to enter in& and shall not $e a$le41
The NIK saysJ 02e said to them& SMake e"ery effort to enter throu*h the
narrow door& $ecause many& I tell you& will try to enter and will not $e a$le
to41
/' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Kersions that say *ate or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a&
HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NHGK& W& We$ster& Weymouth& 5)T4
Kersions that say door or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99& CK& @AR95&
+K& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& Rotherham& R+K&
TK4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word 0tarea1 ; 09rt =can $e
translated as $oth door and *ate4 5et another indicator of Aramaic primacy4
The reason why some translations of )uke %/J28 ha"e S+tri"e to enter in at the
strait #ate ;HGK= and others ha"e S+tri"e to enter in $y the narrow door
;American +tandard Kersion= is $ecause of two meanin*s that the Aramaic
word ?tarea? hasJ
Word Num$erJ 2/'I(
Meanin*J door& #ate& portal
#ronunciationJ ;astern= T?aRaA
;Western= T?aRoA
tr;wn N tr;wn=
% +yr front door
tr; N tr;=
% passim #ate
2 G)AGal&G)AT* entrance
/ +yr a \dmalkA=\ royal court
8 +yr capital
> +yr strophe
B +yr counsel
I +yr \$tar;e= =c!rJAne=\ elsewhere
( +yr \tra; satwA=\ $e*innin* of winter
O G9A market price
tr;[2 N tr;=
% +yr&9i$Ar&C#A *atekeeper
tr;yw N tr;ywt=
% +yr 3o$ of *atekeeper
Also the Compendious has a= a #ate& door& entrance
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy /%
9oth editions of the Te!tus Receptus ;+tephanus6%>>' and +cri"ener6%(O8= as
well as the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t ha"e nj; meanin* ?#ate? while the
Ale!andrian te!t has Opo; meanin* ?door4?
The standard editions that ha"e ?door? instead of ?*ate? are as followsJ
%(8O as re"ised in %(I%& Westcott P 2ort %((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle
%O2I as re"ised in %O8% ;%Ith=4 Nestle6Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
$. .u22er or tolerate ? -evelation 2:20
The HGK saysJ 0Notwithstandin* I ha"e a few thin*s a*ainst thee& $ecause
thou sufferest that woman Ge,e$el& which calleth herself a prophetess& to teach
and to seduce my ser"ants to commit fornication& and to eat thin*s sacrificed
unto idols41
The NIK saysJ 0Ne"ertheless& I ha"e this a*ainst youJ 5ou tolerate that
woman Ge,e$el& who calls herself a prophetess4 9y her teachin* she misleads
my ser"ants into se!ual immorality and the eatin* of food sacrificed to idols41
Kersions that say suffer or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a&
HG2%& HGK& Rotherham& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say tolerate& let alone or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& +K&
GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& R+K& TK& Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root qb4 can $e translated as $oth4
In Re"elation 2J2'& +tephens %>>' Te!tus Receptus and +cri"ener?s %(O8
Te!tus Receptus ha"e ?eas? which Geor*e Ricker 9erry translates ?thou
sufferest4? The 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t and the Ale!andrian te!t ha"e ?apheis?
which Geor*e 9erry translates in the footnote as ?thou lettest alone4? ;many
n*lish "ersions translate this as Qtolerate7=4 Well& as it turns out the root of the
correspondin* word in the +yriac #eshitto is ?sh6$6:4? 2ere is the paste from
CA)J
d$: K
'%% passim to lea"e ;P depart=
/2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
'%2 passim to lea"e s4t4 left o"er
'%/ passim to a$andon
'%8 passim to %ermit
'%> G)AGal&+yr to di"orce
'%B +yr to send out
'%I +yr \dmA=\ to shed $lood
'%( +yr \=iydA=\ to admit
'%O +yr to admit
'%%' G)AGal&G)AT*&+yr to condone& to for*i"e
'%%% +yr to reser"e
'%%2 +yr to make fire
'%%/ +yr \d$ow:\ let alone
'%%8 G)AGal to let alone
'%%> G)AGal to omit s4t4
'%%B G)AGal&G)AT* to entrust& to put aside
'%%I G)AGal to $e:ueth
'8% passim to $e left
'82 +yr to $e deserted
'8/ G)AGal&+yr to +e %ermitted
'88 G)AT*&+yr to +e condoned
'8> +yr to $e kindled
'/% +yr to %ermit
'2% G)AGal&G)AT* to di"orce
'>% G)AGal to $e di"orced
The standard editions that ha"e ?apheis? ;?thou lettest alone? C translated as
Qtolerate7 in many n*lish "ersions of these Greek mss C U9erryV= are
Gries$ach& )achmann& Tischendorf& Tre*elles& Alford& and Wordsworth4
10. +o ho,e or wait ? -omans 1:2
The HGK saysJ 0.or we are sa"ed $y hopeJ $ut hope that is seen is not hopeJ
for what a man seeth& why doth he yet hope for?1
The M+G saysJ 0That is why waitin* does not diminish us& any more than
waitin* diminishes a pre*nant mother4 We are enlar*ed in the waitin*4 We& of
course& don?t see what is enlar*in* us41
Kersions that say hope or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99& CK& @AR95&
@ouay6Rheims& +K& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK&
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy //
NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& Rotherham& R+K& TK& W& Weymouth&
Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say wait or a "ariation thereofJ M+G& N9 ;New n*lish 9i$le=4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root Yks can mean $oth4
In Aramaic& the root Yks ;SsakyS= meansJ
sky K
'%% #alestinian to e!pect
'%2 #alestinian to look
'2% +yr to e!pect
'22 G9A to look out for s4o4
'2/ #alestinian to wait
'>% +yr to $e e!pected
'>2 G)AInsc&G)AT*&G9A to hope for& to e!pect
In the Aramaic of Romans (J28& we readJ
S.or if we see it& do we hope for it?S
Lor$a could ha"e translated it either way ;ShopeS or SwaitS=& and he did<
The Greek roots in :uestion areJ
rnt; ;SlpisS& ShopeS=
or,oot ;S@echomaiS& SwaitS=
Greek translation of S2opeSJ
KI@NCJ U+cV 92 UCV @ G UH # #si // (% %'8 B%8 B/' %28% %((% 28O> 9y,
)ectV lat "* Usyr;h=V
TRAN+)ATIEN+J UHGK A+Kn NA+K N9nV
Greek translation of SWaitSJ
KI@NCJ UAV U+T %I/Omar*inV cop;north= cop;south=
TRAN+)ATIEN+J UN9V A+Kn
This is clear e"idence of an Aramaic ori*inal to the $ook of Romans& which
many $elie"e was written in )atin4
11. 3n !im 4 on !im or into !im ? 0ohn 3:1)
This is more than 3ust an a"era*e split word& $ecause it is in fact& a 0triple split
word14 Instead of two "ariants in the Greek& e!plained $y a common Aramaic
root& there are three<
The HGK saysJ 0That whosoe"er $elie"eth in him should not perish& $ut ha"e
eternal life41
The @AR95 saysJ 0that e"ery one who $elie"es on him may Ynot perish& $utZ
ha"e life eternal41
The )ITK saysJ 0that e"eryone $elie"in* into 2im should not perish& $ut ha"e
e"erlastin* life41
Kersions that say in him or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& AM#& @ouay6Rheims&
Gene"a& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& MHGK& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK&
N)T& Rotherham& R+K& TK& W& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say on him or a "ariation thereofJ @AR954
Kersions that say into him or a "ariation thereofJ )ITK& RCK ;Reco"ery
Kersion=4
There are two sections of the Grammar you will need to reference in order to
appreciate this e!ample4 In the #roclitic +ection of the Grammar& the #roclitic
B is introduced4 5ou will notice that the particle when attached to the
$e*innin* of the word means S9y& Into& In& Inside& etc4S
In the nclitic #ronoun +ection of the Grammar& the nclitic #ronoun hb is
e!plained4 5ou will notice that it is simply the #roclitic B with a h appended
to si*nify the /rd6person masculine 6 SIn him& $y him& throu*h him& on him&
etc4S
)et us e!amine the Aramaic "ersion of Gohn /J%> 6
hb Nmyhmd $nlkd ;+o that e"eryone who $elie"es in 2im=
db0n f ;not will perish=
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy />
The key to this e!ample is& of course& the hi*hli*hted hb ;In 2im& thou*h
2im& on him& into him& etc4=
If the "arious Greek manuscripts of Gohn7s Gospel were translation from the
Aramaic "ersion of Gohn& we would e!pect that they would "ary in their e!act
translation of this nclitic& and in fact they do4
The followin* Greek manuscripts translate it SIn 2imSJ %247 =7 (7 083 0113
The followin* translate it SEn 2imSJ %;3vid7 %;;7 A7
And the followin* translate it SInto 2imSJ '7 ?7 >elta7 Theta7 Pi7 Psi7 08;7 f17
f137 :87 337 4;47 2007 81:7 10107 1:D1
These "ariants in the Greek manuscripts su**est an underlyin* written
Aramaic ori*inal4
If Gohn was writin* in Greek& wouldn?t he ha"e chosen one of the three ways
to translate Mshikha?s Aramaic word hb ?
2ow did this $ecome three different readin*s in the Greek& if it was ori*inally
written in Greek?
"en worse for Lor$a& not all / renditions are *rammatically correct4 The
Greek of the New Testament is horri$le Greek from what I am told $y Greek
e!perts& in relation to the $eautiful lan*ua*e of 2omer or other ancient Greek
writers4 That?s where the myth of 0Hoine1 Greek as the 9i$lical lan*ua*e&
spran* up4 The New Testament is not penned in 0Hoine1 Greek 6 it?s penned
in 0Translation1 Greek 6 the same type of +emitic6influenced Greek that the
+eptua*int was penned in4 And we all know that the +eptua*int was a
translation of an underlyin* +emitic ori*inal4 The si*nificance of that fact is
*reat4
12. 5ngr/ or merci2ul ? #ar' 1:1
The TNIK saysJ 0Gesus was indi*nant4 2e reached out his hand and touched
the man4 0I am willin*&1 he said4 09e clean<11
NoteJ Note the use of 0indi*nant1 $y the TNIK translators& instead of directly
sayin* 0an*ry1< +imilarly& the N9 says 0in warm indi*nation14 Ene
/B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
definition of indi*nation& is 0ri*hteous an*er14 The R9 is more upfront with
0mo"ed with an*er14
The Wycliffe saysJ 0And Gesus had mercy on him& and stretched out his hand&
and touched him& and said to him Y.orsooth Gesus& ha"in* mercy on him&
stretched out his hand& and& touchin* him& saith to himZ& I will& $e thou made
clean41
Kersions that say an*ry& indi*nation or a "ariation thereofJ N9& R9
;Re"ised n*lish 9i$le=& TNIK ;Today7s New International Kersion=4
Kersions that say merciful& compassion& pity or a "ariation thereofJ A)T&
AM#& A+K& 99& CK& @AR95& @ouay6Rheims& +K& Gene"a& GodsWord&
2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)T&
Rotherham& R+K& TK& W& We$ster& Weymouth& Wycliffe& 5)T4
In some Greek mss4 of Mark& there7s a curious "arianceJ
9e,ae ;@ '>= and the latinsJ a / d ff2 and r% ori*inal readin*& $esides Tatian7s
@iatessaron& $rin* opytoOrt;& ANGR5& while the rest of mss
$rin*onoy,vtoOrt;& MRCI.F)4 Te!tual Criticism +cholars are di"ided in
this& $ecause the first readin* is certainly less attested $ut& accordin* to the
rule of 0lectio difficilior potior1 ;$etter the more difficult readin*J it7s more
likely chan*ed later for a softer 0pious1 e!e*esisA Matthew and )uke $oth
omitted the 0feelin*1& which is :uite suspicious=& 0an*ry1 would $e the
0ori*inal14 I won7t insist here in the su$3ect of Greek readin* preference& $ut
notice that the Greek aorist participles are CEM#)T)5 @I..RNT in
appearance4 2ow can then the confusion $e e!plained?
In the #eshitta we read Mxrt0 4 2ypothetically& the word correspondin* to
0An*ry1 could $e M9rt0 4 The shape of the x ;khet= and the 9 ;ayn= are
"ery similar& so Lor$a7s confusion could ha"e its cause 3ust here ;assumin*
the Aramaic script used was stran*eloA in 2e$rew letters the similarity is not
so e"ident=4
There7s moreJ amon* the meanin*s of M9rt0 there7s also C parado!icallye
0to ha"e pity14
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy /I
NoteJ Amon* QGreek7 scholars& there is an idea that the "erse should read
0an*ry1 instead of 0mercy1& as it makes more sense that scri$es chan*ed
0an*ry1 to 0mercy1& rather than the other way around& in order to paint a
0happier1 ima*e of 5eshua4 It could indeed $e 0an*ry14 What is wron* with
$ein* an*ry at a disease? Was 5eshua ne"er an*ry? Er did he happily
o"erturn the ta$les in the temple& to the tune of 0It7s a Wonderful World1?
13. Because 4 when or since ? 0ohn 12:1
2ere is another 0triple split word14
The NIK saysJ 0Isaiah said this $ecause he saw Gesus? *lory and spoke a$out
him41
The HGK saysJ 0These thin*s said saias& when he saw his *lory& and spake of
him41
Kersions that say $ecause or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99& CK&
@AR95& +K& GodsWord& 2olman& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& Rotherham&
R+K& TK& Weymouth4
Kersions that say when or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a&
I+K& HG2%& )ITK& MHGK& HGK& NHGK& W& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say since or a "ariation thereofJ None that I am aware of4 Enly
one of the ma3or Greek manuscripts seems to ha"e this readin*& so it is not a
surprise to find that it is not represented amon* the n*lish "ersions4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word dk can $e translated as
Q$ecause7& Qwhen7 and Qsince74
If the "arious Greek manuscripts of Gohn7s Gospel were translation from the
Aramaic "ersion of Gohn& we would e!pect that they would "ary in their e!act
translation of this word& and in fact they do4
The followin* Greek manuscripts translate it S9ecauseSJ %;; %24 ' A = @
Theta Psi f1 33
The followin* translate it SWhenSJ >7 ?7 >elta7 Pi7 f137 4;47 2007 81:7 1:D1
/( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
And the followin* manuscript translates it S+inceSJ (
2ow could Gohn ha"e written this in Greek? +urely the fact that these "ariants
e!ist indicate that the Greek manuscripts are merely translations4
1. Beginning or 2irst2ruits ? 2+hessalonians 2:13
The HGK saysJ 09ut we are $ound to *i"e thanks alway to God for you&
$rethren $elo"ed of the )ord& $ecause God hath from the $e*innin* chosen
you to sal"ation throu*h sanctification of the +pirit and $elief of the truthJ1
The I+K saysJ 0Now at all times we are o$li*ated to thank God for you&
$rothers who are lo"ed $y the )ord& $ecause God chose you to $e the first
fruits for sal"ation throu*h sanctification $y the +pirit and throu*h faith in
the truth41
Kersions that say $e*innin* or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& A+K& @AR95&
Gene"a& GodsWord& 2olman& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH&
NHGK& Rotherham& R+K& W& We$ster& Weymouth& 5)T4
Kersions that say firstfruits or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& +K& I+K& Wycliffe4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic word ?reshitha?& in the #eshitta& can
mean Q$e*innin*7 and Qfirstfruits7& pointin* to an Aramaic ori*inal to the
Greek manuscripts4
In the #eshitta te!t of 2nd Thes4 2J%/ you?ll find the word ?reshitha? which has
se"eral meanin*s& $ut the two I want to focus on are ?$e*innin*? and
?firstfruits4? The Greek "ariants pro"e an Aramaic ori*inal $ecause some
Greek manuscripts ha"e a word that means ?$e*innin*? and some others ha"e
a word that means ?firstfruits4? Nestle6Aland 2Bth has ?a%archen? defined as
followsJ
;%= to offer firstlin*s or firstfruits
;2= to take away the firstfruits of the productions of the earth which was offered to
God4 The first portion of the dou*h& from which sacred loa"es were to $e prepared4
2ence term used of persons consecrated to God for all time4
;/= persons superior in e!cellence to others of the same class
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy /O
The 9y,antine te!t and the Te!tus Receptus ha"e ?arches? which is defined as
followsJ
;%= +e#innin#& ori*in
;2= the person or thin* that commences& the first person or thin* in a series& the leader
;/= that $y which anythin* $e*ins to $e& the ori*in& the acti"e cause
;8= the e!tremity of a thin*
a4 of the corners of a sail
;>= the first place& principality& rule& ma*istracy
a4 of an*els and demons
@oes anyone ha"e another "ia$le e!planation for this other than the fact that
some Greeks chose one meanin* of ?reshitha? ;$e*innin*= and some other
Greeks chose another meanin* ;firstfruits=?
ryd N ryd=
% passim head
2 passim top
/ ImpAr*&G)AGal&+yr +e#innin#
8 ImpAr* capital funds
> G)AGal&+yr tip& e!tremity
B G)AT*&+yr chief
I +yr firstfruits
( +yr chapter
O +yr re*ion
%' +yr center
%% +yr source
%2 +yr $and
%/ +yr $est
%8 +yr principal or*an
%> +yr poison
%B +yr point
%I G)A R \$M\a R is the responsi$ility of
%( G)AGal&G)AT* choice& first :uality
%O G)AGal&G9A first part of a tannaitic statement
2' +yr ad" ;"arious=
1). 6e shall or let us ? 1Corinthians 1):$
The HGK saysJ 0And as we ha"e $orne the ima*e of the earthy& we shall also
$ear the ima*e of the hea"enly41
The Weymouth saysJ 0And as we ha"e $orne a resem$lance to the earthy one&
let us see to it that we also $ear a resem$lance to the hea"enly Ene41
Kersions that say we shall or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& AM#& A+K& @AR95&
+K& Gene"a& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)T&
R+K& W& We$ster& 5)T4
Kersions that say let us or a "ariation thereofJ @ouay6Rheims& Rotherham&
Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic could $e translated $oth ways4
In Aramaic& the future tense can also $e used as an e!hortation ;like in the
)ord?s #rayer& S444)et your kin*dom comeA )et you will $e done444S Guess what
we find in %st Corinthians %>J8O?
% Corinthians %>J8OJ
TRTJ Swe shall also wear the ima*e of the hea"enly Ene4S
KI@NCJ 9 I B/' %((% )ect syr;p= cop;south=
TRAN+)ATIEN+J HGK A+K R+K NA+K NIK N9 TK
RANHJ C
NET+J Slet us also wear the ima*e of the hea"enly Ene4S
KI@NCJ p 8B + A C @ G H # #si // (% %'8 B%8 %28% %I/O 28O> 9y, lat "*
cop;north=
TRAN+)ATIEN+J A+Kn R+Kn NA+Kn NIKn TKn
It all depends on how the "er$ $bln ;Ne)97a+2= is translated4
To understand whether this should $e translated Swe shallS or Slet usS you
would ha"e to look at the *rammar of the "er$ in the "erse4 .or instance
?akha? means ?$rother? $ut as soon as you chan*e that ?a? endin* to an ?i?
endin* you ha"e ?akhi? and that means ?my $rother and when you chan*e the
?a? endin* to an ?ay? endin* you ha"e ?akhay? meanin* ?my $rothers? or ?my
$rethren?4
The "er$ is Common Gender& .irst #erson& #lural ;hence the ?we? in ?we shall?
or the ?us? in ?let us?=4 The +uffi! Num$er is +in*ular& the Ker$al Tense is
Imperfect ;incomplete& on*oin* action=& and the Ker$al Con3u*ation is #A)
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 8%
;the most direct6action "er$ in Aramaic C like how fal or Hal is the most
direct6action "er$ in 2e$rew=& hence ?shall? in ?we shall? or the ?let? in ?let us?4
1*. 6hatsoever ,lace or as man/ as ? #ar' *:11
This split word is "ery interestin*& as the two main families of Greek te!ts&
9y,antine and Ale!andrian& seem to $e split ri*ht down the middle4 In this
"erse& the 9y,antine te!ts tend to refer to places& while the Ale!andrian te!ts
tend to speak of people4
The A+K saysJ 0And whatsoe"er place shall not recei"e you& and they hear
you not& as ye *o forth thence& shake off the dust that is under your feet for a
testimony unto them41
The 5)T saysJ 0and as many as may not recei"e you& nor hear you& *oin* out
thence& shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony to themA
"erily I say to you& It shall $e more tolera$le for +odom or Gomorrah in a day
of 3ud*ment than for that city4?1
Kersions that say whatsoe"er place& any place or a "ariation thereofJ A+K&
99& CK& @AR95& +K& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& Rotherham&
R+K4
Kersions that say as many as& whoe"er& whosoe"er or a "ariation thereofJ
A)T& @ouay6Rheims& Gene"a& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK&NHGK& We$ster&
Wycliffe& 5)T4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root nm can mean $oth4
2ere is another "erse where the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t and $oth +tephens
and +cri"ener?s Te!tus Receptus are all in a*reement $ut the Ale!andrian te!t
has another readin*4
The phrase that is different in the Ale!andrian te!t reads as followsJ
o;ovtono;jorjtot ;?whatsoever %lace will not recei"e?=
The 9y,4 Ma34 and +tephens D +cri"ener Te!tus Receptus ha"eJ
oootovjorcvtot ;?as many as will not recei"e?=
The answer lies in the way the root ?mn? is handled4
mn #
% passim who?
mn #
% passim who?
2 ImpAr*&G)AGal a \,yDdyDd\ whoe"er
mn p
' passim from
% passim J directionJ %lace
2 passim J directionJ person
/ passim J ori*in J %lace
8 passim J ori*in J %erson
> passim J ori*in J material
B passim J ori*in J time
I passim J a*ent
( passim J cause
O passim J comparati"e
%' passim J other "er$al complements
%% passim J partiti"e
%2 +yr J distri$uti"e
%/ #alestinian J multiplicati"e
%8 +yr J on the side of
%> +yr J refle!i"e
1(. 7isregar"e" or hear" ? #ar' ):3*
This Qsplit word7 does not arise due to ha"in* one Aramaic word that was
rendered differently in differin* Greek translations& $ut is likely caused $y
similar Aramaic words $ein* confused for each other4 This idea is
stren*thened $y the consistent tendency of the 9y,antine manuscripts to read
Qheard7 while the Ale!andrian manuscripts tend to say Qdisre*arded74
The NIK saysJ 0I*norin* what they said& Gesus told the syna*o*ue ruler&
S@on?t $e afraidA 3ust $elie"e4S1
The HGK saysJ 0As soon as Gesus heard the word that was spoken& he saith
unto the ruler of the syna*o*ue& 9e not afraid& only $elie"e41
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 8/
Kersions that say disre*arded& i*nored or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& 99& NIK&
NIK6FH& N)T& R+K& TK&
Kersions that say heard& o"erheard or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& CK& @AR95&
@ouay6Rheims& +K& Gene"a& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK&
MHGK& M+G& NA+9& NHGK& Rotherham& W& We$ster& Weymouth& Wycliffe&
5)T4
The 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t as well as the +tephens and +cri"ener Te!tus
Receptus all read the same for Mark >J/B4 Where these te!ts differ from the
Ale!andrian te!t is rather amusin*4
The Ale!andrian te!t has nopoiooo; ;?havin# disre#arded?=
The three te!ts listed a$o"e ha"e rOrc;oiooo; ;?havin# heard?=
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta is (m4
The entries from CA) are as followsJ
dm; K
'%% passim to hear
'%2 +yr to listen
'%/ +yr to hold a hearin#
'%8 +yr to o$ey
'%> +yr \;am\ to con"erse with
'%B passim to understand
'%I G9A dmy; l6 he heard& knew
'%( G9A mN to infer
'8% passim to +e heard
'82 +yr to $e famous
'8/ +yr to $e known
'88 +yr to listen
'8> +yr to o$ey
'2% +yr to announce
'>% +yr to recei"e an announcement
'/% passim to cause to hear
'/2 +yr to announce
'// +yr to cause to o$ey
'/8 G9A to *i"e to understand
'/> G9A to infer
In my efforts to fi*ure out what Aramaic word the Greek translators mi*ht
ha"e *otten confused the closest I could come to ?havin# disre#arded? is when
I entered ?i*nore? in the n*lish6to6Aramaic search link on the CA) site4 The
results that stron*ly fa"ored ?shme? ;hear E heard= are listed $elowJ
smy K
'%% +yr to lose li*ht
'2% +yr&#alestinian&C#A&+am&G9A to $lind
'22 G9A to repudiate
'2/ G)AGal to i#nore
'>% G)AGal&+yr to $e $linded
'>2 +yr to fei*n $lindness
'>/ +yr to $e $lind
'/% +yr to $e $lind
'/2 +yr to $e lame
I $elie"e that the translators of the Ale!andrian te!t confused ?smy? ;i#nore E
disre#ard= with ?shme? ;hear=4
11. 3 or she ? &u'e (:)
This split word also has a little Qe!tra spice7`
The HGK saysJ 0Thou *a"est me no kissJ $ut this woman since the time I came
in hath not ceased to kiss my feet41
The Wycliffe saysJ 0Thou hast not *i"en to me a kissA $ut this& since she
entered& ceased not to kiss my feet41
Kersions that say IJ A)T& AM#& A+K& 99& CK& @AR95& +K& Gene"a&
GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& M+G& NA+9& NIK& NIK6
FH& NHGK& N)T& Rotherham& R+K& TK& We$ster& 5)T4
Kersions that say sheJ @ouay6Rheims& W& Wycliffe4
Greek NA2I 0canoni,ed1 te!tJ
4449ut this ;woman= since +2 entered ;+2= didn7t stop444
otjoroj;rtojOovootrtnrv
The "ariantJ
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 8>
)T f%4%/ al lat ;some latins= +y# +y2 +a;mss= $o ;pt=
4449ut this ;woman= since I entered ;she= didn7t stop444
otjoroj;rtojOrvootrtnrv
The #eshittaJ
...tyl4 f tl9d Nm 0h Nyd 0dh
It7s all a$out the "er$ l9 ;to enter=4 Notice that $oth .IR+T ;common= and
T2IR@ .MNIN ;and also 2nd Masculine& $ut it isn7t rele"ant here=
persons of the sin*ular #erfect #eal& tl9 & WIT2EFT KEW)+ AR T2
+AM<
+o& in this caseJ
tle9 ;Qalth= ] 5ou ;m= entered
telO9 ;Qelath= ] +he entered
tOlO9 ;Qeleth= ] I entered
It is then "ery easy to see why Lor$a *ot it wron*4
The Greek manuscript containin* the rare 0she1 readin*& is manuscript 9
;9e,a %>O(=4
Now this "erse contains an important split word& which e!poses a
contradiction amon* the Greek manuscripts& and demonstrates how the
Greek manuscripts in"ol"ed are deri"ed from the Aramaic ori*inal4
1$. 6al'ing or ,assing on ? #ar' 1:1*
The Wycliffe saysJ 0And as he passed $eside the sea of Galilee& he saw +imon&
and Andrew& his $rother& castin* their nets into the seaA for they were
fishers41
The NIK saysJ 0As Gesus walked $eside the +ea of Galilee& he saw +imon and
his $rother Andrew castin* a net into the lake& for they were fishermen41
Kersions that say walk or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& CK& @AR95& Gene"a&
I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)T& TK& W& We$ster&
5)T4
Kersions that say passin* or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& @ouay6Rheims&
+K& 2olman& M+G& Rotherham& R+K& Weymouth& Wycliffe4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the root of Klmh in the Aramaic #eshitta can
mean $oth4
The 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t of Mark %J%B as well as +tephens and +cri"ener?s
Te!tus Receptus start with SHrptnotcvor444S ;SAnd wal"in#444S=
while the Ale!andrian te!t has Siotnopoycv444S ;and %assin# on444S=
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta is Klmh the root of which means
?walk? $ut has some other meanin*s as well4
hlk K
'%% ImpArMesop&9i$Ar&MiddleAr&#alestinian to *o& to proceed
'%2 +yr to *o $ack
'2% ImpAr*&9i$Ar@an&G)AGal&G)AT*&+yr to wal" '22 G)AT*&+yr to spread
'2/ +yr to *o away
'28 +yr to %ass
'2> +yr to li"e
'2B +yr to make to *o
'2I +yr to lead
'2( +yr to turn a$out
'>% G)AGal&G)AT* to wal" a+out
The editions that ha"e Sand passin* onS instead of SAnd walkin*S are as
followsJ
)achmann %(82& Tischendorf %(BO& Tre*elles %(>I& Alford %(8O as re"ised in
%(I%& Westcott P 2ort %((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle %O2I as re"ised in
%O8% ;%Ith=4 Nestle6Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
NoteJ A "ery similar split word occurs in Mark 2JO where most Greek mss say
0take up your couch and walk1& while Tischendorf7s te!t says 0take up your
couch and *o14
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 8I
20. Para,toma or hamartia ? 0ames ):1*
This is one of the many Qsynonym split words7& as I like to call them4 The
whole point of these split words& is to demonstrate how the "arious Greek
te!ts are filled with "ariants $ecause of $ein* different translations from the
#eshitta4 Now& one thin* you will e!pect to see in different translations of the
same te!t& are synonym "ariants4 .or e!ample& when different translations of
a German car manual are $ein* made into n*lish& you may find that the
German word for car& Qauto7& may $e translated in the different n*lish
"ersions as Qcar7& Qautomo$ile7 or Q"ehicle74 In fact& in a work as lar*e as the
9i$le& one would e!pect to find many such synonym "ariants4 This e!ample is
$ut one of many4
The HGK saysJ 0Confess your faults one to another& and pray one for another&
that ye may $e healed4 The effectual fer"ent prayer of a ri*hteous man
a"aileth much41
NoteJ As this deals with Greek synonyms& there is no si*nificant difference to
show amon* the n*lish 9i$le "ersions4
Now& as the two different words in the Greek te!ts ;paraptoma and hamartia=
ha"e pretty much the same meanin* ;synonyms=& they o$"iously stem from
the same Aramaic word& wktwlks
The Greek te!ts differ on a word in Games >J%B that makes for an interestin*
study in relationship to the #eshitta4 Games >J%B starts with SConfess your
faults one to another444S The Te!tus Receptus of +tephens %>>' and +cri"ener
%(O8 as well as the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t ha"e nopontcoto while the
Ale!andrian te!t has ooptto;
+tron*?s defines ?paraptoma? as a side6slip ;lapse or de"iation=& i4e4&
;unintentional= error or ;wilful= trans*ression4 This lines up with the
correspondin* word in the #eshitta "ery well4
Word Num$erJ %88'(
#ronunciationJ ;astern= +aH&)EaT&H&uEN ;Western= +aH&)EoT&H&uEN
Meanin*JJ error& foolishness& trans*ression& trespass& wron*6doin*& sin
The word in the Ale!andrian te!t& hamartia also lines up "ery well with the
Aramaic word ?sakh6lowth6khon4? 2ere?s Thayer?s entry for ?hamartia?J
%= e:ui"alent to G2B8
%a= to $e without a share in
%$= to miss the mark
%c= to err& $e mistaken
%d= to miss or wander from the path of upri*htness and honour& to do or *o wron*
%e= to wander from the law of God& "iolate God?s law& sin
2= that which is done wron*& sin& an offence& a "iolation of the di"ine law in thou*ht or
in act
/= collecti"ely& the comple! or a**re*ate of sins committed either $y a sin*le person or
$y many
+o we ha"e two Greek words sprin*in* from one Aramaic word in the $ook
of Games4
21. 82 salvation or o2 li2e ? #atthew 1*:1*
The HGK saysJ 0And +imon #eter answered and said& Thou art the Christ& the
+on of the li"in* God41
NoteJ Ence a*ain& the n*lish "ersions demonstratin* the "ariant are not
shown& as the "ariant lies in the Greek te!ts& and most n*lish "ersions read
"ery similarly4
The Ale!andrian and 9y,antine te!ts usually ha"e cvto; in the "erse&
si*nifyin* 0God of life1 or 0God the li"in* Ene1& while the Code! 9e,ae ;@=
has ocovto; in Matthew %BJ%B& si*nifyin* 0God of sal"ation1 or 0God the
+a"iour14 The #eshitta has 0yx which literally means Qlife74 When comparin*
the two words& it doesn7t seem pro$a$le that a Greek copyist 3ust copied the
word wron*ly from one Greek te!t to another4 It is more likely that the
Lor$ans translatin* the Code! 9e,ae from the Aramaic ori*inal had meant to
say Qsal"ation7 instead of Qlife74 In Aramaic& there really is no word for
Qsal"ation74 They 3ust use the word for Qlife7& as shown here from the
Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!iconJ
6yF N G 6yyn
6yyn N
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy 8O
% passim life
2 +yr salvation
)+2 22O
)+2 KJ !ayJe=
6yF a
% G9A ra%idly
formJ hyy= <
This Greek "ariant clearly points to an Aramaic ori*inal
22. 5lms or righteousness ? #atthew *:1
The HGK saysJ 0Take heed that ye do not your alms $efore men& to $e seen of
themJ otherwise ye ha"e no reward of your .ather which is in hea"en41
The NIK saysJ 0S9e careful not to do your ?acts of ri*hteousness? $efore men&
to $e seen $y them4 If you do& you will ha"e no reward from your .ather in
hea"en41
Kersions that say almsJ @AR95& Gene"a& HG2%& HGK& We$ster4
Kersions that say ri*hteousnessJ A+K& +K& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6
FH& Rotherham& Wycliffe4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root qd! can $e translated to mean
$oth4
The two Greek words translated from the Aramaic root ?,d:? look a$solutely
nothin* alike4 #aul 5ounan translated wktqd!b as Sin your alms*i"in*S in
his interlinear #eshitta translation4
The "ariants in the Greek te!t& resultin* from the different meanin*s that the
Aramaic ?,d:? has& are as followsJ
ghijhklmnon666dikaiosune666dik6ah6yos6oo?6nay ;as in the Ale!andrian te!ts=
Thayer @efinitionJ
%= in a $road senseJ state of him who is as he ou*ht to $e& ri#hteousness7 the condition
acce%ta+le to Hod
>' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
%a= the doctrine concernin* the way in which man may attain a state appro"ed of God
1+F inte#rity7 virtue7 %urity of life7 ri#htness7 correctness of thin"in# feelin#7 and
actin#
2= in a narrower sense& 3ustice or the "irtue which *i"es each his due
pqporklmnon666eleemosune666el6eh6ay6mos6oo?6nay ;as in the 9y,antine te!ts=
Thayer @efinitionJ
%= mercy& pity
1aF es%ecially as e6hi+ited in #ivin# alms7 charity
:F the +enefaction itself7 a donation to the %oor7 alms
The editions that read Sri*hteousnessS instead of SalmsS are as followsJ
%(8O as re"ised in %(I%& Wordsworth %(>B as re"ised in %(I'& Westcott P 2ort
%((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle %O2I as re"ised in %O8% ;%Ith=& Nestle6
Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
23. !eart or un"erstan"ing ? 9,hesians 1:11
This is a "ery e!citin* split word& as the Greek "ariant is caused $y an
Aramaic idiom<
The NIK saysJ 0I pray also that the eyes of your heart may $e enli*htened in
order that you may know the hope to which he has called you& the riches of
his *lorious inheritance in the saints&1
The HGK saysJ 0The eyes of your understandin* $ein* enli*htenedA that ye
may know what is the hope of his callin*& and what the riches of the *lory of
his inheritance in the saints&1
Kersions that say heart or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& AM#& A+K& 99& CK&
@AR95& @ouay6Rheims& +K& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T&
Rotherham& R+K& Wycliffe4
Kersions that say understandin* or a "ariation thereofJ Gene"a& MHGK& HG2%&
HGK& NHGK& We$ster& Weymouth& 5)T4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy >%
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic phrase wktwbld 0ny9 is an
idiom& and as such& can ha"e a literal translation& and a meanin*ful
translation4
In +emitic culture& the heart is the idiomatic or*an of understandin* and
knowled*e4
In phesians %J%(& #aul uses this +emiticismJ
wktwbld 0ny9 ;Ayna d?)e$watkon 6 Sthe eye of your heartsS=
The Ale!andrian manuscripts ;includin* Tischendorf& Westcott P 2ort and
Nestle6Aland= tend to literally retain this Aramaic idiom& while the 9y,antine
te!ts *i"e a meanin*ful translation4
This clearly demonstrates that Lor$a sometimes understood that #aul was
usin* an Aramaic idiom& and chose to li$erally translate the meanin* into a
more accepta$le solution in Greek thou*ht4
2. Bowels or love ? Phili,,ians 1:14 2:1 % Colossians 3:12 %
Philemon (4 124 20 % 10ohn 3:1( % 2Corinthians *:12
This e!ample is not really a split word& more of a 0pseudo split word1& as the
"ariant in :uestion ;at least to my knowled*e= does not occur in the Greek
;3ust a$out all Greek "ersions read 0$owels1=4 It does occur thou*h in the
n*lish "ersions4 The 9y,antine "ersions tend to say 0$owels1& while the
Ale!andrian "ersions tend to say 0lo"e14 That the "ariant is caused $y
differin* translations of an Aramaic idiom& is indicati"e of an Aramaic
ori*inal& underminin* the Greek4
2owe"er& this e!ample is :uite ama,in*& as it runs throu*hout many New
Testament $ooks& and is e"idence of Aramaic ori*inality to letters sent to
Christians in Greek6dominated cities< I4e4 if these letters were addressed to
Greeks& why are they filled with +emitic idioms that Greeks would not
understand? It also is an e!ample of where an idiom is translated literally in
some "ersions& and meanin*fully in others4 This phenomenon occurs in many
"erses& $ut for simplicity& we shall discuss only #hilippians %J(4
>2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The HGK saysJ 0.or God is my record& how *reatly I lon* after you all in the
$owels of Gesus Christ41
The NIK saysJ 0God can testify how I lon* for all of you with the affection of
Christ Gesus41
Kersions that say $owels& entrails or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& @AR95&
@ouay6Rheims& HGK& MHGK& We$ster& Wycliffe& 5)T4
Kersions that say lo"e& compassion& affection& mercy or a "ariation thereofJ
AM#& A+K& 99& +K& GodsWord& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& )ITK& NA+9& NIK&
NIK6FH& NHGK& N)T& Rotherham R+K& Weymouth4
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root Mxr can $e meant literally or
as part of an idiom4
CA) Eutline )e!iconJ GNRA) r!m
r!m N r!m=
% passim friend
)+2 I28
)+2 "J rA!mA=
r!m[2 N r!m=
% +yr wom$
2 +yr intestines
/ +yr *enitals
8 +yr mercy b r!myn
> +yr love
)+2 I28
)+2 "J ra!mA=
a$s4 "ocJ r!em
r!m K
'%% passim to lo"e
'%2 +yr to ha"e pity on
'%/ +yr to desire
'%/ G)AGal&G)AT* to like s4t4
'%8 +yr to prefer
'8% +yr to $e lo"ed
'82 +yr to o$tain mercy
'8/ +yr to $e moderated
'2% G)AGal&G)AT*&+yr&G9A w4\;l\ to ha"e mercy
'22 +yr to stri"e for mercy
'2/ G9A to lo"e
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy >/
'28 G9A to *i"e suck
'>% G)AGal&+yr to $e pitied
'/% +yr to ha"e pity
'/2 +yr to make to lo"e
'// +yr to make $elo"ed
)+2 I2/
As the heart is "iewed as the seat of the intellect& the $owels are "iewed as the
seat of compassion4
2). .it or "well ? -evelation 1:*
The HGK saysJ 0And I saw another an*el fly in the midst of hea"en& ha"in* the
e"erlastin* *ospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth& and to e"ery
nation& and kindred& and ton*ue& and people&1
The W5C saysJ 0And I saw another an*el& flyin* $y the middle of hea"en&
ha"in* an e"erlastin* *ospel Yha"in* the e"erlastin* *ospelZ& that he should
preach to men sittin* on the earth& and on each folk Yand upon all folkZ& and
linea*e& and lan*ua*e& and peopleA1
Kersions that say dwell or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& +K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK&
MHGK& NHGK& Rotherham& R+K4
Kersions that say sit or a "ariation thereofJ @ouay6Rheims& W5C4
The Greek of the Te!tus Receptus says which $asically means
0dwell14 The 9y,antine ma3ority te!ts ;such as Ro$inson6#iermont= and the
Ale!andrian te!ts read which Games +tron* renders Sto sit
"ownA fi*urati"ely to remain4 resi"e4S
"en if a Greek primacist wanted to ar*ue that these words are "irtually
synonyms& the fact remains that there is a "ariant& reconciled $y the Aramaic4
It 3ust so happens that the Aramaic e:ui"alent Ybty ;the root is bty =& can
mean $othJ
yt$ N yt$=
% +yr seat
>8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2 +yr dwellin#
/ +yr inha$ited country
8 +yr inha$itants
yt$[2 N yt$=
% +yr inha$itant
yt$[/ N yt$=
% passim inha$itant
N9J [% and [2 are different mish:alim&
this is participle4
The different Greek words are way too different in spellin* to me a mere
scri$al error C it su**ests separate translations of another source ;the Aramaic
ori*inal=4
2*. .hout or voice ? -evelation 1:11
The NIK saysJ 0+till another an*el& who had char*e of the fire& came from the
altar and called in a loud "oice to him who had the sharp sickle& STake your
sharp sickle and *ather the clusters of *rapes from the earth?s "ine& $ecause its
*rapes are ripe4S1
The N)T saysJ 0Then another an*el& who has power to destroy the world
with fire& shouted to the an*el with the sickle& SFse your sickle now to *ather
the clusters of *rapes from the "ines of the earth& for they are fully ripe for
3ud*ment4S1
Kersions that say "oice or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& +K& NA+9& NIRK& NIK&
NIK6FH& N)K& W& W5C4
Kersions that say shout or a "ariation thereofJ CK& HGK& MHGK& NHGK& N)T4
9y,antine Greek te!ts such as the Te!tus Receptus and 9y,antine Ma3ority
te!ts read ;krau*e me*ale C loud cryDshout=& while
Ale!andrian te!ts like Westcott62ort& tend to say ;phone
me*ale C loud "oice=4 The messa*e is the same& $ut the meanin*s of the words
are different4 And looks nothin* like
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy >>
Accordin* to +mith?s Compendious& the Aramaic e:ui"alent& 0:la r$a1 means
a 0loud voice or cry.4
This e!ample is yet another& where the "ariant is split ri*ht down the middle
with re*ard to the ma3or Greek te!ts4 The 9y,antine te!ts tend to say
while the Ale!andrian te!ts tend to say 4
2(. +o ,ermit or sen" ? #atthew 1:31
The 5)T saysJ 0and the demons were callin* on him& sayin*& sIf thou dost cast
us forth& permit us to *o away to the herd of the swineA?1
The NIK saysJ 0The demons $e**ed Gesus& SIf you dri"e us out& send us into
the herd of pi*s4S1
Kersions that say permit& allow or a "ariation thereofJ HG2%& HGK& M+G& NHGK&
W& 5)T4
Kersions that say send& *i"e lea"e& or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& @ar$y&
+K& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIK& NIK6FH& NIRK& N)T& N)K& Rotherham& R+K&
TK& W5C4
The Greek for 0permit us`1 reads as followsJ
rnltprjovjtvonrOrtv
The Greek for 0send us`1J
onotrtovjo;
Greek editions that ha"e ?send us? as opposed to ?allow us to *o away? includeJ
%(8O as re"ised in %(I%& Westcott P 2ort %((%& Collation in pro*ress of Nestle
%O2I as re"ised in %O8% ;%Ith=& Nestle6Aland %OIO ;Aland et al4 %OIO=4
Accordin* to +mith7s Compendious& the definitions of the correspondin*
word in the #eshitta& "#0 & include 0permit1 and 0*i"e lea"e14
>B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
It seems that 09y,antine Lor$a1 chose 0permit1& while 0Ale!andrian Lor$a1
chose the 0send1 route4
It can $e ar*ued that 0*i"e lea"e1 is close enou*h to 0permitDallow1& makin*
this e!ample insi*nificant4 2owe"er& the fact is that the Greek te!ts are
"irtually split in two& with $oth readin*s possi$le translations $y the 0two
Lor$a7s1& from the Aramaic4
21. #arvelle" or a2rai" ? #atthew $:1
The HGK saysJ 09ut when the multitudes saw it& they mar"elled& and *lorified
God& which had *i"en such power unto men41
The A+K saysJ 09ut when the multitudes saw it& they were afraid& and
*lorified God& who had *i"en such authority unto men41
Kersions that say mar"elled& awed& wondered or a "ariation thereofJ CKT&
2olman& HG2%& HGK& M+G& NA+9& NIRK& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)K& W&
5)T4
Kersions that say afraid& feared& or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99& CK&
@ar$y& @ouay6Rheims& +K& I+K& NHGKT& N)T& Rotherham& R+K& TK& W5C4
This is yet another case where the 9y,antine and Ale!andrian Greek te!ts are
split down the middle C su**estin* that $oth families of Greek te!ts were
separate translations from the same "ersion ;i4e4 the #eshitta=4
The 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t and Te!tus Receptus& $oth ha"e 0mar"elled1&
rOo0ooov4
Ale!andrian te!ts& such as W62& NA& )achmann %(82 and Tischendorf %(BO&
tend to read 0feared1& rop(Ojoov4
The root ;$xd= of the correspondin* word in the #eshitta& wlxd& has the
meanin*s 0fear1 and 0stand in awe of1& accordin* to +mith7s Compendious4 It
is understanda$le why the two Lor$a7s came to a different conclusion $y
readin* the Aramaic& leadin* to the Greek "ariant4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy >I
2$. 6earie" or harasse" ? #atthew $:3*
The NHGK saysJ 09ut when 2e saw the multitudes& 2e was mo"ed with
compassion for them& $ecause they were weary and scattered& like sheep
ha"in* no shepherd41
The NIK saysJ 0When he saw the crowds& he had compassion on them&
$ecause they were harassed and helpless& like sheep without a shepherd41
Kersions that say wearied& faint or a "ariation thereofJ 2olman& HGK& )ITK&
NHGK& 5)T4
Kersions that say harassed& trou$led& or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& 99& @ar$y&
+K& I+K& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGKT& N)K& R+K& W4
Manuscripts like the Te!tus Receptus ha"e 0wearied1& rirrvot4
Ale!andrian te!ts& and e"en the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t& tend to ha"e
0harassed1& roirvot4
The correspondin* Aramaic word is Ny0ld& which has the root 00l4
It seems that some Greek copyists mistook the #A) "er$al con3u*ation
;which the #eshitta contains= for the Aphel "er$al con3u*ation 00l& which&
accordin* to +mith7s Compendious& can mean 0weary1 or 0trou$le14
30. 5nother or the ne:t ? #atthew 10:23
The HGK saysJ 09ut when they persecute you in this city& flee ye into anotherJ
for "erily I say unto you& 5e shall not ha"e *one o"er the cities of Israel& till
the +on of man $e come41
The NA+9 saysJ 0S9ut whene"er they persecute you in one city& flee to the
ne!tA for truly I say to you& you will not finish *oin* throu*h the cities of
Israel until the +on of Man comes41
>( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Kersions that say another or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& CK& @ar$y& @ouay6
Rheims& HG2%& HGK& MHGK& NIRK& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK& N)K& TK& W& W5C&
5)T4
Kersions that say the ne!t or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& +K& I+K& NA+9& N)T&
R+K& Weymouth4
This clearly does not deal with Greek synonyms4 There is a marked difference
$etween 0another1 and 0the ne!t14
A*ain& the two main Greek families are opposed to each other4 The 9y,6Ma3
and TR te!ts say 0another1& ojv& while Ale!andrian te!ts like W62 say
0the ne!t1& rtrpov4
These words look nothin* like each other and it would $e a wonder why
different scri$es ;different Lor$a7s actually= *ot completely different spelled
words& with different meanin*s4 2owe"er& an easy answer comes from the
Aramaic4 A*ain4
Accordin* to +mith7s Compendious& the root ;rx0 = of the correspondin*
Aramaic word& Frx0l& can mean 0another1 or 0the ne!t14
31. Comman"ment 4 wor" or law ? #atthew 1):*
The HGK saysJ 0And honour not his father or his mother& he shall $e free4 Thus
ha"e ye made the commandment of God of none effect $y your tradition41
The NIK saysJ 0he is not to ?honor his father? with it4 Thus you nullify the
word of God for the sake of your tradition41
The W saysJ 05ou make God?s law to mean nothin* so you can keep your
own laws<1
Kersions that say commandment or a "ariation thereofJ CK& @ar$y& HG2%&
HGK& M+G& NHGK& N)T& TK& W5C& 5)T4
Kersions that say word or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& 99& NA+9& NIRK&
NIK& NIK6FH& NHGKT& N)K& Rotherham& R+K4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy >O
Kersions that say law or a "ariation thereofJ A+KT& +KT& NA+KT& N9& R+KT&
W4
T C Kersions marked $y an asterisk ha"e the readin* in the footnote of those
"ersions
NoteJ Incredi$ly& this "ery same "erse has another "ariant4 +ome mss ha"e
0father1 and others ha"e 0father1 and 0mother14 With this many "ariants in
the GNT& it is a wonder how people can $elie"e in Greek primacy4
Mss with the commandment readin*& tjvrvtojv& includeJ H ) W R @elta #i
f% // >B> %28% 9y, )ect some lat "* syr;h=4
Mss with the word readin*& tvyov& includeJ +
a
9 @ Theta I'' (O2 some
lat syr;c&s&p= cop4
Mss with the law readin*& tvvov& includeJ +T
&$
C '(8 f%/ %'%'
The root ;fm = of the correspondin* word in the #eshitta ;Flm = has the
meanin*s 0a word1& 0precept1 and 0command14 It is so easy to see how
Lor$a came up with three different readin*s4
2owe"er& accordin* to Thayer7s Greek )e!icon& vov& can mean law&
precept and command4 +tron*7s also says that rvtojv& can mean
0commandment1 and 0precept14
+o to $e fair to Lor$a& in terms of meanin*& this is a re*ular split word4 9ut in
terms of actual "ariants in the Greek& this is most definitely a 0triple split
word14
32. +he Big 8ne; 5 <=57-=P&9 s,lit wor". Prisoner 4
servant 4 bon"sman 4 a,ostle or > ,risoner a,ostle ?4 o2
@eshua? Philemon 1:1
To the $est of my knowled*e& this is the first 0:uadruple split word1 ;a 86way
Greek "ariant is in"ol"ed& with all meanin*s co"ered $y the e:ui"alent word
in the Aramaic #eshitta= that has $een found4 This is a uni:ue case and
B' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
undisputedly pro"es that the #eshitta precedes all the Greek manuscripts4
This is a special case and e"ol"ed as a hum$le 0semi split word14 This will
ser"e to illustrate an important point later& so the format of this topic will $e
different than for the other split words4
The HGK saysJ 0#aul& a prisoner of Gesus Christ& and Timothy our $rother& unto
#hilemon our dearly $elo"ed& and fellowla$ourer&1
Kersions that say prisoner E. Gesus or a "ariation thereofJ A)T& A+K& 99&
@ar$y& @ouay6Rheims& 2olman& I+K& HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK& NA+9& NIK&
NIK6FH& NHGK& Rotherham& 5)T4
Kersions that say prisoner .ER Gesus ;$etrayin* the 0ori*inal Greek1= or a
"ariation thereofJ AM#T& +K& M+G& R+K& TK& Weymouth4
T C the AM# "ersion admits that it has added 0for the sake of1& when the real
meanin* of the Greek is 0prisoner of Gesus14
We see that the most literal "ersions& )ITK& 5)T& A)T& all are loyal to the
Greek and render it 0prisoner of Gesus14
The Greek te!ts say & 0desmios14 Its primary meanin* is 0prisoner1
and this is reflected $y +tron*7s showin* that e"ery time 0desmios1 is used as
a noun in the 9i$le& it is 0prisoner14
"en Greek primacists stum$le o"er this one& wishin* that it said 0a prisoner
.ER Gesus1 rather than the meanin* of the Greek& 0a prisoner E. Gesus14
When we use the #eshitta New Testament& we do not ha"e to twist the Word
or add to it4
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta is hrys0 ;0asiyreh1= which can
mean prisoner $ut alsoJ $ondsman ;also $ondman=& ser"ant& ser*eant4
This fuller meanin* is far superior to the Greek4 .rom this one word we can
paint the pictureJ #aul is a ser*eant in the )ord7s army& an a%ostle& he is
acceptin* responsi$ility for 2im ;$ondsman=& he is su$3ect to 2im ;ser"ant=
and suffers as a prisoner& for 2im4 2e most definitely is not a 0prisoner of
Gesus14
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy B%
The 0$ondsman1 readin* is :uite accepta$le and was also used $y Murdock&
in his translation of the #eshitta4
MurdockJ 0#AF)E+& the $ondman of Geshu Meshiha`1
NoteJ This happens also in #hilemon %JO& phesians /J%& phesians 8J% and
2Timothy %J(& all letters apparently written to Greeks4
Now this is the information I had when I thou*ht this was a hum$le 0semi
split word14 A friend was to ele"ate this proof $eyond all e!pectation with the
disco"ery of a 86way "ariant in the Greek<
The $eauty of this e!ample is that e"en I. 0desmios1 in this conte!t could
mean somethin* more pleasin* than 0prisoner of1 such as 0prisoner $ecause
of1 and e"en I. ;two $i* ifs= 0desmios1 could mean 0$ondsman1 rather than
0prisoner1& we ha"e a 86way Greek "ariant that easily pro"es an Aramaic
ori*inal for #hilemon4
The ma3or te!ts ;such as the 9y,antine and Ale!andrian te!ts= tend to say
0desmios1& meanin* 0prisoner14 Code! @ ;Western te!t= says 0apostolos1
instead& meanin* 0apostle14 Manuscript B2O says 0apostolos desmios1&
rou*hly meanin* 0prisoner apostle1 ;perhaps this Lor$a was showin* off his
superior knowled*e of Aramaic& $y listin* two meanin*s=& while other
manuscripts such as /2/ and O8> read 0doulos1& meanin* 0ser"ant14
The Aramaic word in the #eshitta is hrys0 which can $e taken to ha"e all
these meanin*s& as well as 0$ondsman14
Add to this that the "ery ne!t "erse ;#hilemon %J2= has the 0$elo"edDsister1
split word ;co"ered ne!t=& and that the whole letter shows +emitic *rammar
construction& as well as the lar*e amount of +emitic idioms ;such as 0$owels1
C compassion=& and Greek primacists will $e "ery hard6pressed to claim this
letter as their own4 Now if a letter alle*edly written $y a Greek6speakin*
person& in Greek& to a Greek6speakin* Greek& in Greece& is pro"en in this way
to ha"e $een ori*inally written in Aramaic& what hope do Greek primacists
ha"e with the $ooks that are more likely to ha"e +emitic ori*inals ;such as
Matthew and 2e$rews=?
NoteJ This e!ample also stresses a *reat limitation in our work4 Many of the
semi split words may actually $e full split words& many of these split words
B2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
may actually $e triple split words& many of the triple split words may actually
$e :uadruple split words& and so on4 We are o$"iously limited in resources
and do not ha"e access to e"ery sin*le Greek manuscript a"aila$le4 And often&
it are the rarer manuscripts that can ha"e "ariants ;for e!ample& the Code! @&
while a ma3or manuscript& is usually not used as often as 9y,antine and
Ale!andrian manuscripts& and pro"ides many "ariants=4 At first I found this
peculiarity in the Greek to $e a re*ular mistranslation& a semi split word C
0prisoner of Gesus1 3ust sounded so wron* to me4 Enly with some help& I was
a$le to show the full potential of this e!ample& $y utili,in* a 86way Greek
"ariant& to showcase a massi"e proof for #eshitta primacy C a :uadruple split
word4
33. Belove" or sister ? Philemon 1:2
The HGK saysJ 0And to our $elo"ed Apphia& and Archippus our fellowsoldier&
and to the church in thy houseJ1
The NIK saysJ 0To #hilemon our dear friend and fellow worker& to Apphia
our sister& to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in
your homeJ1
Kersions that say $elo"ed or a "ariation thereofJ HG2%& HGK& )ITK& MHGK&
NHGK& 5)T4
Kersions that say sister or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K& @ar$y& +K& I+K&
M+G& NA+9& NIRK& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T& N)K& R+K& TK& W& W5C4
The 0$elo"ed1 readin*& & tends to $e found amon* the 9y,antine
"ersions like the Te!tus Receptus& while 0sister1& & tends to $e found
amon* the Ale!andrian "ersions like W62& producin* yet another 0split ri*ht
down the middle of the Greek families1 split words4
The two words in the Greek look and sound :uite differently4
It 3ust so happens that the #eshitta7s correspondin* word is tbybx& the
feminine form of 0$elo"ed1& in contrast with the masculine form ;0bybx C
0kha$i$a1= employed in "erse %4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy B/
That the feminine form was employed in stark contrast to the masculine
usa*e in "erse % would $e sufficient to e!plain this Greek "ariant4 2owe"er& it
also 3ust so happens to $e that 0$elo"ed1 tbybx& is 0sister1 ;tx = with a
0$i$1 ;byb= in the middle4
Lor$a7s eyes may ha"e skipped o"er the middle part ;as in other e!amples=&
leadin* to the wron* readin* of 0sister14 .urthermore& 0$elo"ed1 and 0sister1
in the Aramaic sound similar4 They are 0khaton1 and 0kha$i$ton1
respecti"ely4
With all these 0$i$7s1& 0kha7s1 and 0ton7s1 throu*hout the first two "erses of
#hilemon& with the possi$le in*rainin* of 0sister1 in Lor$a7s mind after
seein* 0$rother1 in "erse %& it is "ery easy to see how Ale!andrian Lor$a came
up with 0sister14
And this& in a letter alle*edly written $y a Greek6speaker& to a Greek6speakin*
Greek in Greece<
NoteJ Another section of this $ook re"eals that the Greek copy of #hilemon is
filled with Aramaic *rammar construction4
3. Aiven to her or it ? -evelation 13:1)
The 5)T saysJ 0and there was *i"en to it to *i"e a spirit to the ima*e of the
$east& that also the ima*e of the $east may speak& and YthatZ it may cause as
many as shall not $ow $efore the ima*e of the $east& that they may $e killed41
I cannot find any Greek6$ased n*lish "ersion that says 0and there was *i"en
to her14 Not that it matters& the "ariants must $e in the Greek after all& rather
than the n*lish4
The 0it1 readin* is usually supported4 Greek Code! AlephJ And it was *i"en
to it ;autw=`
Greek Codices Ale!andrinus and phraemiJ And it was *i"en to her ;auth=`
B8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
AramaicJ And it was *i"en to him ;hl C 0lh1= to *i"e $reath to the ima*e of
the $east ;0twyxd= and he will cause that all who will not worship hl to the
ima*e of the $east to $e killed4
In the unpointed Aramaic hl is am$i*uous and can mean either 0to him1 or
0to her1 dependin* on the conte!t4 In this case it would appear that the Greek
translator mistook the first hl for 0to her14 Ether Greek translations chose to
render it literally as 0to it1& and it has then $een used in so many Greek6$ased
n*lish "ersions as 0to him14
3). +he 9ven Bigger 8ne; 5 .9P+=P&9 s,lit wor".
3ntem,erate 4 unclean 4 unBust 4 > unBust intem,erance ?4
covetousness 4 wic'e"ness or iniCuit/ ? #atthew 23:2)
Lor$a& please make up your mind<
To the $est of my knowled*e& this is the first 0septuple split word1 ;a I6way
Greek "ariant is in"ol"ed& with all meanin*s co"ered $y the e:ui"alent word
in the Aramaic #eshitta= that has $een found4 This is a uni:ue case and
undisputedly pro"es that the #eshitta precedes all the Greek manuscripts4
The HGK saysJ 0Woe unto you& scri$es and #harisees& hypocrites< for ye make
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter& $ut within they are full of
e!tortion and e!cess41
NoteJ @ue to the massi"e amount of Greek "ariants in"ol"ed& and that most
Greek6$ased n*lish 9i$les usually use the ma3or manuscripts& the usual 08'6
9i$le comparison1 is not included4 The real impact is seen $y lookin* directly
at the Greek manuscripts4
The word in :uestion is the one which the HGK translates as 0e!cess14 There is
a *reat "ariance amon* the "arious Greek mss in this place ;the followin* list
is $y no means comprehensi"e=4 Ene would ha"e to wonder how these
"ariants came a$out`
akrasia C intemperate& lack of self control& e!cess
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy B>
Mss4J = > f1 f13
aka:arsia C unclean
Mss4J 5
adikia C un3ust
Mss4J ( 5/, /''
akrasia adikia C 0un3ust intemperance14 This cheeky Lor$a was showin* off<
+howin* two meanin*s from the one Aramaic word4
Mss4J (
pleone!ia C co"etousness
Mss4J M
ponhria C wickedness
Mss4J Rare manuscripts& attested to in the much re"ered 0Adam Clarke7s
Commentary on the 9i$le14
ini:uitate C ini:uity
Mss4J Rare manuscripts& attested to in the much re"ered 0Adam Clarke7s
Commentary on the 9i$le14 #erhaps it is from a rare )atin manuscript&
translated from a Greek manuscript that said 0ini:uity14 Curiously& the )atin
Kul*ata says 0immunditia1 ;uncleanness=4
The correspondin* word in the #eshitta& minus the w ;0and1= proclitic& is
fw94
The re*ular le!ical searches ;manual searchin* throu*h the a"aila$le Aramaic
le!ica= easily *i"es meanin*s identical& or "ery similar& to > of the Greek
"ariants4 The ones I couldn7t find were 0intemperance1 and 0co"etousness14
After consultin* with Aramaic e!perts howe"er ;such as Andrew Roth=& it
was made known to me that A these 2 meanin#s stem from the um+rella
of the Aramaic rootIs le6ical ran#e4 +ome of the words are synonyms&
meanin* that this I6way split word has some indi"idual 0re*ular1 split words
and some indi"idual 0synonym1 split words4
And of course we ha"e the issue that so many meanin*s of the Aramaic word
are present at one time& while this is not so in the Greek4 e4*4 9y usin* 3ust one
BB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
word in the Aramaic& the #eshitta paints a "ery detailed picture of the scri$es
and #harisees C that they are un3ust& wicked& intemperate& etc4 The Greek only
has the same impact when com$inin* the "ariants from all these Greek
manuscripts to*ether4
While this e!ample may $e enou*h to make #eshitta enthusiasts like me
sali"ate at the mouth& Greek scholars would most likely scoff4 5ou see& most
9i$lical scholarship already concedes ;at least in part= that Matthew was
written in Aramaic ;as was 2e$rews=4 2owe"er& it still pro"ides a nice
confirmation of the Aramaic ori*inal of Matthew $ut also accomplishes far
*reater4 It demonstrates that& 5+& we WI)) see split word e!amples& $y
comparin* Aramaic ori*inals to Greek translations4 And it also ser"es as a
nice comparator to the $ooks that are more likely to ha"e $een written in
Greek ;e4*4 the #auline pistles C $y this I mean that these $ooks are 3ust more
likely to $e 0Greek1 than Matthew and 2e$rews& not that I $elie"e they ha"e
Greek ori*inals`=& like #hilemon4 While seein* Matthew filled with
Aramaicisms& split words& +emitic construction& etc& may not $e impressi"e to
scholars& the fact that these thin*s are found in #hilemon is :uite si*nificant4
3*. 6e""ing or we""ing hall ? #atthew 22:10
The HGK saysJ 0+o those ser"ants went out into the hi*hways& and *athered
to*ether all as many as they found& $oth $ad and *oodJ and the weddin* was
furnished with *uests41
The NIK saysJ 0+o the ser"ants went out into the streets and *athered all the
people they could find& $oth *ood and $ad& and the weddin* hall was filled
with *uests41
Kersions that say weddin*& feast or a "ariation thereofJ A+K& @ar$y& @ouay6
Rheims& 2olman& HG2%& HGK& MHGK4
Kersions that say weddin* hall& $an:uet hall& $edcham$er or a "ariation
thereofJ AM#& CK& +K& I+K& )ITK& NA+9& NIRK& NIK& NIK6FH& NHGK&
N)T& N)K& Rotherham& R+K& TK& Weymouth& 5)T4
Te!ts like the 9y,antine Ma3ority and Te!tus Receptus read which
means 0weddin*1 ;alsoJ nuptials& marria*e& weddin* feastD$an:uet=4 This
clearly refers to an ,J,NT4
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy BI
Te!ts like Tischendorf7s and the Westcott62ort read
which means 0$ridal6cham$erDhallDplace of the weddin*Dfeast14 This clearly
refers to a PA$,4
NoteJ What an odd readin*4 What kind of weddin* has e"eryone in the
$ridal6cham$er? +ome sources try and sa"e Lor$a $y *i"in* the 0hallDplace1
meanin*s for which sounds much $etter than $ridal6cham$er& where
the marria*e is consummated`
Ef course& the e:ui"alent phrase in the #eshitta ;Fwt4m tyb= can refer to
$oth& at least accordin* to the authorities4
.rom the 0@ictionarium +yriaco6)atinum1 ;Aramaic6)atin dictionary=& the
possi$le meanin*s of Fwt4m tyb includeJ
con"i"ium YfeastZA con"i"ium nuptiale Yweddin* feastZA triclinium Ydinin* roomZ4
Clearly& the Aramaic allows for $oth the KNT and #)AC readin*s4
3(. 5nother or neighbor ? 0ames :12
The HGK saysJ 0There is one law*i"er& who is a$le to sa"e and to destroyJ who
art thou that 3ud*est another?1
The NIK saysJ 0There is only one )aw*i"er and Gud*e& the one who is a$le to
sa"e and destroy4 9ut you66who are you to 3ud*e your nei*h$or?1
Kersions that say other& another or a "ariation thereofJ HG2%& HGK& )ITK&
MHGK& M+G& NHGK& 5)T4
Kersions that say nei*h$or& fellow6man or a "ariation thereofJ AM#& A+K&
99& @ar$y& +K& 2olman& I+K& NA+9& NIRK& NIK& NIK6FH& N)T&
Rotherham& R+K& TK& W& W5C4
The Te!tus Receptus and 9y,antine Ma3ority Greek te!ts read
anotherDother while Westcott62ort and other Ale!andrian te!ts say
B( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
which is nei*h$orDfellow6man4 This is yet another case where the ma3or Greek
families& 9y,antine and Ale!andrian& are split ri*ht down the middle4
The root 0byrq of the #eshitta e:ui"alent6word Kbyrql has the followin*
meanin*s from CA)J
:ry$= N b :ry$ A
:ry$ A
% #alestinian&+yr near
2 +yr other& nei*h$or
/ ImpAr*&G)AT*&+yr relati"e
8 +yr present
> +yr prepared for
B +yr ad" near day
I +yr :ariy$ mA==\ almost
)+2 BO2
)+2 "J :ariy$
Clearly& this "ariant in the Greek su**ests an Aramaic ori*inal for Games&
which was written to all the %2 tri$es ;not 3ust the Gews=& that were scattered
;Games %J%=4
31. 3rritate" or "enie" ? 5cts 3:1
Technically this is not a split word& $ut it is a case where a ma3or Greek
"ariant is easily e!plained $y the Aramaic ;which is the primary function of a
split word=4
The HGK saysJ 09ut ye denied the 2oly Ene and the Gust& and desired a
murderer to $e *ranted unto youA1
I cannot find any Greek6$ased n*lish "ersion that says 0irritated14 Not that it
matters& the "ariants must $e in the Greek after all& rather than the n*lish4
The usual 9y,antine and Ale!andrian manuscripts read (pv(oooOr which
means 0deny1 or 0re3ect14
Chapter %4 +plit Words C Fndenia$le "idence of #eshitta #rimacy BO
The Code! @& of the Western te!tual family that Greek primacists and Eld
+yriac primacists hold in such hi*h acclaim& reads rpop0votr& meanin*
0irritate14
The Aramaic in the #eshitta reads wtr#k ;Haparthon=& meanin* 0you
denied14 This is one letter difference from wtrdk ;Hadarthon= meanin*
0you irritated14
Clearly& the creator of the Code! @ thou*ht he saw 0kadarthon1& when he
really saw 0kaparthon14
A Greek primacist will $e hard6pressed to claim that the Greek "ariant is
e!plained $y a simple copyist error& as the words are so different in the Greek&
while $ein* spelt and pronounced almost identically in Aramaic4
I' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words I%
$ha%ter :& 'emi '%lit (ords
)et us now look at other forms of lin*uistic proof that the New Testament
was written in Aramaic& as opposed to Greek4 While there is much historical
e"idence of #eshitta #rimacy ;for e!ampleJ Gesus and the Apostles spoke
Aramaic& the earliest Christians were Gudeans and other +emitic peoples who
spoke Aramaic& Gudean historian Gosephus wrote in Aramaic and admitted
how difficult and sacrile*e it was for Gudeans to speak Greek& Gospel writer
)uke was an Aramaic6speakin* +yrian& etc4=& I prefer to del"e into the te!ts
themsel"es& for the ultimate proof4 2istorical proof is marred $y opinions& $ut
lin*uistic proof cannot $e so easily dismissed4
While split words deal with "ariants amon* Greek te!tDs& pointin* to an
Aramaic ori*inal& 0semi split words1 deal with differences in the Greek
compared to the Aramaic& which can $e e!plained $y an Aramaic ori*inal4 +o
they are "ery similar to split words& e!cept that no Lor$ans ;those who
translated the Aramaic New Testament into the Greek te!ts we ha"e now=
actually came up with the correct readin*4 +ince semi split words always deal
with wron* renderin*s in the Greek& they are often more simply referred to as
0mistranslations14 The $eauty of many semi split words is that they often
shed more li*ht on the ori*inal 9i$le messa*e and make us say 0Ah< That7s
what it meant& when it said`1& $y sol"in* many Greek 9i$le anomalies and
contradictions4
)et us $e*in<
NoteJ A "ital semi split word is omitted from this section& as it is "ery lar*e&
and has $een *i"en its own space amon* the featured articles4 It is the
I2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
mistranslation of 0rb% from the Aramaic& leadin* to the contradictory
*enealo*ies of Gesus& in the Greek4 The *ist of it is that Matthew lists Mary7s
*enealo*y NET Goseph7s& as the Goseph in the Matthew *enealo*y was the
fatherD*uardian of Mary& not her fianct4 i4e4 there were two important
Goseph7s in Mary7s life4
Many other semi split words are also omitted from this section& and are in
other sections such as 0split words1 and 0contradictions14 This is $ecause all
0split words1 are also 0semi split words1 ;i4e4 a mistranslation is in"ol"ed=
and many 0contradictions1 also in"ol"e a 0semi split word14
1. !ar"l/ "ie 2or a righteous man or a wic'e" man?
-omans ):(
I 3ust lo"e lin*uistic proof from $ooks such as 2e$rews ;Gudea=& % and 2
Corinthians ;Greece= and Romans ;Roman mpire=4 !amples in such $ooks
denounce claims that these $ooks were written in 0Eld 2e$rew1 ;the
lan*ua*e of the 2e$rews in the time of Gesus was Aramaic& and hence& often
called 2e$rew=& Greek and )atin& respecti"ely4 And they lend more wei*ht to
the fact that the New Testament letters& while written to people in forei*n
lands& were written to the earliest Christians& who were +emites& and thus
spoke Aramaic4 To make it clearer that the people in these forei*n lands were
indeed Aramaic6speakers& think a$out thisJ Gesus appointed as 2is @isciples&
twel"e& then se"enty4 Mostly uneducated people& and Aramaic6speakin*
+emitic people& 3ust like Gesus ;thou*h Gesus was e!tremely educated=4 When
they went out and formed Churches& did they appeal to people who couldn7t
con"erse with them? Er did they ha"e *reater appeal to those who could
speak the same lan*ua*e? Would the Churches $e filled with pa*ans who
spoke other lan*ua*es& or would they $e filled with Aramaic6speakin*
+emites& particularly Gudeans who were e!pectin* a Messiah?
The HGK saysJ 0.or scarcely for a ri*hteous man will one dieJ yet
perad"enture for a *ood man some would e"en dare to die41
Romans >JI in the GNT contains a critical mistranslation4 That this is a
mistranslation from an Aramaic source is indisputa$le4
The readin* of the GNT is as followsJ
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words I/
.or one would hardly die for a ri*hteous otioto; manA thou*h perhaps for
the *ood oyoOo; man someone would dare e"en to die4
#erple!ed? Good< 9ecause this is a horri$le mistranslation from the Aramaic4
In Aramaic& the word for SwickedS is 09y4r Rasheya ;[2'/'O= 6 $ut the word
for S$lamelessDinnocentS is 0ny4r ;SReshyanaS= ;[2'2(O= 6 there?s only one
letter difference& and $oth of those letters ;Ayin 9 and Nun n= look "ery
similar4
)ook at the two words a*ain with the differin* letter hi*hli*hted in redJ
0ny4r SinnocentS
09y4r SwickedS
The Aramaic te!t of the #eshitta readsJ
.or one would hardly die for a wicked 09y4r manA thou*h perhaps for a
*ood 0b= man someone would dare e"en to die4
The point is that Gesus died for the wicked ;the "ery ne!t "erseJ Romans >J( C
09ut God demonstrates 2is own lo"e toward us& in that while we were yet
sinners& Christ died for us41=4
2. 6h/ hast thou 2orsa'en me or wh/ have /ou s,are" me ?
#atthew 2(:* % #ar' 1):3
The importance of this semi split word& dealin* with Alaha7s alle*ed
forsakin* of Gesus& especially to the field of Christian apolo*etics& hardly
needs to $e stressed4
I8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The HGK says ;Matthew 2IJ8B=J 0And a$out the ninth hour Gesus cried with a
loud "oice& sayin*& li& li& lama sa$achthani? that is to say& My God& my God&
why hast thou forsaken me?1
The HGK says ;Mark %>J/8=J 0And at the ninth hour Gesus cried with a loud
"oice& sayin*& loi& loi& lama sa$achthani? which is& $ein* interpreted& My
God& my God& why hast thou forsaken me?1
The first issue with this story& is that the Greek and n*lish tell us that Alaha
alle*edly forsook Gesus& resultin* in the unfortunate twistin* of +cripture $y
Christian apolo*ists4 The second issue& applies to Aramaic primacists4 Greek
primacists say& 0If Matthew and Mark were written in Aramaic& why do the
Gospel6writers write the same thin* twice ;i4e4 first the Aramaic words of
Gesus& then the Greek translation=1& instead of 3ust simply translatin* it?
)et us deal first with the first4
2ad Gesus in this last hour said that Alaha had forsaken 2im& the Gews would
ha"e used this sayin* a*ainst 2im4 They would ha"e taken it as a confession
that 2e was a $lasphemer and therefore Alaha had deserted 2im in 2is
darkest hourA $ecause Alaha ne"er forsakes the ri*hteous& $ut 2e may forsake
the sinners4
This is not all4 2ad Gesus? cry meant forsakin*& 2e not only would ha"e
destroyed the faith of his disciples and followers& $ut would ha"e
contradicted 2is own teachin*& the "ery assurance which 2e had *i"en to 2is
disciples& and the "ery cause for which 2e was dyin*4 En the other hand&
3ud*ment and death on the cross did not come upon Gesus suddenly4 En
many occasions 2e had told his disciples that 2e would die on the cross and
rise a*ainA they had heard him sayin*& 0you will lea"e me aloneA and yet I am
ne"er alone $ecause the .ather is with me41 ;Gohn %BJ/2=
2ow is it that the uropean translators of the 9i$le in the %Ith Century A4@4
who were thousands of miles from #alestine& and who could not speak
Aramaic& knew more a$out Gesus? cry on the cross than the Gews who spoke
Aramaic and stood near the cross watchin* 2im die? And how is it that #eter&
Gohn& and other disciples and follows of Gesus ne"er commented on these
ominous words? Indeed& if Gesus had meant desertion they would ha"e
commented on it& $ecause such a statement or e"en such a thou*ht was
contrary to all Gesus had preached and tau*ht4 The apostles did not comment
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words I>
on these last words simply $ecause they knew what Gesus meant in their
Galilean dialect& or northern Aramaic4 Moreo"er& they knew had 2e meant
forsaken& 2e would ha"e used the Aramaic word 0taa tani1& which means
0forsaken41
Another pro$lem with this is that apolo*ists will often try to e!plain that at
that moment& Gesus was sin& and that is why Alaha forsook 2im4 Well& if
Alaha forsook 2is own +on for sin& what hope do we ha"e? +uch an
unfortunate twistin* of +cripture $y apolo*ists who seek to defend their
erroneous 9i$les4
The simple solution& from the Aramaic& is that Gesus did not imply that Alaha
forsook 2im at all< The Aramaic 0sa$achthani1 does not ha"e to mean
forsaken4 It can mean many thin*s& amon* them& 0spared14 Now 0lemana1
;written as 0lama1 in the Greek copies= denotes a :uestion& so a fairly accurate
translation would $eJ
0My God& My God& Why ha"e you spared me?1 ;i4e4& let?s finish this& let?s *et
this o"er with<=
Now& does this renderin* make sense? .or what reasonDs did Gesus ask& 0Why
ha"e you spared me?1 Well for one thin*& Gesus was sufferin* horrendous
pain for a$out +IR 2EFR+4 Crucifi!ions can last e"en lon*er< This is a "alid
e!planation& especially as soon after sayin* this& 2e finally died4 Also& this is
consistent with the fact that many in the crowd thou*ht 2e cried for li3ah4
Why would they think that? #erhaps& as 2e called out for 0li1& 2is
e!haustion and hea"y $reathin* caused 2im to add an 0ah1 on the end4 Try
talkin* when you ha"e *one for a lon* run ;or $een crucified for B hours= and
you7ll see what I mean4 0li6ah1 sounds a lot like 0liyah1 does it not?
2owe"er& there are other possi$ilities too4 It may ha"e $een Gesus7 ea*erness
to fulfill 2is destiny and to *o to #aradise4 It may also ha"e $een 2is wish to
fulfill more Torah prophecy< It was prophesied that a $one of 2is would not
$e $roken& and since 2e died& there was no need for the Roman soldiers to
$reak 2is le*s4
+o $asically we ha"e two main possi$ilities4 The 0forsaken1 renderin* is not
"ery possi$le& due to the word chosen& and the resultin* contradictions4 The
0spared1 renderin* is "ery possi$le& doesn7t allow for contradictions& and 3ust
makes sense4 And that7s what the #eshitta is all a$out4
IB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Now let us deal with the second issue& the attack on #eshitta primacy& caused
$y the 0dou$lin* up1 ;*loss= of the same messa*e in the #eshitta ;first Gesus7
Aramaic words& then a translation into the Aramaic #eshitta=4
Well& to start with& the $ook of Matthew in the ori*inal Aramaic does not
0dou$le up14 It does not ha"e the translation of what 0li& li& lama
sa$achthani?1 means4 9ut this does indeed occur in Mark4 Why?
Well& Mark was writin* to people who spoke a different dialect of Aramaic
than Gesus& and& many thou*ht that Gesus was callin* for li3ah4 "idently&
Mark wanted to $e "ery clear& and translated this into his audience7s dialect4
3. Camel or ro,e ? #atthew 1$:2 % #ar' 10:2) % &u'e
11:2)
The HGK says ;Matthew %OJ28=J 0And a*ain I say unto you& It is easier for a
camel to *o throu*h the eye of a needle& than for a rich man to enter into the
kin*dom of God41
The HGK says ;Mark %'J2>=J 0It is easier for a camel to *o throu*h the eye of a
needle& than for a rich man to enter into the kin*dom of God41
The HGK says ;)uke %(J2>=J 0.or it is easier for a camel to *o throu*h a
needle7s eye& than for a rich man to enter into the kin*dom of God41
The Greek& reads SijroqknS ;kamOlon= which is the accusati"e form of
SijroqkuS ;kamOlos=4 This word& in Greek& only means ScamelS and sometimes
can mean Spack animalS howe"er& if we take a look at it?s Aramaic e:ui"alent&
we find the word %amloP ; 0lm% = is the only word in Aramaic to descri$e a
*eneric camel ;without *ettin* specific& i4e4 we ha"e the words Scolt&S Sfoal&S
Smare&S and Sstallion&S to descri$e types of horses& $ut one *eneral word for
the species& ShorseS=4
2owe"er& %amloP& has a dou$le meanin*4 As Aramaic e"ol"ed separately from
2e$rew& it picked up new idioms and meanin*s to it?s "oca$ulary4 %amloP is a
perfect e!ample& for Aramaic speakin* peoples fashioned a rou*h& thick rope
from camel?s hair that had a "ery decent tensile stren*th& and after a while& it
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words II
$ecame to $e known as& you *uessed it& %amloP4 .or e!ample& modern6day
society has the same phenomena where a product or item is referred to $y the
first name introduced& re*ardless of what $rand it is4 Millions of Americans
still ask for a SHleene!S instead of a tissue& the word for Sra,orS in 9ra,il is
SGilette&S and an SI9M ComputerS still refers to any Windows6compati$le
machine4
We appear to ha"e come across an idiom lon* lost in the Greek translation of
an Aramaic ori*inal4 Althou*h it doesn?t really chan*e the meanin* of the
para$le& it *rants us insi*ht into how in tune with his audience the Messiah
actually was4
A %'th6century Aramaic le!ico*rapher& 9ar69ahlul& says of 0Gamla1 ;same
word as *amlo7= in his Aramaic dictionaryJ
SGamla is a thick rope which is used to $ind shipsS
Considerin* that Gesus was speakin* to fishermen& this meanin* of Gamla
seems more appropriate& and I think is a fantastic proof that the Greek was
translated from an Aramaic ori*inal4
. Aive not a hol/ thing or hang not earrings ? - #at (:*
The HGK saysJ 0Gi"e not that which is holy unto the do*s& neither cast ye your
pearls $efore swine& lest they trample them under their feet& and turn a*ain
and rend you41
In the Greek "ersions of Matthew IJB& we read with astonishmentJ
SHive not a holy thin# to do*sJ and cast not your pearls $efore swineA lest
they trample them under their feet& and turn a*ain and rend you4S
There are two mistranslations in this one "erse< The more important one
in"ol"es the Aramaic word 04dwq 6 here are the rele"ant Comprehensi"e
Aramaic )e!icon entriesJ
:wdd[2 N :dd=
% G)AGal&G)AT*&+am&+yr earK7noseKrin#
I( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
)+2 B8O
)+2 "J :dAdA=
:wdd[/ N :wdd=
% +yr consecration
2 +yr eucharist
/ +yr "oice cryin* ?holy?
)+2 B8O
)+2 "J :uwdAdA=
:wdd N
% passim holiness
2 +yr holy place
/ G)AT* pl4 consecrated o+Lects
8 G)AT* "arious sacrifices
)+2 B8O
)+2 "J :uwddA=
As you can see& the e!act same spellin* is interpreted as either Sear6& nose6
rin*S or Sconsecrated ;holy= thin*S4
The second word that is mistranslated is the Aramaic root 0lt 6 it should $e
translated as Shan*S& rather than S*i"eS ;see word[ 22>OB in the )e!icon4=
Therefore& the "erse should readJ
SAan# not earrin#s on do*sJ and cast not your %earls $efore swineA lest they
trample them under their feet& and turn a*ain and rend you4S
As you can see& there is a $eautiful parallelism here only apparent in the
Aramaic ;rin*sDpearls 6 do*sDswine=4 The Greek totally misses it<
There are also se"eral instances in the Aramaic Tar*ums where this root
;:dsh= is used to mean 0ear6& nose6rin*1=J
Gen 28J22
Gen 28J/'
Gen 28J8I
Gen />J8
!o /2J2
!o /2J/
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words IO
The si*nificance of this holy "s4 earrin*s de$ate is unfoldin* $efore our "ery
eyes4 I think what we?"e seen so far contri$utes to four "ery important
elements for Aramaic primacyJ
%4 The mistranslation to 2oly esta$lishes that the #eshitta has preser"ed
Gesus7 ori*inal teachin* there$y renderin* e"ery other "ersion as
incorrect $e*innin* with the Greek4
24 The correct readin* re"eals Gesus7 use of a parallelism a$sent in e"ery
other "ersion4
/4 The findin* of the f@dDearrin* root in #alestinian Gewish Aramaic
;the Tar*um= esta$lishes the fact that #eshitta Matthew is TnotT the
work of post Nicene +yriac translators ;since e"en Assyrians are not
familiar with the f@dDearrin* root4 Rather it is the work of Mathew
himself& a #alestinian Gewish writer4
84 The use of the f@dDearrin* root in Mathews Gospel pro"es that
Mathew wrote in Aramaic and TnotT in 2e$rew since $oth e!tant
2e$rew Matthew "ersions follow the mistake of Greek Matthew e"en
to the e!tent of addin* SfleshS and Sthin*S ;the +hem To" P @utillet
2e$rew Matthew "ersions& respectfully= to force the "erse to make
sense4
). .imon the le,er or ,otter%Bar ma'er ? #atthew 2*:* %
#ar' 1:3
The HGK says ;Matthew 2BJB=J 0Now when Gesus was in 9ethany& in the house
of +imon the leper&1
The HGK says ;Mark %8J/=J 0And $ein* in 9ethany in the house of +imon the
leper& as he sat at meat& there came a woman ha"in* an ala$aster $o! of
ointment of spikenard "ery preciousA and she $rake the $o!& and poured it on
his head41
In this case& the Aramaic word 0br% is misunderstood as Qleper74
(' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The Greek reads Svhrwnku xkm qpyzkmS ;2imQnos tou leprou=& which litterally
means S+imon the )eperS or S+imon the +kin6@iseasedS ;SqpyzkmS ;leprou& or
lepros in the nominati"e case= can stand for "arious skin diseases like it?s
2e$rew6Aramaic counterpart=4 This seems stran*e& $ecause accordin* to the
)aw laid down in )e"iticus& )epers are not allowed within the cityJ
)e"iticus %/J8>68B
And the leper in whom the pla*ue is& his clothes shall $e rent& and his head
$are& and he shall put a co"erin* upon his upper lip& and shall cry& Fnclean&
unclean4 All the days wherein the pla*ue shall $e in him he shall $e defiledA
he is uncleanJ he shall dwell aloneA without the camp shall his ha$itation $e4
AariboP can easily $e confused with AaroboP since Aramaic at that time was
written without "owel markers4
Aaribo? means #ETTR or GAR MRC2ANT where&
AaroboP means )#R or +HIN @I+A+
9ut $oth are spelled with the same consonantsJ Aomal & 1eesh & Beyth 9laf
In addition& why was there no record of Gesus healin* +imon? If he were a
leper& it would $e "ery dan*erous for 2is disciples and other people in the
house4 )eprosy is a "ery conta*ious disease and not worth the risk of
catchin*4 2ere the Aramaic sheds some li*ht on a story whose host was a non
se:uitur of the circumstances4
+ince ancient 2e$rew and Aramaic were written without "owels& there was
no distinction $etween the Aramaic words4 +ince in this story a woman pours
oil from a 3ar it is apparent that +imon was a 3ar merchant or 3ar maker and
not a leper4
*. 9unuch or believer ? #atthew 1$:12 % 5cts 1:2(
The HGK says ;Matthew %OJ%2=J 0.or there are some eunuchs& which were so
$orn from their mother7s wom$J and there are some eunuchs& which were
made eunuchs of menJ and there $e eunuchs& which ha"e made themsel"es
eunuchs for the kin*dom of hea"en7s sake4 2e that is a$le to recei"e it& let him
recei"e it41
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words (%
The HGK says ;Acts (J2I=J 0And he arose and wentJ and& $ehold& a man of
thiopia& an eunuch of *reat authority under Candace :ueen of the
thiopians& who had the char*e of all her treasure& and had come to Gerusalem
for to worship&1
The word in the #eshitta 0nmyhm & translated as 0eunuch1 $y Lor$a& also
means 0$elie"er1& as well as other similar words4
The word in :uestion is pmnkm{ku ;eunoukkos= which is where our word
SeunuchS comes from4 The fact of the matter is that pmnkm{ku ;eunoukkos=
shouldnCt $e here at all4 Also note that the thiopian eunuch had come to
Gerusalem to worship4 This makes thin*s e"en stran*er when we take a :uick
look at @euteronomy 2/J%
>euteronomy :3:1 [?MJ!
2e that is wounded in the stones& or hath his pri"y mem$er cut off& shall not enter into
the con*re*ation of the )ER@4
>euteronomy :3:1 [NIJ!
No one who has $een emasculated $y crushin* or cuttin* may enter the assem$ly of
the )ER@4
2ow could this $e then? What is a eunuch doin* in Gerusalem? 2e can?t
worship in the temple& $ecause such $eha"ior was for$idden4
#erhaps our Messiah meant it this wayJ
S.or there are +elievers who from the wom$ of their mother were $orn that
way& and there are +elievers who& from men& $ecame faithful and there are
+elievers& they whom crossed o"er their souls +elievin# for the sake of the
Hin*dom of 2ea"en444S 66 Matthew %OJ%2
Takin* into account the word?s lar*e ran*e of definition& and the fact that
eunuchs are for$idden from worshippin* in the temple& this passa*e should
most likely $e renderedJ
Acts (J2I C S+o he Y#hilipZ started out& and on his way he met an thiopian
+eliever& an important official in char*e of all the treasury of Candace& :ueen
of the thiopians4 This man had *one to Gerusalem to worship`S
(2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
(. !ate or ,ut asi"e ? &u'e 1:2*
This is an awesome e!ample& as it sol"es one of the $i**est
pro$lemsDcontradictions of the Greek New Testament4 The command to hate
others and oursel"es<
The HGK saysJ 0If any man come to me& and hate not his father& and mother&
and wife& and children& and $rethren& and sisters& yea& and his own life also&
he cannot $e my disciple41
The ar*ument *oes& S2ow could one follow someone who claims that you
need to hate your family and EFR +). and only lo"e him? @idn?t he say to
lo"e your nei*h$or?S
The answer lies in the Aramaic word S0nsS ;sonePN4
0ns
;sone?=
to %ut aside
to hate
to ha"e an a"ersion to
This also makes sense of % Gohn 8J2'
0If a man says& I lo"e God& and yet hates his $rother& he is a liarA for he who
does not lo"e his $rother whom he has seen& how can he lo"e God whom he
has not seen?1
+o with this in mind& the more correct translation of )uke %8J2BJ
R4f any man comes to me5 and "oesnDt ,ut asi"e his own 2ather4 an" mother4 an"
wi2e4 an" chil"ren4 an" brethren4 an" sisters4 /es4 an" his own li2e also4 he
cannot be m/ "isci,le.R
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words (/
1. .alte" or scattere"%"estro/e" ? #ar' $:$
The HGK saysJ 0.or e"ery one shall $e salted with fire& and e"ery sacrifice
shall $e salted with salt41
In the Greek "ersion of Mark OJ8O& we read with astonishmentJ
SAnd e"erythin* will $e salted with fire4444S
In Aramaic& the root &lm can mean Sto saltS or Sto scatterS as the
Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon demonstratesJ
ml! K
'%% #alestinian&+yr&G9A to salt
'%2 +yr to scatter
'%/ 9i$Ar&+yr to use someone?s salt
'%8 +yr to $ecome salty
'8% +yr to $e salted
'>% +yr to treat someone in a familiar way
)+2 /O'&G I((
R mel!A= N
E$"iously& what Gesus meant wasJ
<And everythin# will +e scatteredE%ulveri/ed 8NethKmelKe"hF with fire&&&&<
Now that?s not all4 5es& the "er$ root also means Sto saltS 6 and& yes& Gesus uses
the second meanin* in the second phrase of "erse 8OJ
<And every sacrifice with salt will +e salted 8TethKmelKe"hF&< 8c&f&7 eviticus
::13F
.inally& the Aramaic root in :uestion is also used in this same manner in the
2e$rew +cripturesJ
S)ift up your eyes to the sky& Then look to the earth $eneathA .or the sky will
vanish `l7C. like smoke& And the earth will wear out like a *arment And its
inha$itants will die in like mannerA 9ut My sal"ation will $e fore"er& And My
ri*hteousness will not wane4S ;Isaiah >%JB=
(8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Therefore& the proper interpretation of Mark OJ8O isJ
S.or e"erythin* will $e destroyed &lmtn with fire& and e"ery sacrifice will
$e seasoned &lmtt with salt4S
A $eautiful word6play $y Gesus used with the dual meanin* ;scattercsalt= of
this root4
$. +his generation or this 2amil/ ? #ar' 13:30
This is another important e!ample for apolo*ists& as it is a "erse that is often
attacked& as that *eneration has surely passed away& around 2''' years after
Gesus spoke to them4
The HGK saysJ 0Kerily I say unto you& that this *eneration shall not pass& till all
these thin*s $e done41
The Greek reads S|pnpjS ;%enea=& which can mean S*enerationS ;not to $e
confused with S|pnkuS ;%enos= which means Soffsprin*S=4 2ere it would seem
that our Messiah prophesi,ed incorrectly in the Greek4
The answer comes in the Aramaic4 2ere we don?t see the word for
S*eneration&S $ut the word shar$tho?& which means Sfamily&S or Sfamily
$ranch4S A shar$tho?& is like a ray in *eometry4 It starts at a point& then
continues onwards4 Fsually shar$othoP ;plural= come from other shar$otho?
;plural=& so we can see these $ranchin* rays make up a family tree4 The only
way for a shar$thoP can $e e!tin*uished& is if the entire family is wiped out& an
entire $ranch destroyed4 And shar$thoP can also $e used to descri$e a people
as a whole& like someone could $e from an Italian shar$thoP or the shar$thoP of
New 5ork4
+o you can see that since S|pnpjS ;%enea= implies a len*th of time e:ual to one
person?s lifespan& a *eneration& a shar$thoP can last from a few days to
thousands of years ;for e!ample& we are all still within the shar$thoP of Adam=4
+ince we now know what shar$thoP means& how do we know which shar$thoP
our Messiah was referrin* to? Who was 2e talkin* to? Takin* a look at the
$e*innin* of the chapter& at "erse /J
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words (>
R7hile 3esus sat on the mount of 9li$es5 to#ards the temple5 !eter and 3ames and
3ohn and 6ndre# asked him pri$ately5 0ell us #hen these thin%s #ill happen5 and
#hat is the si%n #hen all these thin%s are about to be fulfilled? R 6 Mark %/J/68
9in*oJ 2is disciples4 9ut some of them came from different $iolo*ical
families4 What did they all ha"e in common?
They were $hristians ;$elie"ers in 5eshua as the Messiah and +on of loha to
$e precise=4
This is of e"en more importance& considerin* the e"ents of the ni*ht $efore
the Messiah was handed o"erJ
When he *a"e the last supper& it paralleled the Gewish $etrothal custom of
wine drinkin*4 9ack in the days of old& in Gewish custom& when a man wanted
to *et $etrothed to a woman& a cup of wine would $e poured at the ta$le4 2e
would drink from it& and then offer it to his intended4 If she took the wine and
drank from it as well& it meant that she accepted the $etrothal offer4 This also
ali*ns with the many para$les Gesus tau*ht concernin* marria*e& placin*
himself as the $ride*room4
RDerily 4 say to you5 0hat this 2amil/ shall not pass a#ay5 until all these thin%s
occur.R 6Mark %/J/'
The $hristian family has not yet died out4
10. Pains or cor"s ? 5cts 2:2
The HGK saysJ 0Whom God hath raised up& ha"in* loosed the pains of deathJ
$ecause it was not possi$le that he should $e holden of it41
In Aramaic& this "erse readsJ
SWhom God raised up& ha"in* loosed the hylbx of +heol& $ecause it was not
possi$le that 2e should $e held $y it4S
(B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
+heol is normally translated into Greek as SdeathS or S*ra"eS 6 so we should
e!pect that that occurred in this "erse4
What is so une!pected is how the Greek translators of Acts totally missed the
proper translation of hylbx
hylbx comes from a root that can mean SpainDtra"ailDcorruptionS ;[B%BI= 6
and in fact it?s used with that meanin* in "erses like Acts 2J2I ;3ust / "erses
from the one in :uestion= or Acts %/J/86/I4 This is the ma3ority readin* 6
SpainDtra"ailDcorruption4S
2owe"er& there is a minority meanin* to hylbx& or more accurately& the
le!eme of this word which is fbx ;[B%B>=
That meanin* is SropeS or Sca$leS 6 as used in Gohn 2J%> and Acts 2IJ/2 ;with
the e!act same le!eme P word spellin*= C That is the meanin* that $elon*s in
Acts 2J284
2ere are the Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon entriesJ
!$lyn N !$ly=
% G)A&+yr pl4 la+or %ains
)+2 2%'
)+2 KJ !e$Jle=
!$l N !$l=
% G)AT* destroyer
!$l[2 N !$l=
% #alestinian&C#A&+yr ro%e
2 +yr snare
/ +yr measurin* line
8 +yr space
> +yr line
B G)AGal&+yr re*ion
I +yr \!$elNyamA=\ seashore
( +yr flame
)+2 2%'
)+2 KJ !a$lA=
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words (I
The "erse should o$"iously readJ
SWhom God raised up& ha"in* loosed the cords of +heol& $ecause it was not
possi$le that 2e should $e held $y it4S
2ow much more sense does T2AT make? 2ere& +imon #eter is sayin* that
+heol could not hold him 6 $ecause Alaha raised him up 6 ha"in* loosed the
fi*urati"e ropes that held 2im there4
Not surprisin*ly& this "ery same word A)+E e!ists in 2e$rew ;72l +tron*s
[22>B= and also has the same $road meanin* as the Aramaic co*nate
;SpainDtra"ailS and SropeDcordS=4
+ee the followin* in the 2e$rew ETJ
Goshua 2J%>
2 +amuel %IJ%/
2 +amuel 22JB 6 Where the "erse reads 6 SThe CER@+ of +2E) surrounded
meA the snares of death confronted meS
#salms %(J> 6 SThe cords ;Hhe$el= of +heol surrounded meA The snares of
death confronted me4S
#salms %%BJ/ 6 SThe cords ;Hhe$el= of death encompassed me& And the terrors
of +heol came upon meA I found distress and sorrow4S
It?s impossi$le to ima*ine +imon #eter not knowin* that the ori*inal said
ScordsS and not Spains4S specially when we read the conte!t of Acts 2J28 6 it
$ecomes clear that +himon?s statement was con"eyin* the ima*e of Sloosin*S
a SprisonerS $ein* held in a dun*eon6type place 6 which was always how
+heol was portrayed in all +emitic literature4
Enly the #eshitta has the correct readin*4 And the mistake could only ha"e
$een made& $y translatin* from Aramaic to Greek4
(( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
11. Be" or co22in ? -evelation 2:20
The HGK saysJ 09ehold& I will cast her into a $ed& and them that commit
adultery with her into *reat tri$ulation& e!cept they repent of their deeds41
Althou*h this error seems to $e understanda$le& there are a few thin*s to $e
noted4 .irst& let?s take a look at the conte!t of this "erseJ
Bevelation ::18K:3
And to the an*el of the church in Thyatira writeJ These thin*s says the +on of God&
who has eyes like a flame of fire& and whose feet are like fine $rass from )e$anonA I
know your works and lo"e and faith and ser"ice& and also your patienceA and your last
works are to $e more a$undant than the first4 Notwithstandin* I ha"e a few thin*s
a*ainst you $ecause you allowed that woman of yours Ge,e$el& who calls herself a
prophetess& to teach and to seduce my ser"ants to commit fornication and to cat thin*s
sacrificed to idols4 And I *a"e her time to repent& $ut she did not repent from her
fornication4 9ehold I will cast her into a sick $ed and those who commit adultery with
her into *reat tri$ulation& unless they repent of their deeds4 And I will smite her
children with deathA and all the churches shall know that I am he who searches the
minds and heartsA and I will *i"e to e"eryone of you accordin* to your works4
In the Aramaic of Re"elation& the word translated as S$edS is Parso& which can
mean $ed& $ut can also mean <ru++ish hea%7< or <coffin&<
This would also complete the parallel $etween the two hal"es of "erse 22
;Ge,e$el in a coffin ;dead=& her consorts under tri$ulation=& and in "erse 2/ ;her
children dead=4
With this in mind& the "erse would readJ
SBehold5 3 cast her into a co22in5 and them that commit adultery #ith her into %reat
tribulation5 except they repent of her #orks.R
And the latter readin* 3ust makes more sense4 Why would Alaha throw her
into a nice comfy $ed ;where she can continue to per"ert others= when 2e can
throw her into the coffin?
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words (O
12. !ouse or among ? #atthew 11:1
The HGK saysJ 09ut what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft
raiment? $ehold& they that wear soft clothin% are in kin*s7 houses41
S444those wearin* soft *arments are tyb kin*s4S
The Aramaic word S95TS can mean $oth ShouseS and Samon*4S
The fact that the Greek "ersions read ShousesS ;N TEIL EIHEIL= pro"es that
the translator who rendered the Aramaic into Greek was unaware that 95T
could mean Samon*4S
E$"iously& the proper translation isJ
S444those wearin* soft *arments are amon* kin*s4S
NET
S444those wearin* soft *arments are in the house of kin*s4S
The lack of the 9eth #roclitic ;the preposition SinS= $efore the tyb fa"ors the
Samon*S readin*4
13. Eoice or soun" ? 5cts $:(
This is a "ery special e!ample& as it sol"es a contradiction4 2owe"er& this is
not a true contradiction in the Greek4 .or the Aramaic and the Greek $oth
share the am$i*uity& which leads to the contradiction in the Greek6$ased
n*lish "ersions4
The HGK saysJ 0And the men which 3ourneyed with him stood speechless&
hearin* a "oice& $ut seein* no man41
The Greek6$ased n*lish "ersions falsely readJ
Acts 1:2 [?MJ!
O' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
And the men which 3ourneyed with him stood speechless& hearin* a "oice& $ut seein*
no man4
"s4
Acts :::1 [?MJ!
And they that were with me saw indeed the li*ht& and were afraidA $ut they heard not
the "oice of him that spake to me4
This appears to $e a contradiction& ri*ht? 9ut this is not a contradiction at all&
only a misunderstandin* in translatin*4
In Aramaic the word fq ;SfalaS& or SfolS in 2e$rew= means $oth S"oiceS
and Ssound4S ;c4f4& Matthew 2'J/'& )uke %J88 for instances where it means
?sound?& and Matthew 2J%(& Gohn %J2/ where it means ?"oice?=4
The readin* of the Aramaic of Acts OJI should $eJ
And the men which 3ourneyed with him stood speechless& hearin* a sound&
$ut seein* no man4
And Aramaic Acts 22JO correctly readsJ
And they that were with me saw indeed the li*ht& and were afraidA $ut they heard not
the "oice of him that spoke to me4
1. +eacher or m/ great one ? #atthew 23:1
The HGK saysJ 09ut $e not ye called Ra$$iJ for one is your Master& e$en ChristA
and all ye are $rethren41
I do not know the scholarly name for this kind of proof& so let7s 3ust call it a
S$ad idiom transferS4
A S$ad idiom transferS is when an Aramaic word that is meant to $e taken
literally is instead translated as its idiom into the recei"in* lan*ua*e4
Now of course no one need know 2e$rew or Aramaic to know what SRa$$iS
means& as e"en the GNT interprets it as SteacherS repeatedly4 2owe"er& if any
of you thou*ht that was the )ITRA) MANING& you are mistaken4 I will
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words O%
*et to that aspect shortly& $ut for now let us look at why that literal readin*
may not $e correct4
Matthew :8:11K:0
Go& therefore& and con"ert all nationsA and $apti,e them in the name of the .ather and
of the +on and of the 2oly +piritA And teach them to o$ey e"erythin* that I ha"e
commanded youA and& lo& I am with you always& to the end of the world4 Amen4
+o& if 5eshua is sayin* Scall no one TAC2R ;ra$$i=S& why does he seem to
re"erse himself here $y commandin* these same disciples to teach?
The answer& I $elie"e& is the )ITRA) meanin* of Sra$$iS4
RA9]*reat
I] my
When com$ined& the literal meanin* is SM5 GRAT ENS& and NET
SteacherS4 Now if we turn $ack to a few lines earlier& this conte!t clearly
emer*esJ
Matthew :3:1K2
% T2N Gesus spoke to the people and to his disciples&
2 +ayin* to them& The scri$es and the #harisees sit on the chair of MosesA
/ Therefore whate"er they tell you to o$ey& o$ey and do it& $ut do not do accordin* to
their worksA for they say and do not4
8 And they $ind hea"y $urdens& and put them on men7s shoulders& $ut they
themsel"es are not willin* to touch them& e"en with their fin*er4
> And all their works they do& 3ust to $e seen $y men& for they widen the frin*es of
their *arments and they len*then the ends of their ro$es&
B And they like the chief places at feasts and the front seats in the syna*o*ues&
I And the *reetin*s in the streets and to $e called $y men& Ra$$i4
+o it looks like to me that Lor$a was so $usy showin* off how he T2INH+ he
can translate and Aramaic word like Sra$$iS into Greek as SteacherS that he
ne*lected 6 as usual 6 to o$ser"e the full $readth of meanin* of the word& as
well as make the critical distinction $etween fi*urati"e and literal meanin*s4
O2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
1). Per2orm re,eate"l/ or revert ? -omans 2:1-3
The HGK saysJ 0Therefore thou art ine!cusa$le& E man& whosoe"er thou art
that 3ud*estJ for wherein thou 3ud*est another& thou condemnest thyselfA for
thou that 3ud*est doest the same thin*s4 9ut we are sure that the 3ud*ment of
God is accordin* to truth a*ainst them which commit such thin*s4 And
thinkest thou this& E man& that 3ud*est them which do such thin*s& and doest
the same& that thou shalt escape the 3ud*ment of God?1
The word in the Greek te!t means ?to perform repeatedly or ha$itually? while
the Aramaic te!t has a word meanin* ?to re"ert $ack to somethin*?4
In the #eshitta Te!t of Romans 2J%6/& there are some word meanin*s that were
hidden from the eyes of the Greeks4 The Aramaic words I?m referrin* to are
Smeth?hapakhS ;[28BBB= in "erses % and / and Smeth?hapkhiynS ;[>/2B= in
"erses 2 and /4 .or definitions& +@RA has ?conduct& turn& return4? The key
idea here is of ?re"ertin* $ack to somethin*? in the thpael "er$al con3u*ation4
This is attested to in +mith?s Compendious +yriac @ictionary on pa*e %'>&
under ?hpk&? there is considera$le duality66Sto turn a$out& $ack& roundA to
o"erturnA to *o a$out& do& ha"e to do& $e occupied& employed& deal& li"e ;with
$eith proclitic66of the place& occupation& or mode of life=4 En pa*e /%/ of
+mith?s Comp4 we ha"e two "ery kindred words to the ones used in the
#eshitta66Smeth?hapkinotha&S defined as ?turnin* from& chan*in*& wa"erin*&
retro*ression& per"ersion4? The other word immediately a$o"e this one is
Smeth?hapkin6aiythS and when used ad"er$ially with the ?la? ne*ati"e means
?strai*htforward& without turnin* $ack& without retro*ression4?
Kictor Ale!ander made the most of this o$ser"ation in his translationJ
%4 9ecause of this& the +pirit is not speakin* throu*h you& E& human $ein*& as you
3ud*e your companion& for a*ainst that which you 3ud*e& you shall also revert&
24 And we know that the 3ud*ment of God will $e hea"y a*ainst those who revert
/4 What do you suppose then& E& human $ein*& that you should 3ud*e those who
revert thus& while you are also #oin# +ac" to the same thin#& do you think you will
run away from the 3ud*ment of God?
The $ase words in the Greek Te!t are ?prasso? ;+tron*?s [82/(= and ?poieo?
;+tron*?s [8%B'=4 The difference $etween them is as followsJ
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words O/
82/( prasso pras?6so a primary "er$A to SpractiseS& i4e4 perform repeatedly or ha$itually
;thus differin* from 8%B'& which properly refers to a sin*le act=A $y implication& to
e!ecute& accomplish& etc4A specially& to collect ;dues=& fare ;personally=4
1*. Aiven u, to vile ,assions or "iseases o2 "isgrace ?
-omans 1:2*
The HGK saysJ 0.or this cause God *a"e them up unto "ile affectionsJ for e"en
their women did chan*e the natural use into that which is a*ainst natureJ1
"en thou*h the Greek typically $e*in Romans %J2B with STherefore God has
*i"en them up to vile %assionsS& Cdiseases of dis#raceC ;syphilis& *onorrhea&
etc4= is another possi$ility4
Word Num$erJ OI>I
#ronunciationJ ;astern= )H&iA9&eA ;Western= )H&iA9&eA
Meanin*JJ pain& sufferin*& disease
k=$ N k=$=
% +yr *rief
2 +yr&G9A wound& sore
/ G9A ulcer
8 +yr disease
> G9A pain
Word Num$erJ %I(88
#ronunciationJ ;astern= @?T+aRaA ;Western= @?T+aRoA
Meanin*JJ shame& dishonor& i#nominy& dis#race
c;r N c;r=
% G)AGal&G)AT*&C#A&+am&G9A pain& sorrow
% +yr contem%t
2 +yr dishonesty
/ +yr insult
Whene"er we encounter a construct $e*innin* with SHe$a d?S ;somethin*= it
is usually a medical term referrin* to some sort of illness4 In this case& the
latter term is a sociolo*ical one ;dishonor& dis*race=& which of course works
well in the conte!t *i"en4
O8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
1(. Cities or talents ? &u'e 1$:1(-1$
The HGK saysJ 0And he said unto him& Well& thou *ood ser"antJ $ecause thou
hast $een faithful in a "ery little& ha"e thou authority o"er ten cities4 And the
second came& sayin*& )ord& thy pound hath *ained fi"e pounds4 And he said
likewise to him& 9e thou also o"er fi"e cities41
This no$leman was a ruler of a city4 2e went on a 3ourney to pay his respects
to the kin* and to seek confirmation of his official position4 2e entrusted his
ser"ants with small coins called in Aramaic menin Nynm 4 En his return he
rewarded his ser"ants who had traded and made lar*e profits with kakrey
0rkk & the lar*est coins in those days& pro$a$ly e:ui"alent to /''' shekels4
Hakra 0rkk & talent& was a lar*e coin of sil"er or *old4 A man could carry
only one of them4 The Greek translators made an error when they translated
this word Hakra 0rkk & for Harkha 0krk & pro"ince4 The difference $etween
these two words is noted with a sin*le dot placed o"er one of the characters
and can $e easily confused4 This no$leman could not ha"e *i"en his ser"ants
ten and fi"e cities as a reward for their faithfulness& for he himself had only
one city and his ser"ants were not :ualified to $e rulers4 =ecause of their
+usiness fidelity they were entrusted with lar#er sums in view of lar#er
%rofits in the future4 This is characteristic of the ast where only small sums
are loaned at first until a ser"ant?s honesty and a$ility are demonstrated ;see
Matthew 2>J%86/'=4
11. Aall or anger ? 5cts 1:23
The HGK saysJ 0.or I percei"e that thou art in the *all of $itterness& and in the
$ond of ini:uity41
The Greek te!ts readJ
S.or I percei"e that you are in the *all of $itterness& and in the $onds of
ini:uity4S
Now the Aramaic readsJ
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words O>
S.or I percei"e that you are in a $itter 0dbk ;SHa$daS=& and in the $onds of
ini:uity4S
2ere is the Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon entry for the root in :uestionJ
k$d N k$d=
% #alestinian&+yr&G9A li"er
2 +yr an*er
It is o$"ious that the Greek translators misread S*allcli"erS here& instead of the
more conte!tually proper San*er4S
+imon was an*ry that he could not ha"e the power that the Apostles had4 2e
was 3ealous4
2e was in a 0$itter an*er14 9esides& what is the S*all of $itternessS& anyway?
1$. Feet or 2oot sol"iers ? -omans 3:1)
The HGK saysJ 0Their feet are swift to shed $loodJ1
In the Greek& the word accordin* to +tron*7s @ictionary isJ
822( %ous %ooce a primary wordA a <foot< ;fi*urati"ely or literally=J66foot8KstoolF4
Madness< A foot or a foot stool? What is #aul en"isionin*? Fsin* chairs as
weapons?<
The word in the #eshitta is Sre*hlaihoonS4 nter CA)4
r*l N r*l=
1 %assim foot
2 +yr $ase& $ottom
/ +yr foot ;measure=
8 G)AGal&G9A pil*rima*e festi"al
> G)AGal w4 \;l& $M\ $ecause of
8 +yr plant name
> G9A festi"al season
)+2 I%2
plJ rJe*le=
OB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
)+2 "J re*lA=
a$s4 "ocJ r*el
r*l[2 N r*l=
1 'yr footKsoldier
)+2 I%2
)+2 "J ra*4AlA=
R r*l N
r*l K
'%% +yr ??
'2% G)AGal to o"erturn
'8% +yr to *et off a horse
)+2 I%2
R r*l N ?
Their foot soldiers are :uick to shed $lood4 Lor$a makes yet another
mystifyin* rendition& cleared up $y the #eshitta4
20. 6orl" or lan" o2 3srael ? 5cts 11:21
The HGK saysJ 0And there stood up one of them named A*a$us& and si*nified
$y the +pirit that there should $e *reat dearth throu*hout all the worldJ
which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar41
Acts 11::2K30 [?MJ!
2I And in these days came prophets from Gerusalem unto Antioch4
2( And there stood up one of them named A*a$us& and si*nified $y the +pirit that
there should $e *reat dearth throu*hout all the worldJ which came to pass in the days
of Claudius Caesar4
2O Then the disciples& e"ery man accordin* to his a$ility& determined to send relief
unto the $rethren which dwelt in GudaeaJ
/' Which also they did& and sent it to the elders $y the hands of 9arna$as and +aul4
Now this doesn?t make sense at all& why would those in Antioch send relief to
those dwellin* IN GF@A if the famine was to strike all T2 WER)@4 They
would $e facin* famine themsel"es4 The Gewish New Testament "ersion ;GNT=
translates the Greek word as Sthrou*hout the Roman mpireS $ut this has the
same pro$lem& since Antioch and Gudea were $oth in the Roman mpire4 The
solution lies in the fact that the word for SWER)@S in the Aramaic
manuscripts is RA ;+tron*?s [II2= the Aramaic form of the 2e$rew word
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words OI
RTL ;+tron*?s IIB=4 This word can mean SworldS ;as in #ro"4 %OJ8= SearthS
;as in @an4 2J/>= or SlandS ;as in @an4 OJ%>= and is often used as a euphemism
for SThe )and of IsraelS ;as in @an4 OJB=4
09r0 is misunderstood $y Lor$a& to mean SworldS when here it actually
means SlandS and is used as it is so often as a uphemism for the Sland of
IsraelS4
21. Aoo" an" 2oo" or much an" cheer ? 5cts 1:1(
This "erse is ama,in*& as there are actually two semi6split words here4
The HGK saysJ 0Ne"ertheless he left not himself without witness& in that he
did *ood& and *a"e us rain from hea"en& and fruitful seasons& fillin* our
hearts with food and *ladness41
The Greek te!ts usually ha"e either or & $oth
meanin* 0do *ood1& and & meanin* 0food1 or 0nourishment14
The 0*ood1 readin* sounds okay& $ut could $e $etter& while the 0fillin* our
hearts with food1 is a$solutely perple!in*4
The #eshitta says 2e did Fb= ;which is a plural word= and filled their
hearts with 0ysrwt4
.rom the Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon& Fb= isJ
Tw$ N Tw$=
% #alestinian&+yr&9a$ *oodness& *ood thin*s
2 #alestinian&C#A&+am&+yr choice produce
/ G)AGal&G)AT*&+yr&G9A pl4 const4J $lessed is& happy is
8 +yr pl con*ratulations
> G9A much& many b Tw$= a
)+2 2BO
)+2 KJ Tuw$A=
O( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Goin* $y the conte!t of lea"in* witness& 0in that 2e did much1 is a $etter
readin*4 That 2e left much witness is also a superior readin* $y contrastin*
with the pre"ious "erse ;"erse %B= where it is made known that God allowed
us to walk in our own ways4
.rom the CA)& 0ysrwt is a noun from the "er$al root Ysrt meanin*J
trsy K
'O% +yr to restore& to repair
'O2 +yr to help& to e!pedite
'O/ +yr to nourish
%2% +yr to $e nourished
%22 +yr to eat
)+2 (/B
trsy I
% +yr $e of *ood cheer<& $uck up
)+2 (/B
)+2 "J tarsAy
When we use this 0cheer1 meanin*& it makes far $etter sense than fillin* the
heart with food` We *etJ 0filled their hearts with cheer and *ladness1& which
fits nicely with the 0*ladness1 theme4
NoteJ This happened in the city of )ystra ;in Turkey=& and the pa*ans thou*ht
that 9arna$as was the 0chief of the *ods1 ;perhaps Leus= and that #aul was
02ermes1& a Greek 0*od14 It is possi$le then ;$ut not definite=& that these
pa*ans were speakin* in Greek with 9arna$as and #aul4 +o why do we ha"e
this ama,in* e!ample ;and many more= of an Aramaic6to6Greek translation in
the $ook of Acts? It7s "ery simpleJ The discussion may ha"e $een in Greek&
$ut it was RCER@@ in Aramaic4 The Greek copies of this Aramaic
recordin* were then made C with dod*y results4
22. Peace or cultivate" lan" ? 0ames 3:11
#roofs of lin*uistic primacy in the $ook of Games are "ery important4 .or
Games wrote to the scattered ones of the %2 tri$es of Israel ;Games %J%=4 2e
writes to them all& with this one letter& so it could $e assumed that they all
knew EN lan*ua*e4 We know that the GewsDGudeans& who spoke Aramaic&
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words OO
were part of the twel"e tri$es ;Gudah& 9en3amin and part of )e"i=& so perhaps
the crucial point made $y the "ery first "erse of Games shows us that A)) the
Israelites spoke Aramaic ;unsurprisin*& since they were scattered $y Aramaic6
speakin* Assyrians=& no matter where they were in the world< 9ut I7m *ettin*
ahead of myself` )et7s focus on the lin*uistics at the moment& rather than
lo*ic and historyJ
The HGK saysJ 0And the fruit of ri*hteousness is sown in peace of them that
make peace41
9oth instances of 0peace1 in this "erse are translations of 0eyrene1 which
appears in the Greek te!ts4
This whole "erse sounds :uite silly4
The #eshitta a*rees with the Greek in the second usa*e of 0peace1& with
0ml4 0shlama14 9ut for the first readin*& the #eshitta has 0yn4 0shayna14
The Comprehensi"e Aramaic )e!icon shows us the meanin*s of shaynaJ
dyn[2 N dyn=
% +yr culti"ated land
2 +yr fa"ora$le conditions
/ +yr peace
8 +yr \ddaynA=\ tame
> +yr lo"e of peace
)+2 II/
)+2 "J daynA=
a$s4 "ocJ diyn
+o now we ha"eJ 0And the fruit of ri*hteousness is sown in the culti"ated
land of them that make peace41 Now T2AT does not sound silly< The
0culti"ated land1 readin* flows perfectly with the 0sown1 theme4
It was so easy for Lor$a to make this mistake& as not only can the Aramaic
words share the common meanin* of 0peace1& they look and sound "ery
similar4
NoteJ "en if this could $e refuted as a split word e!ample $y 0pro"in*1 the
0culti"ated land1 readin* to $e errant& it would then $ecome a 0multiple
inheritance1 e!ample& where the Aramaic di"ersity ;two different words for
%'' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
0peace1= are distilled to one word in the Greek4 Also& we ha"e here a word6
play with the two similar soundin* words 0shayna1 and 0shlama1& which is
lost in the Greek translation4
23. Peace or cultivate" lan" ? 5gainG 5cts 12:20
The $rilliance of the last e!ample& is that the same situation is found in Acts4
Two different $ooks& with two different authors& with the same pro$lem&
sol"ed $y the same Aramaic "ersion C the #eshitta4 Ironically& many scholars
ha"e *i"en up lookin* for an Aramaic ori*inal to Acts4
The HGK saysJ 0And 2erod was hi*hly displeased with them of Tyre and
+idonJ $ut they came with one accord to him& and& ha"in* made 9lastus the
kin*?s cham$erlain their friend& desired peaceA $ecause their country was
nourished $y the kin*?s country41
0#eace1 in this "erse is a translation of 0eyrene1 which appears in the Greek
te!ts4
This whole "erse sounds :uite silly4 If the countries were not at peace& why
was Gudea feedin* its enemies in Tyre and +idon? Are we to assume that the
Gudeans& of all people& were i*norant to the ways of war? Common sense tells
us that star"ation is a useful weapon< Er are we to assume that Gudea
supplied its enemies with resources in the same way that Allied $anks funded
2itler7s Na,is?
Thankfully& the #eshitta allows for a much $etter readin*& eliminatin* the link
to treacherous Allied acti"ities in Word War Two4
The #eshitta has the word 0yn4 0shayna1& meanin*J
dyn[2 N dyn=
% +yr culti"ated land
2 +yr fa"ora$le conditions
/ +yr peace
8 +yr \ddaynA=\ tame
> +yr lo"e of peace
)+2 II/
)+2 "J daynA=
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words %'%
a$s4 "ocJ diyn
0Culti"ated land1 makes a far $etter readin*4 +ince Gudea fed the people of
Tyre and +idon& it is safe to assume that they were all at peace4
It makes more sense that the people of Tyre and +idon& $ein* seaport trade
towns who were dependent on inland sources of food& would ask for
culti"ated land ;and hence ha"e less dependence on others& like the Gudeans=&
than for 0peace1& when they were already at peace4
2. 0oin or touch ? 5cts ):13
The HGK saysJ 0And of the rest durst no man 3oin himself to themJ $ut the
people ma*nified them41
The Greek te!ts say 01& meanin* 03oin14
The Aramaic says Brqtn which has Brq as its root4 #ossi$le meanin*s of
this root can $e 03oin1& 0touch1 and 0fi*ht14
0Touch1 and 0fi*ht1 make far more sense4 After all& when o$ser"in* this
power& as a simple person who is easily swayed& would you like to fi*ht or
touch ;as in 0interfere with1= these powerful people? Er would you like to
3oin them and perhaps share in that power?
9esides& the "ery ne!t "erse ;"4%8= says that heaps of people were 3oinin*
them<
)amsaJ 0And the num$er of those who $elie"ed in the )ord was *reatly
increased $y multitudes $oth of men and women41
Ef course& critics can say that "erse %/ refers to the un$elie"ers only4 9ut then&
where did the $elie"ers of "erse %8 come from? Where do $elie"ers come
from in *eneral? .rom un$elie"ers`
Additionally& )uke uses a word6play $etween the two roots& Brq ;:ara$ C
0touch1= and Bry ;yara$ C 0ma*nify1=4
%'2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2). Per2ecte" or 2inishe" ? &u'e 13:32
The HGK saysJ 0And he said unto them& Go ye& and tell that fo!& 9ehold& I cast
out de"ils& and I do cures to day and to morrow& and the third day I shall $e
perfected41
The Greek te!ts say 01& meanin* 0will $e perfected14
The Aramaic e:ui"alent in the #eshitta is fmt4m ;Meshtamlea=& meanin*
0finishedDcompleted14 It is "isually and aurally similar to 0ylm4m
;Meshemlaya=& which does ha"e 0perfected1 as one of its meanin*s4
The #eshitta7s 0Ì shall $e finished1 is a superior readin*4 It can $e ar*ued
that 0perfected1 is the same thin* as 0finished14 2owe"er& it is still
noteworthy that the Greek says 0perfected1 which is closer in meanin* to
0Meshemlaya1 than the #eshitta7s readin* of 0Meshtamlea14
Ama,in*ly& the "ery ne!t "erse also has a mistranslation in the Greek4
2*. 6al' or wor' ? &u'e 13:33
This "erse has another mistranslation ;strai*ht after the error in the pre"ious
"erse<= and a curious 0/
rd
oddity14
The HGK saysJ 0Ne"ertheless I must walk to day& and to morrow& and the day
followin*J for it cannot $e that a prophet perish out of Gerusalem41
The Greek te!ts say 01& meanin* 0to walk1 ;usually translated
into n*lish as 0*o1 or 0depart1=4 This doesn7t make much sense& seein* as
5eshua was talkin* a$out 2is 0works1 in "erse /24 In fact& you could e"en
take the Greek to make a liar out of the Messiah< En one hand 2e *i"es a
messa*e to 2erod that 2e will continue his works on the first and second
days ;"erse /2=& and on the other hand 2e says that 2e will 0depart1444 More
on this later4
Chapter 24 +emi +plit Words %'/
The Aramaic e:ui"alent in the #eshitta is rw9s0 ;Aseor=& meanin* 0work14
The root r9s has many meanin*s& includin*J "isit& tra"el& do ;work= and
effect4
2ere are some words that deri"e from this rootJ
9ishop ;0rw9s=& $ecause a $ishop travels and visits his parishes ;e4*4 %#eter
2J2>=
MatterDAffairD9usiness ;0nr9ws=& $ecause this is done ;e4*4 %Thessalonians
8J%%=
Action ;0nr9ws=& $ecause an action is effected ;e4*4 )uke 2/J>%=
Gettin* $ack to the word in :uestion& rw9s0& Lor$a correctly identified the
root as r9s4 Reali,in* that he 3ust correctly translated the same root in )uke
%JB( as 0"isit1& he pro$a$ly thou*ht that Gesus is talkin* a$out "isitin* and
walkin* a$out4
9ut 5eshua was talkin* a$out the need to do 2is work today and tomorrow&
not his walkin* schedule4 And this& in supposedly the $ook with the 0$est
Greek1 of the New Testament4
As for the possi$le deception $y Gesus in the Greek& the Aramaic contrasts the
acti"ities of the first two days ;0doin* 2is works1= and the other day
;0lea"in*1 C a /
rd
oddity in these 2 "erses=4 The Greek *i"es the impression
that all three days ha"e the same acti"ity ;lea"in*=& which makes 5eshua
sound like a liar in 2is messa*e to 2erod& especially as 2e says
0ne"ertheless14 The use of 0ne"ertheless1 in the Greek makes Gesus sounds
like a liarA in the Aramaic it is accepta$le as in "erse /2& 2e says 2e will $e
0finished1 on the /rd day& while "erse // ela$orates $y mentionin* 2is
lea"in*4
More on the 0third oddity1J The Aramaic says 09ut I must do my work today
and tomorrow& and I will leave the ne6t day1 while the Greek says
0Ne"ertheless I must walk to day& and to morrow& and the day followin*14
%'8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
"en with the mistranslations& the Greek should still ha"e a contrast of
acti"ities& like the Aramaic has4 #erhaps Lor$a chan*ed this intentionally
;makin* all three days of the same acti"ity=& to make some sense of his other
two mistakes<
That was a comple! e!planation4 It is not necessarily easy to succinctly
e!plain T2R errors $y Lor$a in 3ust TWE "erses4
2(. Priest or ,riests ? #ar' 1:
The HGK saysJ 0And saith unto him& +ee thou say nothin* to any manJ $ut *o
thy way& shew thyself to the priest& and offer for thy cleansin* those thin*s
which Moses commanded& for a testimony unto them41
We ha"e an oddity in the Greek4 The man is to show himself to the 0priest1
; C sin*ular=& $ut the testimony is 0to them1 ; C plural=4 +ince when
is one person referred to as 0them1?
The e:ui"alent word in the Aramaic is 0nhkl ;minus the lamedh C or 0l1 C
proclitic is 0nhk 0kahna1& 0priest1=& which is sin*ular4 2owe"er& the #eshitta
was written $efore plural markin*s in Aramaic were in"ented ;0+yame
markin*s1=& so this word can "ery well $e plural4 With the plural markin*s& it
would look like soJ 0n'hkl
The way that Aramaic6readers of the #eshitta know that 0nhkl is meant in
the plural& is that the same "erse then says whtwdhsl& 0for their
testimony14 This needed no 0+yame markin*s1& $ecause the wh suffi! is /6
rd person plural& i4e4 0theirDtheyDthem14 To Aramaic6readers& it is clear that the
0priest1 is in the plural form& 0priests14 Lor$a clearly didn7t know this and
made a $i* mistake4 Ence a*ain& the #eshitta clears up the inconsistencies of
the Greek4
There are many cases where the lack of +yame markin*s in the ori*inal
Aramaic #eshitta NT has caused "ariants amon* the Greek te!tual families
;some are *i"en in the 0Miscellaneous #roofs1 section of this $ook=4
Ama,in*ly& this particular error was made 0across the $oard14
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %'>
$ha%ter 3& Poetry and (ord
Plays
Fnfortunately& due to translations from the Aramaic into Greek& much of the
New Testament7s poetry and word plays ha"e $een lost4 It turns out that our
Messiah was a poet of a *reater cali$er than William +hakespeare&
Christopher Marlowe or Michael +tipe4 Ene of the most outstandin* and
$eautiful aspects of the 9i$le has $een lost in the mainstream due to the
Greek4 "en some of the 9i$le writers such as #aul& ha"e shown incredi$le
creati"ity in their $ooks4 The ori*inal Aramaic 9i$le was indeed a masterfully
crafted work& as one would e!pect& $ein* written $y the Almi*hty4
Ef course the Greek copies& written in so6called 0Hoine Greek1 ;an
inappropriately used term to descri$e the shockin* *rammar and structure of
the Greek New Testament= look like somethin* that had a deadline of 0last
week14 Greek scholars often admit the $ad writin* e"ident in the Greek
;leadin* to the lie that the GNT is in 0Hoine Greek1= and some e"en know
that the Greek New Testament seems to ha"e $een copied from a +emitic
lan*ua*e& and has many similarities with the writin* style of the +eptua*int4
The +eptua*int is an old 9i$le ;Eld Testament= translated from 2e$rew& a
+emitic lan*ua*e& to Greek4 +ounds familiar`
As per usual& there are many& many e!amples of this type of lin*uistic
;internal= e"idence4 @ue to space limitations& we will only look at a handful4
%'B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Now& without any further adieu& I present to you the literary *enius that is the
)ER@4
1. +he beaut/ that is >0anus Parallelism? #atthew
13:31-32
The HGK saysJ 0Another para$le put he forth unto them& sayin*& The kin*dom
of hea"en is like to a *rain of mustard seed& which a man took& and sowed in
his fieldJ Which indeed is the least of all seedsJ $ut when it is *rown& it is the
*reatest amon* her$s& and $ecometh a tree& so that the $irds of the air come
and lod*e in the $ranches thereof41
Ganus #arallelism is a "ery uni:ue feature of 2e$rew poetry and has now
$een found in the #eshitta4
The first e!ample of Ganus #arallelism was disco"ered in +on* of +on*s $y the
late Cyrus Gordon4 2e termed this e!tremely creati"e poetic de"ice ?3anus
parallelism?& where a passa*e e!ploits both meanin*s of a word with two
meanin*s simultaneously4 2ere it is in his own wordsJ
R9ne kind of parallelism is Cuite in%enious5 for it hin%es on the use of a sin%le #ord
#ith t#o entirely different meanin%s: one meanin% parallelin% #hat precedes5 and the
other meanin%5 #hat follo#s.R
& Cyrus Aordon5 1,/(
+ince he first pu$lished his findin*s& many more ha"e $een disco"ered in the
2e$rew 9i$le4
2ere is an e!ample in the #eshittaJ
Matthew %/J/%6/2
fdrxd Fdr#l 0ym4d Fwklm 0ymd
htyrqb h9r! 0rb% Bsnd
0he Hin%dom of *ea$en is likened to a %rain of mustard seed5
#hich a man took and so#ed in his field.
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %'I
0nw9r! whlk Nm Yh 0yrw9! Yhw
0nwqry whlk Nm Yh 0br tbrd Nyd 0m
#hen it has %ro#n5 it is %reater than all the herbs.
hykwsb Nqt 0ym4d Fxr# F0td Ky0 0nly0 hywhw
and becomes a tree5 so that the bir"s of hea$en #ill come and nest in its branches
2ere& the word for ?$irds? can also mean ?flowers? or ?$lossoms?4 The two6faced
3anus aspect is that taken in parallel with what precedes 6 seeds& her$s& and
trees 6 it can $e understood as ?$lossoms?4 Taken with what follows 6 ?nestin*
in $ranches? 6 it can $e understood as $irds<
2ere?s how it pi"otsJ
seeds& her$s& trees& }6 +lossomsE+irds 6b & hea"en& nestin*& $ranches
+ee how it works? This is a "ery authentic feature& with precedents in the Eld
Testament& impossi$le to $e con"eyed in Greek4
2ere is the Banus parallelism identified $y Cyrus Gordon in ?The +on* of +on*s?
2J%2 6
]N2 `N. C`.3.
V`. `C* !V
`! 7``
`.3N2 VC2.
R0he blossoms are seen in the land
& the time of prunin% has arri$ed &
and the $oice of the turtledo$e
is heard in our land.R
6ER6
R0he blossoms are seen in the land
& the time of sin%in% has arri$ed &
%'( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
and the $oice of the turtledo$e
is heard in our land.R
The 2e$rew word C* can mean ?to prune? or ?to sin*?4 Thus& paralleled with
what precedes& it takes the meanin* ?to prune?4 #aralleled with the ?"oice? and
?heard? which follow& it takes the meanin* ?to sin*?4
There is also *reat wordplay in "erse /2J
It is smaller ;0yrw9! S,earoyaS& deri"ed from the root r9! S,earS= than all the
seeds ;0nw9r! S,eraonaS& deri"ed from (r! S,eraS=4 9ut when it *rows ;tbr
Sra$$athS& deri"ed from 0br Sra$$aS= it is *reater ;0br Sra$$aS= than all the
her$s
Ef course the Greek has no such wordplay`
It is smaller ;SmikrosS= than all the seeds ;SspermaS=4 9ut when it *rows
;Sau!anoS= it is *reater ;Smei,onS= than all the her$s4
2. 5 wor" ,la/ o2 common roots 2or love4 owe an"
neighbour -omans 13:1
The HGK saysJ 0Ewe no man any thin*& $ut to lo"e one anotherJ for he that
lo"eth another hath fulfilled the law41
In Romans %/J(& the Aramaic roots ?kh$?66;Hheith&$eith=& and ?kh$r?66;Hheith&
$eith& and resh= are used in words meanin* lo"e& owe and nei*h$or4
2ere?s Rom4 %/J( from the )amsa 9i$le66SEwe ;wbwxt= no man anythin*&
$ut lo"e ;wbxml= one another ;dxl dx666e"en ?one another? sounds a little
poetic in Aramaic66 khad l?khad=A for he who lo"es ;Bxmd= his nei*h$or
;hrbx= has fulfilled the law4S
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %'O
3. +he &or"Hs Pra/er #atthew *:$-13
2ere is a transliteration and translation of the )ord7s #rayer& $y #aul 5ounan4
This transliteration shows 3ust how $eautiful the )ord7s #rayer actually is4
Note also in the Greek& the prayer contains 0and lead us not into temptation1&
while the ori*inal has 0do not lead us into trial14 This may seem tri"ial& $ut
try and see how "ital this is4 +atan is known as 0the tempter1<
The HGK saysJ 0After this manner therefore pray yeJ Eur .ather which art in
hea"en& 2allowed $e thy name4 Thy kin*dom come4 Thy will $e done in
earth& as it is in hea"en4 Gi"e us this day our daily $read4 And for*i"e us our
de$ts& as we for*i"e our de$tors4 And lead us not into temptation& $ut deli"er
us from e"ilJ .or thine is the kin*dom& and the power& and the *lory& for e"er4
Amen41
The rhymin* structure is like thisJ
6#on dP#ashmayya ;our .ather in 2ea"en=
nith&<addash 2hmakh ;holy $e your Name=
0eh&teh +alkothakh ;your Hin*dom come=
Ieh#eh so#&ya&nakh ;your Will $e done=
6ykanna dP#ashmaya ;as it is in hea"en=
ap bPar&aa ;also on earth=
*a#&lan lakh&ma ;*i"e us the $read=
dPson&Ca&nan yo&ma&na ;of our need this day=
#Pash#ooC lan kha#&beyn ;and for*i"e us our offences=
aykanna dPap akhanan sh#aCan lPkhay&ya&#eyn ;as we ha"e for*i"en those who ha"e
offended us=
#Pla taa&lan lPnis&yo&na ;and do not lead us into trial=
ella passan min bee&sha ;$ut deli"er us from the e"il one=
mottol de&lakh he mal&ko&tha ;for yours is the kin*dom=
#Pkhayla ;and the power=
#Ptishbokhta ;and the *lory=
lPalam5 almen5 amen4 ;fore"er and e"er& amen=
%%' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2ow in*enious is our Messiah? Ene of the easiest ways to remem$er
somethin* is to make it rhyme<
. Paul the ,oet; Phili,,ians :1
The HGK saysJ 0.inally& $rethren& whatsoe"er thin*s are true& whatsoe"er
thin*s are honest& whatsoe"er thin*s are 3ust& whatsoe"er thin*s are pure&
whatsoe"er thin*s are lo"ely& whatsoe"er thin*s are of *ood reportA if there be
any "irtue& and if there be any praise& think on these thin*s41
2ere?s some poetic $eauty in #hil4 8J(
N#knd Nyly0w ryr4d Nyly0 Yx0 $ykm
mekiyl akhay ayleyn dP2hariyran #P6yleyn dPIakhpan
Therefore& my $rothers& those thin*s which are true and those thin*s which
are honest
Nmyxrd Nyly0w Nykdd Nyly0w Nn0kd Nyly0w
#P6yleyn dPHhanan #P6yleyn dP8akhyan #P6yleyn dP1Pkhiyman
444and those thin*s which are 3ust& and those thin*s which are pure& and those
thin*s which are lo"ely&444
Nyly0w Nxyb4d Nyly0w
#P6yleyn dP2h#iykhan #P6yleyn
444and those thin*s which are praiseworthy and those444
w9rt0 Nylh 0slwqdw 0xbw4d 0db9
e#da dP2ho#kha #PdP<olasa haleyn athreo
444deedsDworks of praise and of *ood report& think on these thin*s4
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %%%
). 0esus on mithla an" miltha &u'e 1:11
The HGK saysJ 0Now the para$le is thisJ The seed is the word of God41
There is $eautiful wordplay in the words of Gesus in )uke (J%%4
1This is the meanin* of the para$le ;mith6la=& the seed is the Word ;mil6tha= of
God14
*. +he Beatitu"es #atthew ):3-12
Ence a*ain& the )ord teaches throu*h rhyme4
The HGK saysJ 09lessed are the poor in spiritJ for theirs is the kin*dom of
hea"en4 9lessed are they that mournJ for they shall $e comforted4 9lessed are
the meekJ for they shall inherit the earth4 9lessed are they which do hun*er
and thirst after ri*hteousnessJ for they shall $e filled4 9lessed are the mercifulJ
for they shall o$tain mercy4 9lessed are the pure in heartJ for they shall see
God4 9lessed are the peacemakersJ for they shall $e called the children of God4
9lessed are they which are persecuted for ri*hteousness7 sakeJ for theirs is the
kin*dom of hea"en4 9lessed are ye& when men shall re"ile you& and persecute
you& and shall say all manner of e"il a*ainst you falsely& for my sake4 Re3oice&
and $e e!ceedin* *ladJ for *reat is your reward in hea"enJ for so persecuted
they the prophets which were $efore you41
0o#&#i&hon leh&+es&ki&na beh&1okh deh&8il&hon hi mal&koo&tha deh&2hma&ya
9lessed are they who are poor in spirit $ecause theirs is the kin*dom of 2ea"en
0o#&#i&hon leh&6h&#i&la deh&*en&on neth&bi&ah&on
9lessed are they who are mournin* $ecause they will $e comforted
0o#&#i&hon leh&+a&ki&kha deh&*en&on nar&ton leh&6r&eh&ah
9lessed are they who are meek $ecause they will inherit the earth
0o#&#i&hon leh&6il&in deh&Hhaph&nin oo&0se&hin leh&Hhan&o&tha deh&*en&on nes&beh&on
9lessed are they UthoseV who hun*er and thirst for ri*hteousness $ecause they will $e
satisfied
0o#&#i&hon leh&+er&akh&ma&nah deh&:h&li&hon ne&hoo&o#n rakh&ma
%%2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
9lessed are they who are merciful $ecause upon them will $e mercies
0o#&#i&hon leh&6il&in deh&8e&khin beh&.eb&hon deh&*en&on nekh&zon leh&6&la&ha
9lessed are they UthoseV who are pure in their hearts $ecause they will see God
0o#&#i&hon leh&:#&di shla&ma deh&Bi&noh&ee deh&6&la&ha neth&Cron
9lessed are they who make peace $ecause the sons of God they will $e called
0o#&#i&hon leh&6il&in deh&6th&ridth&eph&oh me&tul ka&no&tha deh&8il&hon hi mal&koo&tha deh&
2hma&ya
9lessed are they UthoseV who are persecuted $ecause of ri*hteousness $ecause theirs is
the kin*dom of hea"en
0o#&#i&kon a&ma&ti deh&+eh&khas&din lu&khon oo&1adth&pin lu&khon oo&6m&rin el&i&kon kul
me&la bi&sha me&tul&thi beh&8tha&%a&lo&tha
9lessed are you whene"er they curse you and they persecute you and they say e"ery
e"il word a$out you falsely $ecause of me
*i&din khidth&ah&oh oo&1o&zo deh&6B&ruh&khon sa&%i beh&2hma&ya ha&kha&na %ir ruh&dtha&pho
leh&Iah&bi&ya deh&+en Cuh&dtham&i&kon
Then re3oice and $e *lad $ecause your reward is *reat in hea"en for likewise they
persecuted the prophets $efore you
(. 0esus the ,oet; &u'e (:32
The HGK saysJ 0They are like unto children sittin* in the marketplace& and
callin* one to another& and sayin*& We ha"e piped unto you& and ye ha"e not
dancedA we ha"e mourned to you& and ye ha"e not wept41
Lamran )akhun 6 SWe san* to youS
w?)a Ra:dithun 6 SAnd you did not danceS
w?Alyan )akhun 6 SAnd we ha"e mourned for youS
w?)a 9akhithun 6 SAnd you did not cryS
This type of poetry& in +emitic studies& is known as )ine #arallelism& and is
the most common form of poetic structure in all +emitic lan*ua*es4
Talkin* a$out cryin*` We should ha"e a *ood cry that such $eauty was not
preser"ed in the Greek translations<
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %%/
1. 8ceans o2 wor",la/ &u'e 12
The HGK says ;)uke %2J%%=J 0And when they $rin* you unto the syna*o*ues&
and unto ma*istrates& and powers& take ye no thou*ht how or what thin* ye
shall answer& or what ye shall sayJ1
The HGK says ;)uke %2J%B=J 0And he spake a para$le unto them& sayin*& The
*round of a certain rich man $rou*ht forth plentifullyJ1
The HGK says ;)uke %2J%O62'=J 0And I will say to my soul& +oul& thou hast
much *oods laid up for many yearsA take thine ease& eat& drink& and $e merry4
9ut God said unto him& 0hou fool& this ni*ht thy soul shall $e re:uired of theeJ
then whose shall those thin*s $e& which thou hast pro"ided?1
The HGK says ;)uke %2J2%=J 0+o is he that layeth up treasure for himself& and is
not rich toward God41
@ealin* with "erse %%& there are many interestin* features4
S)aS 6 not
STaspunS 6 do $e an!ious a$out
SAykannaS 6 how
STap:unS 6 should depart
SRukhaS 6 $reath
SAwS 6 or
SManaS 6 what
STamrunS 6 you should say
;%= The Greek translators did not know what to do with the phrase Show your
$reath should departS& since this is an Aramaic idiom which means Show to
compose your speechS ;ie& Sspeak properlyS=
The Greeks translated this phrase Show you should answerS& which does not
make sense in the conte!t& since it is preceded $y an SorS4444the way the Greek
"ersion reads isJ
Sdo not $e an!ious a$out how you should answer or what you should sayS
Whereas the Aramaic readsJ
%%8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Sdo not $e an!ious a$out how to compose your speech or what you should
sayS
In other words& don?t worry a$out the way you speak or the content of that
speech4
If Gesus had meant SanswerS& 2e would ha"e used the Aramaic word SInnehS&
which is used "ery fre:uently in the #eshitta ;e!ample Sand answered ;Inneh=
shoa and said44444S=
;2= The second ama,in* thin* a$out this "erse is the triple wordplay&
STaspunS& STap:unS and STamrunS4
;/= An allusion to the dual6meanin* of the word SRukhaS44444spirit and $reath&
and how Gesus plays on this duality& is noticed in the "ery ne!t "erse ;"erse
%2=
S.or the 2oly +pirit ;Rukha d?fudsha= will teach you what to sayS
In other words444444don?t worry a$out your rukha S$reathS& the Rukha
d?fudsha ;the 2oly +pirit= will teach you4
This is simply missin* in the Greek lan*ua*e4 The Greek words for spirit and
$reath are not the same4
Kerse %B also has a wordplay& with the wordsJ
SAlath )ehS 6 $rou*ht him
SAlalthehS 6 crops
Kerses %O62' makes more sense in the Aramaic and plays on duality4
In GreekJ
SAnd I will say to my soul& ?My soul4444444S
In AramaicJ
SAnd I will say to myself& ?My soul44444444S
The word present in $oth instances is SNapshiS&
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %%>
which in Aramaic has a dual meanin* ;like Rukha=& and the word can mean
$oth SmyselfS and Smy soulS4
The Greeks chose to translate $oth instances of SNapshiS as SMy soulS44444and
hence& the awkward readin* SI will say to my soul ?my soul44444?S4
This could only ha"e happened one way& $ecause the Greek words for SselfS
and SsoulS are different& whereas in Aramaic they are the same4
There is also a wordplay with the Aramaic wordsJ
STtawathaS 6 Goods
STtayawathS 6 That you ha"e prepared
.inally& "erse 2% has yet another wordplay withJ
S+aim )ehS 6 2e lays up
S+aimthehS C Treasures
$. .igns an" miracles 0ohn :1
The HGK saysJ 0Then said Gesus unto him& !cept ye see si*ns and wonders& ye
will not $elie"e41
Many scholars claim that Gesus was $ein* rather rude ;if the words are put in
conte!t of the con"ersation=4 2ow would you like it if your child was dyin*
and the only person who could sa"e him said to you somethin* alon* the
lines of& S5ou won?t $elie"e if you don?t see si*ns and miracles& eh?<S It would
$e "ery disheartenin*4 +cholars& due to this rudeness& think that it was added
in $y another scri$e& keepin* the date of this particular dialo*ue as post
Christ4 9ut let?s& for the sake of tryin* to understand thin*s $etter& take a look
at the Aramaic te!tJ
This passa*e& as recorded in the AramaicJ
Pan POt#athaP utethmrathaP
laP tekkzoon laP thOimnoon
%%B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
It turns out to $e a small poemJ Two female couplets $ack to $ack< This is the
simplest way to translate the Greek $ack into Aramaic in accordance to
proper *rammar& and all Aramaic Manuscripts support this4
More $eautiful poetry lost in the translation from Aramaic to Greek& which
stron*ly resem$les the same type of prose that Gesus wrote the )ord7s #rayer&
and the 9eatitudes in4 2e sure had a way with words4
10. IhH"a over the Iha" &u'e 1):-)
The HGK saysJ 0What man of you& ha"in* an hundred sheep& if he lose one of
them& doth not lea"e the ninety and nine in the wilderness& and *o after that
which is lost& until he find it? And when he hath found it& he layeth it on his
shoulders& re3oicin*41
There is a word play where the two words in"ol"ed areJ
Hhad 6 SEneS
Hh?da 6 SRe3oiceS
Ef course& the meanin* of the para$le is SRe3oicin* o"er the oneS4
These thin*s are simply lost in the Greek translations4
11. 6e are not 2orsa'en 2Corinthians :1-$
The HGK saysJ 07e are trou$led on e"ery side& yet not distressedA #e are
perple!ed& $ut not in despairA #ersecuted& $ut not forsakenA cast down& $ut
not destroyedA1
This is an e!ample of Climactic #arallelism& found in +emitic proseJ
Nnyqnxtm f f0 Nny(l0tm ry% Mdmlkb
bPHulmedem %eyr methaltsiynan ala la methkhanCiynan
We are distressed in e"ery way& $ut not o"erwhelmedA
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %%I
Nnx Nybyx f f0 Nny#r=tm
mettarphiynan ala la khayabiyn khnan
we are harassed on all sides& $ut not con:ueredA
Nnyqbt4m f f0 Nny#drtm
methradpiynan ala la meshtabCiynan
#ersecuted& $ut not forsakenA
Nnydb0 f f0 Nny#xtsm
mestakhpiynan ala la abdiynan
cast down& $ut not destroyedA
12. .e,arating Pharisees &u'e 1(:11-20
The HGK saysJ 0There are not found that returned to *i"e *lory to God& sa"e
this stran*er4 And he said unto him& Arise& *o thy wayJ thy faith hath made
thee whole4 And when he was demanded of the #harisees& when the kin*dom
of God should come& he answered them and said& The kin*dom of God
cometh not with o$ser"ationJ1
When Gesus healed the %' lepers near Gerusalem& only % returned to *i"e praise
to God4
Gesus asked SWhy did the other nine +#ARAT ;#rasho= themsel"es? Why is
it that only this one man returned to *i"e praise to God? And& he is a
forei*ner at thatS
The illusion to the #harisees can $e found startin* in "erse 2'4
The word S#reeshaS ;#harisee= comes from the same Aramaic root& and means
Sone who has separated himselfS4
The meanin* $ehind the illusion is that the #harisees were li"in* up to their
name& they Sseparated themsel"esS from praisin* God& and forei*ners were
praisin* God in their place4
All of this in the commentary portion of )uke& not 3ust the narrati"e portion4
%%( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
13. .im,ler an" ,rettier in the 5ramaic -omans :2)
The HGK saysJ 0Who was deli"ered for our offences& and was raised a*ain for
our 3ustification41
This almost rhymes in the n*lish $ut the GNT uses a redundant 0of us1 after
trans*ressions and 3ustification4
9ut the Aramaic seems intentionally crafted $y the Apostle #aulJ
R...dGhoo
:eshGteGlim mitol khaGtaGhen
ooGkam mitol danGzadGken.R
It seems "ery interestin* how a$out %/ to %8 words in the n*lish and %2
words in the GNT with many more unrhymin* sylla$les in each are
unpacked from only B Aramaic words ;/ in $oth perfectly e:ual phrases= and
each rhymin* Aramaic word ;Qour trans*ressions7 and Qour 3ustification7=
contain e!actly / sylla$les each4
1. +ri,le slaver/ wor" ,la/ &u'e (:1
The HGK saysJ 0.or I also am a man set under authority& ha"in* under me
soldiers& and I say unto one& Go& and he *oethA and to another& Come& and he
comethA and to my ser"ant& @o this& and he doeth it41
444and to my sla"e ;ydb9lw= do this ;db9= and he does it ;db9w=4
1). 5mazing ,oetr/ with a hi""en meaning 1+imoth/ 3:1*
The HGK saysJ 0And without contro"ersy *reat is the mystery of *odlinessJ
God was manifest in the flesh& 3ustified in the +pirit& seen of an*els& preached
unto the Gentiles& $elie"ed on in the world& recei"ed up into *lory41
The Hreat Poem to Timothy
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %%O
And truly *reat ;#Psherirayt rab=
Is this di"ine mystery of ri*hteousnessA ;ha# arza hela dPkanota=
It is re"ealed in the flesh& ;dPat%li bPbesra=
Gustified in the +pirit& ;#PatzaddaC bProkh=
+een $y an*els& ;#Patkhazi lPmalaka=
#reached to the Gentiles& ;#Patkeraz beyt ammah=
9elie"ed on in the world& ;#Pathaymin bPalmah=
And recei"ed up into *lory& ;#PastalaC bPshubkha=4
The color codes are to hi*hli*ht the intricate structure of this poem4 Goin*
one step at a time& our attention is drawn to the red words4 To $e*in with&
there are two words for Sri*hteousnessS are used& one in the last word of line
2 ;kanota= and the other in the first word of line 8 ;at,adda:=4
2owe"er kanota is clearly reminiscent of kahna ;priest=& e"en thou*h their
roots are sli*htly different ;kan and kahn& respecti"ely=4 .urthermore& the last
word of line % is ra$ ;*reatDhi*h=& and so the way the te!t lines up when
$roken out $y phrases is ra$ kanotaDkahna ;hi*h priest=<
The other word& at,adda:& is also deli$erately placed in the same manner&
since ri*ht $elow it is the word malaka4 Now& in this case malaka means
San*el& messen*erS4 2owe"er& it also is spelled and pronounced almost
identically as malak ;kin*=4 Re"erse the words and what we *et isJ
Malak a at,adda: ] Melchisedec
+o here we ha"e deep poetic patterns contrastin* the ra$ kahna ;hi*h priests=
of the )e"ites with that of Melchisedec& the priestly line that Messiah is
supposed to represent<
As for the purple words& we ha"e thisJ At*li $?$esra ;re"ealed in the flesh=&
contains some terrific parallels as well4 Not only does the word *ali mean
Sre"ealS& $ut it is also a homonym for Galilee& where Messiah was Sre"ealed in
the fleshS<
Mo"in* on to the $rown words& the rhymes there can hardly $e accidental4
.irst& there are four lines in a row& endin* in SahS4
#Patkhazi lPmalaka
#Patkeraz beyt ammah
%2' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#Pathaymin bPalmah
#PastalaC bPshubkha
Ether word matches are e:ually strikin*J
6tkhazi ;seen=D6tkeraz ;preached=
Beyt ammah ;house of GentilesDpeoples=DBPalmah ;in the earthDland=
The last word pair is also particularly noteworthy& $ecause of this prophetic
passa*eJ
,/e"iel 32::1K::
And say to them& Thus says the )ER@ GodJ 9ehold& I will take the children of Israel
from amon* the nations whither they ha"e *one& and will *ather them to*ether and
$rin* them into their own landA And I will make them one nation in the land upon the
mountains of IsraelA and one kin* shall $e kin* o"er them allA and they shall $e no
more two nations& neither shall they $e di"ided into two kin*doms any more4
Now *ranted& there are some dialectical differences $etween the Massoretic
Eld Testament and the #eshitta ;ammah ] amA almah ] eret,=& $ut these are
still& for all intents and purposes& the e!act same words and concepts4
And finally& the last four lines also flow to*ether in an almost melodic
fashion& as e"en a rudimentary attempt to sound them out re"ealsJ
#Patkhazi lPmalaka
#Patkeraz beyt ammah
#Pathaymin bPalmah
#PastalaC bPshubkha
In the end then& we are left with an ama,in* composition in two parts4 The
first half of this line shows us that #aul is "ery capa$le of packin* a *reat deal
of Gewish sym$olism and hidden meanin*s in a handful of words4 Ence this
si*nificant feat is accomplished& #aul mo"es on to deli"erin* a masterpiece of
rhyme& diction and meter for the remainder of the "erse4
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %2%
1*. 9ven 2o:es have holes &u'e $:)1
The HGK saysJ 0And Gesus said unto him& .o!es ha"e holes& and $irds of the
air ha$e nestsA $ut the +on of man hath not where to lay his head41
.itheleh IiCeh 6it .hun 6 S.o!es ha"e holesS
#PlP!arakhtha dP2hmaya +itlileh 6 SAnd for the $irds of the sky a shelterS
.PBreh 8in dP6nasha .ith .eh 6 S9ut the +on of Man has noS
6yka dPIisamukh 1esheh 6 S#lace to lay 2is headS
An interestin* wordplay in"ol"es S)ithelehS ;fo!es= and S)ith )ehS ;has no=
And also& SMitlilehS ;+helter=4 It makes a nice trio with S)ithelehS D S)ith )ehS D
SMitlilehS and they all rhyme with SReshehS ;head=<
With so many e!amples from the $ook of )uke& why don7t scholars admit that
)uke was written in Aramaic? specially as Gospel writer )uke was an
Aramaic6speakin* +yrian?
1(. Concentrate" ,oetr/ 1+imoth/ ):10
The HGK saysJ 0Well reported of for *ood worksA if she ha"e $rou*ht up
children& if she ha"e lod*ed stran*ers& if she ha"e washed the saints7 feet& if
she ha"e relie"ed the afflicted& if she ha"e dili*ently followed e"ery *ood
work41
#art of this "erse has plenty of rhymin*4
...an rabyath bPnaya an Cablath aksnaya an ashiy%ath re%layhon dP<adiysha an
arokhath lP6liytsa an halkathF
11. 5wesome 2oursome wor" ,la/ &u'e (:1-2
The HGK saysJ 0There was a certain creditor which had two de$torsJ the one
owed fi"e hundred pence& and the other fifty4 And when they had nothin* to
pay& he frankly for*a"e them $oth4 Tell me therefore& which of them will lo"e
him most?1
0bwx 0rm dxl wwh ty0 0byx Nyrt
0here #ere t#o debtors to a certain creditor
00m4mx 0rnyd 0wh Byx dx
9ne o#ed him 5'' dinarii
Ny4mx 0rnyd 0nrx0w
6nd the other5 5' dinarii
)b4 whyrtl (r#ml whl 0wh tyldw
6nd because they had nothin% #ith #hich to repay5 he for%a$e them both
Yhwybxn ryty whnm $ykh 0ny0
7hich of them5 therefore5 #ill lo$e Mhint: oweN him most?
@e$tors& Creditor& Ewe and )o"eS 6 all from the one Aramaic root Bx
The translation into Greek does not do it 3ustice4
1$. +ri,le wor",la/ to .emites in +hessalonica
1+hessalonians 1:3-)
The HGK saysJ 0Remem$erin* without ceasin* your work of faith& and la$our
of lo"e& and patience of hope in our )ord Gesus Christ& in the si*ht of God and
our .atherA Hnowin*& $rethren $elo"ed& your election of God4 .or our *ospel
came not unto you in word only& $ut also in power& and in the 2oly Ghost&
and in much assuranceA as ye know what manner of men we were amon* you
for your sake41
The word for SworksS is AI9A@A& and this of course can also $e Sla$orsS e"en
thou*h that word has a synonym in place4
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %2/
9ut the real killer aspect is the triple usa*e of the root se+ar ;patience of your
hope=& and this of course is also the S*ood newsS ;Gospel66se$arta= that #aul is
preachin* ;mese+ar=4
Ence a*ain& this ama,in* +emitic feature is in a letter supposedly written to
Greek6speakers4
20. @ou "i" not "ance nor lament #atthew 11:1(
The HGK saysJ 0And sayin*& We ha"e piped unto you& and ye ha"e not
dancedA we ha"e mourned unto you& and ye ha"e not lamented41
Not only is Matthew %%J%I poetic $ut it makes use of a root which can mean
either ?mourn? or ?dance? C ;r:d=4
#P6mriyn ;and say= zamron ;we san*= lukhon ;to you= #P.a ;and not= raCe"ton
;did you dance= #P6lyan ;and we mourned= lukhon ;to you= #P.a ;and not=
arCe"ton ;did you lament=4
21. .te,hen the ,oet; 5cts (:2-2*
The HGK saysJ 0And seein* one of them suffer wron*& he defended him& and
a"en*ed him that was oppressed& and smote the *yptianJ .or he supposed
his $rethren would ha"e understood how that God $y his hand would deli"er
themJ $ut they understood not4 And the ne!t day he shewed himself unto
them as they stro"e& and would ha"e set them at one a*ain& sayin*& +irs& ye
are $rethrenA why do ye wron* one to another?1
In Acts I& a portion of the speech +tephen *i"es to the elders is recorded4 In
that portion& +tephen plays on the dual meanin* of the root $ks
;Sunderstand& wron*S=
In "erse 28 the root appears in the /rd +in*4 participial tense& speakin* of the
*yptian $ksmd ;dPmaskel5 Swho had wron*edS= the fellow Israelite4
In "erse 2> it appears in the /rd #l4 participial tense& speakin* of how Moses
had hoped Nylktsmd ;dPmes&tak&liyn5 Sthat would understandS= his $rethen&
the Israelites& that God would deli"er them $y his ;Moses7= hand4
In "erse 2B& this root appears in the 2nd #l4 participial tenseJ SAnd the ne!t
day& he was seen $y them while they :uarreled and was tryin* to persuade
them to reconcile sayin*& Men& you are $rothersA why do you Nylksm ;+ask&
lyin5 Swron*S= one another?S
22. Ao" rewar"s >non-braggers? #atthew *:3-
The HGK saysJ 09ut when thou doest alms& let not thy left hand know what
thy ri*ht hand doethJ That thine alms may $e in secretJ and thy .ather which
seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly41
ant deyn ma dGa$ed ant zedGCatah C whene"er you do your *i"in*
la tedah simal6H* C don7t re"eal to your left hand
manah a$da yamin6H* C what your ri*ht hand is doin*
aGyikh dGteG#eh zedGCatakh bGkesG@6* C so your *i"in* should $e done in secret
ooGa$okh dGkhazeh bGkesG@6* C and our father who sees in secret
hoo nepraGakh bG%elG@6*6 he will reward you in the open
.or some reason& the Greek and medie"al 2e$rew "ersions of Matthew do
not rhyme as much4
23. Parallelisms in the Aos,els #atthew ):)
The HGK saysJ 0That ye may $e the children of your .ather which is in hea"enJ
for he maketh his sun to rise on the e"il and on the *ood& and sendeth rain on
the 3ust and on the un3ust41
5/-'an-na "D+ehwon Benoi "D5bo'hon "DbD.hma/a ;so that you may $e the
sons of your .ather who is in 2ea"en=
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %2>
!u "D#a"ni'h .hemsheh al +awa wDal Beesha ;2e who raises 2is sun upon
the *ood and upon the e"il=
wD#a'het #itreh al Iana wDal 5wela ;and causes 2is rain to descend upon
the 3ust and the un3ust4=
This is a $eautiful e!ample of Aramaic poetry with $oth rhyme and
parallelisms4
2. -evealing ,oetr/ -evelation 1(:1(
The HGK saysJ 0.or God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will& and to a*ree&
and *i"e their kin*dom unto the $east& until the words of God shall $e
fulfilled41
Note the rhymes and root play in this "erse4
;%= 6laha %ir yaheb bP.ebothon dPIebdon tsebyaneh
;2= #PIebdon tsebyanhon khad #PIetlon malkothhon
;/= lPHhayotha hay edama dPIeshtamliyan melohiy
;8= dP6laha
Well& it looks like line 8 *ot cut short $ut it emphasi,es the fact that the "erse
$e*ins with SAlahaS and ends with Sd?AlahaS
Notice how Sd?Ne$donS of line % rhymes and has the same root o$"iously as
Sw?Ne$donS of line 24 As you can see Sw?NetlonS of line 2 rhymes :uite well
with Sd?Ne$lonS and Sw?Ne$don4S
9y the way& when it comes to Sw?NetlonS under ?netel? in the Compendious&
this is *i"en C Sdefecti"e "er$ used to supplement ?yahe$?4 ?5ahe$? is the third
word in line %4
The three words that ha"e an ?6on? endin* correspond :uite well with the
words that ha"e a ?6hon? endin*66tse$yanhon? and ?malkothhon? of line 24 Then
of course there?s the correspondence $etween ?tse$yaneh? of line % and
?tse$yanhon? of line 24 The similar6soundin* consonants of the last word in
line 2 and the first word in line /6 Smalkothhon l?HhayothaS and the ?mim&
%2B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
lamad and yudh? in the last two words of line /66 Sd?Neshtamliyan melohiyS4
9y the way& the root of ?melohiy? is ?miltha?4
2). .emitic rh/ming !ebrews 12:3
The HGK saysJ 0.or consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners
a*ainst himself& lest ye $e wearied and faint in your minds41
This is "ery interestin*& as the Greek omits a phrase from this "erse4
Ama,in*ly& this missin* phrase rhymes with the rest of the "erse and adds
line parallelism4
2ere it is in all it?s $eauty& rhythm and rhyme 6 3ust as the Apostle had
intended itJ
wnh 0y=x Nm rbys 0mk $ykh w!x ;khza# hakil kma saybar min
khatayeh hanun=
Consider& therefore& how much he suffered from those sinners&
wh4#nl fbwqs wwh wnhd ;dPhanun ha#u saCubleh lPnaphshayhun=
for they were ad"ersaries to their own soul&
wkl 0mt fd ;dPla teman lPkhun=
so that you not $ecome weary&
wk4#n 0#rtt fw ;#Pla tethrapa naphshkhun=
nor your soul $ecome remiss
2*. Crumbs 2rom the table &u'e 1*:21
The HGK saysJ 0And desirin* to $e fed with the crum$s which fell from the
rich man7s ta$leJ moreo"er the do*s came and licked his sores41
There is wordplay in the Aramaic& which is not preser"ed in the Greek
translationsJ
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %2I
#arthutheh 6 Scrum$sS
#athureh 6 S;his= ta$leS
This is a*ain& an e!ample of two of the main words ;in the ima*ery of the
para$le= $ein* similar to each other4
Eur )ord makes fre:uent use of this type of ima*ery and wordplay to help
facilitate the memori,ation $y the crowds of 2is para$les4
In Greek& the word for ?crum$s? is #sichion and for ?ta$le? it is Trape,a4 There
is clearly no wordplay in the Greek4
2(. Creative .emitic writing to +itus >the Aree'? +itus
3:-)
The HGK saysJ 09ut after that the kindness and lo"e of God our +a"iour
toward man appeared& Not $y works of ri*hteousness which we ha"e done&
$ut accordin* to his mercy he sa"ed us& $y the washin* of re*eneration& and
renewin* of the 2oly GhostA1
Titus 3:DK4
Nnyxm 0hl0d htwnmxrmw htwmysb tyl%t0 Nyd dk
hlyd Yhwmxrb f0 db9d Fwqyd!d 0db9b f
04dwqd 0xwrd Fdwxbw $yrd Nmd 0dlwmd Fxsb Nyx0
)amsaJ 09ut after the *oodness and kindness of God our +a"iour was
manifested& Not $y works of ri*hteousness which we ha"e done& $ut
accordin* to his mercy& he sa"ed us $y the washin* of re*eneration and
renewin* of the 2oly +pirit&1
This is a "ery $eautiful passa*e of +cripture and a *reat confirmation of our
standin* in 57shua the Messiah4 There are some stron* poetic tendencies here
was well4 .or e!ample& basiymotheh #Pmrakhmanotheh ;*oodness and mercy=
are an e!ample of a 0dou$le reflection1& where two words with similar
meanin*s are 3ammed to*ether4 In this case& the common definitions shared
$y the nei*h$orin* words are as followsJ
%2( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
htwmysb 8basi/mothehF"indness7 %ity7 mercy8mra'hmanothehF
twnmxrm
The last three words in /J> also represent a "ery cle"er alliteration as wellJ
#PbPkhodatha ;and in renewin*=
dP1okha ;of the +pirit=
dP<odsha ;of holiness=
The triple6diction match is "ery reminiscent of 52W2?s #rayer?s patterns&
such asJ
+ittil dPdPlakhee ;.or yours is`=
+alkutha ;the kin*dom=
7Phaila ;and the power=
7Ptishbokhta ;and the *lory=
.ahlam ;fore"er=
6lmeen ;and e"er=
6#mayn ;Amen=
Then there is the sonic element to consider& with deli$erate rhymin* endin*
choices ;notheh& motheh= and a $eautiful to**lin* of similar and
complimentary 0kha1 and 0:a1 sounds in /J>4
Now this ;like #hilemon= is supposed to $e a letter in Greek& from a Greek6
speakin* #aul& to a Greek speakin* Greek in Greece ;Titus=4 +o why are there
no rhymes in the Greek while the #eshitta "ersion has them? #erhaps the
#eshitta was ri*ht in statin* that Titus was Aramean ;an Aramaic6speakin*
people=& which would e!plain why the #eshitta "ersion of Titus is so superior
;a Greek contradiction in Titus is sol"ed $y the #eshitta C co"ered in the
contradictions section=4 That the correspondence happens in Greece is
irrele"ant4 Greek papyrus can read and write Aramaic 3ust as easily as n*lish
phones can speak and hear German<
Chapter /4 #oetry and Word #lays %2O
21. 522licte" one 5cts $:33-3
The HGK saysJ 0And there he found a certain man named Aeneas& which had
kept his $ed ei*ht years& and was sick of the palsy4 And #eter said unto him&
Aeneas& Gesus Christ maketh thee wholeJ arise& and make thy $ed4 And he
arose immediately41
The Greek calls him 0Aeneas1 in $oth cases4 There7s nothin* much wron*
with that4 !cept that the Aramaic #eshitta7s renderin* re"eals far more`
Gerome& in his 0@e Nomini$us 2e$raicis1 ;folio %'>h=& e!plains that 0Aeneas1
is a 2elleni,ed "ersion of a 2e$rew name which means 0afflicted1& from the
2e$rew root 0Anah14 The name was in common use amon* the Gudeans of
the time& such as a ra$$i called 0+amuel $ar6Aenea14
9ack to the 9i$le& 0Aeneas1 could "ery well ha"e $een a nickname *i"en to
him $y the people& after he was 0afflicted1 with paralysis4
In the #eshitta& we see the first instance is indeed his name& "yn0 ;0Anis1=&
$ut the second instance is actually 0yn0 ;0Anya1=& meanin* 0afflicted one14
Not only does the Greek lack the word6play here ;$ecause the Greek uses the
same word twice=& it loses the meanin* of his name& and how he possi$ly
recei"ed that name4
%/' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %/%
$ha%ter D& 'emitic Idioms
Many Greek primacists claim that since the authors were +emitic& there will
o$"iously $e +emitic idioms& e"en if the writin* was done in Greek ;ne*atin*
the use of +emitic idioms as proof for Aramaic #rimacy=4 This is un$elie"a$ly
flawed thinkin*& as that means that the ma3ority of the recipients ;alle*edly
Greek6speakin* non6+emites= wouldn7t ha"e a clue what the authors were
talkin* a$out4 +urely with all 2is inspirational power& God would ha"e $een
a$le to make the authors write with Greek idioms& so that the alle*ed Greek6
speakin* recipients would understand the messa*e4 This ne"er happened4
"en the Greek copies lack Greek idioms and are o"erflowin* with
Aramaicisms4 9ased on +emitic idioms alone& it is safe to assume that the
ori*inal recipients of the New Testament $ooks were +emitic& or at least spoke
a +emitic lan*ua*e like Aramaic4
+o what is an idiom anyway? An idiom $asically is an e!pression ;thou*h
there are many more definitions4 e4*4 certain wordsDphrases specific to a
lan*ua*e=4 +omethin* we say to con"ey a certain thou*ht or feelin* that does
not come from the indi"idual meanin*s of the words4 .or e!ample& some
idioms in n*lish are 0a $ad e**1 ;a $ad person=& 0$lood is thicker than
water1 ;relati"es are closer than friends= and 0they are at B7s and I7s1 ;they
are confused=4 Idioms in $ooks con"ey a meanin* that cannot $e *leaned from
the literal te!t4
Idioms appear in many $ooks& and the 9i$le is no e!ception4 2a"e you e"er
heard someone say 0the 9i$le doesn7t mean that literally1? They are referrin*
to a possi$le idiom4 Now we ha"e a pro$lem for Greek primacy ;the $elief
that the New Testament was written in Greek=4 The New Testament is lackin*
%/2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
in Greek idioms and is filled with Aramaic idioms< +ometimes the idioms are
translated literally& and sometimes& they are translated idiomatically4 In fact&
many contradictions and nonsensical passa*es in the Greek New Testament&
are caused $y literal translation of the Aramaic idioms4 When the ori*inal
Aramaic New Testament was translated into Greek& the translators should
ha"e *i"en e!planations of the Aramaic idioms4 This would ha"e sa"ed lots of
headaches ;and in some cases& people7s li"es= o"er alle*ed contradictions ;an
understandin* of the ori*inal Aramaic New Testament& and its many idioms&
are in"alua$le in Christian apolo*etics= in the New Testament4
Now& as Greek primacists will point out& 3ust $ecause the New Testament
;whether Aramaic or Greek= is filled with Aramaic idioms& does not mean
that it was written in Aramaic4 They claim that these idioms are there&
$ecause the authors were all +emitic4 2owe"er< These same people claim that
$ooks such as the #auline pistles were written to Greek6speakin* Gentile
Churches ;such as in Thessalonica=& with one to the Romans4 Now why on
arth would the NT authors write to Greek andDor )atin speakin* peoples&
utili,in* Aramaic idioms? Why would they write to these people& who
alle*edly were not Aramaic6speakin*& in idioms they would not understand?
@idn7t they know that the non6Aramaic speakin* people would *et $itten $y
pickin* up snakes& and *ou*e out their eyes for lookin* lustfully upon
women?
This hea"ily supports the Aramaic primacist "iew that the NT& e"en the
#auline pistles& was written to Aramaic6speakin* people& e"en if they were
in the heartland of Greece4 This supports the "iew that the letters sent to
Churches in Greece& were actually sent to the con*re*ations of earliest
Christians there& who consisted of Aramaic6speakin* people& such as Gudeans
;who e!pected a Messiah& due to the ET= and Arameans4 T2+ people
would understand the Aramaic idioms& and could fully apply the 9i$le
messa*e to their li"es4
Is it really such a stretch of the ima*ination& that Aramaic6speakin* authors
wrote their letters in Aramaic C utili,in* Aramaic idioms C to Aramaic6
speakin* people?
2a"e a look for yourself& how the so6called Greek 9i$le is filled with Aramaic
idioms<
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %//
1. Pic' u, sna'es #ar' 1*:11
I chose this as the first e!ample& as it deals with a literal life and death issue4
The HGK saysJ 0They shall take up serpentsA and if they drink any deadly
thin*& it shall not hurt themA they shall lay hands on the sick& and they shall
reco"er41
Lor$a translated many astern idioms and metaphors literally& not knowin*
their true meanin*4 .or instance& Q5ou shall handle snakes47 Lor$a didn7t
know that the word Qsnake7 refers to Qan enemy74
A $etter readin* for that section of the "erse would $e 0they will handle their
enemies14 This mistranslation has e"en cost the li"es of many people4 Geor*e
Went 2ensley& a former pastor of the Church of God& formed one such
#entecostal *roup& who drank poison and e!posed themsel"es to poisonous
snakes4 2e died of snake$ite& as ha"e many others4
2. Cut it o22 an" ,luc' it out #ar' $:3-(
NoteJ This e!ample is also sol"es the possi$le contradiction with %Corinthians
BJ%O62' ;What? know ye not that your $ody is the temple of the 2oly Ghost
#hich is in you& which ye ha"e of God& and ye are not your own? .or ye are
$ou*ht with a priceJ therefore *lorify God in your $ody& and in your spirit&
which are God7s4=4 Ene section in the Greek tells you to *lorify God with your
$ody& as it is the temple of the 2oly +pirit& and another commands self6
mutilation<
The HGK saysJ 0And if thy hand offend thee& cut it offJ it is $etter for thee to
enter into life maimed& than ha"in* two hands to *o into hell& into the fire that
ne"er shall $e :uenchedJ Where their worm dieth not& and the fire is not
:uenched4 And if thy foot offend thee& cut it offJ it is $etter for thee to enter
halt into life& than ha"in* two feet to $e cast into hell& into the fire that ne"er
shall $e :uenchedJ Where their worm dieth not& and the fire is not :uenched4
And if thine eye offend thee& pluck it outJ it is $etter for thee to enter into the
kin*dom of God with one eye& than ha"in* two eyes to $e cast into hell fireJ1
%/8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
"en today these ancient Christians ;Assyrians= understand what Gesus meant
when he said& SIf your hand offends you& cut it offA if your eye offends you&
pluck it outA if your foot offends you& cut it offS4 Gesus meantJ SIf you ha"e a
ha$it of stealin*& stop itS4 SIf you ha"e a ha$it of en"yin*& stop itS4 SIf you ha"e
a ha$it of trespassin* on other?s property& stop itS4
These sayin*s are understood $ecause these idioms ha"e $een in *eneral use
throu*hout the centuries4 The idioms arise out of the fact the Aramaic
collapses into one word& $oth mental and physical action& with either or $oth
meanin*s accepta$le4
This e!plains why no Christian in the ast has e"er cut off his arm or plucked
out his eyes4 None of Gesus? disciples and his followers amputated parts of
their $odies4 They used the mental meanin*4 In other parts of the world many
Christians who misunderstood the Aramaic idiom& ha"e cut off hands& fin*ers
and feet& or inflicted other in3uries upon their $odies to follow the
misunderstood instructions of Gesus4
3. 9/es o2 /our heart 9,hesians 1:11
The NIK saysJ 0I pray also that the eyes of your heart may $e enli*htened in
order that you may know the hope to which he has called you& the riches of
his *lorious inheritance in the saints&1
The HGK saysJ 0The eyes of your understandin* $ein* enli*htenedA that ye
may know what is the hope of his callin*& and what the riches of the *lory of
his inheritance in the saints&1
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic phrase wktwbld 0ny9 is an
idiom& and as such& can ha"e a literal translation& and a meanin*ful
translation4
The heart is the idiomatic or*an of understandin* and knowled*e4
In phesians %J%(& #aul uses this +emiticismJ
wktwbld 0ny9 ;6yna dP.eb#atkon 6 Sthe eye of your heartsS=
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %/>
The Ale!andrian manuscripts ;includin* Tischendorf& Westcott P 2ort and
Nestle6Aland= tend to literally retain this Aramaic idiom& while the 9y,antine
te!ts *i"e a meanin*ful translation4
This clearly demonstrates that Lor$a sometimes understood that #aul was
usin* an Aramaic idiom& and chose to li$erally translate the meanin* into a
more accepta$le solution in Greek thou*ht4
And this& in a letter apparently written to Greeks< It seems that it was written
to +MIT+& in Greece4
. 82 the househol" 9,hesians 2:1$
The HGK saysJ 0Now therefore ye are no more stran*ers and forei*ners& $ut
fellow citi,ens with the saints& and of the household of GodA1
ph4 2J%O translated literally from the Aramaic readsJ Therefore& you are not
stran*ers nor forei*ners& $ut you are sons of the pro"ince of the set6apart ones
and sons of the 2ouse of Alaha4
2ere the #eshitta has the Aramaic idiom Ssons of the 2ouse of AlahaS where
the Greek reads Sof the household of God4S
Ssons of the 2ouse of444S is a +emitic idiomatic e!pression meanin* Sof the
household of444S
S2ouse of AlahaS is a +emitic euphemism for the Temple4
Also the Aramaic word for sons Sa$6nayS is a wordplay for the Aramaic word
for $uild in 2J2' S$?naS and the Aramaic word for $uildin* S$enyanaS in
2J2'62% $oth from the Aramaic root S?a$naS ;stone=4 A similar wordplay
appears in the Aramaic of Mt4 /JO4
#aul transitions from the idea of Ssons of the 2ouse of AlahaS ;heirs= in 2J%O to
stones of the 2ouse of Alaha ;mem$ers of the Temple= in 2J2'62%4
This transition of thou*ht is deeply steeped in the Aramaic idiom Ssons of the
house ofS the Aramaic euphemism for the Temple ;2ouse of Alaha= and the
Aramaic wordplay $etween SsonsS and Sstones4S This transition of thou*ht is
%/B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
clearly dependent on the Aramaic te!t of phesians as found in the #eshitta4
It does not work in the Greek te!t at all4 This is not only clear e"idence for the
+emitic ori*in of the $ook& $ut a *reat help in followin* #aul?s train of
thou*ht as well4
). Bowels o2 0esus Phili,,ians 1:14 2:1 % Colossians 3:12 %
Philemon (4 124 20 % 10ohn 3:1( % 2Corinthians *:12
This is also an e!ample of a split word& and has $een discussed in the split
word section4 We shall now shift the focus to the idiom in these passa*esJ
This e!ample is not technically a split word& more of a 0pseudo split word1&
as the "ariant in :uestion ;at least to my knowled*e= does not occur in the
Greek ;3ust a$out all Greek "ersions read 0$owels1=4 It does occur thou*h in
the n*lish "ersions4 The 9y,antine "ersions tend to say 0$owels1& while the
Ale!andrian "ersions tend to say 0lo"e14 That the "ariant is caused $y
differin* translations of an Aramaic idiom is indicati"e of an Aramaic
ori*inal& underminin* the Greek4
2owe"er& this e!ample is :uite ama,in*& as it runs throu*hout many New
Testament $ooks& and is e"idence of Aramaic ori*inality to letters sent to
Christians in Greek cities< It also is an e!ample of where an idiom is
translated literally in some "ersions& and meanin*fully in others4 This
phenomenon occurs in many "erses& $ut for simplicity& we shall discuss only
#hilippians %J(4
The HGK saysJ 0.or God is my record& how *reatly I lon* after you all in the
$owels of Gesus Christ41
The NIK saysJ 0God can testify how I lon* for all of you with the affection of
Christ Gesus41
Now& it 3ust so happens that the Aramaic root Mxr can $e meant literally or
as part of an idiom4
CA) Eutline )e!iconJ GNRA) r!m
r!m N r!m=
% passim friend
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %/I
)+2 I28
)+2 "J rA!mA=
r!m[2 N r!m=
% +yr wom$
2 +yr intestines
/ +yr *enitals
8 +yr mercy b r!myn
> +yr love
)+2 I28
)+2 "J ra!mA=
a$s4 "ocJ r!em
r!m K
'%% passim to lo"e
'%2 +yr to ha"e pity on
'%/ +yr to desire
'%/ G)AGal&G)AT* to like s4t4
'%8 +yr to prefer
'8% +yr to $e lo"ed
'82 +yr to o$tain mercy
'8/ +yr to $e moderated
'2% G)AGal&G)AT*&+yr&G9A w4\;l\ to ha"e mercy
'22 +yr to stri"e for mercy
'2/ G9A to lo"e
'28 G9A to *i"e suck
'>% G)AGal&+yr to $e pitied
'/% +yr to ha"e pity
'/2 +yr to make to lo"e
'// +yr to make $elo"ed
As the heart is "iewed as the seat of the intellect& the $owels are "iewed as the
seat of compassion4
*. !is 2ace was set &u'e $:)3
The HGK saysJ 0And they did not recei"e him& $ecause his face was as thou*h
he would *o to Gerusalem41
We read the Greek with astonishmentJ
J....because his 2ace was set towar" 0erusalemJ
%/( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
.ace was set toward Gerusalem? What does that mean in Greek?
In +emitic idiom& Sto set one?s face444S means ?to make up one?s mind?& and is
:uite fre:uent in +emitic thou*ht4 Reference the followin* "ersesJ
Amos OJ8
Geremiah /J%2
Geremiah 2%J%'
Geremiah 82J%>
Geremiah 88J%2
2 Hin*s %2J%I
@aniel %%J%I
,ekiel BJ%
,ekiel %/J%I
,ekiel %8J(
,ekiel %>JI
Most importantly& this idiom is present in the commentary portion of )uke&
not merely the narrati"e portion ;when Aramaic idioms occur in the narrati"e
portions& it is understanda$le as it is not disputed that Gesus spoke Aramaic=4
The idiom is also present in "erse >%4
NoteJ As an interestin* sidenote& the pre"ious "erse ;"erse >2= has a minor
Greek "ariant that could $e e!plained $y the Aramaic ori*inal4 Most Greek
mss say 0"illa*e1& while Tischendorf7s says 0city14 The Aramaic Fyrq can
mean $oth4
(. +heir ,h/lacteries an" bor"ers #atthew 23:)
The HGK saysJ 09ut all their works they do for to $e seen of menJ they make
$road their phylacteries& and enlar*e the $orders of their *arments&1
GreekJ
tooitjptootcv
Rtheir phylacteriesR
#eshittaJ
whyl#t
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %/O
Rtheir tefillinR
.rom 2nd Temple period times to this day& ?Tefillin? is the proper ;and only=
term4 The #eshitta te!t assumes the reader has a *ood knowled*e and
"oca$ulary of Gewish orthodo!y4
GreekJ
toipoonrootcvtottcvotcv
Rthe borders of their %armentsR
#eshittaJ
why=w=rmd Flkt
Rthe tekhelet of their %armentsR
?Tekhelet? is the correct 9i$lical term here& the name for the actual $lue strand
in the ?t,it,it?& or frin*es4
Num+ers 14:38
+peak unto the children of Israel& and $id them that they make them frin*es ;2e$4
tzitzit= in the $orders of their *arments throu*hout their *enerations& and that they put
upon the frin*e of the $orders a ri$$and of $lue ;tekhelet=
The #eshitta assumes intimacy with Gewish custom and "oca$ulary& and is a
much more specific a term than the *eneral Greek word meanin* ?ed*e&
$order& skirt& or hem?4
Why would the #eshitta& $ein* a supposed translation of the Greek& $e more
specific than the 0Greek ori*inal1?
1. 6ho shall "eclare his generation? 5cts 1:33
The HGK saysJ 0In his humiliation his 3ud*ment was taken awayJ and who
shall declare his *eneration? for his life is taken from the earth41
SWho will declare his *eneration?S is an idiom meanin* rou*hly in n*lish
S2is line was cut offS4 In other words& 5eshua has no li"in* relati"es or
descendants444 and that?s the conte!t of the passa*e $ein* :uoted in Isaiah
;please note that many anti6#eshitta campai*ners claim that the #eshitta is
fa"ored $y cultists and Gnostics C this re"elation that 5eshua had no children
%8' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
directly contradicts the widespread Gnostic teachin* that 2e and Mary
Ma*dalene had children to*ether=4
In +emitic thou*ht& S*enerationS is ine!trica$ly linked with *enetic line&
offsprin*4 It?s not like the n*lish which means only an Sa*eS or Speriod of
time4S When Matthew and )uke recorded the *enealo*y of 5eshua& it stopped
with him4 There is no one after him4 This is the meanin* of the Isaiah?s
prophecy in Isaiah >/J( C Swho will speak of his descendants ;*enerations=?S
Isaiah teaches us that the 5eshua would $e Scut offS without any descendents
or line of continuation444 no S*enerationsS4
$. Presse" in the s,irit 5cts 11:)
The HGK saysJ 0And when +ilas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia&
#aul was pressed in the spirit& and testified to the Gews that Gesus #as Christ41
NoteJ +ome translators of the #eshitta New Testament& into n*lish& are @r4
Geor*e Mamishisho )amsa& Games Murdock and Gohn Wesley therid*e4
Lor$a failed to translate a certain phrase in Acts %(J> idiomatically4
Acts 18:4: wu }>B%/b ; AN@= gp }%%B%b ; W2N= ijxoq~kn }2I%(b }>B2Ib ; CAM
@EWN= jyk }>I>b xou }/>((b ; .REM= rjipgknhju }/%'Ob k }/>((b
; MAC@ENIA= xp }>'/Ib ; 9ET2= lhqju }8B'Ob ; +I)A+= ijh }2>/2b k }/>((b
; AN@= xhrk~pku }>'O>b ; TIMET25= lmnph{pxk }8O%2b }>I%2b xw }/>((b ; (A'
PB,'',>= ynpmrjxh }8%>%b k }/>((b ; IN 'PIBIT= yjmqku }/OI2b ; #AF)=
ghjrjzxmzkrpnku }%2B/b }>I8'b ; ARN+T)5 T+TI.5ING= xkhu }/>((b ; TE T2=
hkmgjhkhu }28>/b ; GW+TE 9= xkn }/>((b ; T2= {zhlxkn }>>8Ib ; C2RI+T= holkmn
}2828b ; G+F+4= ;Interlinear Greek NT=
%(J> And when +ilas and Timothy had come from Macedonia& #aul was im%eded in
discourse& $ecause the Gews stood up a*ainst him& and re"iled& as he testified to them
that Gesus is the Messiah4 ;Games Murdock=
%(J> And when from Makedunia +hilo and Timotheos had come& #aulos was
constrained in his s%eech& $ecause the Gihudoyee arose a*ainst him and $lasphemed&
while he testified to them that Geshu is the Meshiha4 ;Gohn Wesley therid*e=
%(J> And when +ilas and Timotheus came from Macedonia& #aul felt he was not free
to s%ea"& $ecause the Gews opposed him and $lasphemed as he testified that Gesus is
the Christ4 ;Geor*e )amsa=
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %8%
The Te!tus Receptus has 0pressed in the spirit1& while Ale!andrian te!ts such
as Westcott62ort and Nestle6Aland& ha"e 0pressed in the word14 This is not
3ust a +emitic idiom then& it is also a split word<
10. .on o2 its hour #atthew 13:)
The HGK saysJ 0+ome fell upon stony places& where they had not much earthJ
and forthwith they sprun* up& $ecause they had no deepness of earthJ1
2ere?s another idiom that is stran*e to the Western mind4 This is taken from
Gohn Wesley therid*e?s translationJ
SAnother ;portion= fell upon the rock& where there was not much soilA and
immediately N it sprun* up& $ecause there was no depth of earth4S
N 9ar6shoteh& S the son of its hour4S
The 9i$le says 0the son of its hour1 idiomatically meanin* 0immediately14
11. !igh mountain #atthew :1 % &u'e :)
The HGK says ;Matthew 8J(=J 0A*ain& the de"il taketh him up into an
e!ceedin* hi*h mountain& and sheweth him all the kin*doms of the world&
and the *lory of themA1
The HGK says ;)uke 8J>=J 0And the de"il& takin* him up into an hi*h
mountain& shewed unto him all the kin*doms of the world in a moment of
time41
The term ?hi*h mountain? is pro$a$ly used fi*urati"ely4 It could refer to the
hi*h point in human physical aspiration4 This temptation was a far *reater
one than the pre"ious two4 This is $ecause the de"il offered 5eshua the
*reatest rewards known to man in order to $e*uile him& and thus di"ert him
from his *reat mission4 +atan here offered e"erythin* which human
ima*ination can comprehend and em$race4 2e offered the kin*doms of the
world and all their *lory and splendor4
+atan took Gesus on a hi*h mountain4 This means he took him to the summit
of his hi*hest human ima*ination& and he made all these offers to him& if Gesus
would $ut fall down and worship him4 It is interestin* to know that the
Mount of Temptation is in a wasteland hundreds of feet $elow sea le"el4
There are no kin*doms or lar*e cities near$y& $ut small hamlets& sheepfolds
and Ara$ camps4 The only town close to it is the hum$le little town of Gericho4
This really only makes sense in li*ht of the Aramaic idiom4 What would $e
the point of takin* Gesus up to a literal hi*h mountain anyway? .rom which
of arth7s mountains can e"ery sin*le Hin*dom $e seen?
12. +o go 0ohn 12:11
The HGK saysJ 09ecause that $y reason of him many of the Gews went away&
and $elie"ed on Gesus41
Ene word that the Greek translators often misunderstood was the 2e$rew
word Klh and the Aramaic word l!0 which normally mean Sto *oS or Sto
departS $ut is used idiomatically in 2e$rew and Aramaic to mean that some
action *oes forward and that somethin* pro*resses Smore and moreS4 The
followin* are se"eral e!amples from the Eld testament4 In each of these cases
the 2e$rew reads Klh and the Aramaic reads l!0 in $oth the #eshitta Eld
Testament and the Tar*umsJ
Hen& 8:3
And the waters returned from the earth continually`
Hen& :;:13
And the man wa!ed *reat and went forward& and *rew`
Mud#es D::D
And the hand of the children of Israel *rew stron*er and stron*er
1'am& 1D:11
the #hilistines went on and increased
:'am& 3:1
$ut @a"id wa!ed stron*er and stron*er
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %8/
Ene case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word and translated
0to *o1 literally isJ
Mohn 1::11
9ecause that $y reason of him many of the Gews went away& and $elie"ed on Gesus4
They went away? Certainly Gohn7s intended meanin* wasJ $ecause many of
the Gudeans& on account of him& were trustin* more and more l!0 in 5eshua4
13. .on o2 ,eace &u'e 10:*
The HGK saysJ 0And if the son of peace $e there& your peace shall rest upon itJ
if not& it shall turn to you a*ain41
The Aramaic S9ar +hlamaS literally means Sson of peaceS& $ut idiomatically
this is an e!pression& which means SharmonyS or Sa*reement&S in other words&
the opposite of contention4
9ut since the Greek literally translates Sson of peaceS& this is e"idence that it
was translated from an Aramaic ori*inal4 Lor$a rendered the phrase literally
$ecause he did not understand its idiomatic meanin*4
1. .low o2 heart an" heart burn &u'e 2:2) % &u'e 2:32
NoteJ This e!ample from )uke 28J/2 also fits in another cate*ory& that of 0split
words14 This e!ample in )uke 28J/2 is not only an e!ample of an Aramaic
idiom& $ut also of a mistranslation& with "ariants amon* the Greek te!ts4 The
e!ample in )uke 28J2>& occurs without the mistranslation4
The HGK ;)uke 28J2>= saysJ 0Then he said unto them& E fools& and slow of
heart to $elie"e all that the prophets ha"e spokenJ1
The HGK ;)uke 28J/2= saysJ 0And they said one to another& @id not our heart
$urn within us& while he talked with us $y the way& and while he opened to
us the scriptures?1
AramaicJ ryqy ;hea"y& slu**ish=4 The Greek translator misread this word
asJdyqy ;$urn=4 Eur heart hea"y 6 To ha"e a hea"y heart is an idiomatic
e!pression in Aramaic4 The word 0heart1 in Aramaic often really means
0mind1& to ha"e a hea"y heart means to ha"e a slu**ish mind4 This should
not $e confused with the n*lish idiom of a 0hea"y heart1 meanin* to $e sad&
or the idiom 0$urnin* heart1 which means to feel inspired4 The people were
hearin* the Master e!pound the +criptures and commentin* to each other
a$out how slow of understandin* they were compared to Gesus4
1). !ow /our breath shoul" "e,art &u'e 12:11-12
This ama,in* e!ample not only showcases another idiom& $ut also has some
cle"er wordplay4
The HGK saysJ 0And when they $rin* you unto the syna*o*ues& and unto
ma*istrates& and powers& take ye no thou*ht how or what thin* ye shall
answer& or what ye shall sayJ .or the 2oly Ghost shall teach you in the same
hour what ye ou*ht to say41
R.aR 6 not
R0aspunR 6 do $e an!ious a$out
R6ykannaR 6 how
R0apCunR 6 should depart
R1ukhaR 6 $reath
R6#R 6 or
R+anaR 6 what
R0amrunR 6 you should say
There are / really ama,in* thin*s a$out his "erseJ
;%= The Greek translators did not know what to do with the phrase Show your
$reath should departS& since this is an Aramaic idiom which means Show to
compose your speechS ;i4e4 Sspeak properlyS=
The Greeks translated this phrase Show ;#os= or what ;Tis= you are to speakS&
which does not make sense in the conte!t& since it is preceded $y an SorS4444the
way the Greek "ersion reads isJ
Chapter 84 +emitic Idioms %8>
Sdo not $e an!ious ;Merimnao= a$out how or what you should say in your
defenseS
Whereas the Aramaic readsJ
Sdo not $e an!ious a$out how to compose your speech or what you should
sayS
In other words& don?t worry a$out the way you speak or the content of that
speech4
;2= There is a triple6wordplay in this "erseJ STaspunS& STap:unS and
STamrunS4
;/= An allusion to the dual6meanin* of the word SRukhaS44444spirit and $reath&
and how Gesus plays on this duality& is noticed in the "ery ne!t "erse ;"erse
%2=
S.or the 2oly +pirit ;Rukha d?fudsha= will teach you what to sayS
In other words444444don?t worry a$out your rukha S$reathS& the Rukha
d?fudsha ;the 2oly +pirit= will teach you4
In the Greek& the allusion to S9reathS ;"erse %%= and S+piritS ;"erse %2= is
missin*4
1*. .on o2 his cit/ !ebrews 1:11
The HGK saysJ 0And they shall not teach e"ery man his nei*h$our& and e"ery
man his $rother& sayin*& Hnow the )ordJ for all shall know me& from the least
to the *reatest41
In the Aramaic& it actually does not literally say 0nei*h$or1& $ut 0son of his
city14 This is an idiom& referrin* to a nei*h$or& or fellow6citi,en4 )amsa and
Murdock $oth fi*ured this out in their translationsJ
MurdockJ 0And one shall not teach his fellow6citi,en`1
)amsaJ 0And no man shall teach his nei*h$or`1
%8B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
therid*e chose to render it literally in his translation from the Aramaic4
therid*eJ 0and no man shall ;ha"e need to= teach the son of his city`1
Ama,in*ly& this seems to ha"e caused a "ariant amon* the Greek te!ts4
The Te!tus Receptus says ;nei*h$or=& while Ale!andrian6type te!ts
like Westcott62ort and Nestle6Aland says ;fellow6citi,en=4
It seems that Lor$a actually understood this idiom& $ut couldn7t render it
consistently4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %8I
$ha%ter 4& Miscellaneous
Proofs: Minor Jariants7 oan
(ords7 =ad Hree" Hrammar
O More
This article is $asically for those e!amples that didn7t really fit with the other
types of lin*uistic proofs& such as 0split words1 and 0Aramaic idioms14 That
doesn7t therefore mean that these e!amples are insi*nificant4 2ere& we will
deal with such issues as 0minor Greek "ariants1 ;these are split words also=&
0multiple inheritance1 ;where multiple Aramaic words are diluted down to
3ust one word in the Greek=& 0$ad Greek *rammar1 ;$ad *rammar is
particularly rampant in the Greek copy of Re"elation=& 0loan words1 ;where
the Greek te!t has Aramaic words= and more4
1. Kumerous 5ramaic loan wor"s in the Aree' &u'e 1:1) %
#atthew 12:10 % &u'e 2:1 et al
No HGK ref is *i"en here& as we focus on the specific Aramaic words that are
in the Greek4
2ere is a :uestion you should ask the ne!t Greek NT scholar you meet4
%8( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
If )uke was written in Greek& why does the Aramaic word for S+tron* @rinkS
;+hakira= appear in the Greek manuscripts as S+ikeraS? ;)uke %J%>=
Is it not $ecause Greek lacks an ori*inal word for S+tron* @rinkS? +o& they 3ust
transliterated the Aramaic word?
The fre:uency of this type of thin* is astoundin*& to say the least4 And then&
people ask why there is a handful of Greek words in the #eshitta4 2ow a$out
the >6fold :uantity of Aramaic words in the Greek manuscripts?
2ow a$out the Aramaic loan6word in Greek te!ts& S+a$$ataS ;Matthew %2J%'=&
as if the Greeks had no word for +aturday`
Then there is S#aschaS ;)uke 2J8%=& as if the Greeks couldn?t make up a word
like the n*lish people did C S#asso"erS4
Then there are the followin* Aramaic words in the Greek manuscriptsJ
.ebonthah ;frankincense& Matthew 2J%%=
+ammona ;)uke %BJO=
7ai ;Woe< Matthew 2/J%/=
1abbi ;Matthew 2/JI&(=
Beelzebub ;)uke %%J%>=
<orban ;Mark IJ%%=
2atana ;)uke %'J%(=
cammuna ;cummin& Matt 2/J2/=
raca ;a term of contempt Matthew >J22=
korin ;a dry measure& $etween %'6%2 $ushels& )uke %BJI=
zezneh ;tares& Matthew %/J2>=
Boaner%es ;Mark /J%I=
And then of course 0Amen1& which appears a$out %'' times in the Greek te!t
of the Gospels4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %8O
2. &ambs4 shee,4 shee,? 8r lambs4 shee,4 goats? 8r lambs4
rams4 ewes? 0ohn 21:1)-1(
The HGK saysJ 0+o when they had dined& Gesus saith to +imon #eter& +imon&
son of Gonas& lo"est thou me more than these? 2e saith unto him& 5ea& )ordA
thou knowest that I lo"e thee4 2e saith unto him& .eed my lam$s4 2e saith to
him a*ain the second time& +imon& son of Gonas& lo"est thou me? 2e saith unto
him& 5ea& )ordA thou knowest that I lo"e thee4 2e saith unto him& .eed my
sheep4 2e saith unto him the third time& +imon& son of Gonas& lo"est thou me?
#eter was *rie"ed $ecause he said unto him the third time& )o"est thou me?
And he said unto him& )ord& thou knowest all thin*sA thou knowest that I lo"e
thee4 Gesus saith unto him& .eed my sheep41
NoteJ This "ery same section of +cripture is also used to $low the false
doctrine of 0two lo"es1 ;the $elief that there is a common lo"e& 0phileo1& and
a di"ine lo"e& 0a*ape1& and that we must stri"e for 0a*ape1= wide open4 This
will $e co"ered ;with e"idence from the Aramaic AN@ Greek= in a later
section4 .or now we will deal with the 0multiple inheritance1 aspect of this
passa*e4
Why would Gesus tell #eter to feed 2is sheep twice? Are sheep ;adults= more
important than lam$s ;children=?
Gesus asks #eter whether or not he lo"es 2im 6 / times4 After each SyesS
answer& Gesus asks #eter to StendS his lam$s& sheep& sheep C if one happens to
$e readin* the Greek translations4
In the Aramaic #eshitta& we ha"e a much clearer teachin*& and while readin*
from the Aramaic the reason for the Greek mistranslation of these "erses
$ecomes clear4
In the #eshitta& the words Gesus uses to denote SsheepS are / distinct words& as
opposed to the Greek& which only uses 2 ;?Arnion?& )am$& and ?#ro$aton?&
Adult +heep4=
The ori*inal Aramaic words used are as followsJ
0rm0 ;Amrea= 6 5oun* +heep ;)am$& word[ %//'=
%>' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
0br9 ;Aer$a= 6 Adult +heep ;Masculine& word[ %B2'>=
And& finally& the one that stumped the Greek translator;s=J
0wqn ;Ni:wa= 6 SweS& Adult +heep ;.eminine& word[ %/>82 6 which& $y the
way& the )e!icon has coded to an erroneous )e!eme and Root 6 this word
e"en stumped the creators of the )e!icon<=
The last word is a "ery rare word& used only once in the ET #eshitta ;The
#eshitta ET is the 2e$rew Eld Testament translated into Aramaic= as
0NfWA1& and found only once in the @ead +ea +crolls4 The root NfWA
simply means& SfemaleS& $ut it is "ery rarely used $ecause there are other
words which mean SfemaleS that were more popularly spoken4
When the Greek translator;s= of Gohn ran across this word& they simply
su$stituted S#ro$atonS a*ain in "erse %I& the same word used in "erse %B 6
they had no idea how to translate it4
In the process& the teachin* of the Messiah was diluted C Gesus was askin*
+imon #eter to StendS all of his SsheepS C men& women and children4
The Greek word in :uestion is 0pro$aton1 and usually means sheep or *oat&
or other small tame& four footed domestic animals4 Not only is the Aramaic
much more specific in mentionin* 0sheep1& it takes away the possi$ility of
ha"in* Slam$s& sheep& *oatsS ;*oats are usually used for S+atan?s childrenS=
and also implies that Gesus was instructin* #eter to look after 2is 0children&
men and women14
3. #iracle or miracles? 0ohn *:1
The HGK saysJ 0Then those men& when they had seen the miracle that Gesus
did& said& This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world41
When the New Testament was first penned& there were no "owel or diacritic
markin*s in Aramaic4 They were not in"ented until many centuries after the
NT was first written4
Ene of those markin*s si*nified plurality& and is called the +eyame markin*4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %>%
The +eyame markin* consists of two small dots placed a$o"e a word which&
when supplied& made the noun plural rather than sin*ular4 Therefore
S$rotherS in the sin*ular is 0***x0 and in the plural it isJ
0***'x0
9ut a$sent these markin*s as would ha"e $een the case in the %st century A@&
the two forms would look e!actly the same4
Therefore& unless it was o$"ious from the conte!t& a scri$e would need to
make an educated *uess as to which readin* is proper& whether to translate
sin*ular or plural4
In the latter scenario& different scri$es would come to different conclusions 6
o$"iously4 Gohn BJ%8 is one of those cases& and it pro"es $eyond a shadow of a
dou$t that Gohn first penned his Gospel in Aramaic4
The word in :uestion in the Aramaic of this "erse is SmiracleDsi*nS 6 0t0
The followin* Greek manuscripts were the result of a scri$e;s= who *uessed it
was plural 0t'0 J pI> 9 '%O%
The followin* Greek manuscripts translate F0 SmiracleDsi*nS in the sin*ular
;the correct way= 6 '7 A7 >7 ?7 7 (7 >elta7 Theta7 Pi7 Psi7 f17 f137 :87 337 4;47
2007 81:7 10107 1:D1&
. Ba" Aree' grammar in -evelation -evelation
This supposedly Greek $ook is full of $ad *rammar4 Now I know that the
Greek primacists like to use the term 0Hoine Greek1 in re*ards to the 9i$le&
rather than 0translation Greek1` 9ut were the 9i$le writers such $ad writers
that they couldn7t e"en follow simple rules of Greek *rammar? Was Almi*hty
God7s inspirational power limited?
It has lon* $een reco*ni,ed that the New Testament is written in "ery poor
Greek *rammar& $ut "ery *ood +emitic *rammar4 Many sentences are
%>2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
in"erted with a "er$ b noun format characteristic of +emitic lan*ua*es4
.urthermore& there are se"eral occurrences of the redundant SandS4 A num$er
of scholars ha"e shown in detail the +emitic *rammar em$edded in the Greek
New Testament $ooks ;.or e!ampleJ 9ur 0ranslated Aospels 9y Charles Cutler
TorreyA 8ocuments of the !rimiti$e Church $y Charles Cutler TorreyA 6n
6ramaic 6pproach to the Aospels and 6cts $y Matthew 9lackA 0he 6ramaic 9ri%in
of the Eourth Aospel $y Charles .o! 9urneyA 0he 6ramaic 9ri%in of the Eour
Aospels $y .rank Limmerman and 2emitisms of the Book of 6cts $y Ma!
Wilco!=4
In addition to the e"idence for +emitic *rammar em$edded in the Greek New
Testament& the fact that serious *rammatical errors are found in the Greek
New Testament $ooks may $e added4 +peakin* of the Greek of Re"elation&
Charles Cutler Torrey states that it S444swarms with ma3or offenses a*ainst
Greek *rammar4S 2e calls it Slin*uistic anarchyS& and says& SThe *rammatical
monstrosities of the $ook& in their num$er and "ariety and especially in their
startlin* character& stand alone in the history of literature4S Torrey *i"es ten
e!amples listed $elowJ
%4 Re"4 %J8 SGrace to you& and peace& from he who is and who was and
who is to comeS ;all nom4 case=
24 Re"4 %J%> S2is le*s were like $urnished $rass ;neut4 *ender dati"e case=
as in a furnace purifiedS ;.em4 *ender sin*4 no4& *en4 case=
/4 Re"4 %%J/ SMy witness ;nom4= shall prophesy for many days clothed
;accus4= in sackcloth4S
84 Re"4 %8J%8 SI saw on the cloud one seated like unto a +on of Man
;accus4= ha"in* ;nom4= upon his head a *olden crown4S
>4 Re"4 %8J%O S2e har"ested the "inta*e of the earth& and cast it into the
winepress ;fem=& the *reat ;masc4= of the wrath of God4S
B4 Re"4 %IJ8 SA *olden cup filled with a$ominations ;*en4= and with
unclean thin*sS ;accus4=
I4 Re"4 %OJ2' SThe lake of $la,in* ;fem4= fire ;neut4=4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %>/
(4 Re"4 2'J2 SAnd he sei,ed the dra*on ;accus4=& the old serpent ;nom4=
who is the @e"il and +atan& and $ound him4S
O4 Re"4 2%JO S+e"en an*els holdin* se"en $owls ;accus4= filled ;*en4= with
the se"en last pla*ues4S
%'4 Re"4 22J> SThey ha"e no need of lampli*ht ;*en4= nor of sunli*ht
;accus4=4
). +he Aree' K+ Cuotes the .e,tuagint? #atthew 11:10
The HGK saysJ 0.or this is he& of whom it is written& 9ehold& I send my
messen*er $efore thy face& which shall prepare thy way $efore thee41
0+cholarly consensus1 holds that the Greek NT ;New Testament= is the
ori*inal& and often :uotes the +eptua*int4 )et7s look at Matthew %%J%'& from
the +eptua*int ;Greek Eld Testament translation of the 2e$rew& also known
as the )RR=& the #eshitta ;also known as the #NT= and the Greek NT4 This
"erse in the NT is supposed to $e :uotin* Malachi /J% from the Eld
Testament4
)RRJ
toorycronootrctovoyyrovo
iotrntprjrtotooovnponpoocnoo
I send my messen*er&
and he will prepareT ;future= the way $efore me
T rntprnclook upon with careA show more respect to4
#NTJ
K#w(r# Mdq Yk0lm 0n0 rd4m 0n0 0hd
Kymdq 0xrw0 Nqtnd
9ehold I send ;or& I7m sendin*= my messen*er ahead of you&
who will prepare the way $efore you
GNTJ
ooryconootrctovoyyrovonponpoocnooo
o;iotooiroorttjvooovoornpooOrvoo
I send my messen*er ahead of you&
%>8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
who will prepareT your way $efore you
T iotooirocprepareA $uild& constructA furnish& e:uip4
Now& if the Greek is the ori*inal and :uotes the +eptua*int& why does it read
like the #eshitta? I wonder what that could mean` Also& if the 0ori*inal
Greek1 :uotes the +eptua*int& why does it say iotooiroc ;prepareA
$uild& constructA furnish& e:uip= while the +eptua*int says rntprnc ;look
upon with careA show more respect to=? If Matthew :uoted the +eptua*int in
his 0ori*inal Greek letter to the 29RW+1& he surely made a dod*y 3o$ of it<
*. 6hich or no which? 5cts 10:3*
The HGK saysJ 0The word which Aod sent unto the children of Israel&
preachin* peace $y Gesus ChristJ ;he is )ord of allJ=1
The a$sence of 2yame markin*s in the earliest Aramaic NT manuscripts
caused many "ariations in the Greek manuscripts when it comes to sin*ular
"s4 plural nouns4
Another marker $y which we can pro"e the ori*inal lan*ua*e is the
redundancy of the usa*e of the @aleth d #roclitic when compared to Indo6
uropean lan*ua*es like Greek and n*lish4
In Aramaic *rammar& the followin* phrases are "ery properJ
The present which d he recei"ed
The word that d she spoke
Whereas in the Indo6uropean lan*ua*es there is a preference for
conciseness& and the same phrases would much more naturally $e stated this
wayJ
The present he recei"ed
The word she spoke
Therefore& we would e!pect that if the GNT is a translation of the Aramaic
NT& then it would make sense that some scri$es would translate the
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %>>
redundant proclitic ;e"en at the e!pense of the Greek=& while others would
naturally choose to lea"e it out to make for $etter Greek4
In Acts %'J/B& we ha"e two different readin*s amon* the "arious Greek
manuscripts4 I?"e listed the manuscript names in parentheses ne!t to the
readin*J
S5ou know the word which d he sent to the sonsS ;manuscripts 6 pI8
+T C @ # #si O8> %28% 28O>=
S5ou know the word he sent to the sonsS ;manuscripts 6 +a A 9 (% B%8
%I/O=
The first GNT readin* is not proper Greek& $ut it is the sort of Greek that one
would e!pect in a translation from Aramaic4
)ike the sin*ularDplural inconsistencies which arose $ecause of the lack of
+yame markin*s& the @aleth #roclitic shows itself as an Aramaic "ein $eatin*
underneath the Greek skin of the GNT4
The difference in the two readin*s is the inclusion or omission of SwhichS
which is the due to the redundancy of the @aleth d #roclitic as found in the
#eshitta readin* of Acts %'J/B4
(. .emitic ,arallelisms in the su,,ose"l/ Aree' Bible
1Peter 2:1 et al
Ene way we know that Greek S%st #eterS is translated from an Aramaic
ori*inal is $y the unmistaka$le si*ns of +emitic influence& in particular the
parallelisms4
.or instanceJ
2J%8 ;Antithetic #arallelism=
2J2262/ ;Antithetic #arallelism=
%>B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
/J%( ;+ynonymous #arallelism=
8JB ;+ynonymous #arallelism=
8J%% ;Climactic #arallelism=
This will address what is known& in +emitic prose& as 6ntithetic !arallelism& a
fancy scholarly term which descri$es when a second line contrasts the terms
used in the first line4
There are& in fact& four types of !arallelisms in the prose of Gesus and others
found throu*hout the Gospels4 These areJ
Antithetic K discussed in this post& when a second line contrasts the
terms used in the first line
'ynonymous K where there is a correspondence in idea $etween 2 lines
of a couplet& the 2nd line reinforcin* and echoin* the sense of the %st
in e:ui"alent& thou*h different& terms4
'ynthetic K where the thou*ht of the 2nd line supplements and
completes that of the first
$limactic K where the second line is not a complete echo of the first&
$ut adds somethin* more which completes the %st& thus formin* its
clima!
,6am%les of 5ntithetic Parallelisms
In Matthew /J%2J
SWhose winnowin*6$asket is in his hand&
And he will cleanse his threshin*6floor&
And *ather his wheat into the *ranaries&
9ut he will $urn the chaff with un:uencha$le fireS
In the #rolo*ue of the Gospel of Gohn& "erse %(J
SNo man has e"er seen God&
The only69e*otten& who is in the 9osom of the .ather& he has declared himS
In Gohn /J2IJ
SA man can recei"e nothin*&
e!cept it $e *i"en to him from 2ea"enS
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %>I
In Gohn %J/B& we ha"e 2 lines which form an Antithetic #arallelism& followed
$y a /rd line that forms a clima! to the whole "erseJ
S2e that $elie"es in the +on has e"erlastin* life&
$ut he who does not o$ey the +on will not see life&
rather the #rath of Aod #ill rise up a%ainst him.S
Many more e!amples of this can $e found& and are too numerous to list4
1. 0esus the non-&evitical high ,riest !ebrews 3:1
The HGK saysJ 0Wherefore& holy $rethren& partakers of the hea"enly callin*&
consider the Apostle and 2i*h #riest of our profession& Christ GesusA1
When is a priest not a priest?
This especially powerful proof& like so many others& speaks to the authentic
Gewish heart of the ori*inal Messianic $elie"ers4 +pecifically& there are two
Aramaic words for SpriestS that are used in the #eshitta4 The first& "ahna is the
direct co*nate of the 2e$rew word cohen and therefore desi*nates a priest
from the traditional )e"itical order4 The second word& "umrea& appears
se"eral times in 2e$rews4 )et?s look at how this latter word is usedJ
.rom henceforth& all my holy $rethren& called $y a call from hea"en& look to
this Apostle and 2i*h #riest ;"umrea= of our faith& 5?shua the Messiah4
2e$rews /J%
This "erse is nothin* short of *enius in Aramaic< Gesus& $ecause he was not
from the tri$e of )e"i& is not $ein* called cohen& $ut "umrea66a non6)e"itical
priest like Gethro66instead4 Interestin*ly enou*h also& the #eshitta ET
consistently translates cohenE"ahna into "umrea with re*ards to these same
men& ;Genesis %8J%(& !odus 2J%B& /J% and %(J%=4
This is a "ery important point& $ecause it *oes to the Messianic prophecies
that deal with Messiah $ein* Slike a priest after MelchisedecS ;#salm %%'=& or a
non6Aaronic fi*ure to in effect take o"er intercedin* for Israel4 Another mind6
$lower part of this "erse howe"er is the deli$erate use of the phrase Scalled $y
a callS4
%>( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Reason $ein*& the $ook of )e"iticus ;Greek for Sof the priestsD)e"itesS= is
actually named Kayikra in 2e$rew& after the first three words in the $ook&
Sand he called S4 .urthermore& the Aramaic word #aul uses here66:arya66is
deri"ed from the e!act same root4 +o in essence& we ha"e one classification of
priests $ein* Scalled toS compare themsel"es to the other<
Nor is this usa*e a coincidence& since it appears almost another two do,en
times in this pistle& and e!actly the same way ;8J%8& >J%& >J>& >JB& BJ2'& IJ%&
IJ%%& IJ%>& IJ%I& IJ2%& IJ2/& IJ2B& IJ2I& IJ2(& (J%& (J/& (J8& OJ2>& OJB& %'J%%& %'J2%&
%/J%%=4 In some cases also& "umrea is in a *i"en passa*e twice 3ust to cement
the point #aul is tryin* to make4
.urthermore& this word is utterly uni:ue to 2e$rews $ecause of its e!clusi"e
emphasis on Messiah $ein* the true hi#h %riest that *i"es eternal atonement4
9y contrast& in e"ery other $ook of the New Testament& we are confined solely
to the word "ahnaEcohen& $ecause there is it is the re*ular kind of priest that
is $ein* referenced4
2owe"er& perhaps the most remarka$le aspect of them all is that #eshitta
2e$rews actually Sout Gudai,esS the Massoretic 2e$rew ET itself& since the
Massoretic te!t makes no distinction $etween )e"ite priests like Aaron& and
ri*hteous Gentiles like Melchisedec and Gethro4
The Greek render $oth words the same& there$y dilutin* the messa*e4
There is only one word for ?priest? in the Greek NT&
hee&er&yooceP accordin* to Games +tron*4 The
ar&khee&er&yuceP & used for
ar&khayP
precedin* it much like you would 3oin Sarch6S and San*elS to produce
Sarchan*el4S
$. Burnishe" brass? -evelation 1:1) % -evelation 2:11
The HGK says ;Re"elation %J%>=J 0And his feet like unto fine $rass& as if they
$urned in a furnaceA and his "oice as the sound of many waters41
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %>O
The HGK says ;Re"elation 2J%(=J 0And unto the an*el of the church in Thyatira
writeA These thin*s saith the +on of God& who hath his eyes like unto a flame
of fire& and his feet are like fine $rassA1
The fuirkJ
SAnd his feet like unto +urnished +rass& as if it had $een refined in a furnaceA and his
"oice as the "oice of many waters4S
KKBevelation 1:14
SAnd to the an*el of the church in Thyatira writeJ These thin*s saith the +on of God&
who hath his eyes like a flame of fire& and his feet are like unto +urnished +rassJS
KKBevelation ::18
9oth of the $olded areas are the compound Greek word& {jqikqhjnw
;-chalkolibanoD=4
9reakin* it down into its two parts& we *etJ
1F {jqik ;-chalkoD=
GreekJ
'tron#Cs Num+er: >8I> chalkos Ukhal6kos?V
#erhaps from >8B> throu*h the idea of hollowin* out as a "essel ;this metal $ein*
chiefly used for that purpose=A
n m AK 6 $rass /& money 2A >
1. +rass
:& what is made of +rass7 money7 coins of +rass 8also of silver and #oldF
:F qhjnw ;-libanoD=
GreekJ
'tron#Cs Num+er: /'/' li$anos Uli$?6an6osV
5f forei#n ori#in 038:8P T@NT 6 8J2B/&>//A
n m AK 6 frankincense 2A 2
1. the fran"incense tree
2. the %erfume7 fran"incense
Wait a moment< And frankincense? That does not make sense4 Why was it
translated as $urnished? Also& $olded a$o"e& it?s of forei*n ori*in4 )et?s take a
look at +tron*?s Num$er '/(2(J
2e$rewJ
'tron#Cs Num+er: '/(2( lN$ownah Ule$6o6naw?V or lN$onah Ule$6o6naw?V
From 038:8P TWET 6 %'I8dA
n f AK 6 frankincense %>& incense BA 2%
%B' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
1. fran"incense
1. a white resin +urned as fra#rant incense
%4 ceremonially
24 personally
/4 used in compoundin* the holy incense
Ence a*ain& referred to another root word& +tron*?s Num$er 0383;J
2e$rewJ
'tron#Cs Num+er: '/(/B la$an Ulaw6$awn?V or ;Gen4 8OJ%2= la$en Ulaw6$ane?V
From 03834P TWET 6 %'I8aA
ad3 AK 6 white 2OA 2O
1. white
Ene more deri"ationJ
2e$rewJ
'tron#Cs Num+er: '/(/> la$an Ulaw6$an?V
A %rimitive rootP TWET 6 %'I8$&%'I8hA
" AK 6 make white /& make 2& make $rick %& $e white %& $e whiter %A (
1. to +e white
%4 ;2ilphil=
1. to ma"e white7 +ecome white7 %urify
2. to show whiteness7 #row white
2. ;2ithpael= to +ecome white7 +e %urified ;ethical=
24 ;fal= to make $ricks
+o now we see that this Greek word has half of its roots in ancient +emitic
root& transliterated into the Greek qhjn ;-libanD=4 The other half was
compounded on to make sense of a comple! concept of white $rass4 9ut why
would Greek use a +emitic root in this conte!t when the Greek word for
SwhiteS is qpmiku ;-leukosD= as used e"erywhere else in the New Testament?
Crawford Manuscript of Re"elation says le#nayaP which can either mean
SwhiteS or S)e$aneseS4 Another interestin* thin* to keep in mind is that
)e$anon was famous for its $rass4 Now one can say that this passa*e is not&
how the Greek su**ests& $rass and frankincense in a furnace& $ut whitenin*
or )e$anese $rass in a furnace& as recorded in the Crawford Manuscript of
Re"elation4
This is perhaps how the author of Re"elation wrote these passa*esJ
SAnd his feet like unto e+anese +rass& as if it had $een refined in a furnaceA and his
KKBevelation 1:14
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %B%
who hath his eyes like a flame of fire& and his feet are like unto e+anese +rassJS
KKBevelation ::18
5B
SAnd his feet like unto whitened +rass& as if it had $een refined in a furnaceA and his
KKBevelation 1:14
who hath his eyes like a flame of fire& and his feet are like unto whitened +rassJS
KKBevelation ::18
10. For4 but or an"? 2Corinthians 2:1
The HGK saysJ 09ut I determined this with myself& that I would not come
a*ain to you in hea"iness41
Another Aramaic word which causes pro$lems for translators is Nyd which
really has no e:ui"alent in n*lish& $ut it is more of a Sthou*ht6switcherS 6
some n*lish words come close to translatin* it 6 like S And& .or& 9ut& Now&
2owe"erS
In the Aramaic of the #eshitta& this "erse readsJ
Y4#nb 0dh Nyd tnd ;SI ha"e decided this& $utDandDhowe"erDfor& within
myselfS=
The followin* Greek manuscripts read S.or I decided this within myselfS K
%D;7 =7 0::37 337 ;307 12317 18817 :D14
The followin* Greek manuscripts read S9ut I decided this within myselfS 6 '7
A7 $7 H7 ?7 P7 Psi7 0817 817 10D7 ;1D7 1:D1
And manuscript > translates it SAnd I decided this within myselfS
%B2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
As an interestin* side note& most +outhern Coptic "ersions& alon* with some
Northern Coptic& drop it alto*ether and simply read SI decided this within
myselfS4
11. Aree' Primacist =nite" Bible .ociet/ >Bum,ing shi,??
5cts 10:3*
It7s one thin* for Aramaic primacists to say that a Greek passa*e looks like it
was translated from Aramaic& $ut it7s an entirely different thin* when Greek
primacists say it<
The HGK saysJ 0The word which Aod sent unto the children of Israel&
preachin* peace $y Gesus ChristJ ;he is )ord of allJ=1
The notes of the Fnited 9i$le +ociety& which document "ariant readin*s in the
Greek manuscripts& ha"e this readin* and comments on this "erseJ
TRTJ S5ou know the word which he sent to the sonsS
KI@NCJ pI8 +T C @ # #si O8> %28% 28O>
TRAN+)ATIEN+J HGK A+K R+K NA+K NIK TK
RANHJ C
NET+J S5ou know he sent the word to the sonsS
KI@NCJ +a A 9 (% B%8 %I/O most lat "* cop
TRAN+)ATIEN+J A+Kn NA+Kn N9
CEMMNT+J The difference in the two readin*s is the inclusion or omission
of SwhichS which is included in $rackets in the F9+ te!t4 The te!t readin* is
not proper Greek $ut it is the sort of Greek that one would e!pect in a
translation from Aramaic4 +ince the last two letters of the Greek word for
SwordS spell the Greek word for Swhich&S it is possi$le that the word SwhichS
was accidentally added when copyists saw those letters twice4 En the other
hand& it is also possi$le that the word SwhichS was ori*inally present and it
was accidentally omitted when copyists? eyes 3umped from the end of SwordS
to the end of Swhich4S
fuite remarka$le4 The #eshitta has the first readin*& and they are admittin*
that the Greek looks like it was translated from Aramaic4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %B/
12. +he Aree' K+ Cuotes the .e,tuagint? 5gain? #atthew
22:
The HGK saysJ 0The )ER@ said unto my )ord& +it thou on my ri*ht hand& till I
make thine enemies thy footstool?1
@oes the Greek NT :uote the +eptua*int7s translation of #salms %%'J%& or does
it merely copy the Aramaic #eshitta New Testament?
)RRJ
tnrvipto;tciptcoioOoriortcvo
rc;ovOcto;r,Opo;oononootovtcvnoocvoo
The )ord said to my )ordJ S+it at my ri*ht YhandZ
until I put your enemies a footstool for your feet4S
#NTJ
Ynymy Nm Kl Bt Yrml 0yrm rm0
Kyl%r tyxt Kybbdl9b Mys0d 0md9
The )ord said to my )ordJ S+it at my ri*ht YhandZ
until I put your enemies under your feet4S
GNTJ
tnrvipto;tciptcoioOoriortcvo
rc;ovOcto;r,Opo;oonoiotctcvnoocvoo
The )ord said to my )ordJ S+it at my ri*ht hand
until I put your enemies under your feet4S
Ence a*ain& instead of :uotin* the +eptua*int& the Greek NT seems to copy
the #eshitta4
13. 5 crow" or the crow"? 0ohn 12:12
The HGK saysJ 0En the ne!t day much people that were come to the feast&
when they heard that Gesus was comin* to Gerusalem&1
The Aramaic lan*ua*e lacks an indicator for the definite article4 +o whether or
not a noun is in the definite or indefinite is $ased on conte!t4
%B8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
.or instance& 0klm means $othJ
SA Hin*S
SThe Hin*S
Therefore& we would e!pect that this would create pro$lems for Lor$a when
translatin* from the Aramaic4
In Gohn %2J%2& the word for ScrowdS 6 04nk is translated SA CrowdS $y Greek
manuscriptsJ '7 A7 >7 ?7 (7 @7 >elta7 Pi7 Psi7 f17 :87 4;47 2007 81:7 10107 1:D1
The followin* manuscripts translate it as SThe CrowdS 6 %;;7 =7 7 Theta7 f13
1. 5bba abba Aalatians :*
The HGK saysJ 0And $ecause ye are sons& God hath sent forth the +pirit of his
+on into your hearts& cryin*& A$$a& .ather41
Gal 8JB4 A trap for the NT 0Aramaic translator14
)ets ima*ine this little scenarioJ
0he translator #ho translated the >ori%inal Areek? into 6ramaic suddenly stumbled
on $erse " in chapter )5 findin% himself in >bi% trouble?:
OttorrotrtotronrotrtrvoOro;tonvrototootort;to
;iopoto;jcvipoovAppoonotjp
?9ops;? he reflected. >7hat should 4 do here? 2hould 4 repeat the #ord >6bba?:
0b0 0b0 K>6bba abba?L? Io5 that redundancy doesnGt sound fine.? >7ell?5 he
thou%ht5 >letGs make a sli%ht $ariance5 for the sake of literary perfection.? 2o5 he
rather put: wb0 0b0 K>6bba aboun?L. 6nd he sa# it #as %ood5 and smiled
ironically.
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %B>
What we really ha"e here& in my opinion& in the ERIGINA) e!pression wb0
0b0 Y0A$$a a$oun1Z is a further e"idence of the #eshitta7s ori*inality4
2owe"er& allow me to *rant Lor$a at least one point for ha"in* preser"ed the
first Aramaic 0b0 Y0A$$a1Z thou*h renderin* the followin* 0A$$a1 as
onotjp ;The .ather= for his Greek readers4
Cf4 Rom (J%> ;Identical Aramaic and it7s Greek translation=A Mk %8J/B Yb0
0b0 translated as the pre"ious=4
Well& the way I wrote it was a little 0ironic1 as you noticed4 May$e this could
cause confusion4 It seems to me that the 0dou$le a$a6o pater1 in Greek is an
indication of the Aramaic #rimacy $ecause there7s a TRAN+)ATIEN implied&
while in the Aramaic there7s the +AM WER@ distin*uished $y a +F..IR&
with the sense of INTN+IT5J 0.ather6Eur .ather1& 0My .ather1 ;Gesus7= C
Eur .ather1 ;disciples7=4 The 0non6e!act repetition1 in Aramaic is& in my point
of "iew& a clear e!pression of this 0sameDnot same1 #aternityD.iliation of God
for Gesus and us4 We are sonsDdau*hters $y A@E#TIEN& while Gesus is T2
+on $y nature4
9asically& the 0dou$lin* up1 of A$$aD.ather makes sense in the Aramaic4 9ut
in the Greek& it doesn7t really make sense for Gesus to say this one word in
Aramaic& and then ha"e it translated into Greek4 We all know that Gesus spoke
Aramaic& so why does the Greek te!t only translate a handful of 2is sayin*s?
1). +hie2 or thieves? 1+hesssalonians ):
The HGK saysJ 09ut ye& $rethren& are not in darkness& that that day should
o"ertake you as a thief41
The followin* Greek manuscripts translated the Aramaic 0bn% ;SthiefS= in
the sin*ular 6 '7 >7 H7 ?7 P7 Psi7 0::;vid7 337 817 10D7 ;1D7 ;307 1:D17 12317 18817
:D14 as reflected in the Hin* Games Kersion& the American +tandard Kersion
and the New International Kersion4
%BB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The followin* Greek manuscripts translated the Aramaic 0bn% ;SthiefS= in the
plural 6 A7 = and most $o%tic Jersions as reflected in footnotes in the
American +tandard& New American +tandard and the New n*lish 9i$le
"ersions4
Without plural markin*s& Lor$a was clearly in two minds4
1*. +he al,ha an" the 8 -evelation 1:1 % -evelation 21:* %
-evelation 22:13
Throu*hout the 9ook of Re"elation& the Messiah refers to himself as the
SAlpha and the Eme*aS in Greek manuscripts& $ut notice an interestin* :uirk
of the te!tJ
Chapter % Kerse (
The GreekJ
p|w prh xk QRSQ ijh xk T qp|ph imzhku ~pku wn ijh on ijh
pz{krpnku yjnxkizjxwz
;-e%o emi to al,ha kai to o le%ei kurios ho theos ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos ho
pantokrator-=
TranslationJ
SI am the Al%ha and the 58me#aF& says the )ord God& who is and who was
and who is to come& the Almi*hty4S
Chapter 2% Kerse B
The GreekJ
ijh phypn rkh |p|knj p|w xk QRSQ ijh xk T jz{o ijh xk xpqku w|k xw
ghwnxh gwlw pi xpu yo|ou xkm mgjxku xou wou gwzpjn
;-kai eipen moi %e%ona e%o to al,ha kai to o he arche kai to telos o%o to dipsonti doso
ek tes pe%es tou udatos tes zoes dorean-=
TranslationJ
SAnd he said to me& They are come to pass4 I am the Al%ha and the
58me#aF&the $e*innin* and the end4 I will *i"e to him that is athirst of the
fountain of the water of life freely4S
Chapter 22 Kerse %/
The GreekJ
p|w xk QRSQ ijh xk T yzwxku ijh pl{jxku jz{o ijh xk xpqku
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %BI
;-e%o to al,ha kai to o ho protos kai ho eschatos he arche kai to telos-=
TranslationJ
SI am the Al%ha and the 58me#aF&the first and the last& the $e*innin* and the
end4S
In the "ast ma3ority of Greek manuscripts& they stateJ
xk QRSQ ijh xk T ;-to al,ha kai to oD J The Alpha and the E;me*a==
jqj ;-alphaD J Alpha= $ein* the first letter of the Greek alpha$et& and w
;ome*a=& the last4
Ene KR5 stran*e thin* of noteJ
jqj ;-alphaD 6 Alpha= is spelled out while w ;ome*a= is simply the sin*le
letter w ;ome*a=4
All of the Aramaic te!ts of Re"elation that sur"i"e to dateJ
PalOf Paf tOuJ The Alap& also the Tau
NoteJ in the a$o"e picture& the circled word on the left is the word for Tau in
Aramaic4 Aramaic is written from ri*ht to left4
AlapDaleph is the first letter of the Aramaic alpha$et& where Tau is the last& in
parallel with the Greek Alpha and Eme*a4 2ow similar a lone wrp|j
;-ome%aD J Eme*a= ;or T= looks like Tau YwtZ in stran*elo script<
%B( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Takin* a look at how wrp|j ;-ome%aD J Eme*a= was written at the time of the
New Testament& we *et a *ood idea of what shape was reco*ni,ed4 The
similarity is rather strikin* $etween Eme*a and the letters of Tau YwtZ
closely written to*etherJ
+ince copies of this $ook were written $y hand& if wt J Tau was written
closely to*ether& it would $e easily indistin*uisha$le from an wrp|j
;-ome%aD J Eme*a=4 The translators then must ha"e simply thou*ht to
transliterate it& thinkin* that it was an wrp|j ;-ome%aD J Eme*a= in the first
place4 Ar*ua$ly this error can only *o in one direction4
Bevelation 1:8
I am Aleph and Tau& the $e*innin* and the endin* says the )ord God& who is and who
was and who is to come& the Almi*hty4
1(. Kot even missing #atthew 1:10
The HGK saysJ 0When Gesus heard it& he mar"elled& and said to them that
followed& Kerily I say unto you& I ha"e not found so *reat faith& no& not in
Israel41
use$ius tells us& when the time came to translate Aramaic Matthew into
Greek& it was :uite a stru**le4 .rom his comment& one would assume that
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %BO
many ?"ariations? occurred since people ;plural= translated it differently in
different locations and times4
The e!amples of this historic stru**le are numerous4 2ere is an e!ample&
which happens to ha"e a parallel in )uke4
The "erse in :uestion is Matthew (J%'& where Gesus7 words are recorded as
follows in the Aramaic of the #eshittaJ
wkl 0n0 rm0 Nym0 ;Truly ;Amen= say I to you444=
$y0rsy0b f +0d ;444that not even in Israel=
Fwnmyh 0dh Ky0 txk40 ;444ha"e I found faith like this=
The parallel passa*e in )uke is IJO4
The key to this e!ample& and somethin* that pla*ues any translator who is
workin* on an Aramaic document& is the phrase f +0d which can?t $e
translated e6actly into any other lan*ua*e4
)iterally& it means Sthat also notS& $ut fi*urati"ely and idiomatically it means
Snot e"en4S This association $etween the literal and the fi*urati"e ;idiomatic=
occurs only in Aramaic4
The parallel passa*e occurs in )uke at IJO& where he also employs this
terminolo*y4
+ome Greek "ersions& findin* the phrase utterly confoundin* ;they had no
idea of the idiomatic meanin*=& alto*ether left out the translation of the
phrase& and hence omit the Snot e"enS in Matthew 6 yet retain it in )uke4
These ancient manuscripts are desi*nated =7 (7 f17 81: co% and e"en the
Curetonian +yriac ;one of the SEld +yriacS "ersions=4
The other Greek manuscripts which preser"ed this readin* in Matthew are
desi*nated ' $ ? @ >elta Theta Pi f13 33 4;4 200 1010 1:D1 and e"en the
+inaitic +yriac ;the other SEld +yriacS "ersion=4
When we look at our modern n*lish "ersions& we can see the differences
caused $y the ancient "ariants in the Greek "ersions4
%I' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The NA+K& NIK& and TK ;amon* others= follow the former ;erroneous=
Greek te!t& omittin* the Snot e"enS phrase& while the HGK& A+K& R+K& and
N9 ;amon* others= preser"e it4
11. CanHt /ou leave the ol" rea"ing alone? !ebrews 1:3
Well& this doesn7t really support #eshitta primacy that much& $ut it is
noteworthy4 #eshitta manuscripts are treated with far more respect than these
Greek copies4 Note also the irony& that in recent times& people ha"e flocked to
the Ale!andrian te!ts ;the $asis for such me*a6popular translations as the
NIK= for 0*reater accuracy14
The picture $elow shows a section of the Code! Katicanus& 2e$rews %J/4 The
footnote ;0sidenote1 rather= readsJ
ooOrototriotioir,or;tovnootov,jrtonotrt
TranslationJ 0.ool and kna"e& can?t you lea"e the old readin* alone and not
alter it<1
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %I%
In case you were wonderin*& 2e$rews %J/ deals somewhat with the @i"inity
of Gesus4 It seems that tamperin* with such "erses was :uite common in those
days ;cf4 the Comma Gohanneum=<
1$. 5s someone somewhere testi2ie" !ebrews 2:*
The )ITK saysJ 0$ut one fully testified somewhere& sayin*& SWhat is man& that
5ou are mindful of himA or the son of man& that 5ou look upon him?1
The ma3or Greek te!ts ama,in*ly all a*ree on this& the 9y,antine ;HGK et al=
and the Ale!andrian ;NIK et al=J

TranslationJ 09ut someone& somewhere& fully testified& sayin*`1
The Greek reads rather comically4 +omeone& somewhere? At least the #eshitta
tells us that this comes from the 'cri%tures ;0btk=J
Yhytdh9d 0rb% wnm rm0w 0btk dhsmd Ky0 f0
Yhytr9sd 04n0d hrbw
)amsaJ 09ut as the scripture testifies& sayin*& What is man that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man& that thou "isitest him?1
#erhaps Hin* @a"id ;the #salmist= is rollin* around in his *ra"e
;idiomatically speakin*= after $ein* referred to as 0someone1 from
somewhere1<
#salms (J8
What is man& that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man& that thou
"isitest him?
%I2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
20. 5ramaic e:,laining 5ramaic is no ,roo2 o2 Aree'
,rimac/ #ar' 3:1( % #ar' 1):3 % 5cts 1:1$
In the Greek New Testament& there are often Aramaic wordsDphrases that are
written in the Aramaic ;or a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic=& then
followed $y a translation& such as in Mark >J8%4
Mar" 4:D1 8?MJF
And he took the damsel $y the hand& and said unto her& Talitha cumiP which is7 +ein#
inter%reted7 >amsel7 I say unto thee7 arise4
Ef course& we find these 0translations1 usually lackin* in the Aramaic
#eshitta& as it7s all Aramaic anyway4 +ince the audience is Aramaic6speakin*&
there is no need to translate the phrase4
Mar" 4:D1 8UounanF
And he took the hand of the *irl and said to her youn# #irl arise
2owe"er& there are three places where the 0translation1 ;an e!planation
actually= still occurs in the #eshitta& and Greek primacists are only too ea*er
to say& 0)ook at how silly the #eshitta is< It mentions the phrase in Aramaic&
then says it in Aramaic a*ain<1
These few e!amples actually ha"e *ood reason for alle*edly 0dou$lin* up1
;*loss= C and the repeated phrase is always different4
%= In Mark /J%I& Gesus calls Games and Gohn& 0sons of thunder74 The #eshitta
then follows with the 0translationDe!planation1& 3ust like the Greek& $ecause
0$nay ra*hshee1& 0sons of thunder1& can also mean 0sons of ra*e14 Gospel
writer Mark merely e!plains that the intended meanin* was 0thunder74
2= The #eshitta a*ain seemin*ly repeats itself in Acts %J%O with 0akeldama1&
0field of $lood1& followed $y an e!planation4 This e!planation is *i"en&
$ecause 0akeldama1 was a local nickname for that field and would most
pro$a$ly not ha"e $een understood $y forei*ners& e"en if they spoke
Aramaic4
/= In Mark %>J/8& we ha"e the famous 0my God& my God& why ha"e you
spared me?1 As e!pected& in the Greek& we are *i"en a translation4 9ut in the
Aramaic& we are also *i"en this e!planation4 The reason is most likely that
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %I/
Gesus& comin* from Galilee& spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic4 Mark& then
0translates1 the words into the Gudean dialect of Aramaic& so his audience
could understand4 This is somewhat confirmed $y some Gews at the time&
thinkin* that Gesus called out to li3ah4
21. Aalilee o2 the Aentiles4 Aree's or 5rameans?
#atthew :1)
The HGK saysJ 0The land of La$ulon& and the land of Nephthalim& $y the way
of the sea& $eyond Gordan& Galilee of the GentilesA1
Many use this as a proof that Gesus spoke Greek& was immersed in Greek
culture& etc4 This un3ustly assumes that 0Gentiles1 refers to Greeks or those
who speak Greek4
We know from the Eld Testament and from history& that Assyrians
;Arameans= displaced the IsraelitesJ
:?in#s 14::1
In the days of #ekah kin* of Israel& Ti*lath6pileser kin* of Assyria came and took I3on&
A$el& Mehola& and all 9eth6maachah& and Niah& Hedesh& 2a,or& Gilead& and Galilee&
and all the land of Naphtali& and carried the people capti"e to Assyria4
:?in#s 12::3K:D
Fntil the )ER@ remo"ed Israel out of his si*ht& as he had declared $y all his ser"ants
the prophets4 +o was Israel carried away out of their land to Assyria& where they are to
this day4 And the kin* of Assyria $rou*ht people from 9a$ylon and from Cuth and
from A"a and from 2amath and from +ephar"im& and settled them in the cities of
+amaria instead of the children of IsraelA and they possessed +amaria& and dwelt in the
cities thereof4
Assyrians are Gentiles too4 +o are other non6Israelite& yet +emitic peoples4
As Gudea was filled with Gudeans& Arameans and other +emitic peoples& is it
any wonder that the primary lan*ua*e was Aramaic?
%I8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
22. Contention or contentions? +itus 3:$
The HGK saysJ 09ut a"oid foolish :uestions& and *enealo*ies& and contentions&
and stri"in*s a$out the lawA for they are unprofita$le and "ain41
Te!ts like the Te!tus Receptus and 9y,antine Ma3ority say ;plural=
while Westcott62ort and the Tischendorf mss say ;sin*ular=4
Without "owel markin*s& Lor$a didn7t know whether 0nyrx 0kheryana1
should $e sin*ular or plural4
23. #ust the .cri,tures be written in a >global language??
2+imoth/ 3:1* % 5cts 1(:10-11
Ene often hears claims that the New Testament must ha"e $een written in
Greek $ecause Greek was the 0lin%ua franca1 of the time4 Much e"idence in
this $ook and in many other sources show this claim to $e much e!a**erated&
as Greek was in many places somewhat of an 0elitist lan*ua*e14 This is a fact
accepted $y many Greek primacist scholars today& such as the renowned @r4
Matthew 9lack& in his $ook& 0An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
Acts1& which despite the name& promotes Greek primacyJ
-.our lan*ua*es were to $e found in first6century #alestineJ Greek was the
speech of the educated Qhelleni,ed7 classes444 Aramaic was the lan*ua*e of the
people of the land and& to*ether with 2e$rew& pro"ided the chief literary
medium of the #alestinian Gew of the first century. C @r4 Matthew 9lack
There are many other cases where we see that Greek was an elitist lan*ua*e
such as in Acts 2%J/I where the commander seemed "ery surprised that #aul
could speak Greek& as he thou*ht that #aul was 3ust an uneducated *yptian
terrorist4
2owe"er<
"en if it were true that Greek was spoken more often than not in the 9i$lical
lands& there is no $asis to assume that it must ha"e $een the lan*ua*e of the
New Testament4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %I>
What I 3ust said may sound odd& $ut the proof lies in the 9i$le itselfJ
:Timothy 3:1;
All scripture written $y the inspiration of the 2oly +pirit is profita$le for doctrine& for
reproof& for correction& and for instruction in ri*hteousnessA
Acts 12:10K11
Then the $rethren immediately sent away #aul and +ilas $y ni*ht to the city of 9ereaA
and when they arri"ed there& they entered into the syna*o*ue of the Gews4 .or the Gews
there were more li$eral than the Gews who were in Thessalonica& in that they *ladly
heard the word daily and searched the scriptures to find out if these thin*s were so4
Ef course these references must refer to the Eld Testament ;ET=& $ecause the
NT +criptures were not yet completed4 What lan*ua*e was the ET written in?
2e$rew4 Not Aramaic& not Greek& not Ancient *yptian& $ut 2e$rew4 Was
2e$rew e"er the lin%ua franca of the world or& say& the Middle ast? No4 Now
if we were *i"en the 2e$rew +criptures for our $enefit& when most of us
cannot speak or read 2e$rew& why is it seen as impro$a$le that Aramaic6
speakers were *i"en an Aramaic ori*inal& e"en thou*h the rest of the world
spoke other lan*ua*es? Why should we assume that the New Testament had
to ha"e $een written in a 0*lo$al lan*ua*e1& when the Eld Testament was
not? That7s the pro$lem with Greek primacy4 It is $ased on assumption& not
fact4
.urthermore& how many people today speak 2e$rew& compared to those who
speak n*lish& or e"en German& .rench& 2indu and Chinese? Kery few4 5et
Christians are still to use the ET +criptures4 9asically& we ha"e the situation
that the Eld Testament was written ori*inally in a lan*ua*e that most people
at the time& and in the present time& couldDcan not speak& yet Christians are
still to make use of these +criptures4
+o e"en if Greek was the lin%ua franca in 5eshua7s day& is it such a stretch of
the ima*ination that the New Testament& like the Eld& would $e written in a
lan*ua*e that was ;supposedly= not as widespread?
2. Chie2 an" chie2? 8r chie2 an" el"er? 5cts 11:14 1(
In Acts %(J(& we meet the chief of the syna*o*ue4
%IB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The HGK saysJ 0And Crispus& the chief ruler of the syna*o*ue& $elie"ed on the
)ord with all his houseA and many of the Corinthians hearin* $elie"ed& and
were $apti,ed41
In Acts %(J%I& we meet the chief of the syna*o*ue4
The HGK saysJ 0Then all the Greeks took +osthenes& the chief ruler of the
syna*o*ue& and $eat him $efore the 3ud*ment seat4 And Gallio cared for none
of those thin*s41
The Greek te!ts& such as the 9y,antine Ma3ority te!t and the Westcott62ort&
say ;chief of the syna*o*ue=& in $oth "erses4
The #eshitta says Br ;0ra$1 C 0chief1= of the syna*o*ue& in "erse (& $ut says
04y4q ;0:ayshisha1 C 0elder1= of the syna*o*ue& in "erse %I4
This is an e!ample of a multiple inheritance& where the Aramaic "ariety has
$een lost $y the translation into Greek4 Critically& this is a clear marker of
Aramaic to Greek translation& as it makes sense for Lor$a to translate $oth
Aramaic words into one Greek word ;for simplicity=& while it would make no
sense for a supposed 0Greek6to6Aramaic translator1 to complicate matters $y
usin* two different Aramaic words for one Greek word& so soon after each
other4
2). Peshitta =noriginal? 32 so4 it is .+3&& .u,erior4 7ue to
@eshuaHs 6or"s
"en if the Greek NT is the ori*inal and the Aramaic NT is a translation& what
is the most important part of the whole 9i$le? Would you dare say it isn7t the
"ery words of Gesus? +ince& 2e is the central fi*ure in the 9i$le& and many
would $elie"e so& let us assume that 5eshua7s words are the most important
part of the 9i$le4 Now& what lan*ua*e did 2e speak? Aramaic4 +o e"en I. the
Greek NT is the ori*inal& the most important $its are still only translations
;which as we ha"e seen with the many #eshitta proofs& result in many
pro$lems with the Greek NT=& or at $est& transliterations4
Chapter >4 Miscellaneous #roofsJ Minor Kariants& )oan Words& 9ad Greek Grammar P More %II
Now with the Aramaic #eshitta& we often see that 5eshua7s words are filled
with +emitic poetry& Aramaic idiom etc4 Are Greek primacists impressed? No&
$ecause Gesus spoke Aramaic anyway4 9ut what does this imply? That the
#eshitta contains the ori*inal words of Gesus& whether it is the ori*inal NT or a
translation of the Greek NT< Whether or not the #eshitta NT is the ori*inal& in
the most important sections& the words of 5eshua& it is superior to the Greek
NT& whether or not the Greek is the ori*inal4 While the Aramaic #eshitta
preser"es the ori*inal teachin*s of 5eshua& the Greek NT must make do with
translations and transliterations4
.rom this of course& you can $ranch off& with more ideas that scream 0#eshitta
primacy14 What would happen if you wrote some poetry in n*lish&
translated it into +wahili& and then had an e!pert translate that into n*lish&
without the help of the source te!t? Would it retain its poetry and e"en
idiom? Fnlikely4 +o why does the Aramaic #eshitta NT preser"e the poetry
and idiom of 5eshua7s teachin*s? @oes it make use of a source te!t that has
the ori*inal sayin*s of 5eshua? If so& this makes the #eshitta superior to the
Greek& which is filled with translations of 5eshua7s words4 What is this
source? Could the #eshitta $e its own source& the ori*inal? ither way&
#eshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that e"en if the #eshitta is in
the main part& a translation from the Greek NT& it is still superior due to
ha"in* the ori*inal words& in the ori*inal lan*ua*e of the central fi*ure in
Christianity& 5eshua4
As a side note& what applied here to 5eshua can also $e applied to other
Aramaic6speakin* New Testament fi*ures such as #eter& Games and +tephen4
Heep applyin* the a$o"e principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic
;i4e4 all& Aramaic $ein* the common lan*ua*e of the +emitic peoples= and you
may e"en *arner the 0cra,y1 notion that the entire NT was ori*inally penned
in the lan*ua*e of the Messiah and 2is people4
May$e Christians would ha"e a $etter understandin* of the 9i$le& if they
studied the ori*inal teachin*s of Gesus& rather than a Greek copy of 2is
teachin*s4
%I( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %IO
$ha%ter ;& Aistorical
8,6ternalF Proofs
I ha"e discussed many of the lin*uistic proofs of #eshitta primacy& which is
perhaps the $est proof we can ha"e& as it is internal e"idence4 There is
howe"er much e!ternal e"idence also& such as :uotes from Church fathers&
and simple ;yet little6known= facts a$out Gesus7 time ;and lan*ua*e=& that also
make a stron* case for #eshitta primacy4
This article will deal with some historical proofs of #eshitta primacy& and will
also touch on other issues& such as the +eptua*int& and the other Aramaic
9i$le "ersions4
1. +he 5ramaic language
Aramaic is an ancient +emitic lan*ua*e ;"ery similar to 2e$rew= that
accordin* to the ncyclopedia 9ritannica $ecame the dominant lan*ua*e of
the Middle ast& around >''6B'' years $efore the $irth of the Messiah4
-Aramaic is thou*ht to ha"e first appeared amon* the Aramaeans a$out the
late %%th century 9C4 9y the (th century 9C it had $ecome accepted $y the
Assyrians as a second lan*ua*e4 The mass deportations of people $y the
Assyrians and the use of Aramaic as a lin%ua franca $y 9a$ylonian merchants
ser"ed to spread the lan*ua*e& so that in the Ith and Bth centuries 9C it
%(' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
*radually supplanted Akkadian as the lin%ua franca of the Middle ast4. C
ncyclopedia 9ritannica
-The #ersians used the Aramaic lan*ua*e $ecause this ton*ue was the
lan*ua*e of the two +emitic empires& the empire of Assyria and the empire of
9a$ylon4 Aramaic was so firmly esta$lished as the lin%ua franca that no
*o"ernment could dispense with its use as a "ehicle of e!pression in a far6
flun* empire& especially in the western pro"inces4 Moreo"er& without schools
and other modern facilities& Aramaic could not $e replaced $y the speech of
con:uerin* nations4 Con:uerors were not interested in imposin* their
lan*ua*es and cultures on su$3u*ated peoples4 What they wanted was ta!es&
spoils& and other le"ies4 The transition from Aramaic into Ara$ic& a sister
ton*ue& took place after the con:uest of the Near ast $y the Moslem armies
in the Ith century& A4@4 Ne"ertheless& Aramaic lin*ered for many centuries
and still is spoken in )e$anon& +yria& Ira:& and northwestern Iran& as well as
amon* the Christian Ara$ tri$es in northern Ara$ia4 Its alpha$et was
$orrowed $y the 2e$rews& Ara$s& Iranians& and Mon*ols4. C @r4 Geor*e
Mamishisho )amsa& Aramaic scholar
Aramaic e"en spread into such re*ions as Asia4
-As for the Aramaic alpha$et& it achie"ed far wider con:uests4 In %>OO A4@4& it
was adopted for the con"eyance of the Manchu lan*ua*e on the e"e of the
Manchu con:uest of China4 The hi*her reli*ions sped it on its way $y takin*
it into their ser"ice4 In its s+:uare 2e$rew? "ariant it $ecame the "ehicle of the
Gewish +criptures and litur*yA in an Ara$ic adaptation it $ecame the alpha$et
of Islam4. C @r4 Arnold Toyn$ee& 2istorian
Aramaic& $ein* such a common lan*ua*e& used in many different countries&
such as Assyria& 9a$ylon and Israel& had many names4 Ene name was *i"en
$y the GreeksJ +yriac4
-Greeks had called Aramaic $y a word they coined& ?+yriac?& and this artificial
term was used in the West& $ut ne"er in the ast& where it has always $een
known $y its own name& ?)ishana Aramaya? ;the Aramaic lan*ua*e4=. C #aul
5ounan& Aramaic scholar
-There is another name for Ancient Aramaic4 The Gewish scholars of
+criptures today talk of the SAshuriS lan*ua*e and they call the sacred
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %(%
lan*ua*e of the Torah SAshurit4S The modern 2e$rew writin* is called SHta"
Ashuri&S or Ashurai Writin*4 This is the lan*ua*e in which the Ten
Commandments were written and the only sacred lan*ua*e of the Eld
Testament accordin* to most Gewish scholars4 There are hundreds of pa*es on
the Internet that a scholar can research $y simply doin* a search for SAshuri&
Ashurit& Ashuris& Hta" Ashurit& Hsa" Ashuris4. C Kictor Ale!ander& Aramaic
scholar
Aramaic& as we know from history and the 9i$le ;parts of ,ra& Geremiah and
@aniel were written in Aramaic& al$eit with the 2e$rew script=& $ecame the
dominant lan*ua*e e"en amon* the Israelis4 "en to this day& now that the
0Gews1 re"erted to 2e$rew& the Aramaic presence is still stron* in their
traditions& such as the 09ar Mit,"ah1 C where the Aramaic 09ar1& meanin*
son& is used instead of the 2e$rew 09en14 Additionally& Aramaic is the
primary lan*ua*e of the 0Ra$$inical Gewish1 Mishnah and two Talmuds4 The
Aramaic lan*ua*e $ecame a "ery important part of reli*ion amon* the
Gudeans4
-"en to the West of the uphrates ri"er& in the 2oly )and& the main
"ernacular was Aramaic4 The weekly syna*o*ue lections& called sidra or
parashah& with the haphtarah& were accompanied $y an oral Aramaic
translation& accordin* to fi!ed traditions4 A num$er of Tar*umim in Aramaic
were thus e"entually committed to writin*& some of which are of unofficial
character& and of considera$le anti:uity4 The Gemara of the Gerusalem
Talmud was written in Aramaic& and recei"ed its definiti"e form in the >th
century4 The 9a$ylonian Talmud with its commentaries on only /B of the
Mishnah?s B/ tractates& is four times as lon* as the Gerusalem Talmud4 These
Gemaroth with much other material were *athered to*ether toward the end
of the >th century& and are in Aramaic4 +ince %O8I& appro!imately >''
documents were disco"ered in ele"en ca"es of Wadi fumran near the
northwestern shore of the @ead +ea4 In addition to the scrolls and fra*ments
in 2e$rew& there are portions and fra*ments of scrolls in Aramaic4 2e$rew
and Aramaic& which are sister lan*ua*es& ha"e always remained the most
distincti"e features markin* Gewish and astern Christian reli*ious and
cultural life& e"en to our present time4. C #aul 5ounan
"en in the time of Gesus& it is undisputed that Aramaic was a widely6used
lan*ua*e4 In fact& we know from the 9i$le& that Gesus and the Apostles spoke
Aramaic& as did the earliest Christians ;made up of Gudeans and other +emitic
%(2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
peoples such as +yrians and Chaldeans=4 "en the si*n on Gesus7 cross was
written in Aramaic ;the dialect of the 02e$rews1=& as well as Greek and )atin4
Modern scholarship contends that while $oth Aramaic and Greek were
common in Israel& in the time of Gesus& Greek was the main lan*ua*e& or
0lin%ua franca14 #ro$lems arise for this theory& when we see what famous
Gudean historian Gosephus has to say on the matter ;note that Gosephus wrote
in Aramaic=J
-I ha"e also taken a *reat deal of pains to o$tain the learnin* of the Greeks&
and understand the elements of the Greek lan*ua*eA althou*h I ha"e so
accustomed myself to speak our own ton*ue& that I cannot pronounce Greek
with sufficient e!actness4 .or our nation does not encoura*e those that learn
the lan*ua*e of many nations4 En this account& as there ha"e $een many who
ha"e done their endea"ors& with *reat patience& to o$tain this Greek learnin*&
there ha"e yet hardly $een two or three that ha"e succeeded herein& who
were immediately rewarded for their pains4. C Anti:uities RR& RI 24
Is it not ironic that the same Greek scholars& who *raciously accept Gosephus7
teachin*s as supporti"e of the 9i$le& also re3ect his teachin* that Greek was
not as widespread as many today think? .or accordin* to Gosephus& the
Gudeans discoura*ed the learnin* of Greek& stickin* instead to Aramaic<
Aramaic scholar @r4 Geor*e )amsa e"en *oes so far as to say that it was a
sayin* amon* the Gudeans& that learnin* Greek was akin to eatin* the flesh of
swine ;which makes sense of the Gudeans mournin* o"er the creation of the
+eptua*int& which shall $e discussed later=4
The Church of the ast& the dominant Christian Church in the astern world
;3ust as the Roman Catholic Church is the dominant Christian Church in the
Western world=& spread Christianity throu*hout the Middle ast and Asia&
and utili,ed the Aramaic New Testament 9i$le& the #eshitta4
-` Church of the ast was makin* *iant strides4 The Ashurai people who
carried the torch of the Church had em$arked on a *reat missionary effort4
They spread Christianity to India and the far reaches of China4 There are
historical monuments in China still today that attest to the missionary ,eal of
this Church4 5et all the achie"ements of the Church of the ast are $ein* still
denied $y the Western Churches to this day4
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %(/
As the Ashurai nation had no country since the fall of Nine"eh in B%2 9C&
they were the perfect candidates for the e"an*eli,ation of the ast4 Their last
kin*& A*$ar& was healed of leprosy $y two of the disciples of Gesus4 The
Ashurai nation $ecame Christian in the %st Century& followed $y Armenians
and Chaldeans4 9y the %2th Century& they were the *reatest Church in
Christendom4
The Church of the ast was under constant persecution for centuries& $ut this
was a $lessin* in dis*uise as they didn?t ha"e the time or the moti"e to
chan*e the +criptures4 They continued to copy the ori*inal Ancient Aramaic
+criptures from the Apostolic A*e "er$atim without e"en updatin* the
lan*ua*e4. C Kictor Ale!ander
2. +he 5ramaic Bible
The New Testament is $elie"ed to ha"e $een written in Greek` in the West4
In the ast& it is a common $elief that the New Testament was written in the
astern lan*ua*e of Aramaic4 Which stance is correct? As we search for the
answer to this :uestion& let us keep in mind that Christianity is an A+TRN
reli*ion& and that many reli*ious peoples in the ast were "ery serious a$out
not addin* or deletin* to God7s Word& unlike the 0cut and paste1 Westerners4
-When these te!ts were copied $y e!pert scri$es& they were carefully
e!amined for accuracy $efore they were dedicated and permitted to $e read
in churches4 "en one missin* letter would render the te!t "oid4 asterners
still adhere to God?s commandment not to add to or omit a word from the
+criptures4 The 2oly +cripture condemns any addition or su$traction or
modification of the Word of God4
S5ou shall not add to the commandment which I command you& neither shall
you take from it& $ut you must keep the commandments of the )ER@ your
God which I command you4S @eut4 8J24
S"erythin* that I command you& that you must $e careful to doA you shall
not add nor take from it4S @eut4 %2J/24
S@o not add to his wordsA lest he repro"e you& and you $e found a liar4S #ro"4
/'JB4
%(8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
SAnd if any man shall take away from the words of the $ook of this prophecy&
God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and from the holy city
and from the thin*s which are written in this $ook4S Re"4 22J%O4
It is also true of the Gews and Moslems that they would not dare to alter a
word of the Torah or Horan4 asterners are afraid that they may incur the
curse if they make a chan*e in the Word of God4
Astonishin*ly enou*h& all the #eshitta te!ts in Aramaic a*ree4 There is one
thin* of which the astern scri$es can $oastJ they copied their holy $ooks
dili*ently& faithfully& and meticulously4 +ir .rederick Henyon& Curator of the
9ritish Museum& in his $ook Te!tual Criticism of the New Testament& speaks
hi*hly of the accuracy of copyin* and of the anti:uity of #eshitta M++4
The "ersions translated from +emitic lan*ua*es into Greek and )atin were
su$3ect to constant re"isions4 )earned men who copied them introduced
chan*es& tryin* to simplify o$scurities and am$i*uities which were due to the
work of the first translators4. C @r4 Geor*e Mamishisho )amsa
That the #eshitta mss ;manuscripts= are almost e!actly the same ;$esides
minor spellin* differences=& is e"en acknowled*ed $y the Greek primacists
;those who $elie"e that the Greek is the ori*inal=4 That the #eshitta mss a*ree
so closely while the Greek mss ha"e numerous "ariants ;many of which can
$e shown to $e caused $y Aramaic roots& as earlier articles in this series ha"e
shown=& speaks "olumes4
There is also an Aramaic "ersion of the Eld Testament& known as the #eshitta
ET& or #eshitta Tanakh& which is a Qtranslation7 from the 2e$rew ET ;like the
+eptua*int& the #eshitta ET is $elie"ed to ha"e $een Qtranslated7 from a
2e$rew "ersion older than the widely6accepted and recent& Massoretic te!t=4
-The +eptua*int is $ased on early 2e$rew manuscripts and not on the later
ones known as the Massoretic& which were made in the Bth to the Oth
centuries4 In other words& there are many similarities $etween the +eptua*int
and the #eshitta te!t $ut the former contains ine"ita$le mistranslations which
were due to difficulties in transmittin* 2e$rew or Aramaic thou*ht and
mannerisms of speech into a totally alien ton*ue like Greek4 9ut as has $een
said& such was not the case $etween 9i$lical Aramaic and 9i$lical 2e$rew
which are of the same ori*in4 Gosephus used Aramaic and 2e$rew words
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %(>
indiscriminately4 Thus& the term Stranslatin*S from 2e$rew into Aramaic or
"ice "ersa is incorrect4 It would $e like one statin* as ha"in* translated the
Fnited +tates Constitution from the #ennsyl"ania lan*ua*e into the n*lish
lan*ua*e or from lower German to hi*her German4 "en $efore the first
capti"ity& I2% 94C4& Gewish kin*s& scri$es& and learned men understood
Aramaic4 2 Hin*s %(J2B4 The Israelites ne"er wrote their sacred literature in
any lan*ua*e $ut Aramaic and 2e$rew& which are sister lan*ua*es4 The
+eptua*int was made in the /rd century& 94C4& for the Ale!andrian Gews4 This
"ersion was ne"er officially read $y the Gews in #alestine who spoke Aramaic
and read 2e$rew4 Instead& the Gewish authorities condemned the work and
declared a period of mournin* $ecause of the defects in the "ersion4 "idently
Gesus and his disciples used a te!t which came from an older 2e$rew ori*inal4
This is apparent $ecause Gesus? :uotations from the Eld Testament a*ree with
the #eshitta te!t $ut do not a*ree with the Greek te!t4 .or e!ample& in Gohn
%2J8'& the #eshitta Eld Testament and New Testament a*ree4. C @r4 Geor*e
Mamishisho )amsa
That the ET was written in 2e$rew is uncontested4 After all& it was written $y
2e$rew6speakers& for 2e$rew6speakers& and tells the stories of 2e$rew6
speakers4 +o why is Aramaic primacy of the NT ;New Testament= contested?
@oes it not make sense that the NT& written $y Aramaic6speakers& for
Aramaic6speakers& tellin* the stories of Aramaic6speakers& $e written in
Aramaic? Accordin* to 0scholarly consensus1 ;i4e4 the shared $eliefs of many
scholars& lackin* in any real e"idence=& it makes more sense that it was written
in the non6+emitic lan*ua*e of Greek4
3. 6hat the ancient religious authorities sai" o2 the
original Bible
Now thin*s start *ettin* e!citin*4 We shall look at what ancient witnesses had
to say on the matter4 Many Church fathers speak of 02e$rew1 ;Aramaic was
often called 2e$rew& as it was the lan*ua*e of the 2e$rews& and was often
written $y Gudeans in the 2e$rew +cript= ori*inals of New Testament $ooks4
9efore we do& let us :uickly read what Tatian ;an ancient Assyrian Church
authority& and disciple of Gustin Martyr= had to say to the Greeks& a$out their
un3ustly claimin* of forei*n ad"ancesDworksDin"entions& as their ownJ
%(B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
-Cease& then& to miscall these imitations in"entions of your own< `
Wherefore lay aside this conceit& and $e not e"er $oastin* of your ele*ance of
dictionA for& while you applaud yoursel"es& your own people will of course
side with you4. C Tatian the Assyrian
Now& let us see if any noteworthy people $efore the modern era& spoke of
+emitic ori*inals of NT $ooks4
-And the pres$yter said this4 Mark ha"in* $ecome the interpreter of #eter&
wrote down accurately whatsoe"er he remem$ered4 It was not& howe"er& in
e!act order that he related the sayin*s or deeds of Christ4 .or he neither heard
the )ord nor accompanied 2im4 9ut afterwards& as I said& he accompanied
#eter& who accommodated his instructions to the necessities& $ut with no
intention of *i"in* a re*ular narrati"e of the )ord?s sayin*s4 Wherefore Mark
made no mistake in thus writin* some thin*s as he remem$ered them4 .or of
one thin* he took especial care& not to omit anythin* he had heard& and not to
put anythin* fictitious into the statements4 J Matthew put to*ether the oracles
in the 2e$rew lan*ua*e& and each one interpreted them as $est he could4. C
.ra*ments of #apias ;B'6%/' C= KI4
Note that 0each one interpreted them as $est he could1 may imply that there
were multiple Greek "ersions made& which e!plains the myriads of Greek
"ersions and it7s many "ariants& today4
-Matthew also issued a written Gospel amon* the 2e$rews in their own
dialect& while #eter and #aul were preachin* at Rome& and layin* the
foundations of the Church4 After their departure& Mark& the disciple and
interpreter of #eter& did also hand down to us in writin* what had $een
preached $y #eter4 )uke also& the companion of #aul& recorded in a $ook the
Gospel preached $y him4 Afterwards& Gohn& the disciple of the )ord& who also
had leaned upon 2is $reast& did himself pu$lish a Gospel durin* his
residence at phesus in Asia4. C Irenaeus ;d4 $y 2''=
-Concernin* the four Gospels which alone are uncontro"erted in the Church
of God under hea"en& I ha"e learned $y tradition that the Gospel accordin* to
Matthew& who was at one time a pu$lican and afterwards an Apostle of Gesus
Christ& was written firstA and that he composed it in the 2e$rew ton*ue and
pu$lished it for the con"erts from Gudaism4 The second written was that
accordin* to Mark& who wrote it accordin* to the instruction of #eter& who& in
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %(I
his General pistle& acknowled*ed him as a son& sayin*& SThe church that is in
9a$ylon& elect to*ether with you& saluteth youA and so doth Mark my son4S. C
Eri*en at Ale!andria ;%(>62/2=
Note that #eter talks of the Church in 9a$ylon& where Aramaic was spoken4
-A$out that time& #antaenus ;second century=& a man hi*hly distin*uished for
his learnin*& had char*e of the school of the faithful in Ale!andria4 A school of
sacred learnin*& which continues to our day& was esta$lished there in ancient
times& and as we ha"e $een informed& was mana*ed $y men of *reat a$ility
and ,eal for di"ine thin*s4 Amon* these it is reported that #antaenus was at
that time especially conspicuous& as he had $een educated in the
philosophical system of those called +toics4 They say that he displayed such
,eal for the di"ine Word& that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of
Christ to the nations in the ast& and was sent as far as India4 .or indeed there
were still many e"an*elists of the Word who sou*ht earnestly to use their
inspired ,eal& after the e!amples of the apostles& for the increase and $uildin*
up of the @i"ine Word4 #antaenus was one of these& and is said to ha"e *one
to India4 It is reported that amon* persons there who knew of Christ& he
found the Gospel accordin* to Matthew& which had anticipated his own
arri"al4 .or 9artholomew& one of the apostles& had preached to them& and left
with them the writin* of Matthew in the 2e$rew lan*ua*e& which they had
preser"ed till that time4 After many *ood deeds& #antaenus finally $ecame the
head of the school at Ale!andria& and e!pounded the treasures of di"ine
doctrine $oth orally and in writin*4. C use$ius of Caesarea& Church 2istory&
9ook K& C2A#TR %'
-.or Matthew& who had at first preached to the 2e$rews& when he was a$out
to *o to other peoples& committed his Gospel to writin* in his nati"e ton*ue&
and thus compensated those whom he was o$li*ed to lea"e for the loss of his
presence4. C use$ius of Caesarea& Church 2istory& 9ook III& C2A#TR 28
-And he ;2e*isippius= wrote of many other matters& which we ha"e in part
already mentioned& introducin* the accounts in their appropriate places4 And
from the +yriac Gospel accordin* to the 2e$rews he :uotes some passa*es in
the 2e$rew ton*ue& showin* that he was a con"ert from the 2e$rews& and he
mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Gews4 And
not only he& $ut also Irenaeus and the whole company of the ancients& called
the #ro"er$s of +olomon All6"irtuous Wisdom4 And when speakin* of the
%(( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
$ooks called Apocrypha& he records that some of them were composed in his
day $y certain heretics4 9ut let us now pass on to another4. C use$ius of
Caesarea& Church 2istory& 9ook IK& C2A#TR 22
-+ince& in the $e*innin* of this work& we promised to *i"e& when needful& the
words of the ancient pres$yters and writers of the Church& in which they ha"e
declared those traditions which came down to them concernin* the canonical
$ooks& and since Irenaeus was one of them& we will now *i"e his words and&
first& what he says of the sacred GospelsJ Matthew pu$lished his Gospel
amon* the 2e$rews in their own lan*ua*e. C use$ius of Caesarea& Church
2istory& 9ook K& C2A#TR (
-In the work called 2ypotyposes& to sum up the matter $riefly he YClement of
Ale!andriaZ has *i"en us the a$rid*ed accounts of all the canonical
+criptures` the pistle to the 2e$rews he asserts was written $y #aul& to the
2e$rews& in the 2e$rew ton*ueA $ut that it was carefully translated $y )uke&
and pu$lished amon* the Greeks4. C Clement of Ale!andriaA 2ypotyposes ;c4
2'' C= referred to $y use$ius in ccl4 2ist4 BJ%8J2
-.or as #aul had addressed the 2e$rews in the lan*ua*e of his countryA some
say that the e"an*elist )uke& others that Clement& translated the epistle4. C
use$ius ;8th Cent4=A ccl4 2ist4 /J/(J26/
-2e ;#aul= $ein* a 2e$rew wrote in 2e$rew& that is& his own ton*ue and
most fluently while thin*s which were elo:uently written in 2e$rew were
more elo:uently turned into Greek4. C Gerome ;8th Cent4=A )i"es of Illustrious
Men& 9ook K
Note how Gerome does not limit #aul7s usa*e of 02e$rew14 5ou could take
this as an implication that A)) of #aul7s writin*s were in 02e$rew14
-To sum up $riefly& he has *i"en in the 2ypotyposes a$rid*ed accounts of all
canonical +cripture& not omittin* the disputed $ooks& 66 I refer to Gude and the
other Catholic epistles& and 9arna$as and the so6called Apocalypse of #eter4
2e says that the pistle to the 2e$rews is the work of #aul& and that it was
written to the 2e$rews in the 2e$rew lan*ua*eA $ut that )uke translated it
carefully and pu$lished it for the Greeks& and hence the same style of
e!pression is found in this epistle and in the Acts4 9ut he says that the words&
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %(O
#aul the Apostle& were pro$a$ly not prefi!ed& $ecause& in sendin* it to the
2e$rews& who were pre3udiced and suspicious of him& he wisely did not wish
to repel them at the "ery $e*innin* $y *i"in* his name4. C use$ius of
Caesarea& Church 2istory& 9ook KI& C2A#TR %8
-Notice that one of the :uotes shows that 2e$rews was A)+E written in
2e$rewDAramaic??? +o Matthew is not the only one after all4
Another key point444)FH @I@ IT .REM 29RWDARAMAIC INTE
GRH< Yor possi$ly Clement of Ale!andria C RaphaelZ +o )uke did know
$oth lan*ua*es well4
And finally& almost all Greek primacists a*ree that the $est Greek in the entire
NT is in ;drumroll4444=
66The Gospel of )uke
66The pistle to the 2e$rews
I wonder why<. C Andrew Ga$riel Roth& Aramaic scholar
These :uotes may e!plain the oddity that while most of the Greek NT is in
"ery $ad Greek ;un3ustly referred to as 0Hoine Greek1& $ut more
appropriately referred to as 0shockin*ly $ad *rammar translation Greek1=&
the Greek "ersion of the $ook of 29RW+ ;written ori*inally in
2e$rewDAramaic as would $e e!pected= has amon* the $est Greek in the NT<
It is also noteworthy to mention that while most in the West $elie"e that )uke
was Greek& he was actually more likely a +yrian& as implied $y use$iusJ
-9ut )uke& who was $orn at Antioch& and $y profession a physician& $ein* for
the most part connected with #aul& and familiarly ac:uainted with the rest of
the apostles& has left us two inspired $ooks444 Ene of these is his *ospel. C
use$ius
Where is the e"idence that )uke was actually Greek? There is none& like
Greek primacy& it is 3ust taken for *ranted4 @oes the fact that he was "ery
educated& a physician& automatically dis:ualify him from $ein* a +emite?
2ow offensi"e to the +emites< We know little of this man& $ut do know that
he was $orn in Aramaic6speakin* +yria4 That +yria was an Aramaic6speakin*
%O' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
country is dan*erous to contest as the Romans e"en called the Aramaic
lan*ua*e& 0+yriacos14
A few of the a$o"e :uotes implied that Mark also wrote in Aramaic4 Almost
all Greek primacists tell us that Mark7s Greek is the worst in the NT& written
in a "ery rudimentary style4 I wonder why`
Isn7t it odd that $ooks apparently written to Greeks are in $ad Greek& while
the $ooks written to the 2e$rews are in *ood Greek? Could it $e that all the
$ooks had +emitic ori*inals& and that the translator of 2e$rews 3ust happened
to $e "ery well "ersed in Greek? Could it $e that the $ooks written to 0Greek
Churches1 were actually written to the assem$lies of +emites in those areas&
who were the first Christians? The amount of lin*uistic e"idence in the
0Greek $ooks1 of Aramaic ori*inals seems to imply so4 Could it $e that the
nonsensical differin* :ualities of Greek in the Greek NT could $e caused $y
different people& with different a$ilities& translatin* from the Aramaic
ori*inals?
.inally& let us turn to Gosephus a*ain4 Accordin* to .la"ius Gosephus& the
Romans had to ha"e him translate the call to the Gews to surrender into Stheir
own lan*ua*eS ;Wars >JOJ2=4 What7s the matter? Couldn7t the Gudeans speak
Greek? Gosephus7 writin*s on the lan*ua*e of the Gudeans in Gesus7 time are
also consistent with the Macca$ean "ictory4 Modern scholarship claims that in
Gesus? day& the common lan*ua*e of the Gudeans was Greek4 This completely
i*nores the "ictory of Gudeas Macca$ees and his army& in defeatin* the Greeks
and wipin* 2ellenism out of Israel<
. 6hat the mo"ern authorities sa/
)et7s take a look at what more modern witnesses ha"e to say4
-` the ori*inality of the #eshitta te!t& as the #atriarch and 2ead of the 2oly
Apostolic and Catholic Church of the ast& we wish to state& that the Church
of the ast recei"ed the scriptures from the hands of the $lessed Apostles
themsel"es in the Aramaic ori*inal& the lan*ua*e spoken $y our )ord Gesus
Christ 2imself& and that the #eshitta is the te!t of the Church of the ast
which has come down from the 9i$lical times without any chan*e or
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %O%
re"ision4. C Mar shai +himun& #atriarch of the Church of the ast& April >&
%O>I
Well& that was to $e e!pected& comin* from the former leader of the Church of
the ast& which uses the #eshitta& and held it as the ori*inal4 )et us see what
their traditional enemies ha"e to say4 The Roman Catholic Church speaksJ
-Christ& after all spoke in the lan*ua*e of 2is contemporaries4 2e offered the
first sacrifice of the ucharist in Aramaic& a lan*ua*e understood $y all the
people who heard 2im4 The Apostles and @isciples did the same and ne"er in
a lan*ua*e other than that of the *athered faithful4. C )atin #atriarch
Ma!imus at Katican II
-2owe"er& we $elie"e the second hypothesis to $e the more pro$a$le& "i,4&
that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic4. C Catholic ncyclopedia ;%O%/=
The Church of the ast& which uses the #eshitta NT& was once the lar*est
sin*le Christian Church in the world4
-In the first century& the Assyrians were amon* the first people to em$race
Christianity4 Fntil then& they worshiped their *od& Ashur4 In // A@& the
Assyrian Church was founded4 9y the end of the %2th century& the Assyrian
Church was lar*er than the Greek Erthodo! and Roman Catholic churches
com$ined4 It e!panded o"er the Asian continent from +yria to Mon*olia&
Horea& China& Gapan and the #hilippines4 9ut the days of *lory were comin* to
an end4. C Reem 2addad& Reporter
-Whole peoples with their rulers had $ecome Christians and it seems certain
that there were few places in the whole Asia that were not reached at some
time or other as the outcome of the mar"elous acti"ity of that wonderful
church which e!tended from China to Gerusalem and Cyprus& and in the
ele"enth century is said to ha"e outnum$ered the Greek and Roman churches
com$ined4. C Gohn +tewart& Nestorian Missionary nterpriseJ The +tory of a
Church on .ire ;din$ur*hJ T PT Clark& %O2(=& pp 2'862%/
+o& e"en up to the Middle A*es& the lar*est Christian Church used the
Aramaic Eri*inal4 Fnfortunately the West7s knowled*e of the Aramaic
#eshitta was e!tremely limited4 If only they had had the internet in those
times<
%O2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
9ut if the ast knew of the Aramaic Eri*inal& why didn7t the West? Could it
$e that the Roman Catholic Church& $ein* a Western Church& and wantin* to
distance itself from the Gudeans& would suppress knowled*e and lie a$out the
Aramaic ori*inal? +uch acts of suppression were not unknown to that church&
which once e"en made it ille*al for commoners to read the 9i$le4
NoteJ The Church of the ast is not a perfect Church4 E"er time they ha"e
consistently made concessions to their traditional enemies in the West& the
Roman Catholic Church4 Ene e!ample is on the issue of the +a$$ath4 The
CE was once +a$$ath6keepin*& $ut now does no lon*er teach the o$ser"ance
of the I
th
day4 2owe"er& usin* this information a*ainst the CE7s stance on
the Aramaic ori*inals is flawed4 It would $e like sayin* that the Greek cannot
$e the ori*inal& $ecause it is used $y the Roman Catholic Church4
"en the 9ook of Re"elation& part of the 0Western .i"e1 ;the > $ooks in the
re*ular 2I $ook NT canon& that do not feature in the ori*inal #eshitta 22 $ook
canon& $ut do feature in later Aramaic "ersions= has $een thou*ht to ha"e an
Aramaic ori*inal4
-Two or three444 are plausi$le readin*sA and mi*ht well $e 3ud*ed worthy of
adoption if there were any *round for supposin* the Apocalypse to ha"e
$een ori*inally written& or to $e $ased on a document written& in an Aramaic
idiom4. C The Apocalypse of +t4 Gohn in a +yriac Kersion 2itherto Fnknown
%(OIA p4 l!!i!
-` the 9ook of Re"elation was written in a +emitic lan*ua*e& and that the
Greek translation444 is a remarka$ly close renderin* of the ori*inal4. C C4 C4
Torrey& @ocuments of the #rimiti"e Church %O8%A p4 %B'
-We come to the conclusion& therefore that the Apocalypse as a whole is a
translation from 2e$rew or Aramaic. C R49454 +cottA The Eri*inal )an*ua*e
of the Apocalypse %O2(A p4 B
-When we turn to the New Testament we find that there are reasons for
suspectin* a 2e$rew or Aramaic ori*inal for the Gospels of Matthew& Mark&
Gohn and for the apocalypse4. C 2u*h G4 +chonfieldA An Eld 2e$rew Te!t
)et us not let the Gospels feel left outJ
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %O/
-Thus it was that the writer turned seriously to tackle the :uestion of the
ori*inal lan*ua*e of the .ourth GospelA and :uickly con"incin* himself that
the theory of an ori*inal Aramaic document was no chimera& $ut a fact which
was capa$le of the fullest "erification444. C Charles 9urneyA The Aramaic
Eri*in of the .ourth GospelA %O22A p4 /
-The material of our .our Gospels is all #alestinian& and the lan*ua*e in
which it was ori*inally written is Aramaic& then the principle lan*ua*e of the
land444 In re*ard to )k4 it remains to $e said& that of all the .our Gospels it is
the one which *i"es $y far the plainest and most constant e"idence of $ein* a
translation4. C C4 C4 TorreyA Eur Translated GospelsA %O/B p4 i!& li!
9ut what of #aul the Apostle? +urely this 02ellenistic Gew1& writin* to 0Greek
Churches1 would ha"e written in Greek< That last sentence is so full of
fallacies& I feel ashamed for ha"in* to write it4 #aul was $orn in Tarsus& a city
that $elon*ed to the 9a$ylonian& Assyrian and #ersian empires C all of which
spoke Aramaic4 Archaeolo*ical e"idence points to Tarsus7 usa*e of Aramaic C
coins ha"e $een found from the time of Gesus& with Aramaic inscriptions4
Coins< There *oes the theory that Greek was necessary for trade< While all this
is "ery interestin*& it may $e a moot point concernin* #aul4 After all& he
wasn7t raised in Aramaic6speakin* Tarsus` $ut he was raised in Aramaic6
speakin* Gerusalem ;Acts 22J/=4 We also saw from the Gerome :uote that he
spoke and wrote in 02e$rew14
It is also interestin* to note that this alle*ed 2ellenist& was a #harisee4 The
#harisaic Gudeans were staunchly opposed to 2ellenism& so how then could
#aul ha"e $een a 2ellenistic Gew? @id he really write his letters to the 0Greek
Churches1 in Greek?
-It is known that Aramaic remained a lan*ua*e of Gews li"in* in the
@iaspora& and in fact Gewish Aramaic inscriptions ha"e $een found at Rome&
#ompei and e"en n*land4 If #aul wrote his pistle?s in 2e$rew or Aramaic
to a core *roup of Gews at each con*re*ation who then passed the messa*e on
to their Gentile counterparts then this mi*ht *i"e some added dimension to
#aul?s phrase Sto the Gew first and then to the GreekS ;Rom4 %J%BA 2JO6%'=4 It is
clear that #aul did not write his letters in the nati"e ton*ues of the cities to
which he wrote4 Certainly no one would ar*ue for a )atin ori*inal of
Romans4. C @r4 Games Trimm& Aramaic scholar
%O8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
This would make sense of the Apostle #aul7s oft6used :uote& 0to the Gudean
first& and then to the GentileDAramean14
The word in Aramaic for 0Arameans1 ;Armaya= is $elie"ed $y many to also
mean 0Gentiles1 ;while the Greek usually says 0Gentiles1 or 0Greeks1& the
Aramaic usually says 0Arameans1=4 This seems confusin*& $ut many ;perhaps
most= of the Gentiles in"ol"ed with early Christianity were Aramean4
Arameans were the same $asic race of people as Assyrians and +yrians
;different to today7s Ara$ic 0+yrians1=4 Many la$els used to descri$e the same
people4 As Christianity started to really $loom in Antioch& +yria& it is not
surprisin* to see the Arameans $ein* spoken of so much in the New
Testament& and as possi$ly $ein* representati"e of Gentiles in *eneral4
Another interestin* point to consider a$out the Gentiles& is that so often the
9i$le talks of Gudeans and Gentiles ;as a$o"e& it may not mean Gentiles at all&
as 0Armaya1 are $ein* referred to& $ut let us di*ress=4 What then a$out the
0lost %' tri$es1& the Israelites? +ince they are not Gudean& are they Gentile? If
so& we ha"e yet another prominent Aramaic6speakin* +emitic *roup& as part
of 0the Gentiles14 With so many Aramaic6speakin* Gentiles in the Middle
ast& is it such a stretch to ima*ine that Aramaic6speakin* authors would
write in Aramaic 6 utili,in* Aramaic idioms 6 to Aramaic6speakin* Gudeans&
Israelites& Chaldeans& +yrians and Assyrians? In fact& why would these
authors use so many Aramaic idioms& if they wrote in Greek& to Greek6
speakin* people who wouldn7t understand them?
+cholars who claim that $ooks such as the #auline pistles were written in
Aramaic& to primarily +emitic con*re*ations in Greece and Rome& are $acked
up $y the 9i$leJ
Bomans ::12K18
Now if you who are called a Gew trust on the law and are proud of God&
And $ecause you know his will and know the thin*s which must $e o$ser"ed& which
you ha"e learned from the law&
There *oes the theory that Romans was addressed to 0Romans14
Bomans 11:13
It is to you Gentiles that I speak& inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles& and
perhaps ma*nify my ministryA
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %O>
It was also addressed to Gentiles4 Note that 0Gentiles1 does not only include
Greeks and Romans as Greek primacists may want to $elie"e4 0Gentiles1
includes many Aramaic6speakin* +emitic *roups& such as the Chaldeans&
+yrians& Assyrians& Canaanite6#hoenicians and possi$ly non6Gudean Israelites4
1$orinthians 10:1K:
MEREKR& $rethren& I want you to know that our fathers were all under the cloud
and all passed throu*h the seaA
And all were $apti,ed $y Moses& $oth in the cloud and in the seaA
Now we focus on Greece& and it seems that a*ain& #aul is talkin* to Gudeans4
%Corinthians and 2Corinthians are full of references to Israelite law and
history4 Clearly& thou*h #aul writes to people in Greece and Rome& these
people are Gudeans and Aramaic6speakin* Gentiles4 It is no wonder then that
the #auline pistles are so o"erflowin* with Aramaicisms4 We must ne"er
for*et the order of preachin*4 0To the Gudean first4441 And accordin* to
famous Gudean historian .la"ius Gosephus& the Gudeans had *reat difficulty
learnin* Greek& while they did speak Aramaic ;Gosephus e"en wrote in
Aramaic=4
The followin* :uote sheds important li*ht on the myth that the +emites in
Gesus7 time spoke GreekJ
-Another factor is thisJ if the people in the Near ast spoke Greek& and their
+criptures were written in that lan*ua*e& why did their descendants not
know it? Why ha"e se"eral hundred million Mohammedans and Christians&
since the first century& $een tau*ht that Gesus& his Apostles& and the early
Christians spoke Aramaic and that the +criptures were written in that
lan*ua*e? Twenty6fi"e years a*o Yfrom the time of the writin* in %O8B C
RaphaelZ the writer was shocked upon learnin* of the pre"ailin* $elief in
urope and America that the +criptures were written first in Greek4. C @r4
Geor*e Mamishisho )amsa
.inally& here is an interestin* discussion $y historian and Aramaic +cholar&
William Norton4 Note that he speaks of the 0#eshitto1& when he actually
refers to the 0#eshitta14 These two "ersions will $e discussed later in this
article4
-Gesudad said that the New Co"enant #eshitto is Sa translation made $y the
care and solicitude of Thaddaeus and other apostles4S 9ooks written& as the
%OB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Gospel of Matthew was& in the +yriac of #alestine& needed "ery little chan*e
when translated into the +yriac of dessa4 #aul?s letter to the 2e$rews& the
letter of Games& the first of #eter& and the first of Gohn& were all addressed to
2e$rews& and pro$a$ly& therefore& were first written in +yriac& the lan*ua*e of
the 2e$rewsA and needed $ut few chan*es when translated into the dialect of
dessa4 These few chan*es were pro$a$ly what Gesudad called a Stranslation&S
so far as the word had reference to these $ooks4 The Apostles& when takin*
the care and o"ersi*ht of the translation of all the $ooks in the #eshitto& were
not $ound as an uninspired translator would ha"e $een& to follow always the
e!act words of what was translated4 They had di"ine authority to use
whate"er difference of e!pression the 2oly +pirit mi*ht *uide them to adopt&
as $etter fitted for use in the translation4
If& therefore& in comparin* the +yriac with the Greek te!t& we find that they
$oth e!press nearly the same meanin*& $ut that in places a supposed Greek
ori*inal so differs in words from the +yriac& that if the +yriac had $een made
$y an uninspired translator& he would $e 3ustly condemned for such
licentious departure from his Greek copy& the reason may $e& that the inspired
translator has $een di"inely *uided to make that differenceA and if& in some of
these cases of different wordin*& the +yriac meanin* $e more clear& or e!act&
or $etter adapted for +yrian readers than the Greek readin* is& those "ery
differences $ecome e"idence of the correctness of the +yrian $elief that the
#eshitto was made S$y the care and solicitude of Apostles4S .or it is e"ident
that an uninspired translator could not& as a rule& $rin* li*ht out of darkness&
clearness out of o$scurity& e!actness and correctness out of am$i*uity and
uncertainty4 #ersons familiar with the #eshitto admit the truth of .aust
Nairon?s remark& that the #eshitto does really sometimes Smake clear& thin*s
difficult or dou$tful in the Greek4S ;Introduction& p4 O4=
9ishop Walton :uotes with appro"al the remark of @e @ieu& that Sthe true
meanin* of phrases which often occur in the N4 T4& can scarcely $e sou*ht
from any other source than the +yriac4S ;#oly*4 #rol4 !iii4 %O4= G4 @4 Michaelis
says& Sthe +yriac Kersion leads us sometimes to 3ust and $eautiful
e!planations& where other help is insufficient4S ;Marsh?s Michaelis& "ol4 ii4 p4
884=
Gosephus is a "ery important witness in proof of the e!tent to which +yriac
was known and used in the first century4 2e took part in the war a*ainst the
Romans which led to the destruction of Gerusalem& A4@4 I'4 2e was taken
capti"e $y them& and was well ac:uainted with all the e"ents connected with
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %OI
the war4 2e wrote a history of it in +yriacA and states how *reat a multitude of
people& li"in* in different nations& from near the Caspian +ea to the $ounds of
Ara$ia& could read and understand what he had written in +yriac4
2e afterwards wrote the same history in Greek& that those who spoke Greek&
and those of the Romans& and of any other nation who knew Greek& $ut did
not know +yriac& mi*ht read it also4 2e says& that in order to write the Greek
history& he used at Rome the aid of persons who knew GreekA that Greek was
to him a Sforei*n lan*ua*eAS ;Gewish Anti:uities& 9ook I4=A and that "ery few of
his countrymen knew it well4 ;Gewish Anti:4 9k4 RR4& Chap4 IR4=. C William
Norton& Aramaic scholar and historian& from 0Internal "idence that the
#eshito was Made in Cent4 %4& and is not a Mere Translation of the Greek1
). +he .e,tuagint
The +eptua*int is an old translation of a 2e$rew Eld Testament& made
around the /
rd
century 9C ;at least the #entateuch portion=4 It is a common
misconception that the +eptua*int was made for Gudeans in *eneral& and was
:uoted $y Gesus and the Apostles4 This is an outri*ht fallacy4 The +eptua*int
was made for the Ale!andrian Gudeans& those Greek6speakin* Gudeans in
Ale!andriaT4 That it were the Ale!andrian Gudeans that spoke Greek& and not
Gudeans in *eneral& also *i"es wei*ht to the $elief that Clement of Ale!andria
had to translate the $ook of 2e$rews into Greek4 As Gudeans themsel"es tell
us& the creation of the +eptua*int was frowned upon in IsraelJ
NoteJ the +eptua*int is also known as the )RR and the +e"enty4
-While #hilo and his Ale!andrian co6reli*ionists looked upon the +e"enty as
the work of inspired men& #alestinian ra$$is su$se:uently considered the day
on which the +eptua*int was completed as one of the most unfortunate in
Israel?s history& seein* that the Torah could ne"er ade:uately $e translated4
And there are indications enou*h that the conse:uences of such translations
were not all of a desira$le nature4. C Gewish #u$lication +ociety %O>>
-2owe"er& there are other commemorati"e days that fall immediately $efore
the Tenth of Te"et and their memory has $een silently incorporated in the fast
day of the Tenth of Te"et as well4 En the ei*hth of Te"et& Hin* #tolemy of
*ypt forced I' Gewish scholars to *ather and translate the 2e$rew 9i$le into
%O( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Greek4 "en thou*h the Talmud relates to us that this pro3ect was $lessed
with a miracle 66 the I' scholars were all placed in separate cu$icles and yet
they all came up with the same translation 66 the *eneral "iew of the ra$$is of
the time towards this pro3ect was decidedly ne*ati"e4 The Talmud records
that when this translation $ecame pu$lic Sdarkness descended on the
world4S. C Ra$$i 9arry )eff
-In fact& the church father Gerome mentions that the S2e$rew GospelS ;really
Aramaic in 2e$rew script= ori*inally had 29RW ET fFET+ IN IT
T2AT WR +WITC2@ .ER T2 )RR ER +EM GRH KR+IEN
)ATR EN4. C Andrew Ga$riel Roth& Aramaic scholar and 0Na,arene Gew1
If the Gudeans mourned the translatin* of the 2e$rew ET into Greek
;accordin* to scholars& 0Hoine Greek1=& ima*ine the shock to them if their
fellow Gudeans had written the NT in Greek also<
And why would Aramaic6speakin* Gesus and the Aramaic6speakin* Apostles
read and :uote the +eptua*int? They had access to the 2e$rew& and there are
many e!amples where the Greek NT differs from the +eptua*int& while
a*reein* with the #eshitta ;some of which are shown in the 0Miscellaneous
#roofs1 section of this $ook=4
2owe"er& the +eptua*int is a useful study tool in Eld Testament studies& and
should $e *i"en the same respect as is accorded to the Massoretic 2e$rew
"ersion and the #eshitta Eld Testament4 As a "ery old witness to what could
"ery well ha"e $een the ori*inal 2e$rew "ersion ;the Massoretic is not the
ori*inal 2e$rew& it is a "ery late& re"ised "ersion=& it sol"es Massoretic
2e$rew contradictions and seems to $e more 05eshua6friendly1 in re*ards to
Messianic prophecies& than the Massoretic te!t ;*i"en to us $y Talmudists&
who did not accept 5eshua as the Messiah=4 9ut that is a topic for another
day4
T "en this may $e an e!a**eration& as it has ne"er $een pro"en that Greek
was e"er the common lan*ua*e of *ypt4 There are many cases where it
seems that Greek was ne"er the lan*ua*e of the common people in *ypt4
Ene e!ample is in the 9i$le itself4 Acts 2%J/I6/( has the chief captain $ein*
seemin*ly surprised that #aul could speak Greek& as he thou*ht #aul was an
*yptian terrorist4
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs %OO
*. +he Aree' K+: a ,ale imitation
As has $een shown in other articles of this series& the Greek New Testament is
full of errors& contradictions& "ariants and $ad *rammar& while lackin* the
numerous wordplays& true meanin*s of idioms and poetry of the #eshitta4
The Greek NT dilutes the ori*inal messa*e& 3ust as the +eptua*int did& and is a
main reason why the Gudeans mourned it4 In fact& the Greek NT reads much
like the +eptua*int& what with its $ad *rammar and 0Hoine Greek14 The
+eptua*int was a Greek translation of a +emitic ori*inal4 #ut two and two
to*ether`
Can one pro"e that the Greek is the ori*inal? No$ody actually can4 It7s 3ust
taken for *ranted4 +ince all the Greek "ersions ha"e corruptions&
contradictions etc& it is clear that they are not the ori*inals4 Many will shout
0Manuscript e"idence1 at the top of their lun*s& as supportin* e"idence of
Greek primacy4 0Manuscript e"idence1 C the fa"ourite term of the Greek
primacist and it means nothin*4 There are >''' Greek mss and fra*ments of
mss4 +o what? There are millions of n*lish 9i$les worldwide& was the 9i$le
then written in n*lish? There is plenty of 0pu$lishin* e"idence1 that the
New Testament was written in n*lish<
What a$out a*e? E$"iously& the ori*inal must also $e the oldest4 Well& this we
cannot determine either4 It is acknowled*ed on $oth camps that the ori*inals
are lon* *one and that we are left with copies of copies4 +o& datin* the "arious
mss does not help anyone much4 It is interestin* to note howe"er& that as of
the year 2''/ C& the oldest dated 9i$lical manuscript is the #eshitta Eld
Testament Ms4 %8&82> held in the 9ritish museum4 It is $elie"ed to ha"e $een
written in 8B8 C4 It is also nota$le that many +emites re"ered their +cripture
so much that they would not let it disinte*rate4 Rather they would copy them
precisely& and do away with the ori*inals or older copies4
It is also interestin* to note that the "ast ma3ority of Greek mss and fra*ments
postdate the O
th
century C they were written nearly %''' years after the
ori*inals were written& or later4 2ere are some of the primary Greek mss and
the appro!imate a*es that ha"e $een assi*ned to themJ
Code! +inaiticus ;Code! a= ;/>' C= Contains almost all of the NT and o"er
half of the )RR4
2'' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Code! Ale!andrinus ;Code! A= ;c4 8'' C= Almost the entire 9i$le ;)RR
and NT=4
Code! Katicanus ;Code! 9= ;/2>6/>' C= Contains most of the 9i$le ;)RR
and NT=4
Code! phraemi ;Code! C= ;8''7s C= Represents most of the NT e!cept
2Thes4 and 2Gohn4
Code! 9e,ae ;Code! @= ;8>' C= Contains the .our Gospels and Acts in
Greek and )atin4
Code! Washin*tonensis ;Code! W= ;8>' C= sometimes called Code!
.reerianus4 Contains the .our Gospels4
Code! Claromontanus ;Code! @;p== ;>''7s= Contains the #auline pistles4
These a*es are hardly impressi"e& when Aramaic ;that 02e$rew dialect1=
ori*inals are :uoted and $ein* talked a$out as early as the second century& $y
ancient astern scholars<
These dates are especially unimpressi"e when lookin* o"er these :uotes from
modern scholarsJ
-The +5RIAC4 The oldest is the +yriac in it "arious formsJ the -#eshitto.
Y#eshitta& the names are often confused C RaphaelZ ;cent4 2= and the
-Curetonian +yriac. ;cent4 /=4 9oth are older than any Greek Manuscript in
e!istence& and $oth contain these twel"e "erses Ythe last %2 "erses of Mark7s
Gospel C RaphaelZ4 +o with the -#hilo!enian. ;cent4>= and the -Gerusalem.
;cent4 >=` Ef these& the Aramaic ;or +yriac=& that is to say& the Peshitto& is the
most important& rankin* as superior in authority to the oldest Greek
manuscripts& and datin# from as early as A&>& 1204 Thou*h the +yrian
Church was di"ided $y the Third and .ourth General Councils in the fifth
century& into three& and e"entually into yet more& hostile communions& which
ha"e lasted for %&8'' years with all their $itter contro"ersies& yet the same
"ersion is ready to6day in the ri"al churches4 Their manuscripts ha"e flowed
into the li$raries of the West4 J/et the/ all e:hibit a te:t in ever/ im,ortant
res,ect the same.J Peshitto means a "ersion simple and plain& without the
addition of alle*orical or mystical *losses4 2ence we ha"e *i"en this
authority& where needed throu*hout our notes& as $ein* of more "alue than
the modern critical Greek te!tsA and ha"e noted ;for the most part= only those
-"arious readin*s. with which the +yriac a*rees4. C @r4 4 W4 9ullin*er& 0The
Companion 9i$le1
@r4 +cri"ener on the #eshittaJ
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2'%
-`the oldest and one of the most e!cellent of the "ersions where$y God7s
pro"idence has $lessed and edified the Church4. C @r4 .rederick 2A
+cri"ener& 0Introduction1
"en @r4 Westcott ;of Ale!andrian6te!t fame= saw`J
-no reason to desert the opinion which has o$tained the sanction of the most
competent scholars& that the formation of the #eshitto +yriac was to $e fi!ed
within the first half of the second century4 The "ery o$scurity which han*s
o"er its ori*in is proof of its "enera$le a*e& $ecause it shows that it *rew up
spontaneously amon* Christian con*re*ations4442ad it $een a work of later
date& of the /rd or 8th century it is scarcely possi$le that its history should $e
so uncertain as it is4. C @r4 9rooke .oss Westcott& 0The New Testament
Canon1& %(>>
NoteJ Westcott later chan*ed his mind a$out the #eshitta& seein* how it often
a*reed with the 9y,antine te!ts& a*ainst his $elo"ed Ale!andrian te!ts4 2e
then concluded that the #eshitta must ha"e $een a re"ision of the Eld +yriac
;0Introduction to the NT Greek1& %((2=4
Ene topic often used as supportin* e"idence of Greek primacy& is that many
of the important early Christians were Greek& such as Timothy and Titus4 The
Greek NT says that they were Greek& $ut the ori*inal Aramaic NT tells us that
they were actually Aramean ;Acts %BJ%& Galatians 2J/=4
With the Messiah& Apostles and early Christians $ein* Aramaic6speakin*&
why on arth would the New Testament ha"e $een written in Greek? Why
would Aramaic6speakin* #aul& write to Aramaic6speakin* Timothy and Titus&
in Greek& rather than in Aramaic? Why would #aul write to Greeks& usin*
Aramaic idioms that they wouldn7t understand?
(. 8ther 5ramaic versions
The ori*inal #eshitta is the most authoritati"e of the Aramaic "ersions4 The
Church of the ast ;CE= maintains it7s tradition that they were *i"en the
ori*inal $ooks $y the Apostles themsel"es4 Internal and e!ternal e"idence has
not $een a$le to contradict thisA rather& it supports the CE stance that the
2'2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#eshitta $ooks are the ori*inals4 There are two main other Aramaic "ersions&
one of which is likened to a 0re"ised #eshitta1 ;the #eshitto=& and one of
which is a fraud ;the Eld +yriac=4
The Peshitto
This "ersion is so similar to the ori*inal #eshitta ;which the Church of the
ast held as canon=& that often the names are confused& with Westerners often
callin* the #eshitta& 0#eshitto1& and "ice "ersa4 The 22 $ooks that are common
in $oth the #eshitta and the #eshitto are practically identical C only a handful
of "erses are different4 The $i**est difference is that the #eshitto ;which the
+yrian Erthodo! Church C a split6off from the CE C held as canon= includes
the 0Western >14 Those > $ooks ;2#eter& 2Gohn& /Gohn& Gude& Re"elation= that
are included in most Western canons ;makin* a total of 2I $ooks=& $ut
omitted in the #eshitta4
The reason for this seems to $e that the #eshitta canon was sealed "ery early&
$efore the 0Western >1 was found4 To this day& the CE has ne"er accepted
these fi"e $ooks as canon& $ut they do not necessarily discoura*e their study4
The 0Western >1 of the #eshitta di"ides many Aramaic primacists4 While all
tend to a*ree that there were definitely Aramaic ori*inals to these $ooks&
some $elie"e that the #eshitto contains these ori*inals& while others say that
the 0Western >1 in the #eshitto seem to ha"e a hea"ier Greek influence and
are translated or re"ised from the Greek translations of the Aramaic ori*inals4
The latter *roup often states that the $est case for Aramaic ori*inals of the
0Western >1 lies not in the Aramaic "ersions of the #eshitto& $ut in the Greek
translations< .or they tend to ha"e many Aramaicisms ;like the other 22
$ooks= and poor Greek *rammar ;with *ood +emitic *rammar=4
The -5ld 'yriac.
The "ery name of this "ersion is a slap in the face to #eshitta primacists4 It is
modeled after the name of the Eld )atin& the alle*ed precursor to the )atin
Kul*ate4 It is *enerally accepted $y most 9i$le scholars that this "ersion
precedes the #eshitta and the #eshitto4 As you will soon disco"er& this notion
is completely false and illo*ical4
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2'/
The Eld +yriac contains the four Gospels only4 It consists of two main
documents& the Eld +yriac +inaiticus& and the Eld +yriac Curetonianus4 These
two manuscripts disa*ree with each other to such an e!tent& that it is hi*hly
:uestiona$le why they are considered to $e 0one "ersion14 .urthermore& the
Eld +yriac a*rees "ery closely with the Greek Code! 9e,ae& considered $y
many Greek scholars to $e the 0ori*inal Greek14 This is one of the main
reasons why Greek primacists rate the Eld +yriac as the 0$est Aramaic14
To add insult to in3ury& scholarly consensus holds that the #eshitta ;and the
#eshitto alon* with it C it seems that most Greek primacists are unaware that
there are differences $etween the #eshitta and the #eshitto& howe"er sli*ht=
was translated from the Greek $y Ra$ulla& the $ishop of dessa from 8%268/>
A@4 Ene of the main proponents of this $elief has $een noted te!tual critic&
.4C4 9urkitt4 +cholarly consensus says that it was the 09y,antine Greek14 The
irony of this $elief is that from the many split words discussed earlier in this
series& sometimes the #eshitta a*rees with the 9y,antine Greek& and
sometimes with the Ale!andrian Greek& hea"ily implyin* that $oth Greek
traditions actually stem from the #eshitta4
That Ra$ulla created the #eshitta is a completely irrational $elief& to those
who are familiar with the history of the two $i* Aramaic6speakin* Churches4
The pro$lem with this $elief is that the #eshittaD#eshitto ;keep in mind that
these "ersions are almost identical= was used $y $oth the CE and the +EC&
e"en lon* after Ra$ulla7s death4 When the $i* Church split into the CE and
+EC in 8/% A@& Ra$ulla sided with the +EC and hea"ily persecuted the CE&
which led to them namin* him& 0the tyrant of dessa14 It is not reasona$le to
assume that the CE would use a "ersion of the 9i$le created $y their $i**est
enemy& while they $elie"ed that they already possessed the ori*inal Aramaic
9i$le4 It is e"en more incredi$le that this 0Ra$ulla6#eshitta1 theory remains so
stron*& despite not a sin*le shred of e"idence to support it4 It seems that the
Greek primacy mo"ement will do anythin* to suppress the Aramaic4
+yriac historian& @r4 Arthur Koo$us on 9urkitt7s claimsJ
-This kind of reconstruction of te!tual history is pure fiction without a shred
of e"idence to support it. C arly Kersions of the New Testament& stonian
Theolo*ical +ociety& %O>8& pp4 O'6OI
.amous te!tual critic& @r4 9ruce Met,*er addsJ
-The :uestion who it was that produced the #eshitta "ersion of the New
Testament will perhaps ne"er $e answered4 That it was not Ru$$ula has $een
pro"ed $y Koo$us?s researches4 4 4In any case& howe"er& in "iew of the
adoption of the same "ersion of the +criptures $y $oth the astern ;Nestorian=
and Western ;Gaco$ite= $ranches of +yrian Christendom& we must conclude
that it had attained a considera$le de*ree of status $efore the di"ision of the
+yrian Church in A@ 8/%4. C arly Kersions of the New Testament& New
5orkJ Claredon& %OII& p4 /B
9urkitt7s theory is all the more illo*ical when you consider that the CE and
+EC were practically mortal enemies& yet were usin* the same Aramaic
tradition4 Clearly& the #eshitta must ha"e *ained much respect and re"erence
$y the CE and +EC& lon* $efore they split4
Now that we ha"e cast aside the notion that Ra$ulla created the #eshitta from
the Greek translation& we yet do not cast aside the idea that Ra$ulla did in fact
make an Aramaic "ersion form the Greek4 A collea*ue of his wrote the
followin* after Ra$ulla7s deathJ
-9y the wisdom of God that was in him he translated the New Testament
from Greek into +yriac $ecause of its "ariations& e!actly as it was4. C Ra$ul
episcopi desseni& 9aleei& aliorum:ue opera selecta& E!ford %(B>& ed4 G4 G4
E"er$eck
Ra$ulla himself statedJ
-The pres$yters and deacons shall see to it that in all the churches a copy of
the ,van#elion de Me%harreshe shall $e a"aila$le and read4. C 4 Lahn&
.orschun*en ,ur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Hanons& i4 ;%((%=& p4 %'>
Clearly& Ra$ulla did make an Aramaic "ersion usin* the Greek4 And we ha"e
its nameJ "an*elion de Mepharreshe4
Could this $e the Eld +yriac? We shall let the Eld +yriac itself answer that
one<
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2'>
The header to E+ Matthew readsJ 0,van#elion de Me%harreshe14
2'B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Eld +yriac Gohn ;the last of the four Gospels= ends withJ
04r#md wyl%nw0 Ml4
0+hlam "an*elion de Mepharreshe1
02ere ends the ,van#elion de Me%harreshe1
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2'I
Clearly& Ra$ulla7s "ersion was the Eld +yriac& not the #eshitta4 9esides this
$latant proof& the 0"an*elion de Mepharreshe1 has little in common with the
#eshitta& e"en thou*h they are apparently 0the same "ersion14
This title& 0"an*elion de Mepharreshe1 is a com$ination of Greek and
Aramaic& meanin* 0+eparate Gospels14 This $rin*s us to a discussion on a
minor Aramaic "ersion that has played such a ma3or role in the history of the
misunderstandin*s of the ori*inal Aramaic +criptures4 This minor "ersion
will also help to e!plain why Ra$ulla made his own "ersion of the Gospels in
the first place4
Ba+ulla7 the 5ld 'yriac and TatianIs >iatessaron
Infamous Assyrian apolo*ist& Tatian& created a harmony of the four #eshitta
Gospels& in order to ha"e a continuous narrati"e of the life of Gesus4 This
Aramaic "ersion is known as the 0@iatessaron1 ;meanin* 0Gospel harmony1=
aka 0"an*elion da Mehallete14 +ound familiar? It should4 It $asically means&
0Mi!ed Gospels14 It is *enerally accepted $y most scholars as $ein* pu$lished
around %I> A@ or earlier4 Enly fra*ments remain of the ori*inal Aramaic
"ersion& $ut further translations into Ara$ic& )atin and Armenian still e!ist4
The @iatessaron $ecame a "ery popular "ersion in +yria& durin* the 8
th
and >
th
centuries4 "en in dessa& the diocese of Ra$ulla4 When he saw that nearly
e"ery Church was usin* the @iatessaron& Ra$ulla ordered the priests and
deacons to ensure that e"ery church should ha"e a copy of the his
0"an*elion da Mepharreshe14
2e wanted to replace the 0"an*elion da Mehallete1 ;0Mi!ed Gospels1= with
his 0"an*elion da Mepharreshe1 ;0+eparate Gospels1=4
The true story now $ecomes "ery clear4 Ra$ulla created the Eld +yriac& not
the #eshitta< This makes complete sense& after seein* Ra$ulla7s emphasis on
the Gospels ;to ri"al the @iatessaron& the harmonised Gospel= and the fact
that the Eld +yriac consists of the four Gospels only4
2appily enou*h& internal e"idence from the Ara$ic translation of the
Assyrian @iatessaron ;the only sur"i"in* "ersion translated into a sister
+emitic ton*ue= hea"ily indicates that the @iatessaron stems from the
2'( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#eshitta4 This would date the #eshitta to around %I> A@ at the a$solute latest4
That7s pretty impressi"e& considerin* that the New Testament is $elie"ed to
ha"e $een completed around %'' A@4
9ut why in counterin* the @iatessaron& did Ra$ulla create the Eld +yriac
;from the Greek translation=& instead of usin* the ori*inal #eshitta Gospels?
The author does not understand& especially since his ally& the +EC& re"ered
the #eshitta tradition4 #erhaps he wanted to make a name for himself4 Er
perhaps he conspired to suppress the #eshitta tradition4 Indeed& the +EC did
make use of his Eld +yriac for a while& $efore re"ertin* $ack to their more
trustworthy #eshitto4
In any case& this in"esti*ation yields some "ital factsJ
Ra$ulla did not create the #eshitta& he created the Eld +yriac4
The #eshitta does not stem from the Eld +yriac& the Eld +yriac stems from
the #eshitta& "ia the Greek4
The #eshitta dates $ack to %I> A@ at the "ery latest4
It all makes sense now4 Ene would e!pect the CE to re3ect the "ersion
created $y Ra$ulla& their *reat persecutor4 5et they didn7t re3ect the #eshitta4
They re3ected the Eld +yriac4 That the Eld +yriac was a poor "ersion
;una"oida$le seein* as it was an Aramaic translation from a Greek translation
of the ori*inal AramaicT=& is e"ident not only $y the CE7s re3ection& $ut also
the e"entual re3ection $y the +EC& Ra$ulla7s ally4 9oth Churches decided to
stay with the #eshitta tradition4 5et scholars still are adamant that the Eld
+yriac is somehow older and superior to the #eshitta and #eshitto4
T 6 The Eld +yriac shares many similarities with the Western Greek te!t ;aka
Code! 9e,ae& aka Manuscript @= as te!tual critic @r4 Games Trimm
demonstrates4 And the Western Greek te!t seems to $e an early Greek
translation of the #eshitta as indicated $y its 0+emiticness1 ;the NT author7s
were all +emites after all= and its "ariants with other Greek manuscripts&
which stem from mistranslationsDmisunderstandin*s of the ori*inal #eshitta
passa*es ;split words=4
After learnin* the true history of the 0Eld +yriac1& you may loathe to call it $y
that name4 A popular alternati"e amon* #eshitta enthusiasts is 0Eld +cratch1&
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2'O
as manuscripts were found where the Eld +yriac was scratched off to make
way for a priest7s $io*raphy4 No +emite would dare do this to the #eshitta<
NoteJ More articles re*ardin* the history of the #eshitta and E+ comparisons
can $e found amon* the features of this $ook4
1. From !ebrew4 to 5ramaic4 to... 5rabic? 6hereHs the
Aree';?
It is widely known that Aramaic $ecame T2 lan*ua*e of the Middle ast&
e"en of the Gews who spoke in their $elo"ed 2e$rew4 9ut Greek primacists
claim that in Gesus7 day& Greek was the lin%ua franca of the Middle ast& not
Aramaic4 Ef course& if such a mass chan*e of Aramaic to Greek occurred& we
surely would ha"e e"idence of this happenin*& ri*ht? Wron*444 What we do
ha"e is mounds of e"idence that Aramaic was supplanted $y Ara$ic4 This
occurred in the middle a*es4 +o where e!actly does the Greek lan*ua*e fit in?
If the +emites at one time all spoke Greek& how come they didn?t seem to
notice?
)et us e!amine some of the assumptions that are made $y those scholars who
$elie"e that Greek was the lin%ua franca of the Mid6ast4
Assum%tion 1J After Ale!ander the Great con:uered much of the Mid6ast&
Greek $ecame the main lan*ua*e of the re*ion4
#ro$lemsJ The whole +emitic world still spoke Aramaic& despite Ale!ander?s
efforts4 Ef course& claimin* that Greek $ecame the main lan*ua*e of places
like Gudea completely i*nores the Macca$ean "ictory o"er 2ellenism4 +o they
may not ha"e e"idence& $ut are they usin* reason? Not really4 It doesn?t
always happen that a country adopts the lan*ua*e of its con:uerors4 Case in
pointJ India4 When India $ecame a 9ritish colony& the Indians did not adopt
n*lish C in fact the n*lish *o"ernors& officers& di*nitaries etc had to learn
the Indian lan*ua*es so that they could con"erse with them4
Assum%tion :J +omehow ;despite the Macca$ean "ictory= Greek AGAIN
$ecame the main lan*ua*e of Gudea4
2%' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#ro$lemsJ We ha"e already seen the :uotes $y famous historian .la"ius
Gosephus& clearly showin* that Greek was not as widespread in Gudea as
many Western scholars hope4 9ut one *larin*ly o$"ious clue is Gesus? words4
"en in the Greek copies of the New Testament& some of Gesus? Aramaic
sayin*s are preser"ed4 Why did 2e ha"e to *o and confuse the poor 0Greek6
speakin* Gews1 $y speakin* in their own lan*ua*e of Aramaic?
And of course& we ha"e the many Gewish works& like the Tar*ums and the
Talmud& written in none other than Aramaic ;why weren?t they written in
Greek?=4 As if that weren?t enou*h& the @ead +ea +crolls ;the latest mss4 are
$elie"ed to ha"e $een written around B( A@ C after Gesus? death=& are
primarily in 2e$rew and Aramaic& with only a few fra*ments in Greek4 A
hi*h proportion of 2e$rew works in these scrolls is to $e e!pected C what
Gewish li$rary would $e complete without some 2e$rew ET 9i$les? 9ut the
proportion of Aramaic to Greek usa*e amon* the @++ seems to hea"ily imply
that Greek claims are hi*hly e!a**erated4
-All the @ead +ea +crolls were written $efore the destruction of the +econd
TempleA with the e!ception of small Greek fra*ments& they are all in 2e$rew
and Aramaic4. C ncyclopedia 9ritannica
Assum%tion 3J Greek was the lin%ua franca of the Middle ast4 Then Ara$ic
was the lin%ua franca of the Middle ast4 +omewhere alon* the line& Ara$ic
must ha"e supplanted the Greek4
#ro$lemsJ This point a$solutely kills the Greek claims4 Any historian worth
his salt knows that Ara$ic supplanted Aramaic as the lin%ua franca of the
Middle ast4
-With the rise of Islam& Ara$ic rapidly supplanted Aramaic as a "ernacular in
+outh Asia4. C ncyclopedia 9ritannica
In fact& the Muslim con:uests ;such as those at @amascus and Gerusalem C
two Aramaic6speakin* cities= occurred in the Ith Century A@& while Ara$ic
only supplanted Aramaic around the Oth Century ;often $elie"ed to $e
complete around the %8th6%>th Centuries=4 .or 2e$rew to $e displaced $y
Aramaic is understanda$le4 They are $oth +emitic lan*ua*es4 .or Aramaic to
$e displaced $y Ara$ic is understanda$le4 They are $oth +emitic lan*ua*es4
Chapter B4 2istorical ;!ternal= #roofs 2%%
.or Aramaic to $e displaced $y Greek ;an Indo6uropean lan*ua*e= is not
"ery understanda$le4 specially since the Ara$ic displacement of Aramaic
took a few centuries4 Ef course& this discussion is rather redundant& seein* as
how Ara$ic replaced Aramaic and not Greek4
It?s still interestin* thou*h4 If the order of lan*ua*es was Aramaic& to Greek&
$ack to Aramaic& then to Ara$ic& how come the Gews& Ara$s& Arameans and
other +emitic peoples didn?t notice?
Greek was ne"er the lin%ua franca of the Middle ast4 The simple fact is that it
was always Aramaic& until it was replaced $y Ara$ic4 I won?t dou$t that
Greek was spoken in Gudea& $ut the main "ernacular was always Aramaic4
+o why do scholars keep insistin* that Greek was the lin%ua franca of the
re*ion? #erhaps a $i* reason is that it is taken for *ranted that the New
Testament was written in Greek ;so the Gews 3ust had to $e Greek6speakers=4
After all& the 9i$le is a historical document4 9ut there are two New Testament
lan*ua*es "yin* for our attention& and it has not $een pro"en that the ori*inal
lan*ua*e was Greek4 +o sayin* that 0Greek was a widespread lan*ua*e in
Gudea $ecause the 9i$le was written in Greek1 and 0the 9i$le was written in
Greek $ecause Greek was a widespread lan*ua*e in Gudea1 is circular
reasonin*4
2%2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2%/
$ha%ter 2& $ontradictions in
the Hree" New Testament
Prove Peshitta Primacy
Not only will this article show the practical side of ha"in* access to the
ori*inal Aramaic New Testament& it will also pro"ide yet more lin*uistic
;internal= e"idence of #eshitta primacy4 The Greek NT has many
contradictions and errors& while the #eshitta lacks them& and makes you say
0ah< +o that7s what it means`1 The #eshitta is an awesome tool for Christian
apolo*etics4
Why apolo*etics? 9ecause it is our duty4 We must always $e ready to defend
our faith4
1Peter 3:14
9ut sanctify the )ord Christ in your heartsA and $e ready to *i"e an answer in
meekness and re"erence to e"eryone who seeks from you a word concernin* the hope
of your faith&
Now that we are armed with the ori*inal NT& there is no more need to twist
+cripture`
Kerses from the HGK and NIK will $e used to represent the Greek te!t
;co"erin* the two main families of Greek te!tsJ 9y,antine and Ale!andrian=
while the )amsa& 5ounan or some other translation will $e used to show the
"erses from the #eshitta4
1. +he Aenealogies o2 @eshua #at 1:*-1* % &u'e 3:21-31
This is a massi"e topic worthy of its own article ;#aul 5ounan has written a
len*thy article on the topic& included as a feature in this $ook=4 9esides the
0contradictions1 in the Greek that are sol"ed $y the #eshitta& there are other
issues to consider& such as Gechonias7 curse& and how the *enealo*ies mer*ed
throu*h +alathiel and Leru$a$el4 As this article deals with Greek
0contradictions1 lackin* in the Aramaic& such issues will $e left for another
time4 In $oth *enealo*ies& there is a*reement until @a"id4 .rom there&
Matthew7s *enealo*y *oes throu*h @a"id7s son +olomon& while )uke7s
*enealo*y *oes throu*h @a"id7s son Nathan4
Matthew 1:;K1;
The HGK saysJ
0And Gesse $e*at @a"id the kin*A and @a"id the kin* $e*at +olomon of her that had
$een the wife of FriasA And +olomon $e*at Ro$oamA and Ro$oam $e*at A$iaA and
A$ia $e*at AsaA And Asa $e*at GosaphatA and Gosaphat $e*at GoramA and Goram $e*at
E,iasA And E,ias $e*at GoathamA and Goatham $e*at Acha,A and Acha, $e*at ,ekiasA
And ,ekias $e*at ManassesA and Manasses $e*at AmonA and Amon $e*at GosiasA And
Gosias $e*at Gechonias and his $rethren& a$out the time they were carried away to
9a$ylonJ
And after they were $rou*ht to 9a$ylon& Gechonias $e*at +alathielA and +alathiel $e*at
Loro$a$elA And Loro$a$el $e*at A$iudA and A$iud $e*at liakimA and liakim $e*at
A,orA And A,or $e*at +adocA and +adoc $e*at AchimA and Achim $e*at liudA And
liud $e*at lea,arA and lea,ar $e*at MatthanA and Matthan $e*at Gaco$A And Gaco$
$e*at Goseph the hus$and of Mary& of whom was $orn Gesus& who is called Christ41
The NIK saysJ
0and Gesse the father of Hin* @a"id4 @a"id was the father of +olomon& whose mother
had $een Friah?s wife& +olomon the father of Reho$oam& Reho$oam the father of
A$i3ah& A$i3ah the father of Asa& Asa the father of Gehoshaphat& Gehoshaphat the father
of Gehoram& Gehoram the father of F,,iah& F,,iah the father of Gotham& Gotham the
father of Aha,& Aha, the father of 2e,ekiah& 2e,ekiah the father of Manasseh&
Manasseh the father of Amon& Amon the father of Gosiah& and Gosiah the father of
Geconiah and his $rothers at the time of the e!ile to 9a$ylon4
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2%>
After the e!ile to 9a$ylonJ Geconiah was the father of +healtiel& +healtiel the father of
Leru$$a$el& Leru$$a$el the father of A$iud& A$iud the father of liakim& liakim the
father of A,or& A,or the father of Ladok& Ladok the father of Akim& Akim the father of
liud& liud the father of lea,ar& lea,ar the father of Matthan& Matthan the father of
Gaco$& and Gaco$ the father of Goseph& the hus$and of Mary& of whom was $orn Gesus&
who is called Christ41
u"e 3::1K31
HGKJ
0Now when all the people were $apti,ed& it came to pass& that Gesus also $ein*
$apti,ed& and prayin*& the hea"en was opened& And the 2oly Ghost descended in a
$odily shape like a do"e upon him& and a "oice came from hea"en& which said& Thou
art my $elo"ed +onA in thee I am well pleased4 And Gesus himself $e*an to $e a$out
thirty years of a*e& $ein* ;as was supposed= the son of Goseph& which was the son of
2eli& Which was the son of Matthat& which was the son of )e"i& which was the son of
Melchi& which was the son of Ganna& which was the son of Goseph& Which was the son
of Mattathias& which was the son of Amos& which was the son of Naum& which was the
son of sli& which was the son of Na**e& Which was the son of Maath& which was the
son of Mattathias& which was the son of +emei& which was the son of Goseph& which
was the son of Guda& Which was the son of Goanna& which was the son of Rhesa& which
was the son of Loro$a$el& which was the son of +alathiel& which was the son of Neri&
Which was the son of Melchi& which was the son of Addi& which was the son of
Cosam& which was the son of lmodam& which was the son of r& Which was the son
of Gose& which was the son of lie,er& which was the son of Gorim& which was the son of
Matthat& which was the son of )e"i& Which was the son of +imeon& which was the son
of Guda& which was the son of Goseph& which was the son of Gonan& which was the son
of liakim& Which was the son of Melea& which was the son of Menan& which was the
son of Mattatha& which was the son of Nathan& which was the son of @a"id&1
NIKJ
0When all the people were $ein* $apti,ed& Gesus was $apti,ed too4 And as he was
prayin*& hea"en was opened and the 2oly +pirit descended on him in $odily form like
a do"e4 And a "oice came from hea"enJ S5ou are my +on& whom I lo"eA with you I am
well pleased4S Now Gesus himself was a$out thirty years old when he $e*an his
ministry4 2e was the son& so it was thou*ht& of Goseph& the son of 2eli& the son of
Matthat& the son of )e"i& the son of Melki& the son of Gannai& the son of Goseph& the son
of Mattathias& the son of Amos& the son of Nahum& the son of sli& the son of Na**ai&
the son of Maath& the son of Mattathias& the son of +emein& the son of Gosech& the son of
Goda& the son of Goanan& the son of Rhesa& the son of Leru$$a$el& the son of +healtiel&
the son of Neri& the son of Melki& the son of Addi& the son of Cosam& the son of
lmadam& the son of r& the son of Goshua& the son of lie,er& the son of Gorim& the son
of Matthat& the son of )e"i& the son of +imeon& the son of Gudah& the son of Goseph& the
2%B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
son of Gonam& the son of liakim& the son of Melea& the son of Menna& the son of
Mattatha& the son of Nathan&1
2ere are some of the 0contradictions1 from the Greek that are sol"ed $y the
ori*inal AramaicJ
%4 Matthew says ;in "erse %I= that the *enerations listed make a %86%86%8
structure4 2owe"er& we clearly see& that from the capti"ity of 9a$ylon to
Gesus& are only %/ *enerations& makin* a %86%86%/ structure4 Traditional
apolo*etics attempted to sol"e this $y e!plainin* that @a"id counts twice4
This is in"alid& and twists +cripture4 If @a"id counts twice& why not also count
Gechonias twice? Greek primacists must face the truthA the Greek is in error
here4
24 9oth *enealo*ies are of Goseph4 Why are they so different? Traditional
apolo*etics attempted to sol"e this $y e!plainin* that )uke actually *i"es the
*enealo*y of Mary ;instead of Goseph=& while Matthew *i"es the *enealo*y of
Goseph4 This is desperation4 The truth is that the Greek 9i$le makes it clear
that 9ET2 *enealo*ies *o to Gesus throu*h Goseph4
/4 If no *enealo*y of Mary is *i"en& how can we know that Gesus is indeed a
descendant of @a"id ;as stated in "erses such as Romans %J/=?
The ori*inal Aramaic sol"es these pro$lems& with one swift mo"e4 Matthew
%J%B from the Greek usually calls Goseph the hus$and of Mary4 The Aramaic
says that Goseph is the 0rb% ;*owra= of Mary4 The definition of this word is
crucial and sol"es all these pro$lems4 0rb% CAN refer to Qhus$and7& $ut can
A)+E mean Qman7& and Qfather74 A few "erses later& Matthew talks of Goseph
as the f9b ;a more traditional +emitic term for Qhus$and7= of Mary4 It seems
that Matthew was dealin* with two Goseph7s here& and wanted to clearly
differentiate them $y usin* different terms4 Would it $e pure coincidence that
the Goseph in "erse %B& $ein* the father or father fi*ure ;e4*4 an uncle= of Mary&
sol"es so many pro$lems?
Lor$a $lew this $i* time4 There were two Goseph7s in"ol"ed4 This e!plains
why the *enealo*ies are so different ;i4e4 Matthew actually *i"es Mary7s
*enealo*y& while )uke *i"es her hus$and7s= and adds one more *eneration&
makin* the %86%86%8 structure that Matthew was talkin* a$out4 Additionally&
since we now know that Mary7s *enealo*y is *i"en& and that she is a
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2%I
descendant of @a"id& we know can see that Gesus was indeed a descendant of
@a"id4
All credit to #aul 5ounan for disco"erin* the alternate meanin*s of 0*owra1
that seemed to stump Lor$a and e"en renowned Aramaic e!pert @r4 )amsa4
This contradiction e!ample is also an e!ample of a semi6split word& as it stems
from a word $ein* mistranslated4
2. 7i" 0ose,h name @eshua ? #atthew 1:21 % &u'e 1:31
Matthew 1::1
The HGK saysJ 0And she shall $rin* forth a son& and thou shalt call his name
G+F+J for he shall sa"e his people from their sins41
The NIK saysJ 0+he will *i"e $irth to a son& and you are to *i"e him the name
Gesus& $ecause he will sa"e his people from their sins4S1
2ere is the pro$lem for Greek primacistsJ Mary was the one who named 2im
Gesus4
u"e 1:31
HGKJ 0And& $ehold& thou shalt concei"e in thy wom$& and $rin* forth a son&
and shalt call his name G+F+41
NIKJ 05ou will $e with child and *i"e $irth to a son& and you are to *i"e him
the name Gesus41
@oes the #eshitta also ha"e this 0contradiction1?
The #eshitta says ;Matthew %J2%& direct translation $y #aul 5ounan=J 0And
she will $ear a son& and she will call his name 5eshuaA for he will sa"e his
people from their sins4S1
The #eshitta shows us that Mary named Gesus& and thus does not share this
contradiction with the Greek te!ts4
2%( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
While unfortunate that Lor$a created a contradiction here& it is
understanda$le4 The error they made is so common& e"en )amsa did not
a"oid it in his translation4 The error came a$out $ecause the Aramaic word
0rqt can $e translated as 2
nd
6person masculine& or /
rd
6person feminine4 i4e4
the same te!t can mean 0you will call`1 and 0she will call`1
This contradiction e!ample is also an e!ample of a semi6split word& as it stems
from a word $ein* mistranslated4
3. 7oes Ao" lea" us into tem,tation ? #atthew *:13 %
#atthew :3 % 1+hessalonians 3:)
Matthew ;:13 ;the end of The )ord7s #rayer=
The HGK saysJ 0And lead us not into temptation& $ut deli"er us from e"ilJ .or
thine is the kin*dom& and the power& and the *lory& for e"er4 Amen41
The NIK saysJ 0And lead us not into temptation& $ut deli"er us from the e"il
one4?1
The e"il one $ein* talked a$out is +atan& also known as the tempter< I need
not warn you of the dan*ers of callin* loha a tempter`
Matthew D:3
HGKJ 0And when the tempter came to him& he said& If thou $e the +on of God&
command that these stones $e made $read41
NIKJ 0The tempter came to him and said& SIf you are the +on of God& tell these
stones to $ecome $read4S1
1Thessalonians 3:4
HGKJ 0.or this cause& when I could no lon*er for$ear& I sent to know your
faith& lest $y some means the tempter ha"e tempted you& and our la$our $e in
"ain41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2%O
NIKJ 0.or this reason& when I could stand it no lon*er& I sent Timothy to find
out a$out your faith4 I was afraid that in some way the tempter mi*ht ha"e
tempted you and our efforts mi*ht ha"e $een useless41
As if that wasn7t enou*h& a clear contradiction arises when the +criptures say
that God does not temptJ
Mames 1:13
HGKJ 0)et no man say when he is tempted& I am tempted of GodJ for God
cannot $e tempted with e"il& neither tempteth he any manJ1
NIKJ 0When tempted& no one should say& SGod is temptin* me4S .or God
cannot $e tempted $y e"il& nor does he tempt anyoneA1
.ollowin* is a transliteration ;to show what a *reat poet the )ord is= and
translation of the )ord7s #rayer ;Matthew BJO6%/=& $y noted Aramaic scholar&
#aul 5ounanJ
06#on dP#ashmayya ;our .ather in 2ea"en=
nith&<addash 2hmakh ;holy $e your Name=
0eh&teh +alkothakh ;your Hin*dom come=
Ieh#eh so#&ya&nakh ;your Will $e done=
6ykanna dP#ashmaya ;as it is in hea"en=
ap bPar&aa ;also on earth=
*a#&lan lakh&ma ;*i"e us the $read=
dPson&Ca&nan yo&ma&na ;of our need this day=
#Pash#ooC lan kha#&beyn ;and for*i"e us our offences=
aykanna dPap akhanan sh#aCan lPkhay&ya&#eyn ;as we ha"e for*i"en those who
ha"e offended us=
#Pla taa&lan lPnis&yo&na ;and do not lead us into trial=
ella passan min bee&sha ;$ut deli"er us from the e"il one=
mottol de&lakh he mal&ko&tha ;for yours is the kin*dom=
#Pkhayla ;and the power=
#Ptishbokhta ;and the *lory=
lPalam5 almen5 amen4 ;fore"er and e"er& amen=1
The Aramaic lacks the Greek pro$lem of "irtually callin* God& 0the tempter14
God may lead us into trial& to 0purify us1& $ut he certainly does not tempt us
to do e"il4 It is noteworthy that this isn7t the only time the Greek makes
allusions to God $ein* +atan4 The Ale!andrian Greek te!ts for instance& call
$oth Gesus and )ucifer& 0the mornin* star1& while also replacin* 0cornerstone1
;Gesus7 much used sym$ol in the 9i$le=& with 0capstone1 ;a pa*an sym$ol&
often representin* +atan=4
. 3s wis"om vin"icate" b/ her chil"ren ? #atthew 11:1$ %
&u'e (:3)
Matthew 11:11
The HGK saysJ 0The +on of man came eatin* and drinkin*& and they say&
9ehold a man *luttonous& and a wine$i$$er& a friend of pu$licans and
sinners4 9ut wisdom is 3ustified of her children41
The NIK saysJ 0The +on of Man came eatin* and drinkin*& and they say& ?2ere
is a *lutton and a drunkard& a friend of ta! collectors and Ssinners4S ? 9ut
wisdom is pro"ed ri*ht $y her actions4S1
The pro$lem arises when we look at what )uke has to say4 9oth passa*es are
dealin* with the same story& a$out Gesus and Gohn the 9aptist& so a difference
in the Greek te!ts would $e an error4
u"e 2:34
HGKJ 09ut wisdom is 3ustified of all her children41
NIKJ 09ut wisdom is pro"ed ri*ht $y all her children41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 22%
The )amsa says ;Matthew %%J%O=J 0The +on of man came eatin* and drinkin*&
and they said& 9ehold& a *lutton and a wine6$i$$er& and a friend of ta!
collectors and sinners4 And yet wisdom is 3ustified $y its works41
The )amsa says ;)uke IJ/>=J 0And yet wisdom is 3ustified $y all its works41
The #eshitta does not share this contradiction with the Greek te!ts& nor is it
affected $y the mistranslation of 0children1 for 0deedsDworks14
There is more to this e!ample thou*h4 We see that the Ale!andrian Greek has
the contradiction& while the 9y,antine Greek does not4 That is $ecause the
9y,antine te!t has the wron* word $oth places& while the Ale!andrian at least
*ot it half ri*ht4 The reason for the mistranslation in these places is that hynb
can mean 0her deeds1 and can also mean 0her offsprin*14 We know that the
correct readin* is 0deeds1 and not 0children1& $ecause in Matthew %%JO& the
more specific word for deeds is used& 0hydb914 +o now we know why the
Ale!andrian te!t has the contradiction4 9ut there is yet more to this< The
mistranslation should occur in )uke& not in Matthew& and this we see in the
Ale!andrian te!t4 The 9y,antine howe"er also has 0children1 in Matthew&
which should ne"er ha"e happened ;seein* as how Matthew uses the more
specific word for 0deeds1=4 I suspect that fraud was in"ol"ed here4 i4e4
someone noticed the contradiction in the 9y,antine Greek te!t& so altered
Matthew %%J%O to comply with )uke IJ/>& when it should ha"e $een done the
other way around< +ee what I mean when I say that with the ori*inal 9i$le&
there is no more need to twist +cripture?
@ue to the differences amon* the Greek te!ts& this e!ample is also a split
word4
). 6as the 9thio,ian a eunuch ? #atthew 1$:12 % 5cts 1:2(
% 7euteronom/ 23:1
Matthew 11:1:
The HGK saysJ 0.or there are some eunuchs& which were so $orn from their
mother?s wom$J and there are some eunuchs& which were made eunuchs of
menJ and there $e eunuchs& which ha"e made themsel"es eunuchs for the
kin*dom of hea"en?s sake4 2e that is a$le to recei"e it& let him recei"e it41
The NIK saysJ 0.or some are eunuchs $ecause they were $orn that wayA
others were made that way $y menA and others ha"e renounced marria*e
$ecause of the kin*dom of hea"en4 The one who can accept this should accept
it4S1
Acts 8::2
The HGK saysJ 0And he arose and wentJ and& $ehold& a man of thiopia& an
eunuch of *reat authority under Candace :ueen of the thiopians& who had
the char*e of all her treasure& and had come to Gerusalem for to worship&1
The NIK saysJ 0+o he started out& and on his way he met an thiopian
eunuch& an important official in char*e of all the treasury of Candace& :ueen
of the thiopians4 This man had *one to Gerusalem to worship&1
Matthew %OJ%2 doesn7t seem to lead to a contradiction ;we will *et $ack to it
later= $ut Acts (J2I certainly *i"es us a pro$lemJ
>euteronomy :3:1
HGKJ 02e that is wounded in the stones& or hath his pri"y mem$er cut off&
shall not enter into the con*re*ation of the )ER@41
NIKJ 0No one who has $een emasculated $y crushin* or cuttin* may enter
the assem$ly of the )ER@41
2ow can this so6called eunuch worship in Gerusalem when he cannot enter
the assem$ly of the )ER@?
The 5ounan says ;Acts (J2I=J 0and arose YandZ went and he met a $elie"er
certain who come had from Cush an official of fande: :ueen of the Cushites
and he in authority was o"er all of her treasure and he come had to worship
in Frishlim1
The Aramaic lacks the Greek pro$lem4
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 22/
The mistranslation was likely caused $y the word for 0$elie"er1 ;0nmyhm C
0M25MNA1= which can also mean 0eunuch14 As for Matthew %OJ%2& it is
hard to determine whether Gesus is talkin* a$out eunuchs or $elie"ers1& $ut
interestin* to note that 0$elie"er1 would fit nicely in that passa*e also4
This 0contradiction1 is also an e!ample of a semi6split word& as it in"ol"es a
mistranslation4
*. Can we be teacher s or not? #atthew 23:1 % #atthew
21:1$-20
Matthew :3:8
The HGK saysJ 09ut $e not ye called Ra$$iJ for one is your Master& e"en ChristA
and all ye are $rethren41
The NIK saysJ 0S9ut you are not to $e called ?Ra$$i&? for you ha"e only one
Master and you are all $rothers41
The Greek repeatedly interprets 0Ra$$i1 as 0teacher14 There is a pro$lem
when we look at Matthew 2(J%O62'4
Matthew :8:11K:0
HGKJ 0Go ye therefore& and teach all nations& $apti,in* them in the name of
the .ather& and of the +on& and of the 2oly GhostJ Teachin* them to o$ser"e
all thin*s whatsoe"er I ha"e commanded youJ and& lo& I am with you always&
e"en unto the end of the world4 Amen41
NIKJ 0Therefore *o and make disciples of all nations& $apti,in* them in the
name of the .ather and of the +on and of the 2oly +pirit& and teachin* them
to o$ey e"erythin* I ha"e commanded you4 And surely I am with you always&
to the "ery end of the a*e4S1
We can7t $e called 0teacher1& $ut we must teach? The Aramaic says 0Ra$$i1
also& $ut it is the misunderstandin* of this word we are lookin* at4 0Teacher1
is not the literal interpretation of 0Ra$$i1& it is the idiomatic interpretation4
The literal interpretation is 0my *reat one14 Clearly& Gesus is allowin* us to $e
teachers& $ut not to $e called 0my *reat one14
This is an e!ample of a misunderstandin* of a word that is often used
idiomatically4
(. 6as .imon reall/ a le,er ? #atthew 2*:* % #ar' 1:3 %
&eviticus 13:)-*
Matthew :;:;
The HGK saysJ 0Now when Gesus was in 9ethany& in the house of +imon the
leper&1
The NIK saysJ 0While Gesus was in 9ethany in the home of a man known as
+imon the )eper&1
Mar" 1D:3
HGKJ 0And $ein* in 9ethany in the house of +imon the leper& as he sat at meat&
there came a woman ha"in* an ala$aster $o! of ointment of spikenard "ery
preciousA and she $rake the $o!& and poured it on his head41
NIKJ 0While he was in 9ethany& reclinin* at the ta$le in the home of a man
known as +imon the )eper& a woman came with an ala$aster 3ar of "ery
e!pensi"e perfume& made of pure nard4 +he $roke the 3ar and poured the
perfume on his head41
The pro$lem here lies with a certain command in the Eld Testament& for these
Gudean peopleJ
eviticus 13:D4KD;
HGKJ 0And the leper in whom the pla*ue is& his clothes shall $e rent& and his
head $are& and he shall put a co"erin* upon his upper lip& and shall cry&
Fnclean& unclean4 All the days wherein the pla*ue shall $e in him he shall $e
defiledA he is uncleanJ he shall dwell aloneA without the camp shall his
ha$itation $e41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 22>
NIKJ 0SThe person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes& let
his hair $e unkempt& co"er the lower part of his face and cry out& ?Fnclean<
Fnclean<? As lon* as he has the infection he remains unclean4 2e must li"e
aloneA he must li"e outside the camp41
5et somehow this man was a$le to not only li"e in town& $ut also with his
wife4 Another oddity here ;while not really $ein* a contradiction= is that there
is no record of Gesus healin* him4 Why not?
The 5ounan says ;Matthew 2BJB=J 0and when was 5eshua in 9eth6Anya in the
house of +himon the potter1
The 5ounan says ;Mark %8J/=J 0and while he was in 9eth6Anya in the house of
+himon the potter while reclinin* came a woman who had with her an
ala$aster "ase of perfume of nard the $est "ery e!pensi"e and she opened it
and poured it upon the head of 5eshua1
As you can see& the #eshitta lacks the Greek contradiction& as +imon was a
potter& not a leper4
This happened "ery easily as the Aramaic 0br% is without "owel markers&
and can mean 0*ari$o71 ;potter& 3ar merchant= and 0*aro$o71 ;leper=4 It is also
a handy coincidence ;or may$e not= that this 3ar maker ;or 3ar merchant= had a
wife who used a 3ar to pour perfume on Gesus4
This e!ample is also a semi6split word as it in"ol"es a mistranslated word4
1. 6as it reall/ 0eremiah the Pro,het ? #atthew 2(:$-10 %
Lechariah 11:13
Matthew :2:1K10
The HGK saysJ 0Then was fulfilled that which was spoken $y Geremy the
prophet& sayin*& And they took the thirty pieces of sil"er& the price of him that
was "alued& whom they of the children of Israel did "alueA And *a"e them for
the potter?s field& as the )ord appointed me41
The NIK saysJ 0Then what was spoken $y Geremiah the prophet was fulfilledJ
SThey took the thirty sil"er coins& the price set on him $y the people of Israel&
and they used them to $uy the potter?s field& as the )ord commanded me4S1
2ere is the pro$lem for Greek primacistsJ The prophecy was actually $y
Lechariah4
Vechariah 11:13
HGKJ 0And the )ER@ said unto me& Cast it unto the potterJ a *oodly price that
I was prised at of them4 And I took the thirty pieces of sil"er& and cast them to
the potter in the house of the )ER@41
NIKJ 0And the )ER@ said to me& SThrow it to the potterS6the handsome price
at which they priced me< +o I took the thirty pieces of sil"er and threw them
into the house of the )ER@ to the potter41
The )amsa says ;Matthew 2IJO6%'=J 0Then what was spoken $y the prophet
was fulfilled& namely& I took the thirty pieces of sil"er& the costly price which
was $ar*ained with the children of Israel& And I *a"e them for the potter7s
field& as the )ord commanded me41
The #eshitta does not name the prophet& and thus does not share this
contradiction with the Greek te!ts4
It may $e that the Greek translators chose to name Geremiah ;$ein* "ery
li$eral and addin* to God7s Word I mi*ht add= as 0the prophet1& $ecause of
similar prophecies in the 9ook of Geremiah4 Geremiah7s prophecies howe"er
are different than the NT :uotation& as they do not mention 0the potter1 and
se"enteen pieces of sil"er are in"ol"ed& instead of thirty4 God told us not to
add to 2is Word for a reason<
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 22I
$. 6as 0esus 2orsa'en ? #atthew 2(:* % #ar' 1):3 %
Psalms 3(:2)-21 % 0ohn 1*:32
Matthew :2:D;
The HGK saysJ 0And a$out the ninth hour Gesus cried with a loud "oice&
sayin*& li& li& lama sa$achthani? that is to say& My God& my God& why hast
thou forsaken me?1
The NIK saysJ 0A$out the ninth hour Gesus cried out in a loud "oice& Sloi&
loi& lama sa$achthani?S66which means& SMy God& my God& why ha"e you
forsaken me?S1
This same 0forsaken1 readin* also occurs in Mark %>J/84 The pro$lem for
Greek primacists here is that there are "erses that tell us that God does not
forsake the ri*hteous ;many actually try and teach that at that moment& Gesus
was e"il and unri*hteous and thus was forsaken= and that Gesus is not alone
$ecause the .ather is with him4
Psalms 32: :4K:8
HGKJ 0I ha"e $een youn*& and now am oldA yet ha"e I not seen the ri*hteous
forsaken& nor his seed $e**in* $read4 2e is e"er merciful& and lendethA and
his seed is $lessed4 @epart from e"il& and do *oodA and dwell for e"ermore4
.or the )ER@ lo"eth 3ud*ment& and forsaketh not his saintsA they are
preser"ed for e"erJ $ut the seed of the wicked shall $e cut off41
NIKJ 0I was youn* and now I am old& yet I ha"e ne"er seen the ri*hteous
forsaken or their children $e**in* $read4 They are always *enerous and lend
freelyA their children will $e $lessed4 Turn from e"il and do *oodA then you
will dwell in the land fore"er4 .or the )ER@ lo"es the 3ust and will not
forsake his faithful ones4 They will $e protected fore"er& $ut the offsprin* of
the wicked will $e cut offA1
Mohn 1;:3:
HGKJ 09ehold& the hour cometh& yea& is now come& that ye shall $e scattered&
e"ery man to his own& and shall lea"e me aloneJ and yet I am not alone&
$ecause the .ather is with me41
NIKJ 0S9ut a time is comin*& and has come& when you will $e scattered& each
to his own home4 5ou will lea"e me all alone4 5et I am not alone& for my
.ather is with me41
The 5ounan says ;Mark 2IJ8B=J 0and a$out the ninth hour cried out 5eshua
with a "oice loud and said YmyZ God& YmyZ God& why ha"e you spared me?1
The #eshitta says clearly lacks this "ital contradiction& unlike the Greek4
It is easy to understand how this mistranslation occurred& as 0sa$achthani1
can mean 0forsaken1 and 0spared1& amon* other thin*s4 #eople may ar*ue
that it doesn7t make sense that Gesus would ask why 2e has $een spared
;thou*h it does make sense when you realise that 2e was sufferin* for a$out
B hours& and died soon after that plea4 i4e4 0Why ha"e you spared me? )et7s
*et it o"er with<1=& $ut it surely makes a lot more sense that Gesus
contradictin* 2is own Word<
This e!ample is also a semi6split word& as it deals with a mistranslation4
10. 6as she Aree' or not? #ar' (:2* % #atthew 1):22
Mar" 2::;
The HGK saysJ 0The woman was a Greek& a +yrophenician $y nationA and she
$esou*ht him that he would cast forth the de"il out of her dau*hter41
The NIK saysJ 0The woman was a Greek& $orn in +yrian #hoenicia4 +he
$e**ed Gesus to dri"e the demon out of her dau*hter41
2ere is the pro$lem for Greek primacistsJ This 0Greek1 woman was actually a
Canaanite4 We know this is the same woman& due to the 0e"en do*s eat the
crum$s1 story in $oth accounts4
Matthew 14:::
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 22O
HGKJ 0And& $ehold& a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts& and
cried unto him& sayin*& 2a"e mercy on me& E )ord& thou son of @a"idA my
dau*hter is *rie"ously "e!ed with a de"il41
NIKJ 0A Canaanite woman from that "icinity came to him& cryin* out& S)ord&
+on of @a"id& ha"e mercy on me< My dau*hter is sufferin* terri$ly from
demon6possession4S1
The )amsa says ;Mark IJ2B=J 09ut the woman was a heathen& from #hoenicia
in +yriaA and she $esou*ht him to cast out the demon from her dau*hter41
The #eshitta says that she is a heathen& not a Greek& and thus does not share
this contradiction with the Greek te!ts4
.rom the Greek we can $e confused as to whether she was Greek or +emitic4
.rom the #eshitta& we only e"er *et the impression that she was a +emite4 This
may ha"e $een purposely chan*ed to 0Greek1 $y Lor$a& in order to
02elleni,e1 the 9i$le4 This wouldn7t $e the first time4 Many references to
0ArameansD*entiles1& were su$stituted to 0Greeks1 $y Lor$a& causin* much
confusion as to the ethnicity of Timothy and Titus ;their fathers were
Aramean& not Greek=4
11. .hall we sinners maim ourselves? #ar' $:3-( %
1Corinthians *:1$-20
Mar" 1:D3KD2
The HGK saysJ
0And if thy hand offend thee& cut it offJ it is $etter for thee to enter into life maimed&
than ha"in* two hands to *o into hell& into the fire that ne"er shall $e :uenchedJ
Where their worm dieth not& and the fire is not :uenched4 And if thy foot offend thee&
cut it offJ it is $etter for thee to enter halt into life& than ha"in* two feet to $e cast into
hell& into the fire that ne"er shall $e :uenchedJ Where their worm dieth not& and the
fire is not :uenched4 And if thine eye offend thee& pluck it outJ it is $etter for thee to
enter into the kin*dom of God with one eye& than ha"in* two eyes to $e cast into hell
fireJ1
2/' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The NIK saysJ
0If your hand causes you to sin& cut it off4 It is $etter for you to enter life maimed than
with two hands to *o into hell& where the fire ne"er *oes out4 And if your foot causes
you to sin& cut it off4 It is $etter for you to enter life crippled than to ha"e two feet and
$e thrown into hell4 And if your eye causes you to sin& pluck it out4 It is $etter for you
to enter the kin*dom of God with one eye than to ha"e two eyes and $e thrown into
hell&1
This seems to teach self6mutilation4 We see no record in the 9i$le that self6
mutilation is *ood4 In fact& we are instructed to *lorify God in our $ody ;it is
the temple of the 2oly Ghost=4
1$orinthians ;:11K:0
The HGK saysJ 0What? know ye not that your $ody is the temple of the 2oly
Ghost which is in you& which ye ha"e of God& and ye are not your own? .or
ye are $ou*ht with a priceJ therefore *lorify God in your $ody& and in your
spirit& which are God?s41
The NIK saysJ 0@o you not know that your $ody is a temple of the 2oly
+pirit& who is in you& whom you ha"e recei"ed from God? 5ou are not your
ownA you were $ou*ht at a price4 Therefore honor God with your $ody41
@id Gesus really intend us to maim oursel"es? The answer lies in Gesus7
lan*ua*e& Aramaic4 0If your hand offends you& cut it off1& 0if your eye offends
you& pluck it out1 and 0if your foot offends you& cut it off1 are Aramaic
idioms that ha"e $een used for centuries& meanin*& 0If you ha"e a ha$it of
stealin*& stop it1& 0If you ha"e a ha$it of en"yin*& stop it1 and 0If you ha"e a
ha$it of trespassin* on other?s property& stop it1& respecti"ely4 This is why no
Assyrian ;an Aramaic6speakin* people= has mutilated themsel"es in the
)ord7s name& unlike the Christians in the West4
This pro$lem is also an e!ample of a misunderstood Aramaic idiom4
12. 3s that generation still alive? #ar' 13:30
The HGK saysJ 0Kerily I say unto you& that this *eneration shall not pass& till all
these thin*s $e done41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2/%
The NIK saysJ 0I tell you the truth& this *eneration will certainly not pass
away until all these thin*s ha"e happened41
The pro$lem here is that if Gesus was talkin* a$out e"ents in the end6times&
then surely that *eneration of people is already lon* *one4
The 5ounan saysJ 0truly say I to you that not will pass tri$e this until these
Ythin*sZ all occur1
The #eshitta lacks the pro$lem of the Greek& as it doesn7t mention a
*eneration4
The Aramaic word here& Fbr4& pronounced 0shar"tho71& can mean
*eneration& tri$e or family& while the Greek |pnpj ;*enea= means
0*eneration14 What familyDtri$e is $ein* discussed here? Well& 2e is talkin* to
Christians4 And the Christian family is yet to die out4
This e!ample is also a semi6split word& as it is caused $y a simple
mistranslation4
13. 6h/ "oes 0esus wa'e u, Peter4 0ames an" 0ohn4 a2ter
telling them to > slee, on ?? #ar' 1:1 % #ar' 1:2
Mar" 1D:D1
The HGK saysJ 0And he cometh the third time& and saith unto them& +leep on
now& and take your restJ it is enou*h& the hour is comeA $ehold& the +on of
man is $etrayed into the hands of sinners41
The NIK saysJ 0Returnin* the third time& he said to them& SAre you still
sleepin* and restin*? nou*h< The hour has come4 )ook& the +on of Man is
$etrayed into the hands of sinners41
Notice how the NIK $etrays 0the ori*inal Greek1 $ehind it when it should
clearly say somethin* alon* the lines of 0sleep on now and take your rest1& as
it has the words ;0sleep on1=& ;0take your rest1= and
;0now1=4
2/2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Now& why does Gesus wake them up a*ain ;in "erse 8' they were sleepin*=&
only to tell them to sleep& and then wake them up a*ain in the followin*
"erse?
Mar" 1D:D:
HGKJ 0Rise up& let us *oA lo& he that $etrayeth me is at hand41
NIKJ 0Rise< )et us *o< 2ere comes my $etrayer<S1
The Aramaic CEF)@ mean what the Greek says& $ut can A)+E mean 0+o
they are already ha"in* sleep and rest<`1& which would make more sense of
the conte!t ;they kept sleepin* and Gesus kept wakin* them up=4 The Aramaic
*rammar here can "ery much show that Gesus was speakin* to $oth 2imself
and the Apostles in "erse 8% ;it was fairly common for 2im to speak in the /
rd
person C e4*4 0the +on of man1=4
Lor$a 3ust made a complete mess of these "erses& $y misunderstandin* the
*rammar of a couple of am$i*uous "er$s ;which can $e taken to $e
imperati"e or perfect "er$s=4
1. 7o we nee" to hate to become goo" Christians? &u'e
1:2* % -omans $:13 % 10ohn 3:1) % 10ohn :20-21
u"e 1D::;
The HGK saysJ 0If any man come to me& and hate not his father& and mother&
and wife& and children& and $rethren& and sisters& yea& and his own life also&
he cannot $e my disciple41
The NIK saysJ 0SIf anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother& his wife and children& his $rothers and sisters66yes& e"en his own
life66he cannot $e my disciple41
Well the pro$lem here is that we are to 0lo"e our nei*h$our1 and 0honour
our parents14 More specifically& we are seemin*ly told to hate our 0$rothers1&
while this is clearly condemnedJ
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2//
1Mohn 3:14
HGKJ 0Whosoe"er hateth his $rother is a murdererJ and ye know that no
murderer hath eternal life a$idin* in him41
NIKJ 0Anyone who hates his $rother is a murderer& and you know that no
murderer has eternal life in him41
1Mohn D::0K:1
HGKJ 0If a man say& I lo"e God& and hateth his $rother& he is a liarJ for he that
lo"eth not his $rother whom he hath seen& how can he lo"e God whom he
hath not seen? And this commandment ha"e we from him& That he who
lo"eth God lo"e his $rother also41
NIKJ 0If anyone says& SI lo"e God&S yet hates his $rother& he is a liar4 .or
anyone who does not lo"e his $rother& whom he has seen& cannot lo"e God&
whom he has not seen4 And he has *i"en us this commandJ Whoe"er lo"es
God must also lo"e his $rother41
A similar pro$lem occurs with Romans OJ%/& where our lo"in* God is
portrayed in a different li*ht& $y the Greek4
Bomans 1:13
HGKJ 0As it is written& Gaco$ ha"e I lo"ed& $ut sau ha"e I hated41
NIKJ 0Gust as it is writtenJ SGaco$ I lo"ed& $ut sau I hated4S1
Ence a*ain& the #eshitta comes to the rescue4
The )amsa says ;)uke %8J2B=J 02e who comes to me and does not put aside
his father and his mother and his $rothers and his sisters and his wife and his
children and e"en his own life cannot $e a disciple to me41
The )amsa says ;Romans OJ%/=J 0As it is written& Gaco$ ha"e I lo"ed $ut sau
ha"e I set aside41
The answer lies in the Aramaic word S0nsS ;sonePN4 It can mean 0to put
aside1 and 0to hate14 Clearly 2e is teachin* that in order to $e 2is disciple&
2/8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
we must $e a$le to put aside those we lo"e& and e"en $e prepared to *i"e our
li"es4
As this error is caused $y a mistranslated word& it is an e!ample of a semi6
split word4
1). 3s the Aos,el reall/ 2oolish ? 1Corinthians 1:21 %
2+imoth/ 3:1)-1*
1$orinthians 1::1
The HGK saysJ 0.or after that in the wisdom of God the world $y wisdom
knew not God& it pleased God $y the foolishness of preachin* to sa"e them
that $elie"e41
The NIK saysJ 0.or since in the wisdom of God the world throu*h its wisdom
did not know him& God was pleased throu*h the foolishness of what was
preached to sa"e those who $elie"e41
The Greek would ha"e us $elie"e thatJ %= The Gospel is foolish& and 2= that the
9i$le teaches that a foolish Gospel can make us wise4
:Timothy 3:14K1;
The HGK saysJ 0And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures&
which are a$le to make thee wise unto sal"ation throu*h faith which is in
Christ Gesus4 All scripture is *i"en $y inspiration of God& and is profita$le for
doctrine& for reproof& for correction& for instruction in ri*hteousnessJ1
The NIK saysJ 0and how from infancy you ha"e known the holy +criptures&
which are a$le to make you wise for sal"ation throu*h faith in Christ Gesus4
All +cripture is God6$reathed and is useful for teachin*& re$ukin*& correctin*
and trainin* in ri*hteousness&1
@oes the Apostle #aul really say that the Gospel is foolish?
The )amsa says ;%Corinthians %J2%=J 09ecause all the wisdom which God had
*i"en was not sufficient for the world to know God& it pleased God to sa"e
those who $elie"e $y the simple *ospel41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2/>
The Aramaic word in :uestion& Fwy=4bd& means 0simple14 0+imple1 CAN
$e taken to mean 0foolish1 ;e4*4 a simple person D a foolish person=& $ut it
$o**les the mind why Lor$a would translate it so& when the "erse refers to
the Gospel4
1*. 5 me"le/ o2 8l" +estament a,ologetics
Now that we ha"e finished lookin* at some of the many Greek contradictions
and errors sol"ed $y the #eshitta New Testament& I would like to share a few
Massoretic ;the most accepted 2e$rew form of the Eld Testament=
contradictions sol"ed $y the #eshitta Eld Testament& for interest& and to show
further e"idence of the use of the Aramaic lan*ua*e in 9i$lical times4
(as Aha/iah :: 8:?in#s 8::;F or D: 8:$hronicles ::::F when he +e#an to
rule over MerusalemW
amsa K :?in#s 8::;
Aha,iah was twenty6two years old when he $e*an to rei*nA and he rei*ned one year in
Gerusalem4 And his mother7s name was Athaliah& the dau*hter of Emri kin* of Israel4
amsa K :$hronicles ::::
Twenty6two years old was Aha,iah when he $e*an to rei*n& and he rei*ned one year
in Gerusalem4 2is mother7s name was Athaliah the dau*hter of Emri4
9y readin* the conte!t& we see that Aha,iah must ha"e $een 22 and not 82&
otherwise his father would ha"e $een of a similar a*e<
amsa :?in#s 8:1;K:;
And in the fifth year of Goram the son of Aha$ kin* of Israel& Gehoshaphat $ein* then
kin* of Gudah& Gehoram the son of Gehoshaphat kin* of Gudah $e*an to rei*n4 Thirty
and two years old was he when he $e*an to rei*nA and he rei*ned ei*ht years in
Gerusalem4 And he walked in the way of the kin*s of Israel& as did the house of Aha$J
for the dau*hter of Aha$ was his wifeJ and he did e"il in the si*ht of the )ER@4 5et
the )ER@ would not destroy Gudah for @a"id his ser"ant7s sake& as he promised him
to *i"e him alway a li*ht& and to his children4 In his days dom re"olted from under
the hand of Gudah& and made a kin* o"er themsel"es4 +o Goram went o"er to Lair& and
all the chariots with himJ and he rose $y ni*ht& and smote the domites which
compassed him a$out& and the captains of the chariotsJ and the people fled into their
tents4 5et dom re"olted from under the hand of Gudah unto this day4 Then )i$nah
2/B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
re"olted at the same time4 And the rest of the acts of Goram& and all that he did& are
they not written in the $ook of the chronicles of the kin*s of Gudah? And Goram slept
with his fathers& and was $uried with his fathers in the city of @a"idJ and Aha,iah his
son rei*ned in his stead4 In the twelfth year of Goram the son of Aha$ kin* of Israel did
Aha,iah the son of Gehoram kin* of Gudah $e*in to rei*n4 Aha,iah was twenty6two
years old when he $e*an to rei*nA and he rei*ned one year in Gerusalem4 And his
mother7s name was Athaliah& the dau*hter of Emri kin* of Israel4
In this case& the #ET ;#eshitta Eld Testament= pro"es useful4
(as Mehoiachin 8 8:$hronicles 3;:1F or 18 8:?in#s :D:8F when he +e#an to
rei#nW
This is a similar e!ample to which many apolo*ists ha"e come up with a
comple! answer in"ol"in* a two6phase system of kin*ship4 The real solution
is far simpler4 A*ain& it is a Scopyist errorS& and is sol"ed $y the much older
#eshitta Eld TestamentJ
amsa :$hronicles 3;:1
Gehoiachin was ei*hteen years old when he $e*an to rei*n& and he rei*ned three
months and ten days in GerusalemA and he did that which was e"il in the si*ht of the
)ER@4
amsa :?in#s :D:8
Gehoiachin was ei*hteen years old when he $e*an to rei*n& and he rei*ned three
months in Gerusalem4 And his mother7s name was Nehushta& the dau*hter of liathan
of Gerusalem4
These are $ut a few e!amples& and this isn?t the only "ersion to sol"e
Massoretic contradictions4 "en the Greek )RR seems to play witness to the
ori*inal 2e$rew ET4 While the Aramaic and Greek New Testaments read SI>
personsDsoulsS in Acts IJ%8& the Massoretic says I'& in Genesis 8BJ2I& !odus
%J> and @euteronomy %'J224 The )RR howe"er& also reads SI>S 3ust like the
NT& in Genesis 8BJ2I and !odus %J>& partly sol"in* this ScontradictionS4
The @ead +ea +crolls ET also *ets in on the action& clarifyin* some o$scure
Massoretic passa*es4 In Massoretic #salm 22J%B& we ha"e 0like a lion1 which
makes no sense in the conte!t& while the #ET& )RR and @ead +ea +crolls
;@++= all ha"e 0pierced14 This makes a lot more senseJ 0a $and of e"il men
ha"e encircled me& and they ha"e pierced at my hands and feet14 2ow can
you 0like a lion1 some$ody?
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2/I
The point of this is not to imply that one ET "ersion is $etter than the other&
rather to show that each has its uses& and all are witness to an older 2e$rew
ori*inal that most likely had no contradictions4 Isn?t the Massoretic te!t& the
ori*inal 2e$rew ET 9i$le? No4 It is a copy of a copy of a copy ;ad nauseam=
that surfaced around O'' A@ ;lon* after the #eshitta ET& )RR& @++ and e"en
the New Testament<=4 .or this reason& older ET "ersions& thou*h they may $e
translations& are still "ital pursuits in 9i$lical studies4 And what is the
importance of this to ET apolo*etics? Well& when someone comes to you with
a contradiction in the ET& you can always say& Syou are not :uotin* from the
ori*inal`S
With this knowled*e& apolo*etics $ecomes a $ree,e4 A similar situation arises
with NT apolo*etics4 When someone discusses an alle*ed contradiction& all
you need do is inform them that they are not usin* the ri*ht 9i$le ;Greek6
$ased= and refer them to the contradiction6free #eshitta4
1(. Ao" blin"e" their e/es? 0ohn 12:0 et al
This topic is massi"e& spannin* many "erses& and dealin* with contradictions
in the Greek ;includin* the contradiction $etween the GNT and the )RR=& the
corrupt nature of the Massoretic ET ;as dealt with $efore=& the corrupt nature
of the GNT& the lie that the GNT :uotes the )RR& the character of God& and
the clarity of the #eshitta4
.irst let us esta$lish some *round rulesJ
1Timothy ::3KD
.or this is *ood and accepta$le in the si*ht of God our +a"iour& Who desires all men to
$e sa"ed and to return to the knowled*e of the truth4
:Peter 3:1
The )ord is not ne*li*ent concernin* his promises& as some men count ne*li*enceA $ut
is lon*sufferin* toward you& not wishin* that any should perish& $ut that all should
come to repentance4
God wants all to $e sa"ed4 5et the Greek New Testament shocks us and
pro"ides ammunition to anti6ChristiansJ
Mohn 1::D0 [?MJ!:
2/( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2e hath $linded their eyes& and hardened their heartA that they should not see with
their eyes& nor understand with their heart& and $e con"erted& and I should heal them4
Mohn 1::D0 [NIJ!:
S2e has $linded their eyes and deadened their hearts& so they can neither see with
their eyes& nor understand with their hearts& nor turn66and I would heal them4S
@id God chan*e 2is mind or has the Greek 3ust once a*ain e!posed itself as
an imposter?
This error was caused $y misunderstandin* of a passi"e plural "er$ in the
Aramaic4 The #eshitta saysJ
Mohn 1::D0 [amsa!:
Their eyes ha"e $ecome $lind and their hearts darkened& so that they cannot see with
their eyes and understand with their heartsA let them return and I will heal them4
Mohn 1::D0 [Uounan!:
that they ha"e $linded their eyes and ha"e darkened their heart that not they mi*ht
see with their eyes and understand with their heart and repent and I heal them
It *ets $etter4 +o often we hear claims that the GNT :uotes the )RR4 Gohn
%2J8' refers to Isaiah BJ%'4 The Massoretic translations also *i"e us this
0nasty1 ima*e of GodJ
Isaiah ;:10 [?MJ!:
Make the heart of this people fat& and make their ears hea"y& and shut their eyesA lest
they see with their eyes& and hear with their ears& and understand with their heart& and
con"ert& and $e healed4
Isaiah ;:10 [NIJ!:
Make the heart of this people callousedA make their ears dull and close their eyes4
Etherwise they mi*ht see with their eyes& hear with their ears& understand with their
hearts& and turn and $e healed4S
)RRJ This people?s heart has $ecome callousedA they hardly hear with their
ears& and they ha"e closed their eyes
Clearly& the GNT :uotes from the Massoretic& rather than the )RR in this case4
)et7s look at the #eshitta ETJ
Isaiah ;:10 [amsa!:
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 2/O
.or the heart of this people is darkened and their ears are hea"y and their eyes closed&
so that they may not see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with
their heart and $e con"erted and $e for*i"en4
A*ain we see the "alue of the )RR and #eshitta ET& as the Massoretic 2e$rew
ET is not always correct4 We must always keep in mind& that they are all
different $ranches of the true 2e$rew ori*inal4 .urthermore& the GNT follows
the corrupted Massoretic te!t& while the #eshitta New Testament *ets the
true& uncorrupted& non6contradictory readin* from the ori*inal 2e$rew Eld
Testament& as does the )RR and the #ET4
As stated $efore& this case is a$solutely MA++IK4 The false translations from
the ET and NT make it seem that God actually wants people to $e unsa"ed C
contradictin* the rest of the 9i$le4 .rom the Aramaic thou*h& we see that it
was not God who did these thin*s& $ut perhaps the people themsel"es4 And
that is so true4 Eften& when one sees the truth& one chooses 0not to $elie"e it1&
to i*nore it4
11. 7ebating about the law an"%or +orah is un,ro2itable
an" vain? +itus 3:$ % #atthew ):1(-11
Titus 3:1K11
?MJ: 09ut a"oid foolish :uestions& and *enealo*ies& and contentions& and stri"in*s
a$out the lawA for they are unprofita$le and "ain4 A man that is an heretick after the
first and second admonition re3ectA Hnowin* that he that is such is su$"erted& and
sinneth& $ein* condemned of himself41
NIJ: 09ut a"oid foolish contro"ersies and *enealo*ies and ar*uments and :uarrels
a$out the law& $ecause these are unprofita$le and useless4 Warn a di"isi"e person
once& and then warn him a second time4 After that& ha"e nothin* to do with him4 5ou
may $e sure that such a man is warped and sinfulA he is self6condemned41
NoteJ In the Greek& the word for 0contentionsDar*uments1 is 0eris1& referrin*
to 0de$ates14
@e$atin* a$out the law ;0nomikos1& deri"ed from 0nomos1= or Torah is
unprofita$le and "ain? Wow& that makes Gesus and #aul look :uite silly
doesn7t it?
Matthew 4:12K18
@o not suppose that I ha"e come to weaken the law or the prophetsA I ha"e not come
to weaken& $ut to fulfil4 .or truly I say to you& Fntil hea"en and earth pass away& not
e"en a yoth or a dash shall pass away from the law until all of it is fulfilled4
Bomans 3:31
What& then? @o we nullify the law throu*h faith? .ar $e itA on the contrary& we uphold
the law4
The word in the Greek ;nomos= and Aramaic ;namusa= can mean 0law1 or
0Torah14
Ae+rews 2:1:
+ince there was a chan*e in the priesthood& so also there was a chan*e in the law4
Whiche"er the "erses refer to& it is o$"ious that we ha"e a 0new law1 as
2e$rews IJ%2 cannot $e referrin* to the Torah ;the Torah is a written
document and cannot chan*e& while the law can chan*e=4
:Timothy 3:1;
All scripture written $y the inspiration of the 2oly +pirit is profita$le for doctrine& for
reproof& for correction& and for instruction in ri*hteousnessA
The messa*e is clear from the New Testament that $oth the Torah ;as part of
the +criptures= and the law are important to us ;no matter what meanin* is
meant for the Greek nomos or the Aramaic namusa=4
5et the Greek has to *o and contradict itself<
09ut a"oid foolish :uestions& and *enealo*ies& and contentions& and stri"in*s
a$out the lawA for they are unprofita$le and "ain41
Ef course& the #eshitta has a simple solution4
)amsaJ 09ut a"oid foolish :uestions and *enealo*ies and contentions and the
theolo*ical ar*uments of the scri$es& for they are unprofita$le and "ain4 After
you ha"e admonished the heretic once or twice& shun him& Hnowin* that he
who is such is corruptA he sins and condemns himself41
Chapter I4 Contradictions in the Greek New Testament #ro"e #eshitta #rimacy 28%
The correspondin* word in the Aramaic is 0r#s ;0sapra1 C 0scri$es1=4 This
makes far more sense& and eliminates the contradiction of the Greek4 It isn7t
the law or the Torah that is $ein* $admouthed& it is the *roup known as the
scri$es< There is a connection that can e!plain Lor$a7s mistake4 0+cri$es1 is
related to 0lawyers1& which o$"iously is related to 0law1& translated as
0nomikos1 in the Greek4
Are we startin* to see a trend here? It seems that the Greek 9i$le is actually
a*ainst itself< .irst& we are told in %Corinthians %J2% how foolish the 9i$le isA
now we are told that stri"in* after the lawDTorah is unprofita$le and "ain< Is
Lor$a tryin* to tell us somethin*? That the Greek 9i$le is useless?
Chapter (4 I @on7t Hnow Aramaic& What 2ope is There for Me? 28/
$ha%ter 8& I >onIt ?now
Aramaic7 (hat Ao%e is
There for MeW
Now that you ha"e seen the many proofs of #eshitta primacy& you are may$e
con"inced& and want to o$tain the #eshitta4 Fnfortunately& not e"eryone can
read Aramaic& so an n*lish translation is usually re:uired4 There are :uite a
few a"aila$le& $ut which one is the $est?
9efore I start critically e!aminin* the $etter6known "ersions& I would like to
say that all these men are worthy of respect and admiration for increasin*
awareness of the Aramaic4 No$ody is perfect4 And I think no n*lish
translation can $e perfect either& seein* as how Aramaic and n*lish are such
different lan*ua*es& utili,in* completely different idioms4 Ne"ertheless& we
must find an answer4
Heor#e amsa: The 0)amsa 9i$le1 is a *ood translation4 It corrects some
contradictions in the New Testament& as well as the Eld Testament ;this
"ersion includes an n*lish translation of the #eshitta Eld Testament& makin*
it all the more "alua$le=4 2owe"er& his "ersion is affected $y his $ias and his
wish to keep it in line with the HGK4 .or e!ample& thou*h $oth God and Gesus
are referred to as 0Mar5ah1 ;)ord 52W2= in the #eshitta& )amsa writes
0)ER@1 for God& and 0)ord1 for Gesus4
Jictor Ale6ander: The K6A 9i$le is not trustworthy4 Additions to the Word
are fre:uently made such as in Genesis chapter %& where he inserts 0the +on1&
to cross6reference it with the New Testament& which says that the +on was
present at Creation4 I do not deny that 0the +on1 was the Creator& $ut it is still
wron* to add to the Word& e"en if you are addin* truth4 Also& he claims that
the Aramaic word 0fnoma1 means 0trinity1& so his "ersion actually includes
the word 0trinity1& which is lackin* in the Aramaic4 0fnoma1 is usually taken
to mean 0person1& $ut likely means 0indi"iduated nature14 .urthermore& due
to his anti6+a$$ath $elief& he $latantly tampers with the te!t of 2e$rews
chapter 8 ;a "ery pro6+a$$ath chapter& in the ori*inal Aramaic=4 While the
Aramaic makes it clear that it discusses 0Goshua& the son of Nun1& Ale!ander
translates this as 0Gesus14 Goshua and Gesus are e:ui"alent names& $ut Gesus is
the +on of God& not the son of Nun4 This "ersion is clearly affected $y the
translator?s doctrine4 I see the many footnotes in this "ersion as the only
ad"anta*e4
Mames Trimm: Trimm7s 2e$raic Roots Kersion is to $e thorou*hly a"oided4
The translator has made an a$solute 0hod*e6pod*e1 of a translation4 .or the
9ook of Matthew& he uses the 2e$rew "ersions& which arise from the Middle
centuries and ha"e no e"idence of $ein* ori*inals4 .or the Gospels ;ironically&
includin* Matthew= he uses the Eld +yriac& a corrupt Aramaic "ersion4 2e
claims that the Eld +yriac is superior to the #eshitta& which is thorou*hly
re$utted $y the history of the Church of the ast and the +yrian Erthodo!
Church4 Ironically& as the Eld +yriac only includes the 8 Gospels& Trimm is
forced to use the #eshitta for the other $ooks ;indeed& I once confronted him
a$out his hypocritical use of the "ery #eshitta he $admouths& to which no
answer was *i"en=4 It has e"en $een demonstrated that his 0translation1 of
these $ooks is not e"en his own work& that they are pla*iarised from the Way
International?s translation4
Mames Murdoc" and Mohn (esley ,therid#e: Two older n*lish "ersions4
They contain many of the errors that the Greek contains& due to
mistranslations from the Aramaic4 Not the $est& $ut at least they are in the
pu$lic domain4
.rom these and any other "ersions $ut one& I tend to prefer the )amsa
translation4 Ene $i* ad"anta*e of the )amsa "ersion is that it includes a
translation of the #eshitta Eld Testament ;which is older then the 2e$rew
Massoretic te!t from which most ET translations stem=4 9ut is there a $etter
"ersion a"aila$le& "irtually free from $ias? There sure is4 It is an Interlinear
Chapter (4 I @on7t Hnow Aramaic& What 2ope is There for Me? 28>
;literal Interlinears are almost always the $est translations= $ein* created $y
Aramaic e!pert #aul 5ounan4
Paul Uounan: An e!cellent "ersion& $y an honest translator4 #erhaps the only
translator who admits that his "ersion may ha"e errors& and who translates
honestly& despite possi$le contradictions with his $eliefs or his Church4 .or
e!ample& thou*h he does not $elie"e that Gesus is 0God the .ather1& he
honestly translates Isaiah OJB as 0eternal .ather14 Thou*h his Church does not
teach the honourin* of the +a$$ath& he honestly translates 2e$rews 8JO& which
clearly teaches that the +a$$ath is still important to the people of God4
.urthermore& his translation corrects countless contradictions that are found
within the Greek te!t and also in other n*lish translations of the Aramaic
#eshitta4 Fnfortunately& the translation is still an on*oin* process4 +o far& only
the four Gospels and part of Acts ha"e $een completed4 Ama,in*ly& this
hi*hest of "ersions is in the pu$lic domain4
The future: The awareness of the ori*inal Aramaic New Testament is steadily
increasin*4 #eople can no lon*er re3ect the o"erwhelmin* e"idence of an
Aramaic ori*inal& when there is no e"idence for a Greek ori*inal4 +o it is
e!pected that more n*lish translations will arise o"er time4
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 28I
Feature 1 ) The Hree" of the
HNT is not ?oine Hree"
9y Raphael )ataster
With research $y @a"id 9lack& Goseph Kiel& Raphael )ataster and #aul 5ounan
This article will e!pose the lie that the Greek New Testament was written in
Hoine Greek& the 0common Greek1& and also "irtually pro"e that the GNT has
a +emitic ori*inal4 Appropriately& this e!cuse was ori*inally created $y Greek
primacists to com$at the *rowin* threat of a +emitic ori*inal& and to e!plain
away the shockin*ly $ad *rammar of many of the $ooks in the GNT4 We will
demonstrate how the GNT follows +emitic synta!& rather than Greek synta!4
We will show how similar the Greek of the GNT is to the Greek of the
+eptua*int ;the +eptua*int as we all know is a Greek translation of a +emitic
ori*inal=4 We will also e!amine the "arious works in Hoine Greek and
compare them to the GNT C the result was unsurprisin*J we found that the
GNT was not written in Hoine4 The Greek New Testament was written in
0+emitic translation Greek1& 3ust like the +eptua*int4
@ue to the massi"e scope of this topic& and "ast amount of e"idence that the
Greek in the GNT is 0+emitic translation Greek1 and not Hoine Greek& only a
few topics will $e touched upon4 .ar more proofs are in the possession of the
researchers4
$asus %endens
A fre:uent and marked syntactical structure in all +emitic lan*ua*es
;includin* Aramaic= is as followsJ
;%= A <$asus Pendens<& followed $y
;2= A NonKJer+al Predicate followed $y
;/= The 'u+Lect
Casus pendens ;a technical term taken from the )atin& 0a han*in* case1= is
found often in 2e$rew and Aramaic4 5ou may e"en find it in "arious
Classical Greek works& $ut it7s presence in Hoine Greek is insi*nificant4
We shall first look at a +emitic source& the 2e$rew ET& so that we ha"e dome
sort of control& to compare the GNT to4 The 2ET is full of e!amples of casus
pendens& and as e!pected& so is the +eptua*int& $ein* a translation of the
+emitic ori*inal4 This will help esta$lish a feature of 0+emitic translation
Greek14
Henesis 3:1:
`CV !!. 2N 2N ;Casus #endens=
N` ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
]V ]C `7 .!. ;+u$3ect=
Hyv((vioco;rtro ;Casus #endens=
o\tj ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
otiocirvonto0o ;+u$3ect=
The woman that you %ut with me ;Casus #endens=
it was she ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that #ave me 8fruitF from the tree& ;+u$3ect=
As you can see& this is :uite a redundant ;perhaps poetic= way of speakin*4 It
is far less complicated to ha"e 3ust said& 0the woman that you put with me
*a"e me ;fruit= from the tree14 This syntactical structure is "ery rare in all
Indo6uropean lan*ua*es& such as Greek& $ut "ery common in +emitic
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 28O
lan*ua*es4 More ET e!amples from the Massoretic 2e$rew and the
+eptua*intJ
Henesis 14:D
_`VCC N3` 2N CV `2 ;Casus #endens=
N` ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
_2`` ;+u$3ect=
oo;rrr0ortotrioo ;Casus #endens=
oto; ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
ijpoo(ortor ;+u$3ect=
The one who shall s%rin# from your loins ;Casus #endens=
it is he ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that shall +e your heir& ;+u$3ect=
Henesis 40:4
]V.2 ]N2 `7 `!`2 2N `22 ;Casus #endens=
C2 ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
`.2! ;+u$3ect=
vt(jrl((cpvorovt(rvy|Xovoov ;Casus #endens=
rir ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
rOojrt; ;+u$3ect=
In my tom+ which I du# for myself in the land of $anaan ;Casus #endens=
it is there ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that you shall +ury me& ;+u$3ect=
+o the +eptua*int ;)RR= is full of this +emitic structure4 9i* deal4 That7s what
you would e!pect& seein* as it is a :uite faithful translation of the 2e$rew ET4
9ut the Greek New Testament is also full of casus pendens4 #erhaps that
would mean then& like with the )RR& the GNT is a faithful translation of a
+emitic ori*inal& i*norin* proper Greek *rammar in fa"our of an authentic
translation4
2>' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Matthew ;:D
0yskb 0!xd ,wb0 ;Casus #endens=
wh ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
0yl%b K9r#n ;+u$3ect=
oHot(poovoprncvrvt(ipvnt( ;Casus #endens=
o0t; ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
onoocortootrvt(ovrp( ;+u$3ect=
Uour Father who sees in secret ;Casus #endens=
who will reward you o%enly& ;+u$3ect=
Matthew 2:13
00y%sw ;Casus #endens=
Nyly0 wn0 ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
hb Nyl!0d ;+u$3ect=
;Casus #endens=
;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
;+u$3ect=
and many ;Casus #endens=
are they ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that enter throu#h it ;+u$3ect=
Matthew :;::3
F%lb Ym9 hdy0 (b(d Nm ;Casus #endens=
Ynml4n ;+u$3ect=
Orojo;rtrotjv,rporvt(tppl( ;Casus #endens=
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2>%
rnopoocort ;+u$3ect=
The one who has di%%ed his hand in the dish with me ;Casus #endens=
who will +etray me& ;+u$3ect=
Mohn 1::D8
tllmd Flm ;Casus #endens=
Yh ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
0yrx0 0mwyb hl 0nyd ;+u$3ect=
oyo;ovrojoo ;Casus #endens=
rirvo; ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
iptvro0tvrvt|ro,otjrp( ;+u$3ect=
The word that I have s%o"en ;Casus #endens=
it is it ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that will Lud#e him on the last day& ;+u$3ect=
Mohn 1D:10
rm9 Ybd Nyd Yb0 ;Casus #endens=
Nylh 0db9 db9 ;+u$3ect=
oorHot(porvrorvcv ;Casus #endens=
notrtoipyo ;+u$3ect=
My Father who dwells in me ;Casus #endens=
that does these wor"s& ;+u$3ect=
Acts 12::3
hl wtn0 Nylxd wtn0 Ny9dy f dkd $ykh wh ;Casus #endens=
2>2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
0nhl hl ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
wkl 0n0 rbsm 0n0 ;+u$3ect=
oo0voyvoovtr;r0orprtr ;Casus #endens=
toto ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
ryciotoyyrc0v ;+u$3ect=
(hat therefore you worshi% without "nowin# ;Casus #endens=
it is this ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
that I %roclaim to you& ;+u$3ect=
We e"en find this in letters apparently written to GreeksJ
1$orinthians ::14
0d Mdm $k Nyd 0nxwr ;Casus #endens=
whw ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
Nydtm f $n0 Nm ;+u$3ect=
Oornvrottio;ovoiplvrtrvnovto ;Casus #endens=
o0t;or ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
0no0orv;ovoiplvrtot ;+u$3ect=
Now7 the s%iritual man Lud#es all thin#s ;Casus #endens=
yet this one ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
Ae is not Lud#ed +y any man& ;+u$3ect=
Mames 1::;
hbl hl 09=m f0 hn4l dx0 fw 0hl0l $m4md rbs $n0 0w
;Casus #endens=
0nhd ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
ht4m4t Yh 0qyrs ;+u$3ect=
tt;ooirOpoi;rvotrv0vj,otvoycycvycooovo0too
oonotcviopolovo0to ;Casus #endens=
to0to ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2>/
otto;jOpjoirlo ;+u$3ect=
If anyone amon# you thin"s he is reli#ious7 and does not +ridle his ton#ue
+ut deceives his own heart ;Casus #endens=
this man ;Non6Ker$al #redicate=
his reli#ion is useless& ;+u$3ect=
5ou7re not in the minority if you think this way of speakin* doesn7t make
much sense in Greek or n*lish<
Well& we ha"e 3ust seen that the GNT& alle*edly written in Hoine& is full of
casus pendens C a structure that is e!tremely rare in all types of Greek&
particularly Hoine Greek4
Note that Greek copies of Gosephus7 works also show casus pendens& as
shown in The )ife of Gosephus& 82;2'(=J
0=ut wonderful it was E 8whatF a dream E I saw that very ni#ht1
+o we can easily see that 0+emitic translation Greek1 has many e!amples of
casus pendens4 We see it in the +eptua*int4 We see it in the Greek translations
of Gosephus7 works4 And we see it in the Greek New Testament4
Pre%osition re%etition
Another characteristic feature of +emitic *rammar is the repetition of a
%re%osition $efore e"ery noun of a series which it *o"erns4 +uch a
construction is intolera$le in literary Greek ;as it is in n*lish=4 This occurs
throu*hout the GNT& with no less than ele"en cases in Mark alone4
An ET e!ampleJ
Moshua 11::1

2>8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
XQY ZR[\] YZ^_à \] bT XQYcT \X\Y]T XQY \dTR\[c\`^\] b_à \]QXYe
\X bZa _c\Y]Za \X f\gcT] XQY \X hQgYc XQY \d Q]QgT[ XQY \X iQ]b_a
j\]_à Y^cQZR XQY \X iQ]b_a _c_à Y_`hQ ^`] bQYa i_R\^Y] Q`bT] XQY
\dTR\[c\`^\] Q`b_à YZ^_à
Then Moshua came at that time and cut off the Ana"im from the hill
country7 from Ae+ron7 from >e+ir7 from Ana+ and from all the hill country
of Mudah and from all the hill country of Israel& Moshua utterly destroyed
them with their cities&
Now& let?s look at some e!amples from the New TestamentJ
Mar" 3:2K8
0my twl hl $!0 Yhwdymlt M9 (w4yw
0wh h#qn fyl% Nm 00y%s 0m9w
Mwd0 Nmw Ml4rw0 Nmw dwhy Nmw
dy( Nmw rw( Nmw Nndrwyd 0rb9 Nmw
htwl wt0 db9d $k wwh w9m4d 00y%s 04nk
XQY _ YZ^_à e\bQ bT] eQ[ZbT] Q`b_` Q]\fTcZ^\] ic_a bZ]
[QRQ^^Q] XQY i_R` iRZ[_a Qi_ bZa jQRYRQYQa [ZX_R_`[Z^\]! XQY
Qi_ bZa Y_`hQYQa XQY Qi_ Y\c_^_RèT] XQY Qi_ bZa Yh_èQYQa XQY
i\cQ] b_` Y_chQ]_` XQY i\cY b`c_] XQY ^YhT]Q iRZ[_a i_R`
QX_`_]b\a _^Q \i_Y\Y ZR[_] ic_a Q`b_]
Mesus withdrew to the sea with Ais disci%lesP and a #reat multitude from
Halilee followedP and also from Mudea7 and from Merusalem7 and from
Idumea7 and from +eyond the Mordan7 and from Tyre7 and from 'idon7 a
#reat num+er of %eo%le heard of all that Ae was doin# and came to Aim&
In this ne!t e!ample I will raise up a new topicJ "aryin* translation styles4 The
:uality of the Greek in the +eptua*int "aries from $ook to $ook4 This is due to
different translators ha"in* different o$3ecti"es4 +ome translators preferred to
stick to the +emitic ori*inal and produce an almost word6for6word interlinear
;at the e!pense of proper Greek *rammar= while others were focused on
producin* a hi*hly reada$le Greek te!t ;as the e!pense of authenticity=4 The
GNT shows the same phenomenon4
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2>>
Mar" 8:31
0nhk Ybr Nmw 04y4q Nm ftsndw Y%s $xnd
And Ae would suffer much and +e reLected from the ,lders and from the
Ai#h Priests ;Aramaic=
i_RRQ iQ[\Y] XQY Qi_h_XYeQ^[Z]QY ì_ bT] ic\^g`b\cT] XQY bT]
QcfY\c\T]
And Ae would suffer much and +e reLected from the ,lders and from the
Ai#h Priests ;Greek=
Matthew 1;::1
0nhk Ybr Nmw 04y4q Nm $xn Y%sw
And Ae would suffer much from the ,lders and from the Ai#h Priests
;Aramaic=
XQY i_RRQ iQ[\Y] Qi_ bT] ic\^g`b\cT] XQY QcfY\c\T]
And Ae would suffer much from the ,lders and the Ai#h Priests ;Greek=
The translator of Mark into Greek was "ery faithful to the underlyin*
Aramaic ori*inal4 The translator of Matthew was more intent on o$eyin* the
rules of Greek *rammar4
(ord order
In many seminary courses& it is tau*ht that word order is not important in
Greek4 2owe"er& many secular sources ha"e stated otherwise& sayin* word
order >5,' ha"e si*nificance4 The reason that the former is tau*ht is $ecause
it is hard to find two Greek 9i$lical manuscripts whose word order is always
in a*reement or matches the word order of normal Greek writin*s4
NoteJ .or the purposes of this article& one must follow the e!pected rules of
Ancient Greek4 Nowadays& the neutral word order is the same in 2e$rew&
Greek and n*lish4 +o we must always $e comparin* the Greek of the GNT to
other Greek writin*s of its day ;like the )RR& #hilo& #lutarch& etc=4
2>B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Jer+s
Amon* +emitic lan*ua*es& the "er$ tends to come first in its sentence or
clause4 This happens constantly in the GNT ;for some e!amples& see Matthew
BJO6%/& )uke %J>%6>> and %Timothy /J%B=4 No nati"e Greek would follow this
pattern4
NoteJ Aramaic is read from ri*ht to left4
1Timothy 3:1;
Fwn0kd 0nh 0!r0 wh Br ty0ryr4w
rsbb Yl%t0d
&wrb )dd!0w
0k0lml Y!xt0w
0mm9 tyb !rkt0w
0ml9b Nmyht0w
0xbw4b )lts0w

And without contro"ersy *reat is the mystery of *odlinessJ God YwasZ
manifest in the flesh
3ustified in the spirit
seen of an*els
preached unto the Gentiles
$elie"ed on in the world
recei"ed up into *lory
The neutral ;normal= word order for n*lish& Greek and AramaicD2e$rewJ
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2>I
n*lishJ +u$3ect Ker$ E$3ect
GreekJ +u$3ect E$3ect Ker$
AramaicD2e$rewJ Ker$ +u$3ect E$3ect
Most of the time& Greek speakers e!pect to see the su$3ect first& then the o$3ect&
followed $y the "er$4
Most of the time& the word order of the Te!tus Receptus ;9y,antine= and
Westcort62ort ;Ale!andrian= manuscripts isJ "er$& su$3ect o$3ect4 Most of the
time& the GNT shows +emitic word order4 In $oth ma3or Greek manuscripts& a
computer *enerated count shows I2\ of all "erses ha"e the Ker$ $efore the
su$3ect or o$3ect nouns& 3ust like in AramaicD2e$rew4 In the Gospels& it7s
almost ('\4 No $ook of the Greek NT si*nificantly uses the neutral Greek
word order a ma3ority of the time& e"en thou*h we7d e!pect e"ery $ook
written in Greek to do so4
)et us specifically e!amine the "er$6noun word order in the #auline pistles&
3ust to *i"e Greek primacists a 0fi*htin* chance1J
etter Jer+KNoun NounKJer+
phesians BO\ /%\
Galatians >/\ 8I\
#hilemon 8(\ >2\
#hilippians >I\ 8/\
%Corinthians B%\ /O\
2Corinthians B8\ /B\
Colossians I8\ 2B\
"en in these $ooks& the "ast ma3ority of word order is "er$6noun& which is
characteristically +emitic4 Enly #hilemon shows a sli*htly more Greek noun6
"er$ order& $ut the difference is sli*ht ;almost a %J% ratio= C if #hilemon were
ori*inally written in Greek& we would e!pect to see the neutral Greek order
far more often4
NoteJ Notice how the neutral Greek order of noun6"er$ "aries from 2B\ in
Colossians& to >2\ in #hilemon4 Why such "ariance& if #aul wrote all these in
Greek? It is likely that this "ariance e!ists& due to differin* :ualities of Greek
translations& from the ori*inal Aramaic sources& e4*4 perhaps the translator of
2>( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Colossians was tryin* to $e "ery literal& keepin* the +emitic structure& while
the translator of #hilemon wasn7t "ery concerned a$out $ein* too literal or
too interpreti"e4
AdLectives
In n*lish& ad3ecti"es must appear $efore the nouns they modify and it7s
considered $ad *rammar for the re"erse to occur& unless the ad3ecti"e is the
word 0royal1 or otherwise refers to royalty4 In 2e$rew and Aramaic&
ad3ecti"es must appear A.TR the nouns they modify& e!cept for
*rammatical modifiers4 In Greek& the n*lish6like pre6noun ad3ecti"e6noun
word order is considered neutral4 Greek will tolerate puttin* the ad3ecti"e
after the noun& $ut this shift creates a new form of emphasis4
In the Greek NT& we find the te!t stru**lin* to use neutral Greek word order&
$ut "aryin* wildly $y $ook4 .or e!ample& in #hilemon& the naturally Greek
Ad3ecti"e6Noun order simply isn7t used at all and the +emitic order is used
instead4
Philemon 1:1
w0tmy=w 0xy4m (w4yd hrys0 "wlw#
Nm9d 0xl#w 0bybx wmly#l 0x0

#aul& a prisoner of Gesus Christ& and Timothy our $rother& to #hilemon YnounZ
the $elo"ed Yad3ecti"eZ and our fellowla$ourer
+ince this is meant to $e a letter from one Greek6speaker to another& written in
Greek& we would e!pect to see 0$elo"ed #hilemon1 instead of 0#hilemon
$elo"ed1 or 0#hilemon the $elo"ed14 We see the Greek conformin* itself to
+emitic rules& as demonstrated $y the Aramaic of the #eshitta ;remem$er that
Aramaic is written from ri*ht to left=4
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2>O
A*ain& let7s take a close look at the #auline pistlesJ
etter NounKAdLective AdLectiveKNoun
phesians 2I\ I/\
Galatians
/'\ TR
%B\ W2
I'\ TR
(8\ W2
#hilemon %''\ '\
#hilippians 22\ I(\
%Corinthians /B\ B8\
2Corinthians /B\ B8\
Colossians /2\ B(\
2Timothy 8I\ >/\
I hear you ask& 0Why show these stats if they actually pro"e that these $ooks
use Greek neutral word order for ad3ecti"es6nouns?1 Well& #hilemon doesn7t
use the neutral Greek word order for ad3ecti"es6nouns at all& and 2Timothy
also uses the +emitic order :uite a lot ;almost a %J% ratio=4 .urthermore& look at
the "ariance4 We *o from (8\ Greek order in the Westcott62ort mss of
Galatians& to '\ Greek order in #hilemon4 If #aul wrote all these $ooks in
Greek& why is there so much "ariance& includin* a "ery stron* +emitic order
for #hilemon and a "ery stron* Greek order for Galatians?
Moreo"er& why is there a whoppin* %8\ "ariance in Greek word order&
$etween the Te!tus Receptus and Westcott62ort mss of Galatians? Could it $e
that these two different Greek copies were translated separately from the
Aramaic ori*inal? This seems "ery likely& considerin* the lar*e amount of
"ariants $etween the 9y,antine Greek and Ale!andrian Greek te!tual
families& which are reconciled in the Aramaic of the #eshitta ;these proofs are
called 0split words1=4
As for the other $ooks& each of the 8 Gospels& Acts& Re"elation& Gude and
se"eral of the letters use close to a >'\6>'\ mi! with se"eral $ooks usin* the
+emitic word order of Noun6Ad3ecti"e more than the neutralDnatural Greek
order of Ad3ecti"e6Noun4
2B' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Parata6is
In classical Greek& sentences usually contained one main "er$& and all other
"er$s were su$ordinated in ad"er$ial clauses of one kind or another4 2e$rew&
on the other hand& tended to place main "er$s side $y side& 3oinin* them
to*ether with a simple con3unction ;the 2e$rew #a# 0and1=4 This is known as
parataxis& from the Greek "er$ paratasso SI set side $y side4S
This can occur in Hoine Greek& $ut the constantly recurrin* kai ;0and1= in the
Gospels& particularly Mark& o"ere!tends the usual Greek literary usa*e&
showin* a more +emitic style4 Ama,in*ly& the Gospel of Mark in the Greek
te!t has only one instance ;Mark >J2>62I= of a lon* Greek sentence containin*
su$ordinatin* participles ;which is typical of Greek=& while ha"in* plenty
e!amples of parata!is4
Mar" 10:33K3D
0nhk Ybrl Mlt4m 04n0d hrbw Ml4rw0l Nnx Nyqls 0hd
0mm9l Yhynwml4nw Fwml Yhynwbyxnw 0r#slw
Yhw#0b wqrnw Yhynwd%nnw hb wx!bnw
Mwqn Fltd 0mwylw Yhynwl=qnw

sayin*& 9ehold& we *o up to GerusalemA and the +on of man shall $e deli"ered
unto the chief priests& and unto the scri$esA and they shall condemn him to
death& and shall deli"er him to the Gentiles and they shall mock him& and
shall scour*e him& and shall spit upon him& and shall kill himJ and the third
day he shall rise a*ain
A more typical Greek style would ha"e su$ordinated one or more of these
clauses $y means of participles or relati"e clauses
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2B%
Introductory -it came to %ass.
The peculiar use of the Greek "er$ with another "er$ often
reproduces a closely correspondin* +emitic idiom meanin* Sit was soS or Sit
came to pass4S This +emitism occurs throu*hout the GNT4
u"e ::;
dl0td htmwy wylmt0 wn0 Nmt dkd 0whw

and it came to pass& that& while they were there& the days were accomplished
that she should $e deli"ered
This unnatural e!pression in the GNT "irtually floods the $ook of )uke4 More
e!amples can $e found in the followin* passa*esJ )uke 2J%& 2JB& 2J%>& /J2%& >J%&
>J%2& >J%I& BJ%& BJB& BJ%2& IJ%%& (J%& (J22& OJ%(& OJ2(&OJ/I& OJ>%& %%J%& %%J2I& %8J%&
%IJ%%& %(J/>& 2'J%& 22J28& 28J84
AdLectival su+stitutes
In 2e$rew the so6called construct state lar*ely took the place of the ad3ecti"e4
In this construction two nouns stand to*ether& and the second noun ;as
*eniti"e= limits or :ualifies the first one4 Greek has a correspondin* use of the
*eniti"e case of a noun in an ad3ecti"al sense4 The two most characteristically
+emitic idioms are ;%= the *eniti"e of an a$stract noun in place of an ad3ecti"e
of :uality& and ;2= the use of 0son1 ;huios= with a followin* *eniti"e of ori*in
or definition4
;%= The former idiom& sometimes called the 02e$rew *eniti"e1& is found for
e!ample in #hilippians /J2%& where #aul descri$es 0our lowly $ody1 ;literally
0$ody of our lowliness1=& and 02is *lorious $ody1 ;literally 0$ody of his
*lory1=4
2B2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Phili%%ians 3::1
hxbw4d 0r%#d Fwmdb 0whnd Nkkwmd 0r%# +lxn whd
hl db9t40 $k hbd wh 0br hlyx Ky0

who shall chan*e our $ody of our lowliness& that it may $e fashioned like
unto the $ody of his *lory& accordin* to the workin* where$y he is a$le e"en
to su$due all thin*s unto himself
;2= In )uke %'JB& we see 0a peace lo"in* man1 ;literally 0a son of peace1=4
u"e 10:;
wkml4 Yhwl9 &ynttn 0ml4 rb Nmt ty0 0w
,w#hn wkyl9 f Nyd 0

and if indeed $e there a son of peace& your peace shall rest upon itJ if not& it
shall turn to you a*ain
More e!amples are found in the GNT such as those in %Thessalonians >J>
0people who $elon* to the li*ht1 ;literally 0sons of li*ht1=& and Colossians
%J%/ 0his dear son1 ;literally 0the son of his lo"e1=4 #lease note that many of
these e!amples occur in $ooks alle*edly written to Greeks& supportin* the
Aramaic primacist stance that these $ooks were actually written to Aramaic6
speakin* +emites in Greek cities4
Bedundant use of the ver+ - a%o"rinomai.
The e!pression 0he answered and said1 ;apokritheis eipen= or 0answered he
and said1& closely resem$les a common +emitic idiom C it is nonsensical in
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2B/
Greek and n*lish4 The use of the "er$ apokrinomai 0I answer1 in this sense is
often purely redundant ;see Matthew %%J2>& %2J/(& %IJ8& 2(J>& Mark OJ>& %%J%8&
%2J/>=4
Matthew 11::4
0rm Yb0 Kl 0n0 0dwm rm0w (w4y 0n9 0nb! whb
Nm Nylh tyskd 09r0dw 0ym4d
0dwlyl Nyn0 tyl%w 0ntlwksw 0mykx

at that time answered Gesus and said& I thank thee& E .ather& )ord of the
hea"en and the earth& $ecause thou hast hid these thin*s from the wise and
prudent& and hast re"ealed them to $a$es
This e!ample is particularly interestin* as the Aramaic sol"es somewhat of a
contradiction in the Greek ;perhaps the situation is worse C the Greek could
indicate that a passa*e is missin*=4 The GNT somewhat implies that a
:uestion is asked4 The conte!t of the "erse howe"er& re"eals that no$ody
asked 5eshua a :uestion4 +ince this is a common Aramaic idiom& there is no
pro$lem in the #eshitta4
The redundant 0IDhe answerDed1 is found throu*hout the 2ET& )RR& #eshitta
and GNT& hea"ily implyin* that the GNT is a translation of the #eshitta& 3ust
as the )RR is a translation of the 2e$rew ori*inal4
$onLunction usa#e shows us that HNT Hree" is not ?oine
Hree"
The aims of this feature were primarily toA %= show that the Greek of the )RR
and GNT are similarA 2= demonstrate that the Greek of the GNT often has
more in common with +emitic lan*ua*es like Aramaic& rather than Greek andA
/= re"eal the marked differences $etween the Greek of the GNT and Hoine
2B8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Greek4 Any one of the three makes a stron* case for Aramaic primacy4 All
three make an irrefuta$le case4
This analysis of con3unction usa*e fulfills all three o$3ecti"es4
-(aw. conLunction usa#e in the Ae+rew 5T
In n*lish& we occasionally& $ut infre:uently& $e*in a sentence with a word
like 0and1& which thou*ht6wise tends to 3oin the sentence with the pre"ious
sentence4 9ut one thin* that characteri,es 2e$rew narration is that many
sentences in the ET $e*in with the letter 0waw1D1"a"1& which is often
translated 0and1& 0$ut1& or 0then1 in n*lish& dependin* on what readin*
sounds more plausi$le4
I2\ of all "erses in the Torah ;Genesis to @euteronomy= $e*in with the letter
0waw1 ;w)4 That percenta*e "aries in the entire Tanakh from O%\ in the $ook
of Ruth to as little as %\ in +on* of +on*s4 In most narrati"e $ooks& as from
Genesis to 2Chronicles where most of the te!t is tellin* a story& the percenta*e
is IB\& as shown in the chart $elowJ
'tories E Aistories:
Torah ;I2\ or 8%B2 "erses out of >(8( $e*in with waw=& Goshua ;IB\=&
Gud*es ;(O\=& Ruth ;O%\=& +amuel ;(B\=& Hin*s ;(2\= and Chronicles ;I8\=
IB\
Poetic (or"s:
#salms ;%8\=& #ro"er$s ;%2\=& cclesiastics ;%O\=& +on* of +on*s ;%\=&
)amentations ;8\=
'O4O\
Pro%hets:
Isaiah& Geremiah& ,ekiel& @aniel 444to end
8/\
The hi*hest percenta*e of usa*e of the letter 0waw1 at the $e*innin* of a
2e$rew sentence tends to appear in the $ooks that are mostly histories4 In the
mostly historic $ooks from Genesis to 2Chronicles& only @euteronomy has
fewer than B>\ of its "erses startin* with a waw ;8I\=4 .or ei*ht of these
$ooks& the percenta*e tops ('\4
0Waw1 is also used as a proclitic in Aramaic4 The Aramaic portions of @aniel
and ,ra showJ
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2B>
Percenta#e of
verses startin# with
-waw.
Percenta#e usin#
-dyn. or -adyn.
Percenta#e usin#
either
,/ra D:8K;:187 2:1:K:8 8I\ %/\ B'\
>aniel ::DK2::8 /'\ 2%\ >%\
Aow -waw. is translated into Hree"
2ow SWAWS it is translated from 2e$rew into Greek is a $it more
complicated than how it is translated into n*lish ;usually 0and1& 0then1&
0and then1& 0$ut1 or 0yet1 C mostly as 0and1=& $ut the "arious forms can $eJ
& which is the most common translation4 )RR e!amples include Gen
%J/62J/& 2J>&I6O&%/6%B& etc4
& which is ne!t most common4 )RR e!amples include Gen %J2& 8J>& etc4
While and represent a$out O>6O(\ of 2e$rew to Greek translations of
0waw1& there are other possi$ilities& includin* and
+o what is the difference $etween 01 and 01? W 9ullin*er7s 0A Critical
)e!icon and Concordance to the n*lish and Greek New Testament1 saysJ
0kai& the con3unction of anne!ation& unitin* thin*s strictly coordinate1
0de& con34 of antithesis1
0kai connects thou*hts& de444introduces them41 +o kai connects thin*s
smoothly& while de interrupts our thou*ht when it 3oins them to*ether4
Case in pointJ 0Gohn went outside AN@ walked to the chair AN@ read a $ook
AN@ *ot out of his seat AN@ went inside41
It would $e a matter of personal 3ud*ment how to translate this into Greek&
since one person mi*ht see all this as a smooth flow of e"ents& while another
person mi*ht see each step as a serious interruption in the train of thou*ht
in"ol"ed4 Was he *oin* outside with the intention of readin* a $ook? Was he
plannin* on returnin* a $ook to the li$rary and then chan*ed his mind? @id
he start readin* the $ook as he was walkin* to the chair& or did he wait until
he *ot there? +o many factors could enter into our thinkin* as to whether this
2BB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
is a smooth flow of similar thou*hts or an interruption of somethin* different4
#eople could ar*ue continuously as to whether this should $e translated 0kai1
or 0de14
Ancient Greeks howe"er& tended to see such a chain of e"ents as introducin*
new thou*ht4 In narration7 Ancient Hree"s tended to use -de. more often
than -"ai.&
-de. is used as -and. far more than -"ai. in Ancient Hree"
te6ts
9efore we analy,e con3unction usa*e in the )RR and GNT& let us first check
other Ancient Greek sources& so that we ha"e a control to compare the
)RRDGNT to4
+ince the +emiticism in :uestion is more o$"ious in narrati"e works& narrati"e
Greek te!ts ha"e $een chosen for these computer *enerated calculations4 Note
that we see the same trend amon* the Hoine Greek te!ts ;such as those $y
#lutarch= that is present amon* the other forms of Greek& such as the Ionic
Greek of 2erodotus4
(or" 'entences
frekuency of
sentences that
start with
<<
frekuency of
sentences
that start
with <<
Total of <"ai< and
<de< to#ether
#lutarch samplin*
;$e*innin* of .i$es=
first %// %%;(4/\= B';8>\= I%;>/48\=
Constitution of 6thens all O' (;(4O\= /B;8'\= 88;8O\=
#lutarch ;8B6%2'A@=
in 6ristides
all 228 %O;(4>\= IO;/>4/\= O(;88\=
#lutarch in 0heseus all 28( 2';(4%\= %%(;8I4B\= %/(;>>4I\=
#lutarch in Himon all %B( %%;B4>\= O(;>(4/\= %'O;B84(\=
2erodotus?
*istory;>th c49C=
all 228% OB;84/\= %%B(;>24%\= %2B8;>B48\=
Mean 2&D0 D;&D0 43&10
It is clear from the trend that around 400 of the sentences in these Hree"
narrative wor"s start with -and. 8the vast maLority of -and. in Hree"7 as
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2BI
discussed earlier7 is -"ai. and -de.F com%ared to a+out 240 in the narrative
%ortions of the Ae+rew 5T&
We also see that in these Greek narrati"e works& -de. is vastly favoured over
-"ai.7 at a+out D;0 to 20&
Ene mi*ht still $e interested in what happens when we e!amine non6
narrati"e works4 In such cases& the preference of 0de1 o"er 0kai1 is still
e"ident& $ut occurs less fre:uently4 The use of 0kai1 tends to remain a$out the
same& $ut the use of 0de1 drops in proportion to the lack of narration4 Thus&
0de1& more than 0kai1& tends to $e the more natural e!pression of connectin*
e"ents throu*h a time se:uence in Greek4
!amples are included in the followin* ta$le from works that contain few to
no narrationJ
(or" 'entences
frekuency of
sentences that
start with <<
frekuency of
sentences that
start with <<
Total of <"ai<
and <de<
to#ether
#lato?s 6polo%y all 2B/ /%;%%4(\= >O;2248\= O';/842\=
#lato?s 2ymposium all B82 (>;%/42\= %>';2/48\= 2/>;/B4B\=
-"ai. outnum+ers -de. in the 'e%tua#int
)et us see if the +eptua*int& alle*edly written in Hoine Greek& follows the
trends e!hi$ited $y Hoine Greek works& or if it follows the +emitic style and
*i"es us some clue as to the characteristics of 0+emitic translation Greek14
>84/\ of all "erses in the Tanakh $e*in with a waw4 (B\ of the time it was
translated into Greek as a kai& and only as de a$out %8\ of the time4 And the
more narrati"e the $ook& the more likely a waw is translated as kai rather
than as de4 2ere?s the $reakdownJ
2B( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
=oo"E'ection
0 of time a
(aw +e#ins a
verse
0 of time it is
translated as
<"ai<
0 of time it is
translated as
<de<
Torah ;first fi"e $ooks= I%\ I8\ 2B\
Goshua throu*h 2Chronicles
;Goshua& Gud*es& Ruth& +amuel&
Hin*s P Chronicles=
(%\ O(\ 2\
#rophets ;IsaiahD5esh& ,ek& etc= 8>\ cO8\ cB\
Writin*s of #oetry ;#salmDTeh&
#ro"& foh& +E+& )amentations=
%'\ cI>\ c2>\
)et us first deal with 0trend %14 The @@ usa#e of -waw. as the +e#innin# of
a sentence 8in the narrative wor"s of Henesis to :$hroniclesF is far more
than the 400 of Hree" wor"s 8which uses "ai and deF7 ali#nin# with the
240 of the Ae+rew 5T&
This is e!pected& seein* as the )RR is not an ori*inal Greek work4 It is a Greek
translation of a +emitic ori*inal4 The )RR is not written in Hoine Greek4 It is
written in 0+emitic translation Greek14
@ealin* with 0trend 21& the #reater usa#e of -"ai. over -de. is in star"
contrast to what we saw in the other Hree" wor"s7 where -de. vastly
outnum+ered -"ai.&
This information re*ardin* 0trend 21 can now $e used as a characteristic
feature of 0+emitic translation Greek14
If we ha%%en to find another Hree" translation of a 'emitic ori#inal7 we
would e6%ect it to +e similar to the @@ and Ae+rew 5T in terms of usa#e
of -and. em%loyment at +e#innin#s of verses7 and similar to the @@ in
havin# itIs -"ai. and -de. usa#e in star" contrast to that of native Hree"
wor"s&
.or interest& let7s take a look out how the Greek renders the Aramaic portions
of the 2e$rew ETJ
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2BO
=oo"
0 verses
+e#innin#
with <(aw<
0 verses with
-adyn.7 etc& at or
near +e#innin#
0 in @@
+e#innin#
with <?ai<
0 in @@
+e#innin#
with <de<
0 in @@
+e#innin#
with <tote<
,ra
8J(6BJ%(&
IJ%26IJ2(
8I\ %/\ >/\ 2\ %2\
@aniel
2J86IJ2(
/'\ 2%\ 8/\ %'\ %/4>\
We see an e"en *reater preference for 0kai1 o"er 0de1 in the Greek
translations of the Aramaic portions& lar*ely $ecause in some cases we see
0adyn1 translated as 0kai1 ;@an /J/& 28& 2B& 8J%B & plus other "erses=& thus 0kai1
sometimes comes from 0Waw1 and sometimes comes from 0adyn14 A
com$ination of other *rammatical words in Aramaic and Greek are also
in"ol"ed in *ettin* from the Aramaic to the Greek that isn?t as
strai*htforward as our analysis of 2e$rew to Greek translations and some of
these statistics can only $e e!plained with a more in6depth analysis of
Aramaic that would only e!plain minor trends and not the ma3or trends $ein*
focused on in this study4
We see here that in $oth 2e$rew and Aramaic& the translators had a
preference for translatin* 0waw1 as 0kai1 o"er 0de1& e"en thou*h 0de1 is
used more fre:uently in Greek4 We see this $ias towards 0kai1 as small as >6/
in Genesis& and as lar*e as almost %'6% in Ruth4 It seemed the translators of
Genesis stru**led $etween a literal translation that would e!press the 0waw1
as a 0kai1& there$y helpin* to preser"e for the reader what word it was
translated from in 2e$rew& and a more natural e!pression of the use of 0de14
Eften& the more natural e!pression of 0de1 won out& while 0kai1 was used
where Greek thinkin* would tolerate the renderin* from 2e$rew4
Finally: The Hree" NT was written in -'emitic translation
Hree".
.or the time6$ein*& we will focus on the Te!tus Receptus ;9y,antine=& puttin*
Aramaic primacists at a sli*ht disad"anta*e4 The GNT $ooks e!amined will
$e Matthew& mark& )uke& Gohn& Acts and Re"elation& as these are the most
narrati"e of the NT4
2I' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
(or" 'entences E Jerses "ai de Total
Mark BI( /O%;5(\= %8B;\= >/I;('\=
Matthew %'I% //O;/2\= 2(>;2B4B\= B%8;>O\=
)uke %%>% 8'B;/>\= />B;/%\= I>2;BB\=
Gohn (IO %/(;%8\= %8%;%8\= 2/';2(\=
Re"elation 8'8 2(';BO\= ''I;%4I\= 2(I;I%\=
Acts %''I %BO;%I\= 8/%;8/\= B'';B'\=
>ealin# with -trend 1.7 we see that these +oo"s de%art from normal Hree"
and show a more 'emitic style7 +y startin# sentences more frekuently with
-and.& All +oo"s +ut Mohn si#nificantly sur%assed the 400 frekuency of
com+ined -"ai. and -de.7 e6%ected of native Hree" wor"s&
In re#ards to -trend :.7 we see that most +oo"s had -"ai. outnum+erin#
-de.7 which is uncharacteristic of native Hree" wor"s7 +ut e6%ected of
Hree" translations of 'emitic wor"s7 as we saw with the @@& 5n avera#e7
-"ai. outnum+ered -de. +y 380 to 180&
"en in the cases where 0kai1 didn7t si*nificantly outnum$er 0de1& we still
see a hi*her 0kai1 and lower 0de1 fre:uency& compared to nati"e Greek te!ts&
e"en those written in Hoine Greek< Gust like the )RR& the GNT shows its
underlyin* +emitic ori*inal4
Well& these e!citin* ;for Aramaic primacists= results were o$tained from the
Te!tus Receptus4 What happens when we use the Westcott62ort te!t
;Ale!andrian=?
The Ale!andrian te!t shows e"en more of a +emitic style ;hence the earlier
focus on the 9y,antine te!t& to eliminate $ias C in fact& $ias was thus
introduced a#ainst the author7s intended aims=4 The percenta*e of "erses in
the Greek New Testament ri"als the 2e$rew ET for a fre:uency of the use of
0and1 or its e:ui"alentDnear6e:ui"alent in Greek& with as many as %OI> of the
2O'' "erses ;or B(\= of the "erses in the +ynoptic Gospels of the Westcott6
2ort te!t $e*innin* with somethin* that mi*ht translate to a 0waw1 D 0and14
There are more 0kai7s1 in the W62 te!t& with Mark particularly showin* an
e"en more +emitic style than with the TR4 Interestin*ly& the Ale!andrian
te!tual family is considered to $e older and more relia$le than the 9y,antine C
and in this case it is more 0+emitic14 The Western te!tual family is considered
.eature % C The Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek 2I%
to $e e"en older and a*ain& is considered to $e more +emitic& completin* an
interestin* trend4
@o note that another feature of 0+emitic translation Greek1 is the "aryin*
:uality of Greek employed4 The )RR and GNT share this characteristic& as
some translators wanted to produce a reada$le Greek document& while others
preferred to $e faithful to the ori*inal +emitic te!t4
5thers
There are other +emiticisms such as +emitic poetry& word plays and loan
words that are co"ered in other sections of this $ook4 Many more +emitic
syntactic structures in the GNT are not co"ered in this $ook& due to time and
space constraints4
We ha"e 3ust seen how the Greek of the Greek New Testament is unlike Hoine
Greek4 It is also unlike Classical Greek& #latonic Greek& Ionic Greek& etc4
)o*ically then& the Greek of the GNT must $e some other form of Greek4 And
the only works that produce a similar style of Greek are Greek translations of
+emitic ori*inals4 It is then reasona$le to assume that the Greek of the Greek
New Testament is 0+emitic translation Greek14 Com$ined with the "arious
other internal and e!ternal e"idences for #eshitta primacy& it is an inescapa$le
conclusion that the Greek New Testament is a translation of the Aramaic
#eshitta New Testament4 Ene could also wonder why the supposedly Greek
ori*inal is o"erflowin* with Aramaicisms while the alle*ed 0Aramaic
translation of the Greek1 ;the #eshitta NT= has "ery few or no 0Greekisms14
NoteJ After $ein* shown that the Greek of the GNT is not Hoine Greek& some
Greek primacists may speculate at the possi$ility of some sort of 0common
Gewish Greek dialect14 This is utter nonsense and is insultin* to hi*hly
educated +emites4 #hilo of Ale!andria was an educated Gudean ;who li"ed
durin* the Hoine period= and had a *reat command of Ancient Greek C his
works follow the structure and *rammar appropriately4 #aul& who wrote
much of the NT& was also educated& and as a soldier in the Roman army&
pro$a$ly had a *reat knowled*e of Hoine Greek ;ori*inally found primarily
amon* soldiers=4 5et this educated Gudean writes so poorly in Greek& while
#hilo writes so well4 The only e!planation is that #aul wrote in Aramaic& and
that makes sense as his writin*s so often follow +emitic structure and
*rammar4 )uke also was hi*hly educated ;a physician= and accordin* to
2I2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Greek primacists& was a Greek6speakin* Gentile4 5et his Gospel o"erflows
with +emiticisms4 Ene must wonder why #aul and )uke write so poorly in
0their primary ton*ue1 ;Greek=& yet so well in terms of +emiticisms4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2I/
Feature : ) A en#thy
Befutation of 5ld 'yriac
85'F Primacy
9y Andrew Ga$riel Roth
Ancient ,vidence:
A Fourth $entury (itness to the Antikuity and 5ri#inality of
the Peshitta Te6t 8'u%%lemented with Additional Proofs from
<Buach ladim<F
Introduction
As we ha"e seen pre"iously in SRuach fadimS and SThe #ath to )ifeS& the
idea that the #eshitta was the work of Ra$ulla of dessa has $een thorou*hly
discredited $y inscription e"idence and modern scholarship4 .urthermore& we
ha"e also seen that one of the Eld +yriac manuscripts $ears the uni:ue name
that Ra$ulla *a"e to his translation of the Gospels from Greek into Aramaic&
e$an%elion de mepharreshe ;separated Gospels= and that the other Eld +yriac
document appears to $e a minor re"ision of the former4
2owe"er& as compellin* as this e"idence is& there is one other aspect that
$ears detailed e!ploration $ut that would ne"ertheless not ha"e fit well in
terms of flow with the pre"ious treatment& and that is the :uotations from the
2I8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#eshitta $y arly +yrian .athers4 This is key $ecause many Eld +yriac
ad"ocates such as Games Trimm ha"e made the alle*ation that saints like Mar
phraim :uote li$erally from Eld +yriac a*ainst the #eshitta4 The reality of
that situation thou*h is :uite different4
.irst of all& Mar phraim was known to employ a *reat deal of poetic license
in the way he applies +cripture4 Er& to put it another way& he likes to do a lot
freestyle tar*ummin*4 As a result& random chance demands that there will $e
times when a :uote looks like the #eshitta or another like Eld +yriac4 What is
lackin* from those who would apply this into an Eld +yriac #rimacist model
is the fact that 3ust as often Mar phraim?s tar*ummin* results in renditions
that resem$le neither Eld +yriac nor #eshitta& simply $ecause of his own
writin* style4 Many other alle*ed :uotations in fa"or of Eld +yriac are simply
not from the real Mar phraim at all& $ut are later students of his followin*
alon* in his style and applyin* his name to their work& which was a common
practice in the ast4
+econdly& we should look at what Mar phraim does not say4 There is not
mention in any of his writin*s of the need to standardi,e& re"ise or otherwise
co6opt +cripture into a form other than what was already circulatin* in his
day4 As I ha"e mentioned $efore& there is a *reat tradition in the ast of
inau*uratin* feast days to cele$rate the day that the 2oly Writin*s arri"e in
the local "ernacular of an assem$ly4 Therefore& if a re"ision from Eld +yriac
was done& and that re"ision $ecame the #eshitta te!t& we would surely ha"e
heard a$out it4 Another key place where such a rulin*& which could only
come from a patriarch& would ha"e had to ha"e $een set down& are the
astern Councils4 There were ten of these Councils held $y "arious patriarchs
in the Church of the ast durin* the third and fourth centuries& the precise
time when the chan*e o"er to the #eshitta was alle*ed to happen4
Fnfortunately for the Eld +yriac crowd thou*h& neither this issue nor the
ecclesiastical rulin* authori,in* such a chan*e is e"er recorded& and this
would ha"e $een re:uired $y Church $y6laws if in fact it went on4
And so& with the witness of Mar phraim not really $ein* pro$ati"e due to
his free6"erse style of writin* and other issues& we need to look for another
ancient witness4 Ideally& this witness should also $e a well6respected leader of
the Church of the ast& whose writin*s are $oth ancient and not in dispute
with respect to his *enuine identity4 .urthermore& the writin* style of this
saint should $e one that tends to :uote directly and in a "er$atim manner
from some Aramaic source& $e it #eshitta& Eld +yriac or whate"er4
%
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2I>
After much research then throu*h ancient records of the Church of the ast&
many of which are lar*ely unknown in the West& I am happy to report that
3ust such an ancient witness has $een found4 2is name is Mar Aphrahat& and
his writin*s pre6date Mar phraim $y se"eral decades& and are rooted in the
first :uarter of the fourth century4
2
It is also si*nificant that the many #eshitta6
e!clusi"e :uotes a*ainst Eld +yriac precede Ra$ulla?s time $y almost a
century& and so since the Eld +yriac has $een shown to $e Ra$ulla?s work& the
#eshitta as :uoted $y Mar Aphrahat is o$"iously much older4
/
The final aspect to keep in mind is that there are times when Eld +yriac and
#eshitta share a :uote4 In those cases& the historical linka*e 3ust mentioned is
the *uidin* principle in showin* that it was not Eld +yriac that first held that
readin*4 In many other cases thou*h& the readin*s that are in $oth Eld +yriac
manuscripts are clearly not reflected in Mar Aphrahat?s writin*s& since they
had not yet entered the written record4 And so& where the #eshitta and Eld
+yriac a*ree with Mar Aphrahat& there is no need to show the Eld +yriac
readin*4 2owe"er& in places where we see a *enuine preference of one source
o"er the other with Mar Aphrahat& those e!amples will present the $est
e"idence for my o"erall ar*ument4
8
With those thou*hts in mind& let us *o to the written record4
inin# *% the (itnesses
Bed hi#hli#ht m ver+atim readin# +etween Mar A%hrahat and the Peshitta
in the entire %assa#e7 with s%ecial attention %aid to where these readin#s
will diver#e in 5ld 'yriac&
=lue hi#hli#ht m diver#ent readin# +etween Mar A%hrahat with either the
Peshitta7 5ld 'yriac 8'iniaticusF or 5ld 'yriac 8$uretonF&
Hreen hi#hli#ht m minor %ara%hrase lin"in# clearly to a ver+atim Peshitta
readin# that was ado%ted for Mar A%hrahatCs use&
Matthew 4:1;
Mar A%hrahat
Yhwxyl4l rm0 Bwtw
2IB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
04nynb Mdq wkrhwn rhnnd
0b= wkydb9 w!xnd
SAnd a*ain he said to his ApostlesJ
S)et your li*ht shine $efore men& that they may see your *ood works4S
Peshitta
04nynb Mdq wkrhwn rhnn
0b= wkydb9 w!xnd
S)et your li*ht shine $efore men& that they may see your *ood works4S
5ld 'yriacK'iniaticus
04n0 Ynb Mdql wkrhwn rhnn
0ry#4 wkydb9 w!xnd
S)et your li*ht shine $efore ;with )amadh #roclitic= men& that they may see
your $eautiful worksS
5ld 'yriacK$ureton
04n0 Ynb Mdq wkrhwn rhnn
0ry#4 wkydb9 w!xnd
S)et your li*ht shine $efore men& that they may see your $eautiful works4S
$omments from Paul Uounan:
%= +inaiticus has a )amad #roclitic $efore S:damS 6 and Mar Aphrahat does
not4
2= 9oth +inaiticus and Cureton ha"e S+hapirS ;$eautiful= $efore SworksS&
whereas Mar Aphrahat and the #eshitta a*ree a*ainst them with STawaS 6
S*oodS4
3F Finally7 +oth 5ld 'yriac 8sF and 8cF have <=nay Anasha< 8menF as distinct
words K whereas Mar A%hrahat and the Peshitta have them com+ined&
u"e 14:8
Mar A%hrahat
hl ty0d Ftn0 Yh 0dy0
whnm dx dbwtw Ny!w! 0rs9
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2II
Fyb 0mxw 0%r4 0rhnm fw
SWhat woman& who has ten coins and loses one of them& and ;Waw #roclitic=
not does li*ht a lamp and sweep ;Hhama= the house444S
Peshitta
Fyb 0mxw 0%r4 0rhnm fw
SWhat woman& who has ten coins and loses one of them& and ;Waw #roclitic=
not does li*ht a lamp and sweep ;Hhama= the house444S
5ld 'yriacK'iniaticus
whnm dx db0tw Ny!w! 0rs9
Fyb 0mxw 0%r4 0rhnm f
SWhat woman& who has ten coins and loses one of them& not does li*ht a lamp
and ;No Waw proclitic= sweep ;Hhama= the house444S
5ld 'yriacK$ureton
Fyb 04nkw 0%r4 0rhnm f
SWhat woman& who has ten coins and loses one of them& ;No Waw #roclitic=
not does li*ht a lamp and or*ani,es ;kansha= the house444S
%= Eld +yriac ;+= has the imperfect of the #A) db0t& whereas Mar
Aphrahat uses dbwt 3ust like the #eshitta4
2= 9oth Eld +yriac ;+= and ;C= are missin* the Waw #roclitic& included in
Aphrahat and the #eshitta4
/= Eld +yriac ;C= uses a completely different word& 04nk for
Ssweepcor*ani,eS& instead of the word employed $y $oth the #eshitta and
Mar Aphrahat 6 0mx 4
2I( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Mohn 10::2
Mar A%hrahat
0n0 rm0d Mdmd Yhwdymltl ry% rm0
0ryhnb wtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb wkl
S.or he said to his disciplesJ whate"er I tell you in the darkness& proclaim in
the li*ht ;Nahira=4S
Peshitta
0ryhnb wtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb wkl 0n0 rm0d Mdm
SWhate"er I tell you in the darkness& proclaim in the li*ht ;Nahira=4S
5ld 'yriacK'iniaticus O $ureton
0rhwnb wtn0 Yhwrm0 0kw4xb wkl 0nrm0d Mdm
SWhate"er I tell you in the darkness& proclaim in the li*ht ;Nuhra=4S
The :uote *i"en $y Mar Aphrahat not only matches the #eshitta %''\ 6 $ut
I?"e also demonstrated that there are two ma3or differences $etween the
:uotation *i"en $y Mar Aphrahat and the Eld +yriacJ %= The Smar enaS ;I
said= are two distinct words in Aphrahat& $ut a com$ined word in Eld +yriac4
2= Instead of SNahiraS for Sli*htS as Aphrahat and the #eshitta ha"e it& Eld
+yriac has SNuhraS4
Mohn 10:30
Mar A%hrahat
rm0 Frx0 Fkwdbw
Nnx dx Yb0w 0n0d
SAnd in another place& he saidJ
I and my .ather are one ;khnan=S
Peshitta
Nnx dx Yb0w 0n0
SI and my .ather are one ;khnan=S
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2IO
Nnxn0 dx Yb0w 0n0
SI and my .ather we are one ;ankhnan=4S
Mohn 11:D3
Mar A%hrahat
rbl F r!9l
S)a,arus& come forth4S
Peshitta
rbl F r!9l
S)a,arus& come forth4S
rbl F )w# r!9l
S)a,arus& come out& come forth4S
Bomans 4:1D
4
Mar A%hrahat
0xyl4 rm0d Ky0
04wml 0md9w Md0 Nm Fwm Klm0d
w=x fd Nyly0 $9 +0w
TransliterationJ
Aykh d?emar +hlikhaJ
d?amlekh mowtha men wAdam w?adma l?Moshe
w?ap al aylyn d?la khaTaw
TranslationJ
As the Apostle said& that S@eath ruled from Adam unto MosesS and Se"en
o"er those who sinned not4S
Peshitta
04wml 0md9w Md0 Nm Fwm Klm0
w=x fd Nyly0 $9 +0
2(' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
TransliterationJ
amlekh mo#tha men #6dam #Padma lP+oshe
ap al aylyn dPla kha0a#
TranslationJ
S@eath ruled from Adam unto Moses& e"en o"er those who sinned not4S
1 $orinthians ::1
Mar A%hrahat
Mdm nmt yr% ty0
t!x f 0ny9d
t9m4 f 0nd0w
)ls f 04nrbd 0bl $9w
0hl0 By=d Mdm
hl Nymxrd Nyly0l
SThere is the thin*444
Which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard& and which hath not come up
into the heart of man& that which lohim hath prepared for them that lo"e
2im4S
Peshitta
t!x f 0ny9d
t9m4 f 0nd0w
)ls f 04nrbd 0bl $9w
0hl0 By=d Mdm
hl Nymxrd Nyly0l
SWhich eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard& and which hath not come
up into the heart of man& that which lohim hath prepared for them that lo"e
2im4S
Halatians 3::8
Mar A%hrahat
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2(%
rm0 0xyl4w
Fbqn fw 0rkdfd
0r0x rb fw 0db9 fw
0xy4m (w4yb wnt0 dx wklk f0
TransliterationJ
#Pemar 2hlikha:
dPla dakra #Pla neCbata
#Pla ebada #Pla bar&khere
ela kulkhon khad Pton bP@eshua +eshikha
TranslationJ
And the Apostle said
neither Smale nor femaleS
and neither Sser"ant nor freeS
rather Syou are all one in 5eshua MeshikhaS
Peshitta
0r0x rb fw 0db9 tyl
Fbqn fw 0rkd tyl
0xy4m (w4yb wnt0 dx ry% wklk
TransliterationJ
)yt e$ada w?la $ar6khere
)yt dakra w?la ne:$ata
kulkhon *yr khad ?ton $?5eshua Meshikha
TranslationJ
There is no Sser"ant nor freeS
There is no Smale nor femaleS
Syou are all one& for& in 5eshua MeshikhaS
With 3ust a little rearran*in* of the clauses which is typical of the writin*
style& or paraphrasin*& of Mar Aphrahat& the readin* is %''\ identical to the
#eshitta
2(2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
A 'cholar (ei#hs in
The *reat Aramaic scholar Gohn Gwynn& @4@& & @4C4)4 and Re*ius #rofessor of
@i"inity for the Fni"ersity of @u$lin& who $roke new *round in the %Oth
century with his translation and late datin* of the Crawford Manuscript of
Re"elation& was also well6"ersed in the writin*s of Mar Aphrahat4 What
follows then is his analysis as written in his famous work SNicene and #ost
Nicene .athers& +eries II& Kolume RIII4 )et?s take the issues he raises one at a
time4 Ence a*ain& my thanks to #aul 5ounan for classifyin* and compilin*
these writin*s4
%= The dates of Mar Aphrahat?s writin*sJ
The @emonstrations are twenty6two in num$er& after the num$er of the letters
of the Aramaic alpha$et& each of them $e*innin* with the letter to which it
corresponds in order4 The first ten form a *roup $y themsel"es& and are
somewhat earlier in date than those which followJ they deal with Christian
*races& hopes& and duties& as appears from their titlesJ66SConcernin* .aith&
Charity& .astin*& #rayer& Wars& Monks& #enitents& the Resurrection& 2umility&
#astors4S Ef those that compose the later *roup& three relate to the Gews
;SConcernin* Circumcision& the #asso"er& the +a$$athS=A followed $y one
descri$ed as S2ortatory&S which seems to $e a letter of re$uke addressed $y
Aphrahat& on $ehalf of a +ynod of 9ishops& to the cler*y and people of
+eleucia and Ctesiphon ;9a$ylon=A after which the Gewish series is resumed in
fi"e discourses& SConcernin* @i"ers Meals& The Call of the Gentiles& Gesus the
Messiah& Kir*inity& the @ispersion of Israel4S
The three last are of the same *eneral character as the first ten&66SConcernin*
Alms*i"in*& #ersecution& @eath& and the )atter Times4S To this collection is
su$3oined a twenty6third @emonstration& supplementary to the rest&
SConcernin* the Grape&S under which title is si*nified the $lessin*
transmitted from the $e*innin* throu*h Messiah& in allusion to the words of
Isaiah& SAs the *rape is found in the cluster and one saith& @estroy it notS ; l!"4
( =4 This treatise em$odies a chronolo*ical dis:uisition of some importance4
Ef the dates at which they were written& these discourses supply conclusi"e
e"idence4 At the end of section > of @emonstr4 K4 ;Concernin* Wars=& the
author reckons the years from the era of Ale!ander ;94C4 /%%= to the time of
his writin* as B8(4 2e wrote therefore in A4@4 //I66the year of the death of
Constantine the Great4 @emonst4 RIK4 is formally dated in its last section& Sin
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2(/
the month +he$at4 in the year B>> ;that is& A4@4 /88=4 More fully& in closin* the
alpha$etic series ;RRII4 2>= he informs us that the a$o"e dates apply to the
two *roups66the first ten $ein* written in //IA the twel"e that follow& in /884
.inally& the supplementary discourse SConcernin* the GrapeS was written ;as
stated& RRIII4 BO= in Guly& /8>4 Thus the entire work was completed within nine
years&66fi"e years $efore the middle of the fourth century&66$efore the
composition of the earliest work of phraim of which the date can $e
determined with certainty4
2= The manuscript e"idenceJ
The oldest e!tant M+4 of these discourses ;Add4 %I%(2 of the 9ritish Museum=
contains the first ten& and is dated 8I84 With it is $ound up ;under the same
num$er= a second& dated >%2& containin* the remainin* thirteen4 A third
;Add4 %8B%O= of the si!th century likewise& e!hi$its the whole series4 A fourth
;Erient& %'%I=& more recent $y ei*ht centuries& will $e mentioned farther on4
Ef the three early M++4& the first desi*nates the author as Sthe #ersian +a*eS
merely& as does also the thirdJ the second prefi!es his name as SMar Gaco$ the
#ersian +a*e4S
/= The witnessesJ
It is not until some years after the mid6die of the tenth century& that the
S#ersian +a*eS first appears under his proper name&66of which& thou*h as it
appears *enerally for*otten in the +yriac world of letters& a tradition had
sur"i"ed466The Nestorian 9ar69ahlul ;circ4 OB/= in his +yro6Ara$ic )e!icon&
writes thusJ66SAphrahat YmentionedZ in the 9ook of #aradise& is the #ersian
+a*e& as they record4Se+o too& in the ele"enth century=& lias of Nisi$is
;9arsinaeus& d4 %'8O=& em$odies in his Chrono*raphy& a ta$le& compiled from
@emonstr4 RRIII4& of the chrono*raphy from the Creation to the Sra of
Ale!anderS ;94 C4 /%%=& which he descri$es as SThe years of the 2ouse of
Adam& accordin* to the opinion of Aphrahat& the #ersian +a*e4S
To the like effect& $ut with fuller information& the *reat li*ht of the mediae"al
Gaco$ite Church& Gre*ory 9arhe$raeus ;d4 %2(B=& in #art I4 of his cclesiastical
Chronicle& in enumeratin* the orthodo! contemporaries of Athanasius&
mentions& after phraim& Sthe #ersian +a*e who wrote the 9ook of
@emonstrationsAS and a*ain in #art II4& supplies his name under a sli*htly
different form& as one who Swas of note in the time of #apas the Catholicus&S
Sthe #ersian +a*e $y name #harhad& of whom there are e!tant a $ook of
2(8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
admonition Yal4& admonitionsZ in +yriac& and twenty6two pistles accordin* to
the letters of the alpha$et4S 2ere we ha"e not only the name and description
of the persona*e in :uestion& $ut a fairly accurate account of his works& under
the titles $y which the M++4 descri$e them& Spistles and @emonstrationsA66
and moreo"er a sufficient indication of his date& in a*reement with that which
the @emonstrations claimJ for one who $e*an to write in //I must ha"e li"ed
in the closin* years of the life of #apas ;who died in //8=& and in the earlier
years of the life of phraim4
+o yet a*ain& a *eneration later& the learned Nestorian prelate& $ed3esu& in his
Catalo*ue of +yrian ecclesiastical authors& writes& SAphrahat& the #ersian
+a*e& composed two "olumes with 2omilies that are accordin* to the
alpha$et4S 2ere once more the name and desi*nation are *i"en
unhesitatin*ly& and the di"ision of the discourses into two *roups is correctly
notedA $ut the concludin* words appear to distin*uish these *roups from the
alpha$etic 2omilies4 ither& therefore& we must take the preposition rendered
SwithS to mean Scontainin*&S66or we must conclude that $ed3esu?s knowled*e
of the work was at second6hand and incorrect4 .inally& in a "ery late M+4&
dated %/B8& is found the first or chronolo*ical part of @emonstration RRIII4&
headed as followsJ66SThe @emonstration concernin* the Grape& of the +a*e
Aphrahat& who is Gaco$& 9ishop of Mar Mathai4S 2ere ;thou*h the prefi!
S#ersianS is a$sent= we ha"e the author?s title of S+a*eSA and the identification
of the SAphrahatS of the later authorities with the SGaco$S of the earlier is not
merely implied $ut e!pressly affirmed4 2ere& moreo"er& we ha"e what seems
to account for the twofold name4 As author& he is AphrahatA as 9ishop& he is
Gaco$66the latter name ha"in* $een no dou$t assumed on his ele"ation to the
piscopate4 +uch chan*es of name& at consecration& which in later a*es of the
+yrian Church $ecame customary& were no dou$t e!ceptional in the earlier
period of which we are treatin*4
9ut the fact that Aphrahat was a #ersian name& $estowed on him no dou$t in
childhood66when he was still ;as will $e shown presently= outside the
Christian fold66a name which is supposed to si*nify SChiefS or S#refect&S and
which may ha"e seemed unsuited to the humility of the sacred office66
supplies a reason for the su$stitution in its stead of a name associated with
sacred history& $oth of the Eld and of the New Testament4 2ere finally we
ha"e the direct statement of what Geor*ius had 3ustly inferred from the
openin* of @em4 RIK4& that the writer was himself of the cler*y& and in this
pistle writes as a cleric to clerics4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2(>
8= That Mar Aphrahat was definitely from the #ersian Assem$ly& otherwise
known as the Church of the astJ
That the author was of #ersian nationality& is a point on which all the
witnesses a*ree& e!cept the fourteenth6century scri$e of the M+4 Erient4 %'%I&
who howe"er is merely silent a$out it4 The name Aphrahat is& as has $een
already said& #ersian66which fact at once confirms the tradition that he
$elon*ed to #ersia& and helps to account for what seems to $e the reluctance
of early writers to call him $y a name that was forei*n& unfamiliar& unsuited
to his su$se:uent station in the Church& and superseded $y one that had
sacred associations4 As a #ersian& he dates his writin*s $y the years of the
rei*n of the #ersian Hin*J the twenty6two were completed ;he says= in the
thirty6fifth& the twenty6third in the thirty6si!th of the rei*n of +apor4
A*ainJ as a #ersian of the early fourth century& it is presuma$le that he was
not ori*inally a Christian4 And this is apparently confirmed $y the internal
e"idence of his own writin*sA for he speaks of himself as one of those Swho
ha"e cast away idols& and call that a lie which our father $e:ueathed to usAS
and a*ain& Swho ou*ht to worship 5?shua& for that 2e has turned away our
froward minds from all superstitions of "ain error& and tau*ht us to worship
one lohim our .ather and Maker4S669ut it is clear that he must ha"e li"ed in a
frontier re*ion where +yriac was spoken freelyA or else must ha"e remo"ed
into a +yriac6speakin* country at an early a*eA for the lan*ua*e and style of
his writin*s are completely pure& showin* no trace of forei*n idiom& or e"en
of the want of ease that $etrays a forei*ner writin* in what is not his mother6
ton*ue4 It is clear also that& at whate"er a*e or under whate"er circumstances
he em$raced Christianity& he must ha"e taken the Christian +criptures and
Christian theolo*y into his inmost heart and understandin* as e"ery pa*e of
his writin*s attests4
>= That he was 9ishop of Nine"eh& which is Church of the ast territoryJ
If we accept the late& $ut internally pro$a$le& statement of the +cri$e of M+4
Erient4 %'%I ;a$o"e mentioned=& that Sthe #ersian +a*eS was S9ishop of the
monastery of Mar Mathai&S we arri"e at a complete e!planation of the
circumstances under which this pistle was composed4 .or the 9ishop of Mar
Mathai was Metropolitan of Nine"eh& and ranked amon* the 9ishops of Sthe
astS only second to the CatholicusA and his pro"ince $ordered on that which
the Catholicus ;as Metropolitan of +eleucia= held in his immediate
3urisdiction4 The 9ishop of Mar Mathai therefore would properly preside in a
2(B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
+ynod of the astern 9ishops& met to consider the disorders and discussions
e!istin* in +eleucia and its suffra*an sees4 It thus $ecomes intelli*i$le how an
pistle of such official character has found a place in a series of discourses of
which the rest are written as from man to man merely4 The writer addresses
the 9ishops& Cler*y& and people of +eleucia and Ctesiphon in the name of a
+ynod o"er which he was #resident& a +ynod pro$a$ly of 9ishops suffra*an
to Nine"eh& and perhaps of those of some ad3acent sees4
B= That he is& as we ha"e $een sayin* throu*hout this essay& prior to Mar
phraimJ
In thus placin* Aphrahat first as their pro3ected series of +yriac @i"ines& the
learned editors follow the opinion which& e"er since Wri*ht pu$lished his
edition& has $een adopted $y +yriac scholarsethat Aphrahat is prior in time
to phraim4 This is undou$tedly true ;as pointed out a$o"e= in the only
limited sense& that the @emonstrations are earlier $y some years ;the first ten
$y thirteen years& the remainder $y fi"e or si!= than the earliest of phraim?s
writin*s which can $e dated with certainty ;namely& the first Nisi$ene 2ymn&
which $elon*s to />'=4
It is then assumed that phraim was $orn in the rei*n of Constantine&
therefore not earlier than /'B& and that Aphrahat was a man of ad"anced a*e
when he wrote ;of which there is no proof whate"er=& and must therefore
ha"e $een $orn $efore the end of the third century66perhaps as early as 2('4 It
has $een shown a$o"e ;p4 %8>= that e"en if we admit the authority of the
+yriac )ife of phraim& we must re*ard the supposed statement of his $irth in
Constantine?s time as a mistranslation or rather per"ersion of the te!t4 Thus
the ar*ument for placin* phraim?s $irth so late as /'B disappears& while for
placin* Aphrahat?s $irth no ar*ument has $een ad"anced& $ut merely
con3ectureA and the result is& that the two may& so far as e"idence *oes& $e
re*arded as contemporary4 It is true that 9arhe$raeus& in his cclesiastical
2istory& reckons Aphrahat as $elon*in* to the time of #apas& who died //>A
$uilt is to $e noted that in the "ery same conte!t he mentions that letters were
e!tant purportin* to $e addressed $y Gaco$ of Nisi$is and phraim to the
same #apas&66and thou*h he admits that some discredited the *enuineness of
these letters& he *i"es no hint that phraim was too youn* to ha"e written
them4
In fact he could not do so& for in the earlier part of this 2istory he had already
named phraim as present at the Nicene Council in /2>& and had placed his
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2(I
name $efore that of Aphrahat in includin* $oth amon* the contemporaries of
the Great Athanasius4
2F And finally7 and most im%ortantly7 that Mar A%hrahatCs canon was none
other than the Peshitta te6tn
2is New Testament Canon is apparently that of the #eshittaA66that is to say&
he shows no si*ns of ac:uaintance with the four shorter Catholic pistles& and
in the one citation which seems to $e from the Apocalypse& it has $een shown
to $e pro$a$le that he is really referrin* to the Tar*um of Enkelos on @eut4
!!!iii4 B4
$oncludin# $omments from Paul Uounan:
SThe #eshitta present in Nine"eh durin* the //'s 6 remarka$le& seein* that
Ra$$ula?s *reat6*randmother had not yet e"en $een concei"ed`Y2ow
modern scholars whoZ claim that Ra$$ula of dessa& the >th6century
archenemy of the Church of the ast& produced the #eshitta4 2ow the Church
of the ast& his hated enemies& came to adopt a "ersion supposedly made
from his hands C only these idiots knowÌf the #eshitta was around durin*
the //'s and :uoted $y a hi*h6rankin* official of the Church of the ast& how
much farther $ack in time must it ha"e ori*inated? The late 2''s4444the early
2''s4444the late %''s4444the early %''s44444the Apostles? hands?S
I could not ha"e e!pressed that idea $etter myself& and will end on that
e!cellent point4 Thank you all for your kind attention to the truth<
A>>ITI5NA ,JI>,N$, 5F P,'AITTA 5BIHINAITU 5J,B
5> 'UBIA$ 8FB5M B*A$A lA>IMF
.iniaticus
9y the same token& we can also show an early error of one of the Eld +yriac
manuscripts known as +iniaticus4 )et?s take a :uick look at its man*lin* of a
passa*e 3ust a few lines down from the one @utillet 3ust *ot wron*& $y first
lookin* at the #eshitta te!tJ
0r0#d $ykh 0nly0 $k 0nly0d 0rq9$9 Mys 0%rn Nyd 0h
0rwnb $#nw )s#tm db9f 0b=
2(( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
And $ehold& the a!e is placed on the root of the trees4 All trees therefore ;that=
ha"e fruit that ;is= not *ood& $rin* forth ;and they= will $e cut and will fall
into the fire4
Matthew 3:10 ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
The Eld +yriac thou*h has misread the "erse this wayJ
0h ;ha= ] $ehold
-sh ;hasha= ] and now also
+ince the Greek te!ts read Sand now alsoS as well& the confusion of the Eld
+yriac scri$e most likely appears to $e rooted in a memory of the #eshitta te!t
readin* somethin% like hasha com$ined with a Greek "ersion that is clearly in
front of him which he emulates4 The only difference is& the Greek redactors
made their error from the #eshitta at least two centuries prior to when the Eld
+yriac scri$e crafted an e"en worse readin* $y liftin* it from that same Greek
te!t< All that aside thou*h& the fact is that to say S$ehold<S at the $e*innin* of
a sentence is pure Aramaic speech& and this is in sharp contrast to the neutral
soundin* Sand now alsoS4
CuretonDs 2oll/
In the early decades of the %Oth century a "ery rare Aramaic manuscript of the
Gospels was disco"ered on the *rounds of +aint Catherine?s Monastery&
located at the site of the traditional Mount +inai in Israel4 This manuscript and
its supposedly older counterpart known as S+iniaticusS formed the so6called
SEld +yriacS family and New Testament scholarship has ne"er $een the same
since4
E"er the last hundred years or so& many scholars looked to Cureton Gospels
;named after its e"entual owner& the arl of Cureton= and its sister
manuscript& as a way of e!plainin* the "ast differences $etween the #eshitta
Aramaic and Greek "ersions of the New Testament4 As e"idence mounted
that showed e!tensi"e di"er*ences which could not $e accounted for in a
Greek to Aramaic translation& ea*er western scholars sei,ed on what for them
was the ne!t $est thin*4 The #eshitta& they claimed& was not translated from
the Greek& $ut re"ised from these other Aramaic "ersions instead4 2owe"er&
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2(O
as we will see with $oth of these documents& they ha"e deep pro$lems of their
own4 +tartin* with the Cureton& it has a "ery uni:ue renderin* of set 2J
%= +olomon
2= Reho$oam
/= A$i3ah
8= Asa
>= Geshosophat
B= Aha/iah
I= Moash
(= Ama/iah
O= Gehoram
%'= F,,iah
%%= Gotham
%2= Aha,
%/= 2e,ekiah
%8= Manasseh
%>= Amon
%B= Gosiah
%I= Geconiah
Now what in the world is *oin* on here? .irst we lose *enerations and now
we are practically trippin* o"er some e!tra ones? Well& as it turns out& the
scri$e who did this had the $est of intentions4 As a matter of fact& 2 Hin*s
%86%> faithfully records these same three *enerations that the #eshitta "ersion
omits4 +o& on the surface& it appears that Cureton is Torah6accurate& whereas
#eshitta dropped the three names on the floor somewhere and ne"er picked
them up4
2owe"er& $efore e"eryone *oes down that !eshitta re$ised from 9ld 2yriac road
a*ain& they would do well to ask this :uestionJ Why does e"ery Greek New
Testament manuscript& re%ardless of family or text type and %oin% as far back as the
second century& also miss these same three names? Is this one scrappy little
Aramaic "ersion ri*ht and standin* as a lone witness a*ainst thousands of
contrary te!tual witnesses? And& how can that $e& when the oldest Greek
"ersions predate Cureton $y at least 2'' years?
Well& as we are a$out to disco"er& appearances can $e :uite decei"in*4 Ene of
these scri$al traditions is clearly reflectin* a deep understandin* of Gewish
culture and +criptural interpretation& while the other only appears to do so4
Which is the fraud and which the ori*inal?
2O' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
In order to find out& let us first reali,e that Matthew is doin* far more than
*i"in* a list of *enerations4 Rather& he is showin* Messiah to ha"e a royal
linea%e as a direct descendant of @a"id4 2owe"er& @a"id was not the first kin*
of Israel4 That honor was *i"en to +aul& and it is his e!ample that showcases
the first of two rules in recordin* the pro*eny of kin*sJ
1 'amuel :8:1;K18
S+amuel said& ?Why do you consult me& now that the )ER@ has turned away from you
and $ecome your enemy? The )ER@ has done what he predicted throu*h me4 The
)ER@ has torn the kin*dom out of your hands and *i"en it to one of your nei*h$ors66
to @a"id4 9ecause you did not o$ey the )ER@ or carry out his fierce wrath a*ainst the
Amalekites& the )ER@ has done this to you today4?S
.rom this point on& no descendant of +aul can e"er lay claim to the throne of
Israel4 This rule& I $elie"e& is easily understood $y most scholars and lay
people4
2owe"er& there is a corollary to this rule that is less well known $ut e:ually
$indin*4 It states that within a linea*e certain *enerations can $e in"alidated&
$ut the inheritance can still stay within that *roup4 Er& to put it another way&
the house of Gudah can keep rulin*& $ut certain rulers of Gudah are not
counted as *enuine kin*s4 Now the :uestion is thou*h& 3ust how did this
contin*ency *et tri**ered?
The answer& ironically& comes not from Gudah& $ut from the house of IsraelJ
1 ?in#s 1;:307 33
SAha$ son of Emri did more e"il in the eyes of the )ER@ than any of those $efore
him`2e set up an altar for 9aal in the temple of 9aal that he $uilt in +amaria4 Aha$
also made an Asherah pole and did more to pro"oke to )ER@ to an*er than did all the
kin*s of Israel $efore him4S
This idolatrous act& and many other *rie"ous sins& led to the ine"ita$le
warnin* and re$uke of the prophetsJ
1 ?in#s :0:D1KD:
SThen the prophet :uickly remo"ed his head$and from his eyes& and the kin* of Israel
reco*ni,ed him as one of the prophets4 2e said to the kin*& ?This is what the )ER@
saysJ 5ou ha"e set free a man I had determined should die4 Therefore& it is your life for
his life& your people for his people4?S
B
1 ?in#s :::12
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2O%
SThen Micaiah answered& ?I saw all Israel scattered like sheep without a shepherd& and
the )ER@ said these people ha"e no master4 )et each one *o home in peace4S
Then when 3ud*ment does come& it is horrificJ
: ?in#s 1:;K1
SThis what the )ER@& the God of Israel& saysJ ?I anoint you kin* o"er the )ER@?s
people Israel4 5ou are to destroy the house of Aha$ your master& and I will a"en*e the
$lood of my ser"ants and the prophets and the $lood of all the )ER@?s ser"ants shed
$y Ge,e$el4 The whole house of Aha$ will perish4 I will cut off from Aha$ e"ery last
male in Israel& sla"e or free4S
+o Aha$?s house is cut off& $ut what does that ha"e to do with the house of
Gudah& which Messiah is descended from? The answer lies hereJ
: $hronicles 18:17 :1:17 DK2
SNow Gehosophat had *reat wealth and honor& and he had allied himself with Aha$ $y
marria*e`Then Gehosophat rested with his fathers and was $uried with them in the
City of @a"id4 And Gehoram his son succeeded him as kin*`2e walked in the ways of
the kin*s of Israel as the house of Aha$ had done& for he had married a dau*hter of
Aha$4 2e did e"il in the eyes of the )ER@4 Ne"ertheless& $ecause of the co"enant the
)ER@ had made with the house of @a"id& the )ER@ was not willin* to destroy the
house of @a"id4 2e had promised to maintain the lamp for him and his descendants
fore"er4S
Therefore& we ha"e a $it of a contradiction here4 En the one hand& Aha$?s sin
was so *reat that God had no pro$lem permanently takin* his house away4
En the other& Gudah& althou*h perpetually $lessed $ecause of @a"id& also had
Aha$?s tainted $lood flowin* throu*h its heirs< +ince the +cripture cannot $e
$roken& the only solution could come from the most sacred place of them all&
the Ten CommandmentsJ
,6odus :0:DK4
S5ou shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anythin* in hea"en a$o"e& or
on the earth $eneath& or in the waters $elow4 5ou shall not $ow down to them or
worship them& for I7 the 5B> Hod am a Lealous Hod7 %unishin# the sin of the
fathers to the third and fourth #eneration of those that hate me4S
+o that was the $ottom line as far as Matthew was concerned4 2e knew that
these *enerations were cursed and& e"en thou*h they are counted physically&
to refer to them as ancestors was tantamount to in"alidatin* 5?shua?s claim to
$e Messiah<
2O2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2owe"er& some critics will no dou$t point to the fact that Manasseh& who is a
direct ancestor of 5?shua& sinned far worse than Aha$ did and for far lon*er&
>> "ersus Aha$?s 22 years4 Althou*h this is clearly true& at least two factors
spared this e"il kin* from sharin* Aha$?s fate4 .irst is the perpetual co"enant
with @a"id?s house 3ust mentioned& which God clearly did not want to $reak4
+econd& Manasseh *ot lucky in a way Aha$ did not4 Reason $ein*& Aha$ was
$oth preceded and followed $y "ery e"il men who sat on his throne4 9y
contrast& Manasseh& e"il as he was& had the *ood fortune of $ein* sandwiched
$etween 2e,ekiah and Gosiah& two of the most ri*hteous rulers Gudah e"er
produced4 As for Manasseh himself& there is e"en a record of this "ery
epitome of e"il actually repentin* of his sins and makin* some restitution in
the last years of his life ;2 Chronicles //J%26%I=< Therefore& taken to*ether& the
punishment of Gudah was less se"ere than that of Israel4 Aha$?s line was
wiped out fore"er& whereas Gudah was allowed e"entually to return to the
land and rule after only two *enerations of capti"ity in 9a$ylon4
In the end then& only the #eshitta "ersion shows the ad"anced understandin*
of Torah that would ha"e $een the hallmark of a first century pious Gew in
Israel like Matthew4 The Cureton& on the other hand& also shows the marks of
its redactorJ A Greek Erthodo! monk writin* more than 8'' years after the
fact4
(isdom is Jindicated +y Aer (hatW
)et?s look at the Greek te!ts first on this oneJ
u"e 2:34
iotrjotiotc;OHoot;oojnono;vtcvtcvtr;ivcvojt[.
9ut wisdom is 3ustified of all her children&
Matthew 11:11
iotrjotiotc;OHoot;oojnotcvr-pycvojt[.
9ut wisdom is 3ustified $y her deeds4
Now for many centuries scholars simply assumed these were two "ariant
traditions of what 5?shua said& in spite of the fact that $oth accounts appear to
put near "er$atim words and circumstances $oth prior to and after this
utterance4 The other more fundamental pro$lem thou*h is that of
disconnection from the o$"ious4 Gi"en that almost all New Testament
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2O/
scholars a*ree that SGreek NT ori*inalsS nonetheless contain I>\ of 5?shua?s
teachin*s that were ori*inally deli"ered in Aramaic& it seems odd that such a
"ariance would not also spark an in:uiry into that lin*uistic direction4 This is
especially pu,,lin* also *i"en the fact that the two Greek words in :uestion
;er*on& teknon= could not look or sound more different4
Ence a*ain thou*h& we come across the solution in the form of two similar
lookin* Aramaic wordsJ
hynb ;bineh= SdeedsS
hynb ;beneh= SsonsDchildrenS
In this case& the mistake the Greek redactor makes is assumin* that the endin*
in the letter heh ;h= indicates third person possession as in her children4 As for
the Aramaic "ersion of Matthew& the apostle seems to ha"e $een aware of the
possi$ility that these two words mi*ht *et confused& and so he picked another
word that clearly 3ust meant SdeedsS& abdeh ;hydb9=4
The reader howe"er should ne"er $e fooled into thinkin* that )uke himself
made this mistake4 Rather& the Aramaic ori*ins of this "erse are instead
pro"en $y the simple fact that the Greek manuscripts themsel"es disa*ree
concernin* this readin*< It is a mark of translation4
The Greek "ersions '7 =7 ( and fl3 contain the correct readin* of SdeedsS4
9y contrast& the erroneous readin* of SchildrenS is contained in =:7 $7 >7 ?7 7
@7 >elta7 Theta7 Pi f1 :87 337 4;47 2007 81:7 1010
I
and& not surprisin*ly& both of
the so6called SEld6+yriacS manuscripts ;Cureton and +iniaticus=4
En the other hand& what we ha"e $etween the #eshitta and the 2e$rew
+criptures is an ama,in* word playJ
Isaiah 11:1K:
S9ut a shoot will *row out of the stump of Gesse4 A twi* shall sprout from his stock4
The +pirit of the )ER@ shall ali*ht upon himJ A spirit of wisdom and insi#ht& a spirit
of counsel and "alor& a spirit of de"otion and re"erence for the )ER@4S
2O8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Now the word for SwisdomS in this "erse is chokhmah ;hmkh=& and its
synonym& translated as Sinsi*htS in this "ersion is biynah ;hnyb=& which is
identical in spellin* and has almost the same pronunciation as the two other
words for SchildrenS;benehN and SdeedsS ;bineh=< As for chokhmah& it is also the
e!act same word for SwisdomS used in Aramaic Matthew and )uke& pro"in*
$oth writers were aware of the pun and had that "erse of Isaiah clearly in
mind4 The only difference is that )uke had the misfortune of ha"in* his fine
Aramaic prose man*led $y a Greek redactor who& ironically& $elie"ed it was
yet another word spelled the same as the others in the word play4
Another place where this wordplay is implied is in this passa*e of GohnJ
(w4y whl rm0 wh Mhrb0 Nlyd wb0 hl Nyrm0w wn9
wtywh Nydb9 Mhrb0d Yhwdb9 Mhrb0d wtywh Yhwnb wl0
tllm Fryr4d 0rb%l Ynl=qml wtn0 Ny9b 0h Nyd 04h
db9f Mhrb0 0dh 0hl0 Nm t9m4d 0dy0 wkm9
Nm Nnx hl Nyrm0 wkwb0d 0db9 wtn0 Nydb9 Nyd wtn0
0hl0 Nl ty0 0b0 dx Nywh f Fwyn!
Mohn 8:31KD1 ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
O
They answered and said to him
(
& SEur .ather is A$raham4S 5?shua said to them& SIf
you are sons of A$raham& the deeds of A$raham you would do4 9ut now& $ehold& you
seek to kill me& a man who spoke truthfully with you that which I heard from God4
This A$raham did not do4 9ut you do the deeds of your father4S They said to him& SWe
did not come from fornication4 ;The= one .ather we ha"e is God4S
As for )uke& $oth of these last two proofs are phrases that pepper his narrati$e
and not 3ust the dialo*ue4
The ,6KNihilo Theory7 Part 5ne:
5ld 'yriac: 'cratch and ose
%'
SThe so6called ?Eld +yriac? manuscript of the four Gospels& known as the
+iniatic #alimpset& disco"ered $y Mrs4 A*nes )ewis in the Con"ent of +t4
Catherine on Mt4 +inai in %(O2& unfortunately was for*ed $y the Monks&
deli$erately so& $efore it was sold to Mrs4 )ewis and her companions4 They
made a hole in the date of the manuscript& thus apparently increasin* its a*e
$y O'' years4 The work was actually finished in the year %>OO C The n*lish
scholars who e!amined it first& placed its date as of BOI C Then& not $ein*
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2O>
sure& they made a second inspection& and assi*ned to it a later date& at II( C
@r4 9urkitt ;then youn* student=& at the time of the disco"ery& thou*ht that the
hole in the date was natural& that is& in the skin when dated4 2e failed to
reali,e that no responsi$le scri$e would date a manuscript near a hole in such
a way as to lea"e the reader in dou$t as to the e!act date4
SThe a$o"e mentioned error in date recently was disco"ered $y the writer&
after e!aminin* se"eral other .our6Gospel manuscripts which were $rou*ht
to America from the Near ast4 All the owners of these manuscripts had used
the same malpractice4 They had made it appear from the mutilated dates that
the manuscripts were one thousand years older than they actually were4 Ene
of these manuscripts is at the Fnion Theolo*ical +eminary in New 5ork&
another is at 2ar"ard& and another is in +yria4
S?#alimpset? means dou$le writin*& or one writin* o"er the other4 The
superwritin* in Aramaic& on the "ellum of the so6called +iniatic& was the story
of martyrolo*y4 Ene of the stories is that of +aint of Au*enia& $elie"ed to $e a
uropean +aint ne"er heard of in the ast4 This $ook e"idently was
introduced $y the Roman Catholic missionaries after the union of the
Chaldeans with the Church of Rome in the si!teenth century4 The work
underlyin* the super6writin* is that of a student who copied the Gospels for
penmanship4 No laymen or priest would destroy a sacred te!t of the .our
Gospels 3ust to write a history of the +aints4 +uch an act would $e considered
sacrile*ious4 Ether #alimpset te!ts of this nature& includin* the so6called
Curetonian& are of late ori*in and are not authentic4 They were ne"er used $y
the Christians of the Church of the ast4
SMany for*ed manuscripts& scrolls& and fake ta$lets ha"e $een $rou*ht to
America and urope4 They *enerally are produced in *ypt and Ira:4 +tone
ta$lets and en*ra"ed and $uried in the fields& and clay ta$lets are made
similar to those made $y the Assyrians4 The work is so cle"erly done that
oftentimes e"en the e!perts are confused and decei"ed4 Moreo"er& *enuine
ta$lets may $e re3ected $ecause the archaeolo*ists dou$t their authenticity4
+ome years a*o the writer recei"ed a$out two hundred ta$lets from a
mem$er of Turkish parliament who had purchased them in Constantinople4
They were first re*arded as a *reat disco"ery& $ut later were re3ected as fakes4
The writer reported this malpractice to Cam$rid*e Fni"ersity& and recei"ed
confirmation of such fraud4 The writer also took the matter up with @r4 2atch
of the piscopal +eminary in Cam$rid*e& Massachusetts4 We made a study of
the ink used in the manuscripts4 After the writin* a*es for se"eral weeks it
2OB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
cannot $e washed off4 2owe"er& it can $e remo"ed in a short time after it is
written4 Therefore& in the ast& #alimpset documents and re"isions are
re3ected as sacred literature4 They are ne"er used in the churches4
SIf this practice of for*in* manuscripts had $een known earlier& there would
not ha"e $een any confusion as to the ori*in of the #eshitta4 Western scholars
would ha"e reali,ed that neither the +iniatic #alimpset nor the Curetonian are
authentic manuscripts of the +criptures4 These were for*ed and used $y
heretical sects which tried to deny the di"inity of Gesus4 +ome of them are
works of the students who copied manuscripts for penmanship practice4S
@r4 Geor*e M4 )amsa& SNew Testament Eri*inS& p4 (O6O% ;%O8I=
Now today& admittedly& @r4 )amsa is a contro"ersial fi*ure4 This is primarily
due to his tendency to allow his li$eral theolo*ical $iases to infect his
translation4 Ethers directly :uestion certain details of the role he ascri$es to
himself in this instance4 Ne"ertheless& the main point @r4 )amsa makes cannot
$e refutedJ Middle astern scri$es would ne"er scratch off the ori*inal Word
of God and su$stitute the $io*raphy of a saintly le*end o"er top of it4
In response to this o$"ious truth& +iniaticus proponents ha"e tried to su**est
that perhaps the ori*inal manuscript was defecti"e and& since "ellum was
kind of scarce& they simply re6used it4 2owe"er& e"en this scenario is frau*ht
with pro$lems4 In the Middle ast& and especially in Israel& sacred
manuscripts would ne"er $e SrecycledS in such a horrific manner4 If the te!ts
of somethin*& like say a Torah scroll& were defecti"e& they would $e
destroyed4 If the te!t or manuscript materials de*raded& then a new copy
would $e made and the old one would a*ain $e destroyed4 There are e"en
records of ra$$is S$uryin* the TorahS or *i"in* the old manuscript a kind of
funeral& $ecause its de*radation has rendered it imperfect for daily use4
Now as for the #eshitta& it was preser"ed $y the Assyrian people who& in
addition to ha"in* close ethnic ties with the Gews& had adopted Gudaism at
some point in their lon* history and still retain much of those sensi$ilities
e"en to this day4 Therefore& if the manuscript of the Sori*inal +iniaticusS were
defecti"e& it would ne"er ha"e $een scratched off and written o"er
%%
4 It was an
either6or& $lack and white deal instead4 ither it can $e used e"ery day& or it
must $e discarded4 There was ne"er& and is not now& any middle *round on
this point4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2OI
Findin# the Aand of Bevision
2owe"er& the $i**est proofs a*ainst the +iniaticus are in fact te!tual in nature4
.or e!ample& remem$erin* a ma3or proof at the $e*innin* of this $ook speaks
"olumes on the :uestion of who comes first4 The +iniaticus "ersion of
Matthew %J%B reads Sher $etrothedS instead of %o#ra in Matthew %J%B& which is
clearly an effort to $rin* itself more in line with the ma3ority Greek renderin*
of Sher hus$andS4
Now let us look at some other e!amples from these two traditions and see
who was really re"ised from whom4 +ince the alle*ed re"ision is supposed to
ha"e $een done to make the #eshitta more in line with the Imperial 9y,antine
Greek te!t& I will $e contrastin* $oth #eshitta and +iniaticus with that Greek
family of manuscripts4
%2
Mohn 1::8 ;9y,antine Te!t and +iniaticus readin*s=
SThese thin*s happened in =ethKA+ara
%/
on the other side of the Gordan4S
Mohn 1::8 ;astern #eshitta readin*=
SThese thin*s happened in =ethKAnya on the other side of the Gordan4S
Beth&6nya is $etter known as Bethany5 a city two miles outside of Gerusalem&
and also known as the hometown of 5?shua?s friend )a,arus ;Gohn %%J%=4 9y
contrast no city named Beth&6bara ;place of the other side= has e"er $een
found4 Why is it then that the #eshitta preser"es the name of a real city and
the +iniaticus and 9y,antine te!ts do not?
+imple& $oth of them misread the ori*inal<
+pecifically& there were two sta*es to the confusion4 .irst& on the Greek side&
the redactor of the 9y,antine te!t pro$a$ly skipped o"er a couple of Aramaic
words thuslyJ
SThese thin#s ha%%ened in =eth Anya on the A+ara 8other sideF of the
Mordan&<
Then& with his work now completed& the Greek redactor would ha"e simply
put the Aramaic te!t aside and ne"er *a"e the readin* a second thou*ht4
Ne!t& when his te!t passes to the Eld +yriac Aramaic scri$e& he simply
transliterates into his lan*ua*e the phrase preser"ed in the Greek4 Granted
2O( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
thou*h& it is possi$le to su**est that the Aramaic scri$e could ha"e also
skipped o"er SAnya on theS as well& $ut this idea is less likely& since an
Aramaic speaker is less prone to error in his nati"e lan*ua*e4 Instead& the
error the Eld +yriac scri$e makes is far su$tlerJ
Mohn 1::8
SThese thin*s happened in =ethKA+ara ;hrbe tyb=4S
Mud#es 2::D
SGo down ahead of the Midianites`down to =ethK=ara ;hrb tyb=4S
Not only are the two names almost identical $ut for the use of a e& notice they
are $oth placed in almost the e!act location as well4 Therefore with the Greek
reflectin* an only minor transliteration "ariant and *i"en the fact the
*eo*raphy also seemed accurate& there would ha"e $een no reason for the
Eld +yriac scri$e to :uestion the 9y,antine readin*4 "en if he did thou*h&
the scri$e still could ha"e attri$uted the "ariant spellin* to either that of a
different Aramaic dialect or else a transliteration scheme in Greek of takin*
on an SaS at the $e*innin*& which was also commonplace4
2ere?s another pair from )ukeJ
u"e :D:3;+ ;9y,antine Te!t and +iniaticus readin*s=
5?shua himself stood amon* them and said& S#eace $e to you4S
u"e :D:3;+ ;astern #eshitta readin*=
5?shua himself stood amon* them and said& S#eace $e to you4 It is I7 donCt +e afraid4S
u"e :D:D2 ;9y,antine Te!t and +iniaticus readin*s=
And that repentance and remission of sins should $e preached4
u"e :D:D2 ;astern #eshitta readin*=
And that repentance for remission of sins should $e preached4
+ome re"ision to a*ree with the 9y,antine here< A*ain& who is showin*
redaction from whom? And did the #eshitta scri$e& while doin* his $est to
a*ree with 9y,antine& 3ust decide to *et creati"e and add a phrase? Mo"in*
on& we see the same pro$lem in MarkJ
Mar" 11:11 ;9y,antine Te!t and +iniaticus readin*s=
When e"enin* had come& he would *o outside the city4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy 2OO
Mar" 11:11 ;astern #eshitta readin*=
When e"enin* had come& they went outside the city4
AndJ
Mar" 4::; ;9y,antine Te!t and +iniaticus readin*s=
And many thin*s had suffered of many physicians`
Mar" 4::; ;astern #eshitta readin*=
S(hom had suffered many thin*s of many physicians`
This last readin* in Mark is :uite interestin*& since there is no real reason for
the S#eshitta re"isersS to chan*e the Sori*inalS te!t from a waw proclitic ;and=
to a dalet proclitic ;whom=& when the meanin* is the same4 Ether deep
differences $etween the #eshitta and Eld +yriac "ersions of this passa*e need
to $e shown with the actual Aramaic te!t
%8
J
#eshittaJ
ty0d Mdm $k tq#0w 00y%s Fws0 Nm tlbs Y%sd 0dy0
t(l0t0 ty0ryty +0 f0 trd9t0 f Mdmw hl
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=J
ty0d Mdm $k tq#0w 00y%s Fws0 Nm trbys Y%sw (0dy0
t(l0t0 ty0ryty +0 f0 trd9t0 f Mdmw hl
I will now defer to the comments of my collea*ue #aul 5ounan on the
si*nificant "ariants shown hereJ
The other point of the post was& the #eshitta could not $e a re"ision of the
SEld6+yriacS in fa"or of the Greek readin* of Mark >J2B4 I cannot e"en fathom
a direct relationship $etween the #eshitta and E+& unless the translators of the
SEld6+yriacS had referenced the #eshitta4 That?s a$out the only relationship I
can e"en ima*ine4 The supposed re"isers of the #eshitta had no reason to
include 0dy0 and chan*e the #roclitic w to a #roclitic d4
Therefore& if the #eshitta is supposed to $e desi*ned to a*ree with the Greek&
it seems a "ery selecti"e a*reement indeed4 In other places& a*reement
/'' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
$etween the #eshitta and the most ancient Greek readin*s *o a%ainst the Eld
+yriac manuscripts& since the latter o$"iously came on to the scene rather late&
after the most relia$le readin*s had $een esta$lished4 The reader may then
well ask how such a situation can $e possi$le& where$y $oth a*reement and
disa*reement with the Greek te!ts are taken as e"idence of #eshitta #rimacy4
The answer is& :uite honestly& that it depends on the case you are lookin* at4
If we are& for e!ample& studyin* Matthew %J%B6%O
%>
& that is a situation where
an o$"ious mistranslation of the entire Greek record& Eld +yriac& and the
2e$rew "ersions of Matthew& arose from the only possi$le place for a correct
and ori*inal readin*& mainly the #eshitta te!t4 Therefore& the consistent and
early misreadin* in the Greek record ser"es as powerful proof that the only
source it could ha"e mistranslated from must $e older than the earliest Greek
documents& meanin* prior to the second century4
En the other hand& if we ha"e a "ery odd readin* in either Eld +yriac or the
late medie"al 2e$rew Matthew manuscripts& and that odd "ariant cannot $e
e!plained $y a mistranslation& pickin* the wron* readin* from a multiple
meanin* Aramaic word& or confusin* two Aramaic words that are spelled the
same $ut ha"e different meanin*s& then we need to shift *ears4 It is at that
point that issues such as anti:uity& multiple attestation of a readin* and
num$ers of e!tant manuscripts must come into play4 What is& after all& a
*rand total of fi"e manuscripts with no concordance a*ainst /B' #eshitta
manuscripts& complete codices from the fourth to ninth centuries& that are
"irtually identical?
%B
.urthermore& the "ariances $etween #eshitta and the
Greek are easily e!plaina$le within the framework su**ested a$o"e& as
opposed to a totally $i,arre readin* from Eld +yriac comin* out of left field4
It is $ecause of comple!ities like these that I am determined to offer as many
comparati"e e!amples as possi$le& so that the reader may make up his or her
mind $ased on the collecti"ity of the e"idence4
+o much then for the $asic lesson in comparin* these traditions so far4 Now
let?s mo"e on to the ad"anced class4
True 5ri#ins of 5ld 'yriac Bevealed
Another aspect thou*h to this analysis has to do with the ma3ority scholarly
opinion that the Eld +yriac itself was translated from a Greek source known
as Code! 9e,ae& which would ha"e $een used as a $ase te!t $y Ra$ulla& a fifth
century $ishop in the +yrian Erthodo! Church4
%I
2ere is 3ust one e!ample of
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /'%
many that could $e offered to e!plain the ri*htful pre"alence of this
"iewpointJ
In Matthew OJ/8& %2J28 and )uke %%J%>& the #eshitta contains this phraseJ
0wyd )#m 0wydd 04rb wwh Nyrm0 Nyd 04yr#
The #harisees were sayin*& S9y the head of the demons& he casts out demons4
In so doin*& the #eshitta not only a*rees with the 9y,antine Greek& $ut also
the earlier Western te!t6type& and e"en ancient )atin "ersions4
2owe"er& the Sori*inalS E+ manuscripts omit this phrase in all three places
for a "ery simple reasonJ Their ori*inal source& the Greek Code! 9e,ae& is also
the only te!t to not ha"e it either<
Not only that& $ut the Eld +yriac manuscripts also only contain the e!act
same completed $ooks that Code! 9e,ae does& namely the four Gospels& and
it follows this Greek "ersion almost e!actly& word for word4 .inally& e"en the
later medie"al 2e$rew manuscripts like @utillet and +hem To$& which are
fre:uently reconstructed with the E+ Group to reco"er the Sori*inalS contain
the e!act readin* that the #eshitta does a%ainst the Eld +yriac4
.urthermore& in the Greek New Testament tradition& many different kinds of
mistakes happened $ecause the Greek redactor did not ha"e the careful
te!tual tradition that his $rethren the +emites did4 Ene of these types of
mistakes is technically called $y the ;appropriately= Greek name
homioteleution ;Slike6endin*S=4 It means that there is a phrase in $etween two
words that is left out inad"ertently when a copyist?s eye 3umped from the first
Slike wordS to the ne!t Slike word4S It is actually a "ery common error in
Greek manuscripts4 Now& study carefully the 9y,antine Greek readin* of
Mark BJ// shown $elowJ
iotrt\oovojto[Hno;yovto[iotrjnr;yvcoovnoot;,iotnr
/ojnonoocvtcvno;rcvovr;opoovrjirtiotnpoOovoj
to;[.Kot
There are two te!tual traditions here which differ in the Greek ;S9y,antineS
"s4 SWesternS=4 The 9y,antine readin* is shown a$o"e4 The SWesternS readin*
omits the phrase that is hi*hli*hted in $lue4
/'2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The reason is $ecause a copyist?s eye 3umped from the first SkaiS ;SandS= to the
second& lea"in* out Sand preceded them4S Armed with this 3uicy tid$it of
information& we can now compare the #eshitta with Eld +yriac and in this
case& the Eld +yriac is missin* the phrase Nmtl 5hwmd: w]hr& or Sand they
ran $efore themS& which the #eshitta contains4 This proof then demonstrates
$eyond a shadow of a dou$t that Eld +yriac is a re"ision of the #eshitta to
$rin* it into more a*reement with the SWesternS Greek manuscripts which
were in common use at the time in *ypt and elsewhere SWestS4
Mo"in* on& for Mark %2J2/& the Imperial 9y,antine Greek adds the *loss
4xjn 4njlx4lhn Swhen they shall riseS to the te!tJ
S4n the resurrection therefore5 when the/ shall rise5 #hose #ife shall she be of them?
for the se$en had her to #ife.S ;Hin* Games Kersion=
Turnin* our attention to the te!t $elow howe"er& a different fact emer*es4 #ut
simply& if the #eshitta is a re"ision of the Eld +yriac to $rin* it more into line
with the 9y,antine te!t& then why is it that the #eshitta does not contain this
*loss 6 $ut the Eld +yriac does 6 wmqd 0m& Swhen they shall riseS?
2ere?s another *reat e!ampleJ
#eshittaJ
dyt9 wlxdt f 0sr0qd 0b=w 0brq wt9m4d Nyd 0m
Frx$ykd9 f f0 0whnd wh
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=
dyt9 wlxdt f 0srwd 0b=w 0srq wt9m4d ;Nyd= 0m
Frx$ykd9 f f0 0whnd wh
@el"in* now into Mark %/JI we find the phrase Swars and rumors of
re"olutionsS inserted in two places4 The interestin* aspect here thou*h is that
there are two different words in the Aramaic $ut only one word in the Greek
;actually there is a suffi! chan*e $ut $asically the same word=4 The 9y,antineD
Ma3ority Te!t has polemos and polemon while the Aramaic has Cra#a and Carsa4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /'/
With re*ards to Cra#a& this is a *enuine Aramaic word4 2owe"er& the word
Carsa is a Greek loan word ;ijhzku= accordin* to the le*endary scholar R4
#ayne +mith4 This $ecomes an important o$ser"ation here& $ecause the Eld
+yriac uses the Greek loanword in both places whereas the #eshitta uses two
different words<
Er& to put it another way& the Eld +yriac reads the e!act same way as the
Greek "ersion from which it?s translated4 +urely this is yet another e!ample
then pro"in* that the idea of #eshitta $ein* a re"ision of the Eld +yriac to
$rin* it in line with the 9y,antine Greek te!t is preposterous4
u"e :3:D8
+ometimes howe"er& when the #eshitta does ha"e the same readin* as the
9y,antine Te!t& it is $ecause that readin* is almost uni"ersally attested to in
all the Greek te!tual families& with the #eshitta lendin* its "oice in a*reement4
The Eld +yriac then& is literally left "irtually alone with a spurious readin*4
Consider the e!ample then of )uke 2/J8(4 In that passa*e& the Eld +yriac
curiously includes this interpolation after beatin% upon their breastsJ Sand
sayin%: P7oe to us; 7hat has befallen us? 7oe to us from our sins;R
This readin*& a$sent in #eshitta& the Greek traditions& and @utillet and +hem
To$ 2e$rew "ersions& can only $e found in 2 other manuscriptsJ
Code! +an*ermanensis 6 a Oth century )atin Kul*ate manuscript
The Apocryphal Greek Gospel of #eter
Acts 1:D
+ometimes thou*h a mistranslation can produce results that are $oth
ridiculous and lau*ha$le4 .or e!ample& in some early Greek manuscripts as
well as the Eld +yriac Acts %J8 reads Sand he ate saltS4 The #eshitta howe"er
has 0and he ate $read14
@oes that mean that the earliest Greek manuscripts may $e reflectin* a more
ori*inal Eld +yriac readin*? 2ardly<
The Greek phrase in the Ale!andrian te!t reads kai sunalizomenus ;kaiA
sunali,o=4 Now& with a lon* SaS sunalizomenu was used in Classical and
/'8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2ellenistic Greek to mean 0collect or assem$le14 With a short 0a1
sunalizomenu means literally 0to eat salt to*ether14 )ea"in* aside momentarily
the issues that a clearer readin* is possi$le e"en within the Greek& and the fact
that the #eshitta also has a $etter readin*& let?s di*ress to show the error of
some scholars when they throw out the o$"ious to em$race the e!tremely
unlikely4
.or e!ample& accordin* to 9ruce Met,*er the meanin* 0to eat salt to*ether1 is
a rare and late meanin* of the Greek word& which did not appear until the
end of the +econd century C4 Most of the early "ersions do take the word to
refer to eatin* ;The Eld )atin& the )atin Kul*ateA the Coptic& the Armenian&
the thiopic and the Armenian for e!ample=4 A$out thirty6fi"e late Greek
manuscripts read alternately sunaulizomenos 0to spend the ni*ht with14
En the Aramaic side& @r4 @aniel )4 McConau*hy has noted that the Ancient
Aramaic 0Church .ather1 phraim& early 8th century& :uotes the passa*e in
Aramaic in his 2ymns on Kir*inity hymn /B4 This is supposedly "ery
important to the E+6#rimacist camp $ecause they $elie"e& erroneously& that
phraim7s :uotations from the Gospels often a*ree with the Eld +yriac
a*ainst the #eshitta te!t& and $ecause phraim uses the word xlmt0 & which
they render 1salted1 or 0ate salt14
As a result& McConau*hy su**ests that this is the lost Eld +yriac readin*
which would refer to an ancient +emitic custom of eatin* salt to*ether in
ritual meals ;Num$ers %(J%OA 2 Chronicles %/J>=4
%(
The confusion was also
understanda$le& proponents of this theory point out& due to the similarity
$etween the words for SsaltS ;melkh66xlm= and S$readS ;lechem66 Mxl=4
2owe"er& the most effecti"e way to e!pose this falsehood& at least as a first
step& is also the easiest4 +ince the linchpin of @r4 McConau*hy?s is that eatin*
salt is an Sancient +emitic customS& it seems ri*ht to check the references he
*i"es to see if this is in fact the caseJ
Num+ers 18:11
All these sacred *ifts that the Israelites set aside for the )ER@ I *i"e to you& to your
sons& and to the dau*hters that are with you& as a due for all time4 It shall $e an
everlastin# covenant of salt $efore the )ER@ for you and your offsprin* as well4
: $hronicles 13:4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /'>
+urely you know that the )ER@ God of Israel *a"e @a"id kin*ship o"er Israel
forever66to him and his sons66$y a covenant of salt4
Now& honestly& where in either of these passa*es does it say Gews ate salt
to*ether? Rather& the true meanin* of Ssalt co"enantS is the concept that
appears in $oth :uotes& a 2e$rew metaphor for Se"erlastin*S4 2owe"er& to $e
fair& it may $e that the *ood doctor had another "erse in mind4 +o& since SsaltS
only appears a total of 2O times in the entire Tanakh& we can e!plore the full
sample with little difficulty4 To $e*in with& the only other time Ssalt co"enantS
appears is hereJ
eviticus ::13
5ou shall season your e"ery meal offerin* with saltA you shall not omit from your meal
offerin* the salt of your covenant with HodA with all offerin*s you must offer salt4
Notice here that the Gews are not eatin* the salt either& $ut usin* it for the
offerin* that *oes to 52W2? It is true thou*h that an ar*ument can $e made
that some offerin*s are left o"er& either for the priests or for the petitioner to
consume4 2owe"er& in no case are *roups of people sittin* down 3ust to eat
the salt<
The remainin* references then are all *eneric and the word Sco"enantS does
not appear4 They areJ
The Ssalt seaS& ;Genesis %8J/& Num$ers /8J/&%2A @euteronomy /J%I& Goshua
/J%B&%2J/&%>J2&>&%(J%O =4
)ot?s wife turnin* into a pillar of salt& ;Genesis %OJ2B=
Ssalt and $rimstoneS and +odom and Gomorrah& ;@euteronomy 2OJ2/=4
The SCity of +altS ;Goshua %>JB2=4
A$imelech sows an enemy city with salt so crops will not *row& ;Gud*es
OJ8>=4
SThe Kalley of +altS& ;2 +amuel (J%/& 2 Hin*s %8J8& % Chronicles
%(J%2&2>J%%&#salm B'J%=4
+alt used to $less the waters and heal the land& ;2 Hin*s 2J2'62%=4
+alt a*ain used to season sacrifices& ;,ra BJO& IJ22& ,ekiel 8/J28=4
A *eneral reference to salt $ein* used to season other foods& ;Go$ BJB=4
Ssalt landS as wilderness& ;Geremiah %IJB& ,ekiel 8IJ%%=4
A*ain& nowhere do we find the S+emitic customS of Gews *atherin* to eat salt4
9y contrast& the ritual of all +emites *ettin* to*ether to S$reak $readS need
hardly $e mentioned<
/'B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2owe"er& as $ad as the Tanakh is twisted in this pro Eld6+yriac theory& the
*rammar errors are much worse4 The fact is& atemelkh ;&lmt0 = does not
mean SsaltedS or Sate saltS& $oth of which are ridiculous readin*s4 The
melkh;&lm = root& a "er$& cannot mean SsaltedS66an ad3ecti"e< The same is true
of Sate saltS& which is an impossi$le readin* *rammatically& since to say She
ate saltS in Aramaic would $e akhel melkha ;0xlm $k0=4
+o instead of a plausi$le e!planation for this theory residin* in the similarity
$etween the words for salt and $read& it turns out Aramaic *rammar is the
*reatest weapon for e!posin* the idea as a fraud< Reason $ein*& &lmt0 is a
"er$ that is con3u*ated in a form known as ethpeel5 and in that form it clearly
means& Sit #as saltedS4 That readin*& in turn leads us to the Ssmokin* *unS& a
scri$al error $etweenJ
&lmt0 ;they ate salt=
Klmt0 ;they assem$led& they deli$erated& they took counsel=
In other words& the Eld +yriac scri$e mistook a khet ;&= for a kaph ;k=& and
this is what we are supposed to $elie"e ori*inal God6$reathed te!t? I don?t
think so& since it is a central hope of the faith that the 2oly +pirit would not
do such a poor 3o$ at inspirin* such a composition< Althou*h& what this little
e!ercise does is present further proof that the Eld6+yriac is translated from
the Greek& which has Sand they assem$ledS4 9y contrast& the #eshitta has She
ate $readS& which unlike $oth the Eld +yriac and the Greek& the #eshitta
makes more sense& since they always ate +read to*ether4
.inally& not all of what is today known as +t4 phraim?s writin*s are really
from his pen4 Most sur"i"e only in the Armenian and other non6Aramaic
lan*ua*es& and many of these reek from a distinctly Western6 9y,antine
fla"or4 2owe"er& e"en if the citation in :uestion is *enuine& one other fact still
stands in the way of this theory $ein* credi$le4 .irst& Mar phraim was
known to paraphrase +cripture either to make a poetic or spiritual point4
Therefore& while some instances may sound somewhat like one "ersion or
another& the totality of this e"idence had a$solutely no $earin* on pro"in*
which te!tual tradition preceded the other4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /'I
The Beturn of Vor+a
.or the last three years or so& I ha"e $een dealin* with the happy
ramifications of usin* the name SLor$aS in an internet post to descri$e the
Greek redactors of the New Testament4 In my mind& the ima*e was most
appropriate $ecause& like the Anthony fuinn character in the %OB8 film& Lor$a
seems to ha"e done his work with a lot of 3oy $ut "ery little attention to detail4
+till& and e"en thou*h I ha"e spent hundreds of pa*es showin* pro$lems
with his work& the reader should not $e left with the impression that Lor$a
was always wron*4 In fact& compared his counterpart on the Eld +yriac side&
Lor$a actually looks like he did a much $etter 3o$4
5ou see& Lor$a did his work from the #eshitta& and as we ha"e seen he
sometimes *ot "arious words confused& selected the wron* meanin* from a
word& and so on4 2owe"er& in doin* so& Lor$a also pro"ided us today with
the a$ility to $oth clarify the Greek and e!plain pro$lematic readin*s in it that
end up stren*thenin* the claims of the New Testament as a whole4 In that
sense& Lor$a deser"es our praise and appreciation for makin* a no$le attempt
to $rin* a "ery challen*ed Galilean Aramaic dialect to the Greek speakin*
world66the results of which are nothin* short of spectacular in terms of
influence and stayin* power4
Eur hapless Eld +yriac& Greek6Erthodo! redactor howe"er& whom we ha"e
sometimes called S+pyrosS at www4peshitta4or*& was far less successful in his
endea"or4 2is Aramaic is terri$le& the *rammar atrocious and the spellin*
errors are copious indeed4 In fact& it is these "ery errors that +pyros wrote
while translatin* from the Greek that cause confusion all this time later with
people who $elie"e his work to $e ori*inal< The reality is& they are simply
cases of $ad penmanship& with the correct readin* $ein* shared $y $oth the
#eshitta and the Greek4 Also& in none of these cases can e"en a hint $e shown
that either the Greek or the #eshitta has an untena$le or implausi$le readin*4
2ere is 3ust a samplin* of what I am talkin* a$outJ
#atthew ):2$
E)@ +5RIACJ l!0# 0should *o1
#+2ITTA AN@ GRHJ 0l#n 0should fall1
/'( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
While the readin* S*o into hellS and Sfall into hellS $oth seem reasona$le&
surely Sfallin*S into an a$yss or pit makes a lot more sense *i"en the o"erall
conte!t of the passa*e4 The word for SfallS also appears 3ust a few lines later in
the e!act same form4
#atthew 23:1*
E)@ +5RIACJ 0km 0l Shurts notS and 0=x SsinsS
#+2ITTA AN@ GRHJ Mdm 0wh 0l Snothin*S and b0x Sis *uiltyS
2ere we really ha"e to see the full readin*s side $y side to appreciate the
errorJ
SWoe to you $lind *uides& for you say that whoe"er swears $y the Temple is
not anythin#& $ut he who swears $y the *old $y which is in the Temple is
#uilty4S ;#eshitta=
SWoe to you $lind *uides& for you say that whoe"er swears $y the Temple
does not hurt& $ut he who swears $y the *old $y which is in the Temple sins4S
;Eld +yriac=
I?m sure we all $reathe a si*h of relief knowin* that the #harisees were
confident that such a man did not hurt the Temple< The other "ariant&
$etween S*uiltyS or SsinsS& is lar*ely interchan*ea$le4
Ether e!amples of Eld +yriac "ariations re:uire a $it more e!planationJ
Matthew 1D::2
whm9 $lm ht94rb (w4y Nyd wh
wlxdt f 0n0 0n0 wbblt0 rm0w
9ut 5?shua at once spoke with them and said& S2a"e coura*e4 It is I4 @o not $e afraid4S
Matthew %8J2I ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
Now this is a neat one for comparison with $oth *roups of manuscripts4 En
the Eld +yriac side& +iniaticus has S$e assuredS while this time Cureton *ets
closer with Stake coura*eS4 9ut the real odd one here has to *o to @utillet and
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /'O
Company with Sha"e trustS4 In this case& they are pro$a$ly tar*ummin* and
thinkin* the Aramaic should say haymanutha5 which can mean StrustS on
occasion& $ut has a "ast ma3ority readin* of SfaithS4 2owe"er& and as this te!t
pro"es& their S#eshitta memoryS was flawed since it had another word for
Scoura*eS instead4
Matthew :2:3D
F4ml 0b( fw M9=w Frrmb ylxdfx F4nd hl wbhyw
And they *a"e to him to drink "ine*ar& which was mi!ed with *all4 And he tasted it
and he did not desire to drink it4
Matthew :2:3D ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
In this case& $oth Eld +yriac manuscripts& the three of the late medie"al
2e$rew "ersions of Matthew& and the Greek families of te!ts all ha"e SwineS4
Enly the #eshitta has S"ine*arS& $ut this is hardly a pro$lem& $ecause of what
is in TanakhJ
Psalm ;1::1K::
I am in despair4 I hope for consolation $ut there is none& for comforters& $ut find none4
They *i"e me *all for food and "ine*ar to :uench my thirst4
All three statements in this #salm relate perfectly to Messiah4 2e was in
despair $ecause he said that his own soul was trou$led to the point of death
;Matthew 2BJ/(=4 The hope for consolation and comforters was due to the fact
that he clearly wanted to *et his time on the cross o"er with ;Matthew 2IJ8B=4
.inally the key point in this analysis is that the Romans *a"e him the mi!ture
of *all and "ine*ar and he did not want it $ecause he $elie"ed his .ather
would soon answer his petition to end his sufferin* for the sake of the world4
Mar" 1::1
Ence a*ain we find a sin*ularDplural confusion4 The #eshitta alone has
Steachin* on the +a$$athsS& whereas the Greek and the Eld +yriac ha"e
S+a$$athS4 In this case& the confusion happened in two steps4 .irst the Greek
redactor looked at the #eshitta and saw 0b4 and& $ecause plural markin*s
would not $e put into the Aramaic for centuries to come& could not tell that
the word was intended as plural4 Then& some time later& the Eld +yriac scri$e
looked at the Greek te!t and& seein* a totally clear plural endin* there simply
translated it that way $ack into Aramaic4
/%' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Mar" :::;
2ere is a readin* that has often $een trou$le for the Greek traditions as well
as the #eshitta& until the matter
is more closely e!aminedJ
wtyrq Mwtmm f (w4y whl rm0
hm9dw wh N#kw )nts0 dk dywd db9 0nm
0nhk Br rtyb0 dk 0hl0d htybl $9 0nky0
$k0ml .yl4 fd wh $k0 0yrmd hrwt#d 0mxlw
wwh hm9d Nyly0l +0 Bhyw 0nhkl 0 f0
5?shua said to them& S2a"e you not e"er read what @a"id did when he was in need
and he hun*ered with those with him? 2ow he entered the 2ouse of God while
A$iathar was the hi*h priest and ate the $read of the ta$le of the )ER@ which is no
lawful to eat e!cept for the priests& and he *a"e ;it= e"en to those who were with him?S
Mar" :::; ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
I must admit& of all the e!amples shown thus far& this one initially looked
most like a smokin* *un in fa"or of the Eld +yriac& and here?s whyJ
1 'amuel :1:1K2
@a"id went to the priest Ahimelech at No$4 Ahimelech came out in alarm to meet
@a"id and he said to him& SWhy are you alone and no one with you?S @a"id answered
the priest Ahimelech& SThe kin* had ordered me on a mission& and he said to me& ?No
one must know anythin* on this mission on which I am sendin* you and for which I
ha"e *i"en you orders?4 +o I ha"e directed my youn* men to such and such a place4
Now then& what ha"e you *ot on hand? Any loa"es of $read? )et me ha"e them& or
whate"er is a"aila$le4S The priest answered @a"id& SI ha"e only consecrated $read&
pro"ided the youn* men ha"e kept away from women4S In reply to the priest @a"id
said& SI assure you that women ha"e $een kept from us& as always4 Whene"er I went
on a mission& e"en if the 3ourney was a common one& the "essels of the youn* men
were consecratedA all the more then may consecrated food $e put into their "essels
today4S +o the priest *a"e him the consecrated $read& which had $een remo"ed from
the presence of the )ER@& to $e replaced $y warm $read as soon as it was taken away4
+o it seems that Tanakh is in disa*reement with the #eshitta& $ut is it really?
The fact is& the #eshitta opponents only assume 6himelech is the hi%h priest5 but
this title is ne$er %i$en in the actual text5 where he is called Sa priestS only< Now
it is true that Ahimelech did ha"e a son named A$iathar& and that it is "ery
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /%%
unlikely that the son would hold a hi*h priesthood o"er and a$o"e his father
who was a re*ular cleric4 2owe"er& the fact is that A$iathar was also a "ery
common name& and we are simply not told who the hi*h priest of the
ta$ernacle was4 .urthermore& one did not ha"e to $e a hi*h priest to ha"e
access to the consecrated $read& as e"en a re*ular )e"ite had this ri*ht as wellJ
1 $hronicles 1:30K3:
+ome of the priests $lended to compound of spices4 Mathithiah& one of the )e"ites& the
first $orn of +hallum the Horahite& was entrusted with makin* the flat cakes4 Also
some of the Hohahite kinsmen had char*e of the rows of $read& to prepare them for
each +a$$ath4
Another factor miti*atin* a*ainst the idea that Ahimelech was hi*h priest is
that Tanakh ne"er mentions the same person as $oth priest and hi*h priest
durin* the same time frame& althou*h it is likely that Aaron functioned as
Shi*h priestS $efore that title $ecame official in @a"id?s day4 Ne"ertheless& for
our purposes here& there is no dou$t that hi*h priest?s office was wholly
separate from those of the lower priests& with ri*hts and pri"ile*es e!clusi"e
to that position4
%O
+till some mi*ht ar*ue& SThis is a key moment in Israelite history4 +urely the
Tanakh would mention this hi*h priest that @a"id saw<S My response& as
always& is to turn to what the +cripture says4 2ere are the 2/ times that the
phrase Shi*h priestS appears in TanakhJ
Melchisedec& who is actually not a hi*h6priest $ut called Spriest of the most
hi*h GodS& ;Genesis %8J%(=4
General references to what a hi*h priest does& ;)e"iticus 2%J%'& Num$ers
/>J2>&2(& Goshua 2'JB& 2 Hin*s %2J%'& 2 Chronicles 28J%%=4
2ilkiah the hi*h priest& ;2 Hin*s 22J8&(& 2/J8& 2 Chronicles /8JO=4
Ladok the hi*h priest& ;% Chronicles %BJ/O=4
liashi$ the hi*h priest& ;Nehemiah /J%&2'=4
5oaida the hi*h priest& ;Nehemiah %/J2(=4
Goshua son of 5eho,adak the hi*h priest& ;2a**ai %J%&%2&%8& 2J2&8& Lechariah
/J(& BJ%%=4
All told& we ha"e a ma!imum of ei*ht men in all of Israelite history that ha"e
this title& so why should anyone $e surprised if this particular one is wantin*
in the ori*inal te!t? .inally& we should not discount the possi$ility of a now6
lost oral tradition& a lost Galilean tar*um& or in fact prophetic insi*ht from
Messiah himself& as the source of the missin* hi*h priest?s real name4
/%2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Mar" 2::;
htrb Nm 0d04)#nd hnm twh 0y9bw 0yrwsd 0qynw# Nm F#nx
twh hyty0 Ftn0 Nyd Yh
Mar" 2::; ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
Now that woman was a heathen from #hoenicia in +yria& and was entreatin* him to
cast out the de"il from her dau*hter4
This rather clear readin* is o$scured and twisted a $it in the Eld +yriac&
which calls this woman Sa widowS due to another scri$al errorJ
0yrws ;+yrian=
Flmr0 ;widow=
Actually the word in the #eshitta is more of a place name that she is from as
opposed to a con3u*ation turnin* that place into personal description ;i4e4 Sa
person from AmericaS "s4 San AmericanS=4 Also notin* here that the only way
the Eld +yriac could ha"e come up with the confused SwidowS "ariant is that
it read S+yrianS in the Greek and then& when translatin* mis6wrote Flmr0
;widow=& when it should ha"e $een Fymr0 ;an ArameanD+yrian woman=4
Mar" 8:1:
0dh Fbr4 F0 0y9b 0nm rm0w hxwrb &ntt0w
0dh Fbr4l F0 hl Bhytt fd wkl 0n0 rm0 Nym0
Mar" 8:1: ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
And he si*hed in his spirit and said& SWhy does this *eneration seek a si*n4 Truly& I
say to you& that not one si*n will $e *i"en to this *eneration4S
)ookin* at this passa*e& in $oth Aramaic and Greek& one can almost hear the
tone of frustration in Messiah?s "oice< After all the *reat teachin*s and
miracles& still people needed a si*n? No wonder he simply shru**ed his
shoulders and Ssi*hed in his spiritS4 2owe"er& the Eld +yriac had an almost
comical contrast& sayin* that 5?shua was Se!cited in his spiritS that people had
misunderstood him yet a*ain<
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /%/
2ow could this happen? The answer is "ery simpleJ
&ntt0 ;si*hed=
!w9t0 ;e!cited=
The difference is that the #eshitta not only a*rees with the Greek and in fact
all other witnesses a*ainst the Eld +yriac& it also makes a lot more sense<
Mar" 1::38
Nyb(d 0r#s Nm wrhd!0 whl 0wh rm0 hn#lwybw
0qw4b 0ml4 Nymxrw wklhn f=s0bd
Mar" 1::38 ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
And in his teachin* he would say to them& S9eware of the scri$es who like to walk in
lon* ro$es and lo"e a *reetin* in the streets4
E$"iously& this readin* in $oth the #eshitta and the Greek makes a lot of
sense since we know that scri$es and #harisees most certainly walked in lon*
ro$es throu*h the streets4
The Eld +yriac thou*h clearly misread 0l=s0b ;in ro$es= and thou*ht it
erroneously was 0w=s0b ;in porches=4 +ince it stands alone a*ainst the
#eshitta and the Greek& I su$mit respectfully that the $urden of proof is on the
E+ proponent to pro"e it to possess an e!clusi"e and ori*inal readin*& as
opposed to one that 3ust happens to $e somewhat plausi$le4
2owe"er& lest the reader think I am inconsistent in places where I ha"e
o"erturned the Greek readin*s in fa"or of the #eshitta& I would remind them
of one important fact4 In each of these cases& I ha"e systematically also shown
how a mistranslation from a #eshitta6e!clusi"e term crept into the ma3ority
te!ts& and in many cases clarifies readin*s in the Greek that would otherwise
$e o$scure or unintelli*i$le4
In still other cases& the readin*s $etween the #eshitta& Eld +yriac and the
Greek are :uite close in meanin* and ha"e no pro$ati"e "alue in pro"in* an
ori*inal readin*J
#atthew 11:20
/%8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
E)@ +5RIACJ 0lyx Nyhb ywxd 0in which he showed many mi*hty works1
#+2ITTA AN@ GRHJ yhwlyx Nyhb wwhd 0in which his mi*hty works
had $een done1
#atthew 21:2
E)@ +5RIACJ 0dh 0tlm Sthis wordS
#+2ITTA AN@ GRHJ 0dx 0tlm Sone wordS
9ut perhaps the most serious pro$lem with this theory is when proponents
like Games Trimm& either $y desi*n or inad"ertent error& actually chan*e what
the #eshitta te!t says to Spro"eS their point& such as hereJ
(w4y hm4 0rqtw 0rb Nyd dl0t
whyh=x Nm hm9l Yhwyxn ry% wh
Matthew 1::1 ;5ounan #eshitta Interlinear Kersion=
+he will $ear a son and she will call his name 5?shua& for he will sa"e his people from
their sins4
9y contrast& here is the parallel that Trimm drew on www4peshitta4or*
$etween the two te!tual traditionsJ
#atthew 1:21
E)@ +5RIACJ0ml9l 0to the world1
#+2ITTA AN@ GRHJ0m9l 0to the people1
This is howe"er not what the #eshitta says< The word is actually lPaimmeh
;hm9l= not lPaimmah ;0m9l=4 Trimm has therefore misspelled it so it would
look more alike the Eld +yriac as 0ml9l 4 The difference thou*h is that the
proper spellin* with a heh ;h=& rather than an alap ;0=& renders the word in
the #eshitta into a third person possessi"e ;his=4 There can $e no disputation
on the su$3ect then& $ecause this is as $asic an Aramaic *rammatical structure
as one will e"er find in the New Testament4 That $ein* said& there is no way
the #eshitta redactor could ha"e done what Trimm su**ested and wrote
down hm9l as an error when re"isin* from the Eld +yriac readin* of
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /%>
0ml9l4 +uch a scenario mi*ht $e a little more plausi$le if& as Trimm
erroneously presents& the #eshitta used 0m9l 4 To then further assert that the
same error was repeated more than /B' additional times in the #eshitta te!t
family without anyone suspectin* a pro$lem is clearly a$surd& and then we
will compound that madness further $y sayin* the Greek is also wron* $y
sayin* SpeopleS<
I offer then a far more sensi$le theory to e!plain the "ariant4 The Greek
redactor in this case read the #eshitta properly and simply turned Shis
peopleS into the neutered e:ui"alent of Sthe peopleS4 +ince the Sthe peopleS66
the Gews66are the same as Shis peopleS& this is a perfectly fine readin*4
+ome time later then& the Eld +yriac redactor a*ain is lookin* throu*h his
Greek manuscripts and intended to #rite RpeopleR but instead accidentally added a
lamed to the #ord5 makin% it R#orldR4 9y contrast& we know the Eld +yriac
redactor could not ha"e had a copy of the #eshitta te!t in front of him4 If he
had& then he would ha"e seen the h at the end& stickin* out like a sore thum$&
and *uidin* him easily to the correct readin* that e"eryone else had to $e*in
with<
ItCs all in the <"hads<
+ometimes claims a$out the ori*inality of the Eld +yriac Group $order on the
$i,arre& if not ridiculous4 .or e!ample Games Trimm has claimed that the Eld
+yriac is more authentically Gewish than the #eshitta te!t& $ecause of San
ama,in* +emitic idiomS4 That idiom& stran*ely enou*h& is the word for
SoneSekhad ;d!=66which when com$ined with another noun like SmanS is
$etter rendered as Sa certain manS4 Trimm?s claim on this matter is that Sa
certain manS& which is how the Eld +yriac often reads& is superior o"er the
#eshitta?s readin* of Sa manS4 Well& not only is this SidiomS not apparent to
anyone who is a nati"e Aramaic speaker& $ut e"en the linchpin on which it
rests& that the su$stitution of ScertainS for SaS is uni"ersal& is deeply flawed4 To
pro"e this& let?s take a look at some te!ts& side $y sideJ
#atthew 1:2
#eshittaJ dx 0rb% ;a certainDone leper=
Eld +yriac ;Cureton=J 0rb% ;a leper=
2'
/%B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
#atthew 1:)
#eshitta and Eld +yriac ;Cureton=J dx 0nwr=nq ;a certainDone centurion=
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=J 0nwr=nq ;a centurion=
#atthew 12:11
#eshittaJ dx 0br9 ;a certainDone sheep=
Eld +yriac ;Cureton and +iniaticus=J 0br9 ;a sheep=
#ar' 3:1
#eshittaJ dx 0rb% ;a certainDone man=
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=J 0rb% ;a man=
#ar' (:2
#eshittaJ dx 0tyb ;a certainDone house=
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=J 0tyb ;a house=
#ar' 12:1
Eld +yriac ;+iniaticus=J 0rb% ;a man=
0ohn 3:1
Eld +yriac ;Cureton=J 0rb% ;a man=
0ohn 3:2)
#eshittaJ dx 0ydwhy ;a certainDone Gew=
Eld +yriac ;Cureton=J 0ydwhy ;a Gew=
These are 3ust a samplin* of the do,ens of places in the #eshitta that dispro"e
Trimm?s theory4 The fact is& khad is not a +emitic idiom at all4 Instead& 3ust like
n*lish& these "ariants simply represent two accepta$le ways to say the same
thin*& and it has no $earin* on the ori*inality ar*ument whatsoe"er4 I also
concur with my collea*ue +te"e Caruso?s analysis of this matter when he
wrote on peshitta4or* the followin*J
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /%I
Posted on Ae+KAramKNT7 AramaicNT7 and +Karamaic lists:
6666666666
Akhi Ymy $rother66AGRZ Games and all in"ol"ed with the khadDchad study&
There is somethin* I noticed& *oin* o"er the num$ers concernin* the
preser"ation of the SHhad idiom4S Goin* o"er the "erses Akhi Games pro"ided
I found out how the Eld +yriac looks a*ainst itself alon* with the #eshittaJ
'inaiticus *nikue 8oDF: 2J2/A %>J22A %(J2A 2%J2A
$ureton *nikue 8o3F: OJOA ;2BJI=? ;2IJ>I=?
Peshitta *nikue 8o1F: %2J%%
Peshitta O 'inaiticus A#reement 8oDF: (J2A (J>A %(J28A 2%J%OA
Peshitta O $ureton A#reement 8oDF: OJ%(A %/J8BA 2%J28A ;2BJBO=?
'inaiticus O $ureton A#reement 8o1F: %IJ%8A
$om%lete A#reement 8o;F: (J%OA %2J%'A %2J22A %OJ%BA 2%J2(A 2%J//
Total Instances: c2/
Peshitta O 'inaiticus A#reement: c8/\
Peshitta O $ureton A#reement: c8/\
'inaiticus O $ureton A#reement: c/'\
Peshitta7 'inaiticus7 O $ureton A#reement: c2B\
Takin* a close look at the e"idence& there are many places where syr;s= and
syr;c= disa*ree with each other4 With this in mind& we find one place where
the #eshitta disa*rees with $oth Eld +yriac manuscripts ;Mt4 %2J%%=& and one
place that we can "erify that $oth Eld +yriac manuscripts disa*ree with the
#eshitta ;%IJ%8=4 "en +te"en We also see that the #eshitta A*rees more
closely to each indi"idual Eld +yriac Manuscript than the Eld +yriac
Manuscripts do to each other ;8/\ "s /'\=4
With this in mind& I $elie"e that this is ample e"idence to conclude that the
inclusion or e!clusion of khadDchad as ScertainS is ar$itrary P not a "alid
means of determinin* which $i$lical te!t is Smore authenticS than anotherA the
statistics simply do not warrant it4 Additionally& I wholeheartedly re3ect the
further study of its fre:uency in this conte!t as any form of e"idence for the
Gospel of Matthew4
The $ottom line with all of these e!amples howe"er is that e"en if it could $e
shown that the Eld +yriac Group ;Cureton and +iniaticus= was the ori*inal&
their fra*mentary condition is such that not e"en $oth of them put to*ether
form the complete Gospel record4 Ef course& in that scenario& we now ha"e
/%( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
3ust these scraps of the Gospel te!ts a*ainst the full !eshitta $ersion that is
rendered identically in /B' other complete manuscripts< We also ha"e the force
of ancient eastern traditions unanimously proclaimin* #eshitta as ori*inal&
e"en as these same *roups denounced& hated and almost destroyed one
another4 And yet& as "olatile and dan*erous as the relationship $etween the
Church of the ast and its ri"al Aramaic *roup the +yrian Erthodo! Church
has $een& $oth would defend the anti:uity and ori*inality of the #eshitta
2%
and a*ree that the +iniaticus is nothin* short of a pious fraud4
Peace and blessings to you all,
Andrew Gabriel Roth
March 21, 2004
,N>N5T,'
% This is not to say that Mar Aphrahat ne"er en*a*ed in indirect scriptural
allusion& as Matthew %J2/ is a *ood e!ample of the saint :uotin* from no
known source4 Rather& my point is that in terms of o"erall style& Mar
Aphrahat& when he does directly :uote& clearly fa"ors the #eshitta te!t o"er
the Eld +yriac4
2 Mar Aphrahat li"ed from 2('6/BI CA Mar phraim from /'B6/I/ C4
Therefore& while there are some writin*s from $oth men that coincide in the
middle of the fourth century& the earliest and *reater portions of Mar
Aphrahat?s writin*s precede Mar phraim?s $y a$out /' years4
/ The primary source material for these :uotations in Mar Aphrahat?s
masterpiece& S@emonstrations of .aithS& which is a detailed New Testament
analysis in 22 parts& one for each letter of the Aramaic alpha$et4
8 My sincere thanks to #aul 5ounan who compiled these e!amples from his
e!tensi"e Church of the ast li$rary4
>E$"iously the Eld +yriac "ersions of $ooks other than the Gospels is not
e!tant4 In these cases& my intent is to demonstrate that the full $readth of the
#eshitta canon is rooted to these ancient times4
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /%O
B Notice also that this particular sin of Aha$& lettin* a man li"e that God
consi*ned to destruction& in also nearly identical to the sin that also *ot +aul?s
line permanently dis:ualified in % +amuel 2(J%B6%(4
I +ee the Appendi! for the full list of Greek manuscripts4
( It should also $e fairly pointed out that this is pure +emitic speech4 Aramaic
and 2e$rew are notoriously redundant in their phraseolo*y and filled with
statements like Sand he opened his mouth& spoke and said to themS& which is
e!actly what this line from Gohn reflects4
O The story of the woman taken in adultery ;Gohn (J%6%%= is not in the #eshitta
nor the 8 more most ancient Greek manuscripts4 Therefore& the num$erin*
order in the eastern #eshitta will "ary from that of the west& and this omission
will cause this scripture to appear %% lines earlier& in Gohn (J2(6/'4
%' The followin* :uote from Geor*e )amsa is :uite instructi"e on the issues
surroundin* the authenticity of $oth Cureton and +iniaticus manuscripts4 As
a nati"e Aramaic speaker reared in the Middle ast and steeped in the
tradition of the ancient Church of the ast that preser"ed the #eshitta
collection& )amsa is well :ualified $oth litur*ically and scholarly to comment
on the practices he knew so "ery well4 2owe"er& as a theolo*ian& )amsa
lea"es much to $e desired& ha"in* let li$eral theolo*ical notions such as an
un$elief in demons affect many areas of his own translation4 Therefore& the
inclusion of this :uote should only $e an acknowled*ment of his a$ility as a
commentary& and not an endorsement of his actual reli*ious "iews4
%% While the Monks of +aint Catherine?s were most certainly not Assyrians& $ut
of Greek ethnicity& the theory that +iniaticus6primacists hold to is that the
#eshitta was re"ised from it4 Therefore& somehow the +iniaticus& or perhaps
another copy of it& would ha"e made its way into the hands of the Church of
the ast4 Ence there& the Sori*inalS Word of God would ha"e $een altered and
the "essel it came in either defaced or destroyed4 .or that reason& the ha$its of
the Middle astern scri$es that would ha"e done this deed are still "ery much
on point4 It is also the case that if another had scratched the te!t off $efore the
Church of the ast officials looked at it& they would ha"e immediately
lau*hed heartily and dismissed the document as an o$"ious fraud without a
second thou*ht on the matter4
/2' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
%2 The source for the Aramaic te!ts of the +iniaticus& 2arkalean ;western
Aramaic re"ision of B%B= and #eshitta readin*s is from Geor*e Hira,?s
monumental work A Comparati"e dition of the +yriac Gospels& whereas the
translation of those te!ts was done $y #aul 5ounan4 I also cross6checked the
readin*s and translations used in this section of the $ook4
%/ This is also the root from which we *et the word S2e$rewS4 Gews and
Arameans had settled on opposite sides of the Gordan& and so the Arameans
called their +emitic $rethren Sthose from acrossS ;2e$rews=4
%8 My source for all the comparisons $etween the Eld +yriac manuscripts and
the #eshitta is the monumental work of @r4 Geor*e A4 Hira,& Comparati"e
dition of the +yriac Gospels4 @r4 Hira, has made sure that there are three
readin*s for any part of the Gospels4 +ince Cureton and +iniaticus are each
missin* lar*e parts of the Gospels& @r4 Hira, will au*ment the #eshitta and
the Eld +yriac e!istin* readin* with the 2arkalean re"ision of the #eshitta
done in B%B4 9y contrast& in places where the $oth the Cureton and +iniaticus
share a readin*& only the #eshitta is added4
%> #lease consult the section SThe Gowra +cenarioS& from the chapter on
Matthew?s Gospel in Ruach fadim& $y Andrew Ga$riel Roth4
%B 9y these I am referrin* to the astern #eshitta manuscripts& which are the
same $ut for minor spellin* "ariants4 The Western #eshitto62arkalean
tradition& which includes adulterated readin*s such as Acts 2'J2( and
2e$rews 2JO& is not included in this *roup4
%I This e"idence is documented e!tensi"ely in my essay The #ath to )ife& p4
2'628& which is a"aila$le on my we$site& www4aramaicnttruth4or*4
%( +ee An Eld +yriac Readin* of Acts %J8 and More )i*ht on Gesus7 )ast Meal
$efore 2is AscensionA @aniel )4 McConau*hyA Eriens ChristianusA 9and I2A
%O((A pp4 B/6BI4
%O It is also fair to point out that the term Shi*h priestS is not e"en applied to
the first )e"itical priest& Aaron4 Rather& the specific office of hi*h priest seems
to ha"e $een a distinction made a$out four centuries later4 2owe"er& e"en if
technically speakin* Aaron did act as a hi*h priest& which I $elie"e he did&
that fact still does not in"alidate the proposition that $y @a"id?s time the
$ifurcation of titles had $een in place for some time4 .urthermore& Aaron also
.eature 2 C A )en*thy Refutation of Eld +yriac ;E+= #rimacy /2%
has no $earin* on the central point of my ar*ument& which is that the hi*h
priest in this instance is not named and that such an omission is hardly
uncommon4
2' These e!amples are a*ain taken from @r4 Geor*e Hira,?s work4 +ince the
Cureton and +iniaticus documents are :uite fra*mentary& what @r4 Hira, is
done is as followsJ Where a readin* is preser"ed in $oth C and + he simply
adds the #eshitta as the third witness4 2owe"er& in places where either C or +
is wantin*& @r4 Hira, simply puts the remainin* Eld +yriac readin* with the
#eshitta& and contrasts it with the 2arkalean Re"ision of the #eshitta done in
B%B4 As a result& there are always three readin*s shown for each line of the
Gospels4
2% This is not to say that the CE and +EC do not ha"e other disa*reements
a$out the te!t4 The +EC re"ised at least two readin*s ;Acts 2'J2(& 2e$rews
2JO= to fit more in line with their different $eliefs and also accepted > $ooks
that the CE did not4 The point howe"er is that the +EC and CE accept the
Gospel of Matthew& which is our focus& as $ein* I@NTICA) AN@
ERIGINA) IN 9ET2 T2IR TRA@ITIEN+4 Therefore& if the CE decided to
use the +iniaticus to do a re"ised work later called S#eshittaS& then there
would $e no way their enemies at the +EC would ha"e e"er accepted it& and
"ice "ersa<
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /2/
Feature 3 ) Mistranslatin#
the Henealo#ies of Ueshua
9y #aul @a"id 5ounan
6bstract: 4n this article an attempt is made to thro# some li%ht on 0rb% in relation
to the $aried usa%e of the term in Classical and Contemporary 6ramaic5 #ith
particular attention paid to the impact on the traditional understandin% of the linea%e
of Christ as recorded in the Aospels.
INTB5>*$TI5N
Almost since they were first penned down& historian and theolo*ian alike
ha"e attempted to reconcile the discrepancies $etween the *enealo*ical
record of Gesus as recorded $y Matthew and )uke4
Traditional Fnderstandin* of Matthew?s Genealo*ical RecordJ
First .eries .econ" .eries +hir" .eries
%4 A$raham %4 +olomon %4 +alathiel
24 Isaac 24 Ro$oam 24 Leru$a$el
/4 Gaco$ /4 A$ia /4 A$iud
84 Gudas 84 Asa 84 liachim
>4 #hares >4 Gosaphat >4 A,or
B4 sron B4 Goram B4 +adoe
I4 Aram I4 E,ias I4 Achim
(4 Aminada$ (4 Goatham (4 liud
O4 Naasson O4 Acha, O4 lea,ar
%'4 +almon %'4 ,echias %'4 Mathan
%%4 9oo, %%4 Manasses %%4 Gaco$
%24 E$ed %24 Amon %24 Mose%h 8hus+and of MaryF
%/4 Gesse %/4 Gosias %/4 Gesus
%84 @a"id %84 Gechonias
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /2>
Traditional Fnderstandin* of )uke?s Genealo*ical RecordJ
%4 A$raham %4 Nathan %4 +alathiel
24 Isaac 24 Methatha 24 Leru$a$el
/4 Gaco$ /4 Menna /4 Re,a
84 Gudas 84 Melea 84 Goanna
>4 #hares >4 liakim >4 Guda
B4 sron B4 Gona B4 Goseph
I4 Aram I4 Goseph I4 +emei
(4 Aminada$ (4 Gudas (4 Mathathias
O4 Naasson O4 +imeon O4 Mathath
%'4 +almon %'4 )e"i %'4 Na**e
%%4 9oo, %%4 Mathat %%4 2esli
%24 E$ed %24 Gorim %24 Nahum
%/4 Gesse %/4 lea,ar %/4 Amos
%84 @a"id %84 Goshua %84 Mathathias
%>4 2er %>4 Goseph
%B4 2elmadan %B4 Ganne
%I4 Cosan %I4 Melchi
%(4 Addi %(4 )e"i
%O4 Melchi %O4 Mathat
2'4 Neri 2'4 2eli
2%4 Mose%h 8hus+and of MaryF
224 Gesus
Church fathers& whether Au*ustine and Am$rose in the West& or shoa6@ad
of Mer" and 9ar62e$reaus in the ast& alike stru**led to e!plain in a
satisfactory way the contradictions and :uestions raised $y a plain readin* of
these te!ts4 None of them were a$le to successfully demonstrate their
conclusions& answer the myriad of :uestions raised $y their own conclusions&
or e"en a*ree with one other4
/2B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
In post6modern secular thou*ht& the attempt has $een made to discredit the
accounts on the $asis that the authors of the Gospels in :uestion were makin*
e!a**erated claims in order to esta$lish a non6e!istent linea*e for Christ4
In reality& there are "ery pro$lematic issues raised $y a plain readin* of these
te!ts 6 especially within the confines of the current academically accepted
framework& that the Gospels of Matthew and )uke were first penned in
Greek4
It is only when we refer to the Aramaic story& in an Aramaic psyche& will we
$e a$le to finally answer the pu,,lin* :uestions raised $y the plain readin* of
the te!tJ
Why are there only list %/ *enerations listed from the Capti"ity of
9a$ylon to Gesus& in Matthew?s account? @oesn7t Matthew say there
should $e %8 *enerations?
Why does )uke list 2' *enerations in the second series& and 22 in the
third? If this is the same Goseph& shouldn?t there $e %8 *enerations in
the second and third series of )uke as well?
Why do the linea*es of Goseph& the hus$and of Mary& almost
completely differ in the two accounts?
2ow can Gesus $e the +on of @a"id& if Mary is not a dau*hter of
@a"id?
If $oth +t4 Matthew and +t4 )uke *i"e the *enealo*y of +t4 Goseph& the
one throu*h the linea*e of +olomon& the other throu*h that of Nathan
6 how can the lines con"er*e in Goseph? 2ow can Goseph claim
descent from Hin* @a"id& throu*h +oth Nathan and +olomon?
As with most pro$lems that appear comple! on the surface& this one has a
"ery simple answer4 The answer lies in the Aramaic ori*inal of the Gospel of
Matthew& accordin* to the #eshitta "ersion4
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /2I
=A$?HB5*N> 5F 0rb%
0rb% ;pronounced Gaw6ra= is a noun in the mphatic state deri"ed from the
ancient +emitic "er$ rb% ;pronounced Ga6$ar= 6 meanin* STo $e stron*&
$ra"e& manly& coura*eous4S This term is well attested to in the other ma3or
+emitic lan*ua*es 6 rb% ;pronounced Gaw6$ar= in 2e$rew and Ga6$r in
Ara$ic4 The *eneral meanin* of the mphatic noun 0rb% is SMan4S
/2( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
As used in Matthew %J%B& the word is hrb% which is the #ossessi"e
#ronominal form of 0rb% & meanin* S2er ?Ga$6ra4?S
$onte6tual *sa#e of 0rb% in the Aramaic New Testament
Althou*h mainly used to mean Qman7 in a *eneric sense& the term can also
mean Qhus$and7 dependin* on the conte!t4
Why is it that sometimes the *eneral meanin* of Qman7 is increased in
specificity& dependin* on conte!t& to mean Qhus$and?7 .or no more reason
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /2O
than sayin* 6 QI now pronounce you man and wifeS can also $e said SI now
pronounce you hus$and and wife4S +ince a hus$and is merely a more
Qspecific7 type of Qman7& this e:uation of terminolo*y is :uite accepta$le& e"en
in n*lish4
The :uestion then arises 6 can the term& when used in proper conte!t& also
mean Q.ather?7
I $elie"e it can $e demonstrated from the Gospels that all three shades of
meanin* are attested to 6 dependin* on conte!t4
Kerses in the Gospels where 0rb% is used to mean the *eneric Qman7&
althou*h $y no means an e!hausti"e list& includeJ
Matthew IJ28
Matthew IJ2B
Matthew (JO
Matthew OJO
+ome e!amples of the conte!tual "ariant Qhusban"7 includeJ
Matthew %OJ>
Matthew %OJ%'
Mark %'J2
% Corinthians IJ%8
% Corinthians IJ%B
2 Corinthians %%J2
phesians >J2/4
.inally& the conte!tual "ariant Q2ather7 can $e read inJ
Matthew IJO
Matthew 2%J2(
Matthew 22J2
and& ar*ua$ly& Matthew %J%B4
+ince the su$3ect matter of this thesis attempts to reconcile the two accounts of
Gesus7 linea*e& let7s ha"e a closer look at Matthew %J%B& and a related "erse 6
Matthew %J%O& in the Aramaic of the #eshitta4
//' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
MATTA,( 1:1; O 1:11
The Aramaic readin* in the #eshitta "ersion isJ
Myrmd hrb% +swyl dwl0 Bwq9y
The "erse readsJ SGaco$ fathered 5oseph& the hrb% of Maryam4S The word
used here& in "erse %B& is 0rb% with a /rd6person feminine pronominal
possessi"e suffi! of h ;i4e4& Qher Gaw6ra47=
This word has traditionally $een translated Qhus+and7& howe"er& the main
+emitic term for Q2us$and7& is f9b ;S9a7laS& or& hl9b for Q2er hus$and4=
!amples of this word can $e found inJ
Matthew %J%O
Mark %'J%2
)uke 2J/B
Gohn 8J%B6%(
Romans IJ26/
% Corinthians IJ8& IJ%'& IJ%/& IJ%B& IJ/O
phesians >J//
% Timothy /J2
Titus %JB4
Why would Matthew use two different terms& in such a short span of writin*
;/ "erses 6 %J%B to %J%O=& to refer to Maryam7s Qhus$and7& 5oseph?
The fact is& he had to distin*uish $etween two different people named Goseph
6 Matthew is not referrin* to Mary7s hus$and in "erse %B at all& $ut rather her
father<
@ependin* on conte!t& it has $een shown that 0rb% can mean Qman4 husban"
or 2ather47 The usa*e in "erse %B would demand that we translate 0rb% as
Q2ather7& rather than ?hus$and?& since the conte6t is a #enealo#y& Kerses %( P
%O& howe"er& would demand that we associate that Goseph with her Qhusban"7&
since the conte6t is that of marria#e&
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua //%
Matthew& then& is recordin# the #enealo#y of Mary& whereas )uke is
recordin# that of Mose%h4 Which would $e e!actly opposite of the currently
accepted academic line 6 that )uke recorded Mary7s linea*e while Matthew
recorded that of Goseph4
That would *i"e us %8 *eneration in the third series of Matthew4 It would also
e!plain why )uke has 2' *enerations in the 2nd series and 22 *enerations in
the /rd series 6 i4e4& Goseph?s linea*e did not $reak out cleanly in %86*eneration
*roupin*s& e!cept for the first series4 +ince Matthew is *i"in* the line of Mary&
only her linea*e would $e re:uired to $reak out e"enly in %86*eneration
*roupin*s4 That would also e!plain why the names are completely different
in $oth the 2nd and /rd series $etween the accounts in Matthew and in )uke4
It also demonstrates that $oth Mary and Goseph were descendants of Hin*
@a"id 6 each throu*h a separate line<
A "alid :uestion is 6 ?Isn?t it a fact that linea*es *enerally e!clude females??
The answer to that& *enerally& is yes4 2owe"er& the pro$lem is that Mary is the
only real human parent that Gesus had4 Gesus was the only person in history
who had no human father 6 whose pre"ious *eneration included only one
person4 +o in order to count %8 *enerations 6 Mary must $e included& e"en
thou*h it would introduce a female in the linea*e4 In order to demonstrate
that Gesus is the +on of @a"id& Mary must $e demonstrated to descend from
@a"id?s house<
//2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2ere is a re"ised "iew of the Genealo*ical Record& accordin* to a more proper
understandin* of Aramaic MatthewJ
84 Gudas 84 Asa 84 liachim
>4 #hares >4 Gosaphat >4 A,or
B4 sron B4 Goram B4 +adoe
I4 Aram I4 E,ias I4 Achim
(4 Aminada$ (4 Goatham (4 liud
O4 Naasson O4 Acha, O4 lea,ar
%'4 +almon %'4 ,echias %'4 Mathan
%%4 9oo, %%4 Manasses %%4 Gaco$
%24 E$ed %24 Amon %24 Mose%h 8father of MaryF
%/4 Gesse %/4 Gosias %/4 Mary
%84 @a"id %84 Gechonias %84 Mesus
TA, HB,,? MI'TBAN'ATI5N
+ince we know from #atristic writin* that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the
Q2e$rew @ialect7 of Aramaic ;Gudean Aramaic=& and that Se"eryoneS
translated it into Greek Sas $est they couldS 6 it then follows that the Greeks
mistranslated this term as Qhus$and7& instead of the more proper conte!tual
"ariant& Qfather47
In Greek& the words for Qhus$and7& ;Aner=& and Qfather7
;#ater= are completely different4 It is impossi$le for an Aramaic translator of a
Greek document to confuse the two 6 $ut it is "ery easy for a Greek translator
of an Aramaic ori*inal to mistake the contextual $ariances in the sin*le term
0rb%
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua ///
TA, 5> 'UBIA$
Accordin* to the modern academically accepted framework& the #eshitta is a
re"ision of the Eld +yriac 6 which& in turn& is a translation from the Greek4
+ince we ha"e already demonstrated that the Church .athers admitted that
Matthew wrote in Aramaic& and the Greek "ersions are nothin* more than
translations 6 one naturally wonders& how does the SEld +yriacS& and in
particular& the Cureton manuscript read?
Ence a*ain& the Eld +yriac shows itself to $e a fraud and a translation directly
from the Greek4 .or Matthew %J%B& it readsJ
hl twh 0rykmd +swy
In n*lish 6 SGoseph& to whom she was $etrothedS
Not surprisin*ly& it is cau*ht red6handed $ecause it also preser"es the
ori*inal #eshitta readin* of hl9b in "erse %O<
The #eshitta is the only Aramaic "ersion that preser"ed the ori*inal readin*4
The Greek "ersions were $ased on the #eshitta& and the SEld +yriacS is an
impostor translated from the Greek 6 AFT,B the mistranslation had crept into
the Greek translations4
TA, M,>I,JA A,=B,( MAN*'$BIPT'
@r4 Games Trimm& of the +ociety for the Ad"ancement of Na,arene Gudaism&
has made use of three medie"al manuscripts of Matthew in the 2e$rew
ton*ue& known as the +hem To$ ;%/''?s=& @uTillet and Munster "ersions4
Re*ardin* the a*e of the earliest manuscript witness to these "ersions of
Matthew& and their similarity& @r4 Trimm statesJ
S...one sur2ace" in the 1300Ds an" the other two in the 1)00Ds.
.hem +ob M1300DsN "i22ers the most4 while 7u+illet an" #unster are ver/
similar. !owever there are man/ rea"ings where the/ all agree together
//8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
against all other versions Msuch as in #t. 1:1N. .hem +ob has man/ obvious
la/ers o2 corru,tion which e:,lains its substantial variances.
3 believe the/ originate 2rom the original !ebrew o2 #atthew. 5ll three came
out o2 the 0ewish communit/.S ;Guly %8& 2''%4=
9ut& accordin* to all three medie"al "ersions of the 2e$rew Matthew& the
*enealo*y of Gesus& is as followsJ
84 Gudas 84 Asa 84 Avner
>4 #hares >4 Gosaphat >4 liachim
B4 sron B4 Goram B4 A,or
I4 Aram I4 E,ias I4 +adoe
(4 Aminada$ (4 Goatham (4 Achim
O4 Naasson O4 Acha, O4 liud
%'4 +almon %'4 ,echias %'4 lea,ar
%%4 9oo, %%4 Manasses %%4 Mathan
%24 E$ed %24 Amon %24 Gaco$
%/4 Gesse %/4 Gosias %/4 Mose%h 8hus+and of MaryF
%84 @a"id %84 Gechonias %84 Gesus
These 2e$rew "ersions of Matthew show themsel"es to $e frauds and mere
medie"al translations from the Greek and )atin manuscripts since& like their
sources& they make the claim that the 3oseph mentioned in the third series is
the ?husban"? of Maryam4
+econdly& to make up for the o$"iously lackin* %8th *eneration in the third
series& they make up a new name ;A"ner= and insert it in $etween A$iud and
liachim4
Thirdly& this solution is superficial in that it seemin*ly only resol"es the one
issue re*ardin* the %8 *enerations4 9ut what of all the differences $etween the
names in Matthew and )uke? And the num$er of *enerations in the 2nd and
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua //>
/rd series of )uke? Er& the pro$lem of e!actly which son of @a"id Goseph was
supposedly descended from?
I $elie"e it can $e demonstrated with this& and other& e!amples that 2e$rew
Matthew ne"er e!isted 6 that it was in Aramaic that Matthew wrote his
Gospel& and that $y ?the 2e$rew dialect? Gudean Aramaic was meant4
What can history and tradition and tell us a$out the ori*inal lan*ua*e of
Matthew 6 was it Aramaic or 2e$rew?
+pecialists of the Aramaic lan*ua*e ha"e analy,ed closely this topic& and ha"e
come to distin*uish "arious Aramaic dialects in the contemporary #alestine of
Gesus as testified to $y inscriptions thus disco"ered4
9ased on this data& they are a$le to distin*uish se"en dialects that were
shared $y se"en different localities in this small re*ionJ
Aramaic of Gudea4
Aramaic of +outhern Gudea4
Aramaic of +amaria4
Aramaic of Galilee4
Aramaic from $eyond Gordan4
Aramaic from @amascus4
Aramaic spoken in the Erontes Ri"er 9asin of +yria4
The Aramaic of Gudea was called the ?2e$rew dialect4? It was different from&
yet mutually comprehensi$le with& the Aramaic of Galilee ;the dialect that
Gesus spoke4= This is one reason why #eter?s ;Heepa?s= SspeechS ;dialect= was
reco*ni,ed durin* the trial& which happened to $e in Gudea4 #eter spoke
Galilean Aramaic& whereas the inha$itants of Gudea spoke a sli*htly different
dialect4 It was for these inha$itants of Gudea that Matthew wrote his Gospel4
#apias says that Matthew wrote the )o*ia in the 2e$rew ;*ebraidi= lan*ua*eA
+t4 Irenus and use$ius maintain that he wrote his *ospel for the 2e$rews
in their national lan*ua*e& and the same assertion is found in se"eral ancient
witnesses4 9ut& in the time of Christ& the national lan*ua*e of the Gews was
Aramaic& and when& in the New Testament& there is mention of the 2e$rew
lan*ua*e ;*ebrais dialektos=& it is Aramaic that is implied4
//B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
2ence& the aforementioned Church .ather may ha"e $een alludin* to
Aramaic and not to 2e$rew4 9esides& as they assert& the Apostle Matthew
wrote his Gospel to help popular teachin* and e"an*eli,ation4 To $e
understood $y his readers who spoke Aramaic& he would ha"e had to
reproduce the ori*inal catechesis in this lan*ua*e& and it cannot $e ima*ined
why& or for whom& he should ha"e taken the trou$le to write it in 2e$rew&
when it would ha"e had to $e translated afterwards into Aramaic for use $y
the common people 6 who no lon*er understood the old lan*ua*e44 Moreo"er&
use$ius ;2ist4 eccl4& III& !!i"& B= tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a
reproduction of his preachin*& and this we "now7 was in Aramaic&
,ven if Matthew recorded the %reachin# of Mesus 8which was in AramaicF in
Ae+rew 8a ridiculous assum%tionF K then the Ae+rew would +e7 as the
Hree"7 secondKhand information&
N,5KABAMAI$ *'AH, 5F 0rb%
The term 0rb% is still used today in modern literature4 2owe"er& as in all
lan*ua*es& sometimes the way a word is spelled chan*es o"er time4 .or
instance& we no lon*er spell Qshop7 the way it was spelled centuries a*o 6
Q+hoppe47 Many times& simple "ariances in spellin* arise4
In Modern astern& or neo6Aramaic& the word 0rb% can still $e spelled the
same way& althou*h a "ariant usin* the spellin* 0rw%4 is attested to4
+ometimes the 9eth B is spelled with a Waw w in astern Aramaic& accordin*
to the "ocali,ation rules of fushaya and Rukakha ;c4f4& 5ukhanan 9ar6Lu$i7s
Grammar& %/th Century or www4assyrianlan*ua*e4com under QRules for
Aspiration7=
Fsin* Eraham7s @ictionary of the Assyrian )an*ua*e& we can see direct
witness that 0rb% means $oth Qman7 and Qhus$and47
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua //I
And& that the new "ariant in spellin* is attested to $y this dictionaryJ
Accordin* to the Way International?s Concordance to the #eshitta& the term
can mean ?man? or ?hus$and4?
//( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
In a $ook called ?@ishna d?+ay$uthi& shown $elow& we see a short story usin*
the new "ariant to mean ?elders of a householdJ?
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua //O
In the a$o"e scan& the conte!t of the short story is a description of a holiday
the Assyrians of the 2akkari mountains cele$rated durin* SHhad $7NisanS
;%st of Nisan ;April=& which is the Assyrian New 5ear4=
The title is 6 SThe +econd .esti"alDCele$ration of the .irst of Nisan4S @urin*
this S.esti"alS& which coincided with the Sfirst rainS in sprin*& the story states
that Sall the Fyb Ynb ;residents of the houseDthe entire household=& $oth
0rw9!w 0rw% ;elders and youn*=& departed from the home and allowed the
rain to fall upon them& and *ettin* soaked 6 they would $e*in to sin*6 QThe
drops of Nisan& the drops of Nisan44444may Nisan $e $lessed<S
This article pro"es that the term 0rw% can mean Qelders of a household7& since
it mentions them alon*side the 0rw9!& Syoun*4S This meanin*& Selders of a
householdS& is not attested to in the dictionaries referenced a$o"e 6 3ust as the
meanin* SfatherS is not attested to4
.inally& and the most powerful e!ample 6 in Hinnara d?Rookha ;the 2arp of
the +pirit=& a :uarterly pu$lished $y the Arch$ishopric of the Church of the
ast in 9a*hdad& Ira:& Kol4 % No/& %OOO& the followin* fa$le is writtenJ
/8' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The a$o"e scan contains a .a$le called SThe .a$le of the )ion& the .o! and the
+on of a Merchant4S The headin*& the most important part of this e!ample&
contains the followin* introduction& which& when translated& meansJ
Nyrm0 6 Qit is said7
0rb%d 6 Qthat a father7
$n0 6 Qa man7
0r%t 6Qwho is a merchant7
rd4 6 Qsent7
hrbl 6 Qhis son7
Frw%0tb 6 Qto *o trade7
This e!ample is e!traordinary in that it demonstrates the conte!tual usa*e of
0rb% in a sense that can only mean Qfather47 It cannot $e translated as Qman7&
since& the word followin* immediately after it is $n0 6 Qa man7 ;yet another
Aramaic term that means Qman7=4 +o to translate 0rb% as ?man? here would
make it redundant with $n04
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /8%
I ha"e also hi*hli*hted& later on in the short story& where the son is called
0%rt rb S9ar6Ta*araS& or Sson of the merchant4S Additionally& the article
also uses the word Yhwb0 6 Shis father4S
+o this e!ample makes a "ery clear case for translatin* 0rb% as SfatherS& if it
is drawn from the proper conte!t4
5PINI5N' 5F '$A5AB'
When I started researchin* this topic& I wanted to check the thesis with a
num$er of professors who work in the field of +yriacDAramaic& at some of the
world?s most presti*ious uni"ersities4 +ince I do not ;yet= ha"e permission to
:uote them $y name& I will only summari,e their responses to *i"e you an
idea of the "aryin* opinions on this topic4
In response to the :uestion& ?2a"e you e"er seen an instance where 0rb% can
$e translated ?father? or ?head of household? in n*lish??
They wroteJ
S7ear Paul: +han's 2or the Cuestion..... it "oesnDt seem to be in an/ o2 the
maBor ./riac le:icons M3 chec'e" +homas 8"o4 <ar"ahi4 #anna4 Bar-
Bahloul4 Pa/ne .mith4 Broc'elmann4 Brun4 an" Costaz; Kor is it in the two
"ictionaries 3 have to han" o2 +uro/o O-itterP an" .ureth O#acleanPN.
5s in man/ languages4 3 am sure there must be ,laces in ./riac literature
where gabra % gabro coul" be un"erstoo" to mean something more inclusive
than Bust man% husban"4 an" where it ma/ have the sense /ou are loo'ing 2or.
M52ter all4 the Kew +estament ,assages 9,hesians ).23 an" 1 Cor 11.3 get /ou
,rett/ close to this.N
32 /ou 2in" an/ e:am,les "o let me 'now;S
S7ear Paul: AB-5 is 2rom an ol" .emitic wor" 2oun" in the !ebrew Bible4
where it 2irst meant JwarriorQ a"ult male.J From there the "evelo,ment into
Jmale hea" o2 the househol"J is not har" to see. 3t is o2ten har" to tell 2rom
conte:t whether Jhusban"J woul" be the best translation.S
S7ear Paul4 5 lot o2 in' has been s,ilt over this ,assage in #atthew4 an" on
the two genealogies4 both in antiCuit/ an" in mo"ern times4 an" there seems
to be no clear-cut answer to the various ,roblems; 5mong ./riac writers 3
recall there is a long section on the genealogies in 7ion/sius bar .alibiDs
Commentar/ on the Aos,els. 5s 2ar as gabra is concerne"4 3 su,,ose it is
,ossible that the rea"ing in CMuretonN has in min" the earl/ a,ocr/,hal
tra"itions about #ar/Ds /outh4 an" where 0ose,h is un"erstoo" as being
consi"erabl/ ol"er an" is seen more as her guar"ian: i2 so4 gabra woul" more
or less be J,rotective maleJ. But 3 canDt sa/ 3Dve gone into this ,ossibilit/4
an" ,robabl/ others have.S
S!i Paul: 3 consulte" all m/ 5ramaic an" ./riac "ictionaries4 an" coul" not
2in" even one occurrence where AB-D meant 2ather.S
S!i Paul4 gbra means DmanD. +o give it another meaning4 woul" be an
in2erence 2rom conte:t. D#an o2 the house%househol"D "oesnDt change the
meaning 2rom DmanD in m/ o,inion. 3 "o not 'now o2 a conte:t where such a
meaning coul" be attache".S
S!i Paul4 3 canDt remember seeing gabra use" where it coul" mean 2ather4 but
that "oesnDt mean it "oesnDt e:ist somewhere.S
'5M, FINA TA5*HAT'
I could not ha"e stated it $etter than the world6renowned professor of
Aramaic who said& in his reply a$o"e& that Sa lot of ink has $een spiltS o"er
this passa*e in Matthew4 Ene cannot help $ut to wonder if it was all spilt in
"ain& if it had to $e spilt at all 6 if only we would at last open our eyes and
reali,e the o$"ious4 +ometimes the hardest e!planation to accept is the
simplest one 6 $ecause it?s too simple4 Eccam?s Ra,or would not ha"e needed
a name if it was well understood and implemented4
The root of this pro$lem is as old as the Church itself4 The repercussions of
the stru**le $etween Gew and Gentile for control in the one 9ody of Christ is
$ein* felt today4 2ellenism in the West& o"er time& won4 The +emitic Church 6
aside from the small remnant that sur"i"ed to the SastS of the $order& $y all
accounts "anished and was dri"en out durin* the stru**le4
.eature / C Mistranslatin* the Genealo*ies of 5eshua /8/
They say that history is written $y the "ictors4 There is no $etter e!ample of
this principle in action than the Greek "s4 Aramaic New Testament de$ate4
"en in the face of o"erwhelmin* e"idence that would indicate otherwise& the
academic world still clasps ti*htly around the le*acy of this historic stru**le4
+uch a simple and ele*ant solution to Matthew %J%B 6 and the myriad of
pro$lems posed $y the traditional understandin* of this "erse& is tossed away
$ecause it rocks the pro"er$ial $oat too much4 It would make too much sense 6
if only the scholarly atmosphere was conduci"e to it& of course4
I think a$out another one of the responses to my :uestion posed a$o"e&
essentially statin* that the definition is lackin* support in the dictionaries4
Are our lan*ua*es& and thou*hts& to $e *o"erned $y dictionaries? I thou*ht it
was the other way around4
It is inherent in our human nature to o"ercompensate& to o"er6e!plain the
simple4 The meanin* of Eccam?s Ra,or 6 neatly summari,ed& is that the truth
is simple4 And that is what F=y4# ;the #eshitta= is all a$out4
#aul @4 5ounan
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /8>
Feature D ) =i+le (ordKPairs
and $odes Indicate Peshitta
Primacy and >ivine
Ins%iration
9y Glenn @a"id 9auscher
With commentary $y 9i$lecodedi*est4com and Raphael )ataster
The 9i$le codes su$3ect is hi*hly contro"ersial4 As such& this feature is
included for interest& not as Qhard e"idence74 Much of Michael @rosnin7s ;the
man who $rou*ht the codes into the mainstream= work is statistically
insi*nificant and fantastical ;i4e4 his second $ook on the codes sees him on a
:uest to find the aliens who planted 0our seed1 on the arth=4 2owe"er& there
ha"e $een some si*nificant codes found in the Eld Testament& such as the
"e*etation found in Ancient Israel encoded in Genesis& and the letters of
0Torah1 ;in 2e$rew= encoded at the start of all the $ooks of the Torah4
2owe"er& codes work should always $e looked at with restraint C that a
certain "ersion has codes does not pro"e that it is the 0ori*inal work14
The 2e$rew ET used for much codes work is of the Massoretic "ersion4 We
all know that this is most definitely not the ori*inal Eld Testament& as it was
/8B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
produced $y mem$ers of a different reli*ion ;Gudaism= to that of the Eld
Testament& after the New Testament was written& and is full of contradictions4
5et it still has codes4 "idently& e"en a corrupted form of an ori*inal will ha"e
codesA always keep that in mind4
In any case& I $elie"e that while the codes do not tell us which "ersion of what
is the ori*inal& it can tell us which is the 0most ori*inal14 +urely& the closer a
"ersion is to the ori*inal& the more o$"ious any codes should $e4 +o far& the
codes work on the Greek New Testament and the Aramaic New Testament
clearly indicates that the #eshitta is closer to the ori*inal ;if it isn7t the
ori*inal= than the Greek4
After statistically si*nificant codes were found throu*hout the Eld Testament&
it was thou*ht that the Greek New testament would also $e coded4 Ma3or
codes researchers ha"e tried to find e!amples and had no si*nificant results4
Many of these researchers then turned to the Aramaic New Testament to find
codes4 It is thou*ht that if the ANT has codes& it most definitely supercedes
the GNT4
The followin* research is $y mathematician and pastor& Glenn @a"id
9auscher& who used to $elie"e in Greek primacy $efore findin* the #eshitta4
C Raphael )ataster
Aramaic New Testament $odes Bevealed
My Ay%othesis: If God were to put codes in the 9i$le& 2e would certainly
lea"e a si*nature in it usin* the names and titles of God which are mentioned
in the plain 9i$le te!t& and insure that they occur in hi*hly si*nificant
num$ers& far $eyond or $elow statistically e!pected amounts4 These would
constitute a di"ine si*nature of the Author of the $ooks indi"idually& the
separate testaments and the 9i$le as a whole4
9ased on my pre"ious lon* code findin*s in the #eshitta New Testament ;The
Aramaic New Testament& written in the ton*ue which 5eshua and his
countrymen of %st century Israel spoke=& I completed the results of a lon*
series of comparisons of results from the #eshitta and control te!ts4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /8I
The $om%arisons
After d +herman ;9i$le Code @i*est director= introduced the 9i$le code
Mosaics concept from Genesis& I e!perimented in that and other $ooks4 I
analy,ed the results statistically to see if there are patterns and low
pro$a$ilities& usin* chi6s:uare analysis and standard de"iation calculations4 I
started with two letter names and titles& *radually includin* three& then four
and fi"e letter names and titles4 I ha"e found hi*hly si*nificant results in all
the Eld Testament $ooks that I ha"e searched usin* the names of Alaha&
includin* Genesis& !odus& )e"iticus& sther and 2nd Chronicles4 Control
te!ts& such as Tolstoy7s War and #eace in 2e$rew& and other te!ts& ha"e not
yielded similar results4
I applied this method to the #eshitta and modified it& searchin* for the titles
of God& 2is +on and the 2oly +pirit4 I ha"e not returned empty handed4 The
results are sta**erin*<
I am still o"erwhelmed $y all of this& $ecause it seems that no matter which
New Testament $ook I search or which of the considera$le num$er of di"ine
titles I enter into Codefinder& the search software I used for these
comparisons& the pro$a$ility for the actual num$er of occurrences compared
to the e!pected occurrences is infinitesimal4 I ha"e also used control te!ts with
which to compare each 9i$le findin*4 Control te!ts like War and #eace in
2e$rew show nothin* like the results I find in the #eshitta NT4 In other
words& the #eshitta NT usually contains hi*hly si*nificant num$ers of di"ine
names and titles compared to what is e!pected $y chance4
These di"ine names are the si*nature codes to which I referred at the
$e*innin* of this chapter and elsewhere4 Not only do they indicate an
intelli*ent author for the indi"idual $ooks of the 9i$le& $ut they also indicate
a sin*le superhuman intelli*ence as the author of the entire New Testament
as a sin*le unified whole4
Presentation of 'am%le Besults
In the first ta$le we ha"e a comparison $etween the "ariations from the
e!pected num$er of occurrences of 5ahweh as an )+ Ye:uidistant letter
se:uence C where you read e"ery >'& %''& >''& etc letters to see if there is a
hidden messa*eZ in the #eshitta te!t and in a control te!t ;a scram$led "ersion
of the #eshitta=4
/8( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
As an e!ample& let7s look at the results for )+s with skips in the ran*e of
%&''' up to >'&'''4 5ahweh is e!pected to appear as an )+ >2I&8>B times in
$oth the #eshitta and the control te!t4 And yet the actual num$er of
occurrences of the 5ahweh )+ differ from the e!pected num$er $y 22&>28 in
the #eshitta while only differin* $y %&'8B in the control te!t4 +o the si,e of the
"ariation in the #eshitta is 2%4> times *reater than that in the control te!t4
While the "ariation was only '42\ from e!pected in the control te!t& it was
84/\ in the #eshitta4 The si,e of the "ariation for the control te!t is well within
what would $e e!pected on the $asis of random phenomena4 The #eshitta
"ariations& howe"er& are far *reater than that for all $ut the fourth skip si,e
cate*ory4
The ne!t ta$le presents compara$le results for occurrences of the Mariah )+4
Mariah Yactually pronounced 0Mar65ah1Z is the Aramaic e:ui"alent of
5ahweh4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /8O
While the si,e of the "ariations in the control te!t are all within the ran*e of
what would $e e!pected due to chance& the "ariations for all $ut the first skip
si,e cate*ory are far *reater than anythin* due to chance4
The ne!t ta$le presents compara$le results for occurrences of the Alaha )+4
Alaha is the Aramaic e:ui"alent of lohim Yactually& Alaha is the Aramaic
e:ui"alent of loha& the sin*ular form of lohimZ& another 2e$rew name for
God4
A*ain we see that the si,e of the "ariations in the control te!t are all within
the ran*e of what would $e e!pected due to chance& while the "ariations for
the second and fourth skip si,e cate*ories are far *reater than anythin* due to
chance4
/>' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
If we add up the "ariations from e!pected for each skip si,e cate*ory $y
di"ine name& we ha"e the followin* comparison4
As we can see& the total amount of "ariation from e!pected in the #eshitta
ran*es from si! times to %/4> times more than the total "ariation from
e!pected in the control te!tefor the different di"ine names4 This is an
e!tremely si*nificant result statistically $ecause the sample si,es are
e!ceptionally lar*e ;i4e4& 8''&''' or more in each cate*ory=4
To summari,e& the *raph $elow presents the a$o"e comparisons in terms of
L6"alues ;the si,e of the "ariation in terms of standard de"iations=4
Erdinarily& differences from e!pected almost always are less than 8 standard
de"iations ;defined as the s:uare root of the e!pected num$er of
occurrences=4 2owe"er& some of the "ariations from e!pected for the control
te!ts are *reater than 84 This is due to the fact that "ariations from e!pected
for a *i"en )+ at one skip si,e tend to $e similar to those for ad3acent skip
si,es4 .or e!ample& if the 5ahweh )+ appears 2'\ more often than e!pected
with skips of %&'''& it will also tend to appear much more often than e!pected
with skips of OOO and %&''%4 That the 5ahweh )+ appeared 2'\ more often
than e!pected with a skip of %&''' was pro$a$ly due& at least in part& to
se*ments of the te!t where the letter fre:uencies of the letters in 5ahweh were
*reater than a"era*e4 When that occurs& it will also tend to cause the 5ahweh
)+ to appear much more often for skips sli*htly *reater or smaller than
%&'''4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration />%
9ecause of the sensiti"ity of "ariations from e!pected to differences in letter
fre:uencies in different parts of a te!t& the si,e of the "ariations from e!pected
in the control te!t can $e as *reat as %> standard de"iations& rather than 3ust 84
/>2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
If "ariations due to chance should almost ne"er $e *reater than %> standard
de"iations& how then can we e!plain many of the "ariations noted a$o"e that
are far *reater than that? The lar*est "ariations are %%%4>& ((4%& B242& 8%4B& /24B
and /%4% standard de"iations from e!pected4 Kariations of these ma*nitudes
$asically eliminate chance as an e!planation4
A $om%arison From the Torah
What would the a$o"e types of comparisons look like if we e!amined
occurrences of the 5ahweh )+ in the Torahe"ersus a control te!t of
compara$le len*th from a 2e$rew "ersion of Tolstoy7s War and #eace? That
comparison is pro"ided in the ne!t ta$le4
A*ain& we see that the si,e of the "ariations is radically hi*her in the Torah
than in the War P #eace control te!t4
$onclusions
While there are ma3or difficulties in accurately determinin* the pro$a$ility
that any or all of the a$o"e dramatic "ariations e!hi$ited in the #eshitta te!t
and the Torah were due to chance& no matter what method is used to estimate
that pro$a$ility& the result is conclusi"eesuch enormous "ariations cannot $e
due to chance4
The effects descri$ed a$o"e are not only o$ser"a$le in the whole New
Testament& $ut also in the indi"idual Gospels& the $ook of Acts& the $ook of
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration />/
2e$rews and the Re"elation& as well as the first twel"e chapters of Matthew
as a separate section4 The indi"idual $ooks o"erall would *enerally need to
e!hi$it the same traits in order for the entire New Testament to contain such
si*nificant and unusual num$ers of )+7s ;e:uidistant letter se:uences=&
compared to the e!pected num$ers for the entire New Testament< ;NoteJ
Recent testin* of additional epistles show the same effect in Acts&Titus&
Romans &%st and 2nd Corinthians and e"en #hilemon& which is only one
pa*e4=
The results of the comparisons presented a$o"e are "ery compellin* e"idence
to support the assertion that the #eshitta6#eshitto New Testament is the
ori*inal and di"inely6inspired te!t of the apostles4
To those who are con"ersant in New Testament te!tual criticism& I know all
this may sound fanciful4 The rulin* school of thou*ht is that the #eshitta is
simply a retranslation of the traditional ;re"ised= Greek te!t in the early >th
century4 9ut it is my personal $elief that we need a fresh look at all that is
considered sacrosanct in the field of New Testament te!tual criticism4 Much
of it is mere con3ecture4 There is no historical e"idence for either a +yrian
re"ision or a Greek re"ision in that time period4
+omethin* as drastic as chan*in*& o"erni*ht& the sacred te!t of the 9i$le
which had $een accepted for centuries& is not likely to occur without a
prolon*ed resistance and stru**le& and e"en then will most likely only $e
recei"ed $y some& not all4 2owe"er& it is stretchin* credulity $eyond the
$reakin* point to affirm that two such re"isions occurred ;+yrian and Greek=&
replacin* all other Aramaic and Greek te!ts in all +yrian and Greek churches&
without one word of mention $y any of the church fathers& historians& or
anyone at all4 There is no council& edict& or order such as one finds when
church doctrine ;Council of Nicaea= was de$ated or the canon of the 9i$le
was settled ;Council of Cartha*e=4
I ha"e not yet found Greek codes4 I ha"e done plenty of searches for @i"ine
Names in the Greek Te!tus Receptus& which is "ery close to the Ma3ority
9y,antine te!t ;I $elie"e the 9y,antine te!t is the most accurate Greek te!t=
and there are no si*nificant results4 Ethers ha"e tried and ha"e found nothin*
important4 I use the Greek as a control te!t $y which to compare The #eshitta
results& showin* that the codes do not occur in 3ust any $ook4
/>8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
To reiterate my ori*inal hypothesisJ If God were to put codes in the 9i$le& 2e
would certainly lea"e a si*nature in it usin* the names and titles of God
which are mentioned in the plain 9i$le te!t& and insure that they occur in
hi*hly si*nificant num$ers& far $eyond or $elow statistically e!pected
amounts4 These would constitute a di"ine si*nature of the Author of the
$ooks indi"idually& the separate testaments and the $i$le as a whole4
I conclude that the data support the hypothesis o"erwhelmin*ly4 My
comparisons apply specifically to the Gaco$ite #eshitto New Testament4 It
appears that this te!t has the di"ine si*nature all throu*h its 2I indi"idual
$ooks and the work as a whole& ha"in* e!treme "ariations in the actual
num$ers of di"ine names& as compared to e!pected "alues and the control
results in War and #eace4
This in"esti*ation will continue4 I welcome others to 3oin in it4 I am impressed
with an o"erwhelmin* sense of awe4
0My heart standeth in awe of thy word41 6 #salm %%OJ%B%
I $elie"e the hea"ens ha"e made contact4
Massive Ueshua Mosaic Pervades the Aramaic New Testament
An enormous mathematical "ariation& or mosaic& has $een disco"ered in
appearances of Gesus ;5eshua= )+s in the #eshitta& or Aramaic New
Testament4 These "ariations could not possi$ly ha"e occurred $y chance& and
analysis shows that they were intentionally encoded& e"en thou*h the te!t
was authored $y se"eral writers o"er a num$er of years4
Researcher Re"4 Glenn @a"id 9auscher disco"ered the patterns formed $y
occurrences of 5eshua with skips *reater than >'&''' in the Aramaic New
Testament4 We reported earlier on other initial results from his research4
In the first ta$le we ha"e a comparison $etween the "ariations from the
e!pected num$er of occurrences of 5eshua ;Gesus= as an )+ in the #eshitta
te!t and in a control te!t ;a scram$led "ersion of the #eshitta=4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration />>
While the results for the first two skip ran*e cate*ories are "ery compara$le&
and uninterestin*& those for )+s with skips *reater than >'&''' are radically
different4 The actual num$er of occurrences of the 5eshu )+ in these hi*her
ran*es differs from the e!pected num$er $y >2'&28' in the #eshitta while only
differin* $y 2O&8'O in the control te!t4 +o the si,e of the "ariation in the
#eshitta is %I4I times *reater than that in the control te!t4 While the "ariation
was only '4/\ from e!pected in the control te!t& it was B42\ in the #eshitta4
The si,e of the "ariation for the control te!t is well within what would $e
e!pected on the $asis of random phenomena4 The #eshitta "ariations&
howe"er& are decidedly *reater than that for the last two skip si,e cate*ories4
The followin* *raph pro"ides a side6$y6side comparison of the "ariations
from e!pected for a more detailed $reakdown of skip si,e ran*es4 It is e"ident
that the mosaic effect for 5eshu )+s in the #eshitta is e!ceptionally stron*4 In
this way& 9i$le codes consistin* of the short form of the name of 5eshua
affirm the supernatural authorship of the Aramaic New Testament4
/>B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The followin* ta$le pro"ides a key to the definitions of the num$ered skip
si,e ran*es in the a$o"e *raph4
9ecause of the sensiti"ity of "ariations from e!pected to differences in letter
fre:uencies in different parts of a te!t& the si,e of the "ariations from e!pected
in the control te!t can $e as *reat as 2> standard de"iations& rather than 3ust 84
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration />I
If "ariations due to chance should almost ne"er $e *reater than 2> standard
de"iations& how then can we e!plain many of the "ariations noted a$o"e that
are far *reater than that? The lar*est "ariations are %//& %2%& I/& >> and 8O
standard de"iations from e!pected4 Kariations of these ma*nitudes are far
*reater than those that could $e due to chance4
'tri"in# ,vidence of Intentional ,ncodin# in the Aramaic NT
!tensi"e new findin*s $y researcher Re"4 Glenn @a"id 9auscher of
Cam$rid*e& New 5ork pro"ide some of the most strikin* and statistically
si*nificant e"idence of encodin* yet disco"ered4 The search te!t is the
Aramaic New Testament ;#eshitta= and the e"idence consists of a series of
dramatic mosaics& which are comprised of hi*hly impro$a$le "ariations from
e!pected in the num$er of times a *i"en )+ appears in a te!t4 In this article
we will focus entirely on 2O different four6letter6lon* di"ine names4 9auscher
has also conducted e!tensi"e research on mosaics for three6& fi"e6 and si!6
letter6lon* di"ine names as well& $ut space doesn7t allow for presentation of
the full ran*e of his research in this issue4
.or each of the 2O four6letter6lon* di"ine names& 9auscher also conducted
e!actly parallel searches in a scram$led te!t of the #eshitta pro"ided $y
researcher Roy Reinhold Yone of the ma3or Codes researchers who turned to
the Aramaic& after failin* to find si*nificant codes in the GreekZ for
Codefinder4 The total num$er of forward and $ackward occurrences of each
of the )+s were recorded for all skips from %&''' up to the ma!imum
possi$le skip si,e ;%>/&B//=4 In each case a comparison was made $etween the
e!pected total num$er of occurrences and the actual num$er4 This pro"ided a
set of >( "ariations from e!pected from $oth the #eshitta and the scram$led
;control= te!t4
.or e!ample& the Aramaic e:ui"alent of the 2e$rew word for God& lohim& is
Alaha4 Alaha appears as an )+ 2&I%(&8'I times in the #eshitta with a positi"e
skip $etween %&''' and %>/&B//4 The Alaha )+ appears %/>&>BI times more
often than e!pected $y chance4 This is an e!ceptionally lar*e "ariatione*i"en
how lar*e the e!pected num$er of occurrences is& and the ine!ora$le nature of
the )aw of )ar*e Num$ers4 That law will cause "ariations from the e!pected
to $e a smaller percenta*e of the e!pected as the e!pected num$er itself
$ecomes lar*er4 In the case of the Alaha e!ample& the a"era*e "ariation from
e!pected due to chance is 2'&/(B& so the actual "ariation is B4B> times *reater
/>( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
than that4 What this means is that the "ariation from e!pected should almost
always $e less than three times the a"era*e "ariation from e!pected& or B%&%>(
;/ ! 2'&/(B=& and yet it is %/>&>BI& which is dramatically *reater4
In the followin* chart& the )+s with the most impro$a$le "ariations from
e!pected are presented in descendin* order4 The relati"e si,e of a "ariation
from e!pected is measured in terms of a 0L Kalue41 It is the ratio of the actual
"ariation from e!pected to the a"era*e "ariation from e!pected that normally
occurs4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration />O
/B' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /B%
The #eshitta clearly outscores 0War and #eace14
In "isually re"iewin* the a$o"e chart& it is immediately o$"ious that the top
of the chart is completely dominated $y #eshitta findin*s4 All of the to% :8
,'s with the most im%ro+a+le V scores are from the Peshitta te6t4
.urthermore& 88 out of the >' )+s with the most impro$a$le L scores are
/B2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
from the #eshitta te!t4 Con"ersely& the $ottom is hea"ily populated with
findin*s from the control te!t4 The ne!t ta$le summari,es this4
Ef the twenty mosaics that are the most impro$a$le& all are from the #eshitta4
Ef the mosaics that ranked $etween 2%st and 8'th in impro$a$ility& %B are
from the #eshitta and 8 from the control te!t4
In the ne!t ta$le we separately sorted all of the L scores from the #eshitta and
from the control te!t and we took the ratio of the L scores of the e:ually
ranked L scores4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /B/
/B8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
+e"eral o$ser"ations can $e made a$out the a$o"e ta$le4
.irst& the de*ree of "ariation e!hi$ited $y the L scores of the four6
letter di"ine names in the control te!t is much lar*er than would $e
e!pected if those L scores conformed to a normal distri$ution ;i4e4& a
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /B>
$ell6shaped cur"e=4 This is lar*ely due to the fact that there is often a
si,ea$le correlation $etween the si,e and si*n of "ariations from
e!pected for any *i"en )+ o"er ad3acent skip ran*es4 This is caused
$y local "ariations in letter fre:uencies for different areas of the literal
te!t4
+econd& ha"in* >( L scores ;"ariations from e!pected= from a control
te!t pro"ides a clear definition of the de*ree of "ariation in L scores
e!pected $y chance4
Third& typically the #eshitta L score is B to %' times *reater than the
correspondin* control te!t L scoreewhen these L scores are ranked
from the *reatest to the smallest4 This is "ery compellin* e"idence of
the e!istence of intentional encodin*& no matter how one *oes a$out
estimatin* the pro$a$ility of chance occurrence4
9auscher7s research has pro"ided a dramatic& clear6cut e!ample of a sacred
te!t that conclusi"ely e!hi$its the deli$erate encodin* of e!cess occurrences of
se"eral di"ine names4 Clearly further research in this area is indicated& and
9auscher has already $een e!plorin* that with many additional interestin*
findin*s4
Technical Addendum: The $onclusive 'i#nificance of the >ivine
Name Mosaics in the Peshitta
stimatin* the odds of chance occurrence of 9auscher7s findin*s is
complicated $y certain key issues4 As noted in the first $ulleted point
re*ardin* the comparison of ranked L scores& the distri$ution of L "alues
from the control te!t is more dispersed than would $e indicated if mosaics
conformed to a typical $ell6shaped normal cur"e& or any one of se"eral other
common pro$a$ility distri$utions4 As mentioned a$o"e& this is due to the
presence of correlation in many of the mosaics4
9auscher7s way of dealin* with this has $een to measure the de*ree of
correlation in each mosaic and to e!clude from the a$o"e comparison
e!amples where the correlation is too hi*h4 This is helpful to a fair de*ree& $ut
the pro$lem is that the remainin* e!amples from the control te!t are still too
spread out to conform to a $ell6shaped cur"e4 This means that pro$a$ilities
estimated $y standard statistical tests that assume the presence of normally
$eha"ed phenomena will $e inaccurate4
/BB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
A solution to this pro$lem is to apply a statistical test that makes no
assumptions a$out the statistical nature of the underlyin* phenomenon4 +uch
a test is termed a non6parametric test4 The Wilco!en6Mann6Whitney test is
one of the most widely accepted tests of this type4 As intimidatin* as the
name of this test is& it is actually simple to understand4 .irst we rank the L
scores of all of 9auscher7s findin*s for four6letter6lon* di"ine namesee!actly
as they appear in the left column of the first ta$le a$o"e4 Then we sum up the
ranks of the #eshitta findin*s4 That total is 2&'O%& and we will call it the
0ranksum41 If the #eshitta results were totally unremarka$le& the rankin*s of
the #eshitta results and the control results would $e randomly dispersed
amon* one another4 The sum of all of the rankin*s is B&I(B& so the e!pected
"alue of the rank sum of all the #eshitta findin*s should $e e!actly half of
that& or /&/O/4 This makes sense $ecause& for e!ample& if all of the #eshitta
findin*s had rankin*s that were odd num$ers ;i4e4& %&/&>&I&`44%%%&%%/&%%>= the
ranksum would $e /&/B84 And if all of the #eshitta findin*s had rankin*s that
were e"en num$ers& the ranksum would $e /&8224
It so happens that the ranksum statistic $ecomes normally distri$uted as the
sample si,e $ecomes lar*e4 +o the ranksum conforms to a $ell shaped cur"e&
and the a"era*e "ariation from e!pected ;commonly called the standard
de"iation= is the s:uare root of ;%D%2=mn;mana%=& where m and n are the
num$er of o$ser"ations from the #eshitta and the control te!t Ysee pa*e 8/I of
+tatistical Theory& $y 94W4 )ind*ren& 2nd dition& Macmillan& %OB(Z4 Thus the
standard de"iation is %(%4%'8O& and the L6"alue of the #eshitta ranksum is
I4%(O ;];/&/O/62&'O%=D%(%4%'8O=4 Gi"en a normal $ell6shaped cur"e& this means
that the odds of chance occurrence of the #eshitta findin*s are less than % in
/4'8I trillion4 +o we can conclusi"ely re3ect the hypothesis that the #eshitta
findin*s are due to chance4
The #eshitta findin*s are far more impro$a$le than the Wilco!en test
indicates& howe"er4 In statistical lan*ua*e& a non6parametric test is not "ery
efficient4 In other words& it only tells us that the odds are clearly 0less than1
some "alue& $ut it doesn7t pro"ide us with an accurate estimate of the e!act
odds4 This doesn7t really matter& howe"er& $ecause the odds indicated $y the
test are already so remote that we should conclusi"ely re3ect chance as an
e!planation of the results4
Ene thin* that the Wilco!en test doesn7t measure ade:uately is that the
#eshitta L scores are not only hi*her in *eneral than the control L scores& they
are typically far *reater4 To appreciate this& suppose we took all of the
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /BI
#eshitta L scores and we cut them in half4 The resultin* #eshitta ranksum
would $e 2&8'/& still far less than the control ranksum of 8&/(/& and the odds
of chance occurrence of the hal"ed #eshitta L scores would still $e less than %
in 8/&8>8&82/4 We would still "ery conclusi"ely eliminate chance as an
e!planation4 In fact& we could e"en reduce all the #eshitta L scores $y two6
thirds and the odds of chance occurrence would still $e less than % in 2I&(2/4
Nativity ,' in the Aramaic NT
The researcher who found the Gesus mosaics in the #eshitta as reported in this
issue& Re"4 Glenn @a"id 9auscher& came across a lo"ely code that is a perfect
*ift for the holiday season4 The Aramaic lan*ua*e is "ery close to 2e$rew&
somewhat in the way that modern n*lish is related to +hakespearean
n*lish& and in fact it uses the 2e$rew alpha$et4 This code is e!pressed
mostly in 2e$rew& with the e!ception of one word& shown in red in the
2e$rew spellin* $elow4
The 2>6letter code reads (here should the 'on of Hod lod#eW Mesus shall
+ud forth in a man#er4
2ere7s the 2e$rew spellin*J
This code is an e!ample of a SwrappedS )+& where the te!tein this case the
entire Aramaic New Testamente$ecomes a cylinder where the $e*innin* is
connected to the end and )+s can continue around the cylinder indefinitely&
at least hypothetically4 Ene interestin* twist to point out in this )+ is that the
Messiah is often called the 9ranch in the prophetic writin*s of the Eld
Testament& or the 9ranch of the root of Gesse& a descendant of Hin* @a"id4
(ordKPairs >emonstrate Peshitta Primacy
Word6pairs are not codes4 They are more of a lin*uistic indicator4 They are
merely word6pair studies done with 0M+ Word1 and 0Enline 9i$le1 with the
2e$rew ET& #eshitta NT& )RR& Greek NT ;9y,antine and Westcott P 2ort=& as
well as the )atin Kul*ate4
/B( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
I did a search for all occurrences of Ihsous in Greek& for e!ample& listin* all
the "erses in Greek and Aramaic parallel to each otherA o$tained the total for
the Greek word in M+ Word and correspondin* total for Aramaic S5eshuaS4 I
di"ide the latter into the former4 The result is 1;0&
Then I did the same in re"erseA searchin* all occurrences of S5eshuaS and
listin* all "erses alon* with the Greek parallels at the same time4 Word finds
the total for the num$er of S5eshuaSA I then find the num$er of Greek Ihsous
in the same list of "erses which correspond to 5eshua and match up in those
"erses to the Aramaic4 I di"ide the latter ;Greek= into the former ;Aramaic=4
The result is ;304
This is the pattern for an Aramaic ori*inal4 It matches consistently with the
2e$rew ET6)RR model4 'ince the Hree" words are derived from the
Aramaic te6t7 it ma"es sense that a hi#her %ercenta#e of these will +e
matched to the Aramaic ekuivalent than the reverse&
The Aramaic does not deri"e from the Greek& therefore when I do a search of
all occurrences of an Aramaic word and list all the parallel and correspondin*
Greek words& the ratio of correspondin* Greek to the total Aramaic
occurrences is lower4
This pattern holds consistently for lar*e num$ers of words C usually o"er %''
in a search4 All forms of a word must $e included& so it is important to know
the lan*ua*e roots& proclitics& enclitics& Greek declensions& con3u*ations and
irre*ular forms well4
)et7s analyse an e!ampleJ
occurs 2>% times in the GNT ;Greek NT=& and in those places& the ANT
;Aramaic NT= has the word 09r0 282 times4 +o& 09r0 D ] 282D2>% ] 1;0
09r0 occurs 2(( times in the ANT& and in those places& occurs 28B times
;as parallels to the Aramaic=4 +o& D 09r0 ] 28BD2(( ] 840
The translation word total di"ided $y the total num$er of times the
correspondin* ori*inal word parallels the translated word will yield a lower
percenta*e score than the con"erse ratioJ ori*inalDtranslated is *reater then
translatedDori*inal4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /BO
We see that it is more pro$a$le for the Greek to ha"e $een translated from
the Aramaic 09r0 ;OB\=& then for the re"erse to ha"e occurred ;(>\=4 It is
more pro$a$le then that the Greek NT was translated from the Aramaic NT&
then the other way around4
We see this pattern throu*hout the New Testament4 We also see it in the Eld
Testament& so as always& the 2e$rew ET D )RR relationship can act as a
control to our study of the Aramaic NT D GNT relationship4
occurs /'I times in the )RR ;+eptua*int=& and in those places& the
2ET ;2e$rew Massoretic ET= has xwr 2I( times4 +o& xwr D ]
2I(D/'I ] 110
xwr occurs /O2 times in the 2ET& and in those places& the )RR has
2I> times4 +o& D xwr ] 2I>D/O2 ] 200
This is e!pected& as we all know that the )RR is a translation of the 2e$rew4
This trend which is also present in the NT then su**ests that the GNT is a
translation of the ANT4 )et7s take a look at one more of the many ET
e!amples 3ust to make sureJ
occurs 22 times in the )RR& and in those places& the 2ET has Njv
2' times4 +o& Njv D ] 2'D22 ] 110
Njv occurs 2( times in the 2ET& and in those places& the )RR has
%O times4 +o& D Njv ] %OD2( ] ;80
The trend is clear and is found throu*hout comparisons of the 2ET and the
)RR4 It is more pro$a$le for the Greek words in these e!amples to ha"e $een
translated from the 2e$rew ;O%\& O%\=& than it is for the re"erse to occur
;I'\& B'\=4
Mr4 9auscher did many such calculations ;where words searched had 2'\
correlation or more= and o$tained this o"erall resultJ The 2e$rew #rimacy
;where the Greek is most likely to $e a translation of the 2e$rew than the
re"erse= score& usin* the 2B>B Greek word total and 2/'/ matchin* 2e$rew
words& is 8;&;204 The )RR #rimacy ;where the 2e$rew is most likely to $e a
/I' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
translation of the Greek than "ice "ersa= score& usin* the 2(BB 2e$rew word
total and %(O> matchin* Greek words& is ;4&1;04
This is to $e e!pected& as we all know that the )RR is translated from the
2e$rew4 The implications of this trend occurrin* in comparisons of the GNT
and ANT are massi"e& so let7s 3ust make sureJ
occurs 2B/ times in the GNT& and in those places& the ANT has the
rm root 2>8 times4 +o& rm deri"ed words D ] 2>8D2B/ ] 120
rm occurs /2/ times in the ANT& and in those places& the GNT has
/'8 times4 +o& D rm ] /'8D/2/ ] 1D0
The trend continues& e"en into the New Testament< Ene more e!ampleJ
occurs %O times in the GNT& and in those places& the ANT has xwr
)#m %I times4 +o& &wr )#m D ] %ID%O ] 810
&wrb )#m occurs %I times in the ANT& and in those places& the GNT has
%/ times4 +o& D &wrb )#m ] %/D%I ] 2;0
Ence a*ain& it is more pro$a$le that the Greek is translated from the Aramaic
;(O\= than it is for the re"erse to occur ;IB\=4 Mr4 9auscher has done many
more of these calculations in the NT and has o$tained this o"erall resultJ In a
massi"e study dealin* with almost %'&''' words& the ANT #rimacy score is
110 compared to the GNT #rimacy score of 2204
I ha"e also compiled data for The )atin Kul*ate and The Greek NT4 The
a"era*es for these areJ GreekD)atin ] O(\A )atinDGreek ] (I\4 This indicates
The )atin Kul*ate NT is translated from The Greek NT4 This is e!pected& as
we all know that the Kul*ate is a translation from the Greek& so this ser"es as
another control& like the 2ET6)RR studies4 Would the comparison of the
GNT and the ANT $e the only e!ception to the rule esta$lished $y the 2ET6
)RR and GNT6Kul*ate comparisons? More likely& the GNT6ANT comparison
continues the trend set $y the other comparisons& as the GNT is translated
from the ANT4
.eature 8 C 9i$le Word6#airs and Codes Indicate #eshitta #rimacy and @i"ine Inspiration /I%
Note that the Westcott62ort and 9y,antine te!ts yielded "irtually identical
results4
The principle in"ol"ed in this study is the natural information loss in
translation and the "ariety of translations for any particular ori*inal word4 In
some cases a word will not $e translated at all ;a small percenta*e=4 A
particular word that occurs fre:uently will also ha"e "arious translations $y
one translator and different translators will amplify that effect4
The information loss is illustrated $y the 2e$rew ET6)RR relationship4 The
tetra*rammaton ;the four 2e$rew letters that spell out 05ahweh1= occurs in
>I(( "erses in The Tanakh4 The )RR has Hurios in >%>/ "erses4
The )RR does not translate it in 28 places out of I/ in Genesis alone<
+o these facts ena$le us to predict *enerally that an ori*inal "oca$ulary word
will outnum$er the total for any one of its translation words when comparin*
translation P ori*inal documents4 There must $e lar*e num$ers ;prefera$le
se"eral hundred= for the effect to $e si*nificant4
I ha"e also studied letter fre:uencies of New Testament $ooks in Greek and
Aramaic to ascertain authorshipA the results for these are also tellin*& $ut I
don7t want to weary you with the technical details4 I do $elie"e they also
show the #eshitta is the ori*inal and the Greek is not4
/I2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Appendi! A C The @ecepti"e Nature of Greek #rimacy /I/
A%%endi6 A ) The >ece%tive
Nature of Hree" Primacy
In this short discussion& I will hi*hli*ht some of the main ways in which
Greek primacists suppress the #eshittaJ Misinformation and outri*ht
deception4
.irst& we shall take a look at the late @r4 9ruce Met,*er& perhaps the most
respected and re"ered 9i$lical scholar& te!tual critic and Greek primacist of
our time& and who was in"ol"ed with the American 9i$le +ociety& the Fnited
9i$le +ocieties and the National Council of Churches ;in the F+A=4 As a
re*ular editor to the F9+7 Nestle6Aland 9i$le te!t& this man had a $i* impact
on the readin*s of modern 9i$le "ersions4
In %OO2& @r4 Met,*er deli"ered a lecture on 02i*hli*hts from the +ermon on
the Mount1 at the .oundation for 9i$lical Research& in Charlestown& New
2ampshire& F+A4 This lecture is full of inaccuraciesJ
-5es& there are Aramaic documents& especially now that the fumran @ead
+ea +crolls ha"e come to li*ht 66 that were written a$out the time of Gesus 66
documents in 2e$rew and Aramaic that are non6reli*ious documents4 +ome
of them are reli*ious documents4 They help us to understand the am$iance of
society at that time4 +o that?s the SyesS part of my answer4
9ut the SnoS part to your :uestion is thisJ (e have no records in manuscri%t
form of the #os%els in Aramaic& There are no Aramaic documents of
/I8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Matthew7 Mar"7 u"e7 and Mohn left& All we have are Hree" documents of
Matthew7 Mar"7 u"e7 and Mohn& +o 66 e!cept for these four fossils that are
left em$edded in the te!t of Mark& the four $rief statements or words in
Aramaic from Gesus 66 no< And people today that sell $ooks and say& SEh&
here& I ha"e translated the Aramaic documents of the *ospelsS 66 they are
frauds4 They?re out for our money4 @on?t $e taken in $y such works4. C @r4
9ruce Met,*er
This& from the same man who has written much on the te!tual criticism of the
#eshitta& #eshitto and Eld +yriac Gospels4 2is claim that 0We ha"e no records
in manuscript form of the *ospels in Aramaic1 is undenia$ly false& as his own
$ooks testifyJ
-+urprisin*ly& while the .our Gospels in the #eshitta are *enerally 9y,antine
type te!ts& the 9ook of Acts in the #eshitta has Western type tendencies4 In the
Gospels it Ythe #eshittaZ is closer to the 9y,antine type of te!t than in Acts&
where it presents many strikin* a*reements with the Western te!t4. C 0he
0ext of the Ie# 0estament
nd
ed& 9ruce Met,*erA %OB( p4I'
What does that say of Greek primacy if e"en the most respected ;ar*ua$ly=
Greek primacist of our time needs to resort to such measures?
@r4 Met,*er then *oes on to critici,e @r4 Geor*e )amsa ;famous Aramaic and
#eshitta primacist=& a fa"orite ho$$y of those wishin* to suppress knowled*e
of the #eshitta4
-Geor*e )amsa& )6A6M6+6A& who in the %O8's persuaded a reputa$le
pu$lisher of the 9i$le in #hiladelphia& the Winston #u$lishin* Company& to
issue his a$solute fraud& of ?the 9i$le translated from the ori*inal Aramaic4?
A$solutely a money *etter& and nothin* else4
2e said that ?the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic&? and
he ?translates it from the Aramaic&? $ut he ne"er would show any$ody the
manuscripts that he translated from4. C @r4 9ruce Met,*er
Ef course& )amsa makes clear many times in the introduction to his
translation& that it is $ased on the #eshitta4
Appendi! A C The @ecepti"e Nature of Greek #rimacy /I>
As mentioned& )amsa6$ashin* has $ecome a fa"orite ho$$y amon* Greek
primacists due to the facts that Aramaic primacy is pro"in* to $e a *reat
threat to their scholarship& and :uite frankly& )amsa is an easy tar*et4
There is a widespread article a$out @r4 )amsa& $y Gohn #4 Guedes& which
attempts to pro"e that @r4 )amsa was a 0cultic torch$earer1 and that the
#eshitta is unrelia$le4
Gust like @r4 Met,*er& Greek primacist Mr4 Guedes relies on misinformationJ
-2is anti6Greek $ias shows as he repeatedly replaces references to 0Greeks1
with 0Arameans41. C Gohn #4 Guedes
Is this truly 0anti6Greek $ias1 on )amsa7s part? The fact is& the #eshitta does
indeed read 0Arameans1 in many places where the Greek te!ts say 0Greeks14
+o )amsa was not $ein* $iased in this instance& $ut was $ein* faithful to the
#eshitta readin*4
This article makes many false claims a$out @r4 )amsa& $ut admittedly& he did
indeed ha"e some :uestiona$le $eliefs4 9ut this is irrele"ant to the topic of
Aramaic primacy4 @oes a translator $ein* 0$ad1 automatically render the te!t
$ein* translated 0$ad1 as well? That is outri*ht silliness and unscientific C I
can spend all day pointin* out contradictions in the HGK and the NIK& $ut I
wouldn7t dare use that as 0e"idence1 that the Greek te!ts are a copy ;they are
copies& $ut the fact that translators are 0$ad1 does not pro"e this=4 2ow can a
te!t $e critici,ed $y ha"in* had $ad translations? 9y the same lo*ic& since
Greek primacists $elie"e the #eshitta is a translation from the Greek& and
inferior to the Greek& they should then $elie"e that the Greek is 0$ad1&
$ecause the translation and the translatorDs were 0$ad1 too4
+o why do e"en the most eminent scholars resort to such deceit? Well& how
would you feel if you 3ust reali,ed your 2'a years of uni"ersity and te!tual
study C your whole career C was all for nau*ht? Would you not also fi*ht for
your di*nity and deny the truth& e"en to yourself?
That is the $i* dan*er of takin* the ad"ice of these scholars4 Eften& pride and
politics *et in the way of the search for truth& and take preference o"er actual
e"idence4 0+cholarly consensus1 tells us that the New Testament was
ori*inally written in Greek4 0+cholarly consensus1 also tau*ht us that the
/IB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
arth was the centre of the uni"erse& the +un re"ol"ed around the arth& and
the atom was the smallest particle of matter4
0+cholarly consensus1 is meanin*less4 .urthermore& most of these eminent
scholars would perhaps not e"en $e considered to $e 0real Christians1 $y the
ma3ority of those who $elie"e4 Many of these scholars are hi*hly li$eral& don7t
fully accept the inspiration of the 9i$le& $elie"e that the Torah was compiled
from many secular writin*s C from many different times C and $elie"e the
9i$le to $e full of myths4 5et these are the "ery people that are trusted to
supply Christians with 0the most accurate 9i$le te!ts14 That is akin to the
widespread acceptance $y Christians of the 0Gewish1 Massoretic 2e$rew Eld
Testament "ersion ;which 0messes around1 with many Messianic prophecies&
attested to $y the +eptua*int and #eshitta Eld Testament C a topic for another
day=4
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /II
A%%endi6 = ) Introduction
to the amsa =i+le
9y @r4 Geor*e Mamishisho )amsa
North of the Garden of den in the $asin of the ri"er Ti*ris& in the
mountain fastnesses of what is known today as Hurdistan& there li"ed an
ancient people& the descendants of the Assyrians& the founders of the *reat
Assyrian empire and culture in 9i$le days& the ori*inators of the alpha$et and
many sciences which contri$uted so *enerously to the +emitic culture from
which spran* our 9i$le4 These people& the Assyrians& played an important
part in the history of the Near ast& of the 9i$le& and of reli*ion in *eneral4
When Nine"eh was destroyed in B%2 94C4& many of the princes and no$lemen
of this once "ast empire fled northward into inaccessi$le mountains where they
remained secluded and cut off until the dawn of the twentieth century4 Nahum
saysJ 0Thy shepherds slum$er& E kin* of AssyriaJ thy no$les shall dwell in
the dustJ thy people is scattered upon the mountains& and no man
*athereth them41 Nah& 3:18&
+ome descendants of the Assyrians and some of the descendants of the ten tri$es
who were taken capti"e $y the Assyrian kin*s in I2% 94C4& and settled in
Assyria& 9a$ylon& #ersia and other places east of the ri"er uphrates& were
amon* the first con"erts to Christianity4
/I( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
When Gesus sent se"enty of his disciples to preach the *ospel& he instructed them
not to *o in the way of the Gentiles or into any city of the +amaritans $ut to
*o to the lost sheep of the house of Israel& meanin* the ten tri$es who were lost
from the house of Israel4 +ome of the descendants of these 2e$rew tri$es
are still li"in* in Ira:& Iran& and Turkey& and most of them still con"erse in
Aramaic4 Gesus7 command was carried out4 The *ospel was preached to the
Gews first4 0Now those who had $een dispersed $y the persecution which
occurred on account of +tephen tra"eled as far as #hoenicia and e"en to the
land of Cyprus and to Antioch& preachin* the word to none $ut to the Gews
only41 Acts 11:11&
The Assyrians remained dormant durin* the #ersian& Greek& Roman and Ara$
con:uests4 9ein* isolated and surrounded $y their enemies& they remained
secluded throu*hout the centuries& thus preser"in* the Aramaic lan*ua*e& which
was the lan*ua*e of the Near ast& and perpetuatin* the ancient 9i$lical
customs and manners which were common to all races and peoples in this part
of the ancient world4 Not until the Turkish rei*n did these isolated Assyrian
tri$es reco*ni,e any *o"ernment or pay any ta!es4 @urin* the centuries of
Ara$ and Turkish rei*ns& the Assyrians retained& their cultural independence&
later reco*ni,in* the sympathetic Turkish rule which permitted the
continuation of their institutions and their reli*ion4 Fnder ma*nanimous Turks
they were ruled $y their patriarchs and chiefs& payin* a nominal ta! to the
Turkish *o"ernment4
The Assyrian church& or as it is known& the ancient Apostolic and Catholic
Church of the ast& was one of the stron*est Christian churches in the
world and was noted for its missions in the Middle ast& India& and China4 Its
missionaries carried the Christian *ospel as far as China and Mon*olia&
Indonesia& Gapan and other parts of the world4 Not until the %8th century
was this church ri"aled $y any other church in the world4 It was the most
powerful $ranch of Christendom in the Near ast& #alestine& Ara$ia&
)e$anon& Iran& India and elsewhere4
All the literature of this church was written in literary Aramaic& the lin%ua
franca of that time4 This is corro$orated $y @r4 Arnold G4 Toyn$ee in
his 6 2tudy of *istory wherein he writesJ 0` @arius the Great?s account of his
own acts on the rock of 9ehistan& o"erhan*in* the mpire?s *reat north6east
road& was transcri$ed in triplicate in three different adaptations of the
cuneiform script con"eyin* the three imperial capitalsJ lamite for
+usa& Medo6#ersian for c$atana& and Akkadian for 9a$ylon4 9ut the
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /IO
winnin* lan*ua*e within this uni"ersal state was none of the three thus
officially honouredA it was Aramaic& with its handier alpha$etic script4 The
se:uel showed that commerce and culture may $e more important than
politics in makin* a lan*ua*e?s fortuneA for the speakers of Aramaic were
politically of no account in the Achaemenian mpire `1
The #ersians used the Aramaic lan*ua*e $ecause this ton*ue was the lan*ua*e
of the two +emitic empires& the empire of Assyria and the empire of 9a$ylon4
Aramaic was so firmly esta$lished as the lin%ua franca that no *o"ernment
could dispense with its use as a "ehicle of e!pression in a far6flun* empire&
especially in the western pro"inces4 Moreo"er& without schools and other
modern facilities& Aramaic could not $e replaced $y the speech of
con:uerin* nations4 Con:uerors were not interested in imposin* their
lan*ua*es and cultures on su$3u*ated peoples4 What they wanted was ta!es&
spoils& and other le"ies4
The transition from Aramaic YThe Greeks called it +yriac ;deri"ed from
+ur& Tyre=Z into Ara$ic& a sister ton*ue& took place after the con:uest of
the Near ast $y the Moslem armies in the Ith century& A4@4 Ne"ertheless&
Aramaic lin*ered for many centuries and still is spoken in )e$anon& +yria& Ira:&
and northwestern Iran& as well as amon* the Christian Ara$ tri$es in northern
Ara$ia4 Its alpha$et was $orrowed $y the 2e$rews& Ara$s& Iranians&
and Mon*ols4
@r4 #hilip H4 2itti& noted historian and #rofessor of +emitic lan*ua*es at
#rinceton Fni"ersity& in his $ook 0he *istory of the 6rabs5 uses the terms
6ramaic and 2yriac interchan*ea$ly and states that Aramaic is still a li"in*
lan*ua*e4 2e says& 0In country places and on their farms these dhimmis clun*
to their ancient cultural patterns and preser"ed their nati"e lan*ua*esJ Aramaic
and +yriac in +yria and Al67Ira:& Iranian in #ersia and Coptic in *ypt41
And a*ain& 0In Al67Ira: and +yria the transition from one +emitic ton*ue&
the Aramaic& to another& the Ara$ic& was of course easier4 In the out6of6the6way
places& howe"er& such as the )e$anons with their preponderant Christian
population& the nati"e +yriac put up a desperate fi*ht and has lin*ered until
modern times4 Indeed +yriac is still spoken in Ma7lula and two other "illa*es
in Anti6)e$anon4 With its disappearance& Aramaic has left in the collo:uial
Ara$ic unmistaka$le traces noticea$le in "oca$ulary& accent and *rammatical
structure41
The l ate @r4 W4 A4 Wi*ram in 0he 6ssyrians and 0heir Iei%hbours
/(' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
wroteJ 0Ene thin* is certain& that the Assyrians $oast with 3ustice that they
alone of all Christian nations still keep as their spoken lan*ua*e what is
acknowled*ed to $e the lan*ua*e of #alestine in the first century`1
fuotin* @r4 Toyn$ee a*ain from A 2tudy of *istory: 0Às for the
Aramaic alpha$et& it achie"ed far wider con:uests4 In %>OO A4@4& it was
adopted for the con"eyance of the Manchu lan*ua*e on the e"e of the
Manchu con:uest of China4 The hi*her reli*ions sped it on its way $y
takin* it into their ser"ice4 In its Q+:uare 2e$rew7 "ariant it $ecame the
"ehicle of the Gewish +criptures and litur*yA in an Ara$ic adaptation it $ecame
the alpha$et of Islam`1
As a miracle of miracles& Aramaic and most of the ancient 9i$lical customs
which were common to +emitic people ha"e sur"i"ed in northern Ira:
until today4 Aramaic is still spoken in Ira: and in northwestern Iran $y
remnants of the Assyrian people and the Gews of the e!ile& and the literary
Aramaic remains the same today as it was of yore4 +ome of the Aramaic
words which are still retained in all 9i$le "ersions are still used in the
Aramaic lan*ua*e spoken todayJ for e!ample& 1aca5 :thpatakh5 1abbuli5
.emana5 2habakthani5 0alitha Hoomi5 +aran :tha5 +anna5 Hhakal&8ema.
As we ha"e said& the sur"i"al of this small remnant of this se*ment of the
ancient +emitic culture was due to the isolation& tenacity& and warlike character
of the Assyrian people who were li"in* isolated& now under the #arthian
mpire& now under the #ersian mpire& now under the Ara$ian mpire
and now under the Turkish mpire4 And $ecause of this isolation& these
ancient Christians had hardly any contact with Christians in the West4 Enly
one of their $ishops and a deacon participated in the Nicene Council in /2>
A4@4
After the con"ersion of mperor Constantine to Christianity in /%( A4@4&
Christians in the #ersian mpire who hitherto had $een tolerated and
looked upon as the enemies of Rome& the persecutor of Christianity& now
were looked upon as the friends of the Christian emperor& Constantine&
and the enemies of the #ersian *o"ernment4 #ersecution of these
Christians did not $e*in until the 8th century A4@4& and lasted until the
Ara$ con:uest of #ersia& B/2 A4@4 This is why this ancient Church was
una$le to esta$lish contacts with Western Christianity4
The +criptures in the Church of the ast& from the inception of
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /(%
Christianity to the present day& are in Aramaic and ha"e ne"er $een
tampered with or re"ised& as attested $y the present #atriarch of the
Church of the ast4 The 9i$lical manuscripts were carefully and ,ealously
handed down from one *eneration to another and kept in the massi"e
stone walls of the ancient churches and in ca"es4 They were written on
parchment and many of them sur"i"e to the present day4 When these
te!ts were copied $y e!pert scri$es& they were carefully e!amined for
accuracy $efore they were dedicated and permitted to $e read in
churches4 "en one missin* letter would render the te!t "oid4
asterners still adhere to God?s commandment not to add to or omit a
word from the +criptures4 The 2oly +cripture condemns any addition or
su$traction or modification of the Word of God4
05ou shall not add to the commandment which I command you& neither
shall you take from it& $ut you must keep the commandments of the
)ER@ your God which I command you41 >eut& D::&
0"erythin* that I command you& that you must $e careful to doA you
shall not add nor take from it41 >eut& 1::3:&
0@o not add to his wordsA lest he repro"e you& and you $e found a
liar41 Prov& 30:;&
0And if any man shall take away from the words of the $ook of this
prophecy& God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and
from the holy city and from the thin*s which are written in this $ook41 Bev&
:::11&
It is also true of the Gews and Moslems that they would not dare to
alter a word of the Torah or Horan4 asterners are afraid that they may
incur the curse if they make a chan*e in the Word of God4
+ome of these ancient manuscripts *o $ack to the >th century A4@4 The
oldest dated 9i$lical manuscript in the world is that of the four 9ooks of
Moses& 8B8 A4@4& which now lies in the 9ritish Museum4 Another one is
the Code! Am$rosianus4 +ome of it *oes $ack to the Ith century& some of
it to the >th century& and some of it mi*ht $e earlier4 This Code! is not
the work of one man4 Apparently some portions were written $efore the
"owel system was in"ented and that would put it prior to the >th
century4 The #entateuch of the 9ritish Museum must ha"e $een written
/(2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
$efore the "owel system was in"ented4 Aramaic documents of the >th
century and later use the "owel system& some of them fully and some in
part4 It is interestin* to know that this "owel system was adopted $y the
Gews and was $e*un a$out the >8% century& A4@4 In some portions of the a$o"e
te!ts& the old Aramaic ori*inal consonantal spellin* without apparatus of
"owel points is well preser"ed4 This is also true of some of the New
Testament te!ts in the #ierpont Mor*an )i$rary& New 5ork City4
Fnfortunately many ancient and "alua$le Aramaic te!ts were lost durin*
World War I4 9ut printed copies of them& carefully made $y American
missionaries under the help and *uidance of competent nati"e scholars&
are a"aila$le4 Moreo"er& a num$er of ancient New Testament te!ts&
some of them *oin* $ack to the >th century A4@4 are in "arious
li$raries4 The New Testament te!ts in the #ierpont Mor*an )i$rary are
amon* the oldest in e!istence4
The translator of this work has access to the e!istin* te!tsA he has spent many
years comparin* them in the course of translatin* the 9i$le4
Astonishin*ly enou*h& all the #eshitta te!ts in Aramaic a*ree4 There is one
thin* of which the astern scri$es can $oastJ they copied their holy $ooks
dili*ently& faithfully& and meticulously4 +ir .rederick Henyon& Curator of
the 9ritish Museum& in his $ook 0extual Criticism of the Ie# 0estament5
speaks hi*hly of the accuracy of copyin* and of the anti:uity of #eshitta M++4
The "ersions translated from +emitic lan*ua*es into Greek and )atin were
su$3ect to constant re"isions4 )earned men who copied them introduced
chan*es& tryin* to simplify o$scurities and am$i*uities which were due to the
work of the first translators4 #resent translators and 9i$le re"isers do the same
when translatin* the 9i$le& treaties& and documents from one lan*ua*e to
another4 The American Constitution& written in n*lish& will always
remain the same when new copies are made& $ut translations into other
lan*ua*es will $e su$3ect to re"ision4 Therefore& a copy of the Fnited
+tates Constitution pu$lished ten years a*o is far more "alua$le than a
translation made two hundred years a*o4 Translations are always su$3ect to
re"isions and disputes o"er e!act meanin* $ecause words and terms of
speech in one lan*ua*e cannot $e translated easily into another without
loss4 This is one reason why we ha"e so many translations and re"isions of the
Hin* Games "ersion4
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /(/
As said $efore& Aramaic was the lan*ua*e of +emitic culture& the lan*ua*e of
the 2e$rew patriarchs and& in the older days& the lin%ua franca of the .ertile
Crescent4 The term 02e$rew1 is deri"ed from the Aramaic word 6bar
or *abar which means 0to cross o"er41 This name was *i"en to the
2e$rew people simply $ecause A$raham and the people who were with him
crossed the ri"er uphrates and went to #alestine4 Therefore& they were
known $y those who li"ed east of the ri"er uphrates as 2e$rews& that is&
0the people across the ri"er41 All $ranches of the *reat +emitic people
had a common speech4 2ow could the people of Nine"eh ha"e
understood Gonah& a 2e$rew prophet& had the 9i$lical 2e$rew ton*ue $een
different from Aramaic? There were some differences similar to the
differences we ha"e in n*lish spoken in Tennessee and that spoken in New
5ork4
This small pastoral 2e$rew tri$e throu*h which God chose to re"eal himself
to mankind& for se"eral *enerations continued to keep its paternal and
racial relations with the people who li"ed in #adan6Aram
;Mesopotamia=& and preser"ed customs and manners which they $rou*ht
with them from #adan6Aram& and the lan*ua*e which their fathers spoke4
Gaco$ chan*ed the name of )u, to 9eth6el ;Aramaic6the house of God=4
A$raham instructed his ser"ant not to let his son& Isaac& marry a
#alestinian maid $ut to *o to #adan6Aram to his own kindred from whence to
$rin* a maid to his son4 5ears later& Gaco$& the *randson of A$raham& went to
#adan6Aram and married his uncle?s two dau*hters and their handmaids and
li"ed in 2aran a$out twenty years4 le"en of his sons were $orn in #adan6
Aram4 The first *eneration of the children of Gaco$ went to *ypt4 Their
so3ourn in #alestine was so $rief that there was no possi$ility of lin*uistic
chan*e4 That is why they spoke the lan*ua*e which they had learned in #adan6
Aram4 While in *ypt& li"in* $y themsel"es& they continued to use
names of Aramaic deri"ation such as Manasseh& phraim& 9ar6Nun& Miriam&
etc4
After the capti"ity& Aramaic $ecame the "ernacular of the Gewish people and
is still used $y them in their worship4 9oth of the Gewish Talmuds& namely& the
9a$ylonian and #alestinian& were written in Aramaic4 The later findin*s&
especially of Gewish6Aramaic papyri which were found in *ypt in
%O''& ha"e produced many passa*es in 9i$lical Aramaic4 The disco"ery
of the Commentary on the 9ook of 2a$akkuk in the ca"es of fumran in
Gordan pro"es that Aramaic has $een in constant use from early times to the
present day4
/(8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
It is e"ident that durin* the e!ile and post6e!ile the 2e$rew writers used
Aramaic4 +ome of the portions of their works were put into 2e$rew4
@aniel and ,ra were $orn durin* the capti"ity4 2e$rew was no lon*er
spoken and the official lan*ua*e of writin* in 9a$ylon was southern Aramaic
and the Gewish community had already parted with their 2e$rew YThe two
lan*ua*es were so close that 2e$rew could not $e retained in 9a$ylonZ4 Thus&
the capti"ity produced the transition from 2e$rew& a sister lan*ua*e& into
Aramaic4
9i$lical 2e$rew and Aramaic were "ery closely related& like American
n*lish and n*lish spoken in n*land4 Whether the 2e$rew prophets wrote
in 2e$rew or Aramaic would make little difference4 The differences would $e
like those $etween se"eral Ara$ic dialects which are spoken in Ara$ia4 "en
thou*h the "ernacular speech differs $ecause of local color and idioms& the
norm of the written lan*ua*e remains the same4 This is true today with
written Ara$ic when compared with spoken Ara$ic4 And such was the case
with Attic Greek when compared with other Greek dialects4 The *rammar&
"er$s& nouns and other parts of speech are practically the same in the $asic
ancient 9i$lical 2e$rew lan*ua*e and Aramaic4 The structure of a
sentence& in point of *rammar and synta! of 9i$lical 2e$rew and
Aramaic& is the same4 9ut this is not the case when translatin* from 2e$rew or
Aramaic into a totally alien ton*ue such as Greek& )atin& or n*lish4
Moreo"er& the alpha$et in 2e$rew and Aramaic is e!actly the same and
all letters are pronounced alike4
0he 3e#ish :ncyclopedia5 Dol. 445 tells usJ
0In #alestinian Aramaic the dialect of Galilee was different from that of Gudea&
and as a result of the reli*ious separation of the Gews and the +amaritans& a special
+amaritan dialect was e"ol"ed& $ut its literature cannot $e considered Gewish4 To
the eastern Aramaic& whose most distincti"e point of difference is 0n1 in place of 0y1
as the prefi! for the third person masculine of the imperfect tense of the "er$&
$elon* the idioms of the 9a$ylonian Talmud& which most closely a*ree with the
lan*ua*e of the Mandaean writin*s41
The stron*est points in ascertainin* the ori*inality of a te!t are the style of
writin*& the idioms& and the internal e"idence4 Words which make sense
and are easily understood in one lan*ua*e& when translated literally into
another ton*ue& may lose their meanin*4 Ene can offer many instances
where scores of Aramaic words& some with se"eral meanin*s and others with
close resem$lance to other words& were confused and thus mistranslated4
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /(>
This is why in Geremiah 8J%'& we read in the Hin* GamesJ
0` Ah& )ER@ God< surely thou hast *reatly decei"ed this people`1
The Aramaic readsJ
0` Ah& )ER@ God< I ha"e *reatly decei"ed this people`1
The translator?s confusion is due to the position of a dot& for the position of a
dot fre:uently determines the meanin* of a word4
In Isaiah 8/J2(& the Hin* Games "ersion readsJ
0Therefore& I ha"e profaned the princes of the sanctuary`1
The Aramaic readsJ
0` 5our princes ha"e profaned my sanctuary`1
This error was caused $y misunderstandin* of a passi"e plural "er$4 The same
error occurs in Gohn %2J8'& which in the astern Te!t readsJ
0` Their eyes ha"e $ecome $lind`1 instead of 0` 2e hath $linded their
eyes`1
In Isaiah %8J%2& the Aramaic word ailel5 to howl& is confused $y the
2e$rew word helel5 li*ht4 The reference here is to the kin* of 9a$ylon
and not to )ucifer4
In #salm 22J2O& Hin* Games "ersion& we readJ
0All they that $e fat upon earth shall eat and worship` and none can keep ali"e his
own soul41
The Aramaic te!t readsJ
0All those who are hun*ry ;for truth= shall eat and worship` my soul is ali"e
to him41
The error in this instance is due to the confusion of the Aramaic words which
ha"e some resem$lance4 +ome of these words when written $y hand resem$le
one another4 A list of words& their meanin*s and how they were
confused one with the other will $e found in this Introduction4
T2 ARAMAIC #+2ITTA TRT
/(B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The term #eshitta means strai*ht& simple& sincere and true& that is& the ori*inal4
This name was *i"en to this ancient and authoritati"e te!t to distin*uish it from
other 9i$le re"isions and translations which were introduced into some of the
Churches of the ast ;Monophysites= after the di"ision at phesus and
Chalcedon in 8/% and 8>% A4@4& respecti"ely4 This ancient #eshitta is still the
only authoritati"e te!t of the Eld and New Testament of all astern Christians
in the Near ast and India& the Church of the ast& the Roman Catholic
Church in the ast& the Monophysites& and Indian Christians4 This is $ecause
this te!t was in use for 8'' years $efore the Christian Church was di"ided into
se"eral sects4
The #eshitta Eld Testament contains what is known as the 9ooks of the
Apocrypha& which ha"e $een handed down in the #eshitta manuscripts to*ether
with the 9ooks of the )aw and the 9ooks of the #rophets& and since these
Apocryphal $ooks are included in the te!t they are looked upon as a
sacred literature& e"en thou*h they are not as commonly used as the others4
Moreo"er this ancient New Testament te!t omits the story of the woman
taken in adultery& 2 #eter& 2 and / Gohn& Gude& and Re"elation4 ;9ut these
$ooks are included in later Aramaic te!ts4= The #eshitta canon was set
$efore the disco"ery of these $ooks4
Amid persecutions& the ancient Church of the ast& throu*h God7s help
and protection& was a$le to keep these sacred writin*s of the Eld and New
Testaments in the 9i$lical lands in #ersia and India 3ust as the Roman
Catholic Church preser"ed them in the West4 Christianity also owes a de$t
to the Gewish people who preser"ed the Word of God amid persecution and
sufferin*4
Therefore& #eshitta should not $e confused with the >th century 9i$le re"isions
in Aramaic and new "ersions which were made from Greek4 None of
these new re"isions and "ersions made $y the Monophysite $ishops in the >th
century has e"er $een accepted $y the Church of the ast4 Moreo"er& these
$ishops who left their church and 3oined the Greek church and produced these
"ersions for theolo*ical reasons so that their doctrine mi*ht a*ree with the
doctrine of the 9y,antine Church& which was the powerful imperial sect&
were e!pelled $y the #atriarch of the ast and their works were
condemned4 2owe"er& in some pro"inces& owin* to the pressure e!erted
$y the 9y,antine emperors& these new re"isions were introduced4 9ut when
the territory was occupied $y the #ersian *o"ernment& they were destroyed4
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /(I
2ad the #eshitta $een made $y order of one of the ri"al churches& the others
would ha"e re3ected it4 9ut since all Christians& e"en the Moslems& in the
Middle ast accept and re"ere the #eshitta te!t& it pro"es $eyond a dou$t
that it was in use many centuries $efore the di"ision of the Church4
The ori*inality of the #eshitta te!t is stron*ly supported $y early e"idence4
Aphraates :uoted it4 +t4 phraim wrote a commentary on it and the doctrine
of Addi placed it at the apostolic times4
Accordin* to the #eshitta te!t& the +emitic names of people and towns and
localities& in $oth the New and Eld Testaments& a*ree4 The names which
end with 0s1 are retained for the western reader4 In the #eshitta te!t& 9arna$as
is 9arn$a& A$$as is A$$a& #eter is Hepa4 Then a*ain& some of the names
of localities are different $ut older than those in other te!ts4 .or e!ample&
Rakim is used instead of Hadesh& Mathnin instead of 9ashan& Amorah for
GomorahA the error in this instance is due to close similarity $etween %amel
and ain. A town near the city of Gomorah is called Amoriah4 No dou$t& the
pre6e!ile 2e$rew te!ts used these older names4
The late Mar65aco$ ;Gaco$= u*ene Manna& Chaldean Roman Catholic
Metropolitan of Armenia& a distin*uished Aramaic scholar whose writin*s are
in Aramaic& says that the te!t which is called #eshitta is without dispute e"en
earlier than the writin*s which came down from the works of 9ar6@asan& who
was li"in* in the latter part of the second century4 2e also states that the
Aramaic speech in Mesopotamia was richer and purer than the Aramaic
speech of other re*ions4 I t was the richness and the $eauty of this lan*ua*e
which was used as the lin%ua franca $y the three *reat empires in the Near ast
and Middle ast which enriched the n*lish lan*ua*e4 The Greek and )atin
translators made literal translations of the +criptures& keepin* the +emitic
rhythm and sentence structure4
Indeed& the translation of the +criptures into the n*lish lan*ua*e facilitated the
work of later n*lish writers4 The style of +hakespeare& Milton& and 9rownin*
could not ha"e $een what it is without the $eauty of the Hin* Games
translation which was inherited from +emitic lan*ua*es4 This is true also of all
lan*ua*es into which the 9i$le has $een translated4
The +eptua*int is $ased on early 2e$rew manuscripts and not on the later
ones known as the Massoretic& which were made in the Bth to the Oth
centuries4 In other words& there are many similarities $etween the +eptua*int
/(( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
and the #eshitta te!t $ut the former contains ine"ita$le mistranslations which
were due to difficulties in transmittin* 2e$rew or Aramaic thou*ht and
mannerisms of speech into a totally alien ton*ue like Greek4 9ut as has $een
said& such was not the case $etween 9i$lical Aramaic and 9i$lical 2e$rew
which are of the same ori*in4 Gosephus used Aramaic and 2e$rew words
indiscriminately4 Thus& the term 0translatin*1 from 2e$rew into Aramaic or
"ice "ersa is incorrect4 It would $e like one statin* as ha"in* translated the
Fnited +tates Constitution from the #ennsyl"ania lan*ua*e into the n*lish
lan*ua*e or from lower German to hi*her German4 "en $efore the first
capti"ity& I2% 94C4& Gewish kin*s& scri$es& and learned men understood
Aramaic4 2 Hin*s %(J2B4
The Israelites ne"er wrote their sacred literature in any lan*ua*e $ut Aramaic
and 2e$rew& which are sister lan*ua*es4 The +eptua*int was made in the /rd
century& 94C4& for the Ale!andrian Gews4 This "ersion was ne"er officially read
$y the Gews in #alestine who spoke Aramaic and read 2e$rew4 Instead& the
Gewish authorities condemned the work and declared a period of mournin*
$ecause of the defects in the "ersion4 "idently Gesus and his disciples used a
te!t which came from an older 2e$rew ori*inal4 This is apparent $ecause
Gesus7 :uotations from the Eld Testament a*ree with the #eshitta te!t $ut do
not a*ree with the Greek te!t4 .or e!ample& in Gohn %2J8'& the #eshitta Eld
Testament and New Testament a*ree4 This is not all4 Gesus and his disciples
not only could not con"erse in Greek $ut they ne"er heard it spoken4
We $elie"e that the +criptures were concei"ed and inspired $y the 2oly +pirit
and written $y 2e$rew prophets who spoke and wrote& as the 2oly +pirit
mo"ed them& to the people in their days& usin* idioms& similes& para$les and
metaphors in order to con"ey their messa*es4 Moreo"er& these men of God
sacrificed their li"es that the Word of God mi*ht li"e4 The Gewish race
treasured these sacred writin*s as a priceless possession4
Writin* was pre"alent from the earliest days4 The Israelites made more
e!tensi"e use of the instrument of writin* than nei*h$orin* nations such as
the Ammonites& Moa$ites& and other kindred people round a$out them4
Moses wrote the Ten CommandmentsA Goshua wrote on an altar which he
$uilt west of Gordan4 The Israelites were admonished to fasten the
commandments to their foreheads and necks and to write them on their
doorsteps4 "erythin* was written at the time it was re"ealed4 God said to
Moses&
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /(O
0Now therefore write this son* for them& and teach it to the children of IsraelA
and put it into their mouthsA this son* will $e a witness for me a*ainst the
children of Israel41 >eut& 31:11&
0And the )ER@ answered me and said& Write the "ision& and make it plain
upon ta$lets& that he who reads it may understand it clearly41 Aa+& :::&
Thus& the Eld Testament +criptures were written "ery early4
This is also true of the Gospels4 They were written a few years after the
resurrection and some of the portions were written $y Matthew while Gesus
was preachin*4 They were not handed down orally and then written after the
#auline pistles& as some western scholars sayA they were written many years
$efore those pistles4 Ether contemporary Gewish literature was produced at
the same time the Gospels were in circulationJ The Gospels& as well as the
pistles& were written in Aramaic& the lan*ua*e of the Gewish people& $oth in
#alestine and in the Greco6Roman mpire4
Greek was ne"er the lan*ua*e of #alestine4 Gosephus7 $ook on the Gewish
Wars was written in Aramaic4 Gosephus states that e"en thou*h a num$er of
Gews had tried to learn the lan*ua*e of the Greeks& hardly any of them
succeeded4
Gosephus wrote ;82 A4@4=J 0I ha"e also taken a *reat deal of pains to o$tain the
learnin* of the Greeks& and understand the elements of the Greek lan*ua*eA
althou*h I ha"e so accustomed myself to speak our own ton*ue& that I cannot
pronounce Greek with sufficient e!actness4 .or our nation does not encoura*e
those that learn the lan*ua*e of many nations4 En this account& as there ha"e
$een many who ha"e done their endea"ors& with *reat patience& to o$tain this
Greek learnin*& there ha"e yet hardly $een two or three that ha"e succeeded
herein& who were immediately rewarded for their pains41 6ntiCuities SS5
S4 .
Indeed& the teachin* of Greek was for$idden $y Gewish ra$$is4 It was said that it
was $etter for a man to *i"e his child meat of swine than to teach him the
lan*ua*e of the Greeks4
When the Hin* Games translation was made& western scholars had no access to
the ast as we ha"e today4 In the %Bth century& A4@4& the Turkish empire
had e!tended its $orders as far as Kienna4 Ene uropean country after
/O' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
another was fallin* under the impact of the "aliant Turkish army4
urope was almost con:uered4 This is not all4 The reformations and
contro"ersies in the Western Church had destroyed Christian unity4
Moreo"er& the +criptures in Aramaic were unknown in urope4 The only
recourse scholars had was to )atin and to a few portions of Greek manuscripts4
This is clearly seen from the works of rasmus4 9esides& the knowled*e of
Greek was almost lost at this time and Christians were 3ust emer*in* from the
@ark A*es4
Many people ha"e asked why the Hin* Games7 translators did not use the
#eshitta te!t from Aramaic or the +criptures used in the ast4 The
answer isJ there were no contacts $etween ast and West until after the
con:uest of India $y Great 9ritain and the rise of the imperial power of
9ritain in the Near ast& Middle ast& and the .ar ast4 It is a miracle
that the Hin* Games7 translators were a$le to produce such a remarka$le
translation from sources a"aila$le in this dark period of uropean
history4 "en fifty years a*o& the knowled*e of Western scholars relati"e
to the astern +criptures in Aramaic and the Christian Church in the
ast was con3ectural4 Moreo"er& these scholars knew "ery little of the astern
customs and manners in which the 9i$lical literature was nurtured4 Thank
God& today new disco"eries ha"e $een madeA new facts ha"e come to
li*htA new democratic institutions and *o"ernments ha"e $een
esta$lished in the ast4 What in the %Bth and %Ith centuries was "iewed at
a lon* distance now can $e seen face to face4 Today& not only scholars&
ministers& and 9i$le teachers walk on #alestinian soil $ut also thousands of
men and women "isit 9i$lical lands e"ery year4
.or centuries translations from +emitic lan*ua*es ha"e $een su$3ect to
re"ision4 They are& e"en now& su$3ect to re"ision4 This is why there are
so many 9i$le "ersions "aryin* each from the other4 )et us 3ust take one
instance which I consider "ery important4 In the Hin* Games "ersion& we
read in Num$ers 2>J8J
0And the )ER@ said unto Moses& Take all the heads of the people& and han*
them up $efore the )ER@ a*ainst the sun& that the fierce an*er of the )ER@ may $e
turned away from Israel41
The Aramaic readsJ
0And the )ER@ said to Moses& Take all the chiefs of the people and e!pose them
$efore the )ER@ in the dayli*ht that the fierce an*er of the )ER@ may $e turned
away from the children of Israel41
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /O%
+ome noted Greek scholars in recent translations ha"e chan*ed the word
han* to e!ecute& $ut this is not what the ori*inal writer said4 God could
not ha"e told Moses to $ehead or e!ecute all Israelites4 The )ord was an*ry at
the princes of Israel $ecause of the sin of 9aal6peor4 They had $een la! in
enforcin* the law and also *uilty in 3oinin* the sensual 9aal worship4
And in % Corinthians IJ/B and /(& Hin* Games& we readJ
09ut if any man think that he $eha"eth himself uncomely toward his "ir*in& if
she pass the flower of her a*e& and needs so re:uire& let him do what he will&
he sinneth notJ let them marry41 0+o then he that *i"eth her in marria*e doeth
wellA $ut he that *i"eth her not in marria*e doeth $etter41
The Aramaic readsJ
0If any man thinks that he is shamed $y the $eha"ior of his "ir*in dau*hter
$ecause she has passed the marria*e a*e and he has not *i"en her in marria*e and
that he should *i"e her& let him do what he will and he does not sin4 )et her
$e married41 0+o then he who *i"es his "ir*in dau*hter in marria*e does wellA
and he who does not *i"e his "ir*in dau*hter in marria*e does e"en $etter41
+ome of the scholars use 0$etrothed1 instead of 0"ir*in dau*hter41 The
American +tandard Kersion of %O'% correctly used the term 0"ir*in
dau*hter41 Certainly the Hin* Games7 translators would ha"e known the
difference $etween 0"ir*in dau*hter1 and 0$etrothed41 #aul& in this instance&
is referrin* to a "ir*in7s "ow4 Num4 /'J%B4
These discrepancies $etween "arious "ersions ha"e $een the cause of
contentions and di"isions amon* sincere men and women who are earnestly
seekin* to understand the Word of God4 At times& they do not know
what to $elie"e and what not to $elie"e4 They cannot understand why the
+cripture in one place says& 0)o"e your father and mother1 and in another
place admonishes& 02ate your father and mother41 Moreo"er& they are
$ewildered when told that Gesus on the cross cried out& 0My God& my God&
why hast thou forsaken me?1 The Hin* Games says in Gohn %BJ/2& 09ehold&
the hour cometh& yea& is now come& that ye shall $e scattered& e"ery man to
his own& and shall lea"e me aloneJ and yet I am not alone& $ecause the .ather
is with me41 Then a*ain& the Eld Testament in many instances states that
God does not forsake the ri*hteous nor those who trust in him4 Gesus
was the son of God and entrusted his spirit to God4 Gesus could not
ha"e contradicted himself4
/O2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
The #eshitta te!t readsJ 0My God& my God& for this I was spared<1
After all the 9i$le is an astern 9ook& written primarily for the
Israelites& and then for the Gentile world4
When we come to the New Testament& the new Co"enant& we must not for*et
that Christianity *rew out of Gudaism4 The Christian *ospel was another
of God?s messa*es& first to the Gewish people and then to the Gentile
world4 .or se"eral centuries& the Christian mo"ement was directed and
*uided $y the Gews4 All of the apostles and the e"an*elists were Gewish4 These
facts are stron*ly supported $y the *ospels and history4
The #auline pistles were letters written $y #aul to small Christian
con*re*ations in Asia Minor& Greece& and Rome4 These early Christians
were mostly Gews of the dispersion& men and women of 2e$rew ori*in who
had $een lookin* for the comin* of the promised Messiah whose comin* was
predicted $y the 2e$rew prophets who had hailed him as a deli"erer4
At the outset& the Romans were the masters of the world and the Greeks were
not lookin* for a deli"erer to rise up from amon* a people whom they
hated and had crushed4 #aul& on his 3ourneys& always spoke in the Gewish
syna*o*ues4 2is first con"erts were 2e$rews4 Then came Arameans& the
kindred of the 2e$rews& as in the case of Timothy and Titus4 Their fathers
were Aramean and their mothers were Gewish4
Gesus and his disciples spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic& the lan*ua*e
which the early Galileans had $rou*ht from the other side of the ri"er
uphrates4 2 Hin*s %IJ2262>4 Mark tells us in his Gospel& %8JI' that #eter
was e!posed $y his Galilean Aramaic speech4
#aul& in all of his pistles& emphasi,es 2e$rew law& Gewish ordinances and
temple rituals4 2e refers to A$raham& Isaac& and Gaco$ as 0our fathers41 In his
letters and teachin* he appeals to the Gewish people to accept Gesus as the
promised Messiah4 #aul7s mission was first to his own people4 When they
refused to listen to him& he shook his *arment and went out amon* the
Gentiles4 Acts %(JB4 #aul preached the Christian *ospel written in Aramaic4 2is
pistles were written years later when Christianity had spread into +yria and
parts of the Near ast and India4 In other words& the #auline pistles were
letters addressed to the Christian churches already esta$lished4 Moreo"er&
#aul& in nearly all of his pistles& speaks of the 2e$rew fathers&
Appendi! 9 C Introduction to the )amsa 9i$le /O/
su$3u*ation in *ypt& crossin* the Red +ea& eatin* manna& and wanderin*
in the desert4 This pro"es $eyond a dou$t that these letters were written to
mem$ers of the 2e$rew race and not to the Gentile world who knew nothin*
of 2e$rew history and di"ine promises made to them4 The Greeks had
not $een persecuted in *ypt nor did they cross the Red +ea& nor did they eat
manna in the desert4
#aul was educated in Gewish law in Gerusalem4 2e was a mem$er of the Gewish
Council4 2is nati"e lan*ua*e was western Aramaic $ut he ac:uired his
education throu*h 2e$rew and Chaldean or #alestinian Aramaic& the
lan*ua*e spoken in Gudea4 2e defended himself when on trial in his own
ton*ue and not in Greek4 Acts 22J24 #aul was con"erted& healed& and
$apti,ed in @amascus in +yria4 Acts OJ%I&%(4
The pistles were translated into Greek for the use of con"erts who spoke
Greek4 )ater they were translated into )atin and other ton*ues4
I $elie"e that this translation of the 9i$le $ased on the astern te!t of the
+criptures& written in a +emitic ton*ue which for many centuries was the
lin%ua franca of the Near ast and #alestine& will throw considera$le li*ht
on many o$scure passa*es and that it will elucidate many other passa*es
which ha"e lost their meanin* $ecause of mistranslations4
Many church authorities in the Near ast& India& and other parts of Asia ha"e
$een lookin* for a lon* time for a translation of their "enera$le Aramaic te!t
of the +criptures into the n*lish lan*ua*e4 Many of them& despite their
reli*ious differences& ha"e prayed for the translation and pu$lication of
this work so that thousands of educated men and women whose second
lan*ua*e is n*lish mi*ht read the Word of God translated from their
own ancient te!t rather than made from secondary sources4 This is also
true of thousands of educated Moslems who re"ere the #eshitta and look
upon it as the authentic te!t of the +criptures4
All the n*lish speakin* people in Asia will welcome a translation $ased on
what they $elie"e to $e the pure ori*inal sources which ha"e $een carefully
kept all these centuries without the sli*htest modification or re"ision4 I
firmly $elie"e that this work will stren*then the faith in Gesus Christ of
many Christians in the Near ast and .ar ast and enhance missionary
efforts in spreadin* the Word of God to millions of people in Asia4
These were the facts which moti"ated me when I undertook this task& to
/O8 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
which I ha"e de"oted my life4
+ince World War I& when the Aramaic speakin* people were $rou*ht to the
attention of the Western world and some of their ancient $ooks $rou*ht to
America& more facts from the ancient past ha"e come to li*ht4 0he
Iational Aeo%raphic +a%azine5 as well as 9ritish and American newspapers ha"e
touched on the :uestion of the Aramaic speakin* people4 0he Iational
Aeo%raphic +a%azine in an article on +yria and )e$anon& @ecem$er& %O8B& speaks
of Assyrian nurses& newly trained in Christian healin*& who could ha"e
understood The +ermon on the Mount as it left Gesus? lips nearly two thousand
years a*o4 The article also mentions 0he Eour Aospels 6ccordin% to the :astern
Dersion5 translated $y Geor*e M4 )amsa& an Assyrian& from Aramaic into
n*lish& and states that Aramaic is the still li"in* lan*ua*e which Gesus
spoke4
The translator wishes to e!press his sincerest and deepest *ratitude to @r4
Walter @4 .er*uson of Temple Fni"ersity for editorial work& for his
sincere interest in this translation& for his rich knowled*e and
understandin* of the 9i$lical $ack*round& and also for his inspiration and
enthusiasm4 I am also inde$ted to many others for consultation& amon* them
my countrymen& Archdeacon +aul Neesan and the Re"4 Isaac RehanaA also to
a num$er of Gewish scholars4
The translator is also *rateful to the men and women of many
denominations whose *enerous interest and financial help ena$led me to
complete this work4 God only can reward them for their *enerous part in this
work4
I wish also to state that I firmly $elie"e in the 9i$le as the inspired Word of
God4 I $elie"e in the miracles and wonders which God wrou*ht in the past
and which are still demonstrated today4 May the 2oly Word of God *i"e us
faith& wisdom& and understandin* to *rasp the inner meanin* of God7s 2oly
Word and to make us partakers in 2is Hin*dom4 May the $lessin*s of God
rest upon the readers and students of this translation4 May God?s richest
$lessin*s $e upon this country without whose freedom and democratic
institutions& this translation could not ha"e $een made4
0Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a li*ht to my path41 Psalm 111:104&
Appendi! C C Reader Comments /O>
A%%endi6 $ ) Beader
$omments
These comments already show the widespread reach and positi"e work of my
$ooks& in the pre6pu$lication internet edition& and the we$site4 The $ooks
ha"e reached urope& North America& +outh America& Asia& Africa& Eceania
and e"en the heartland of Greek #rimacyJ Greece4 Ene can only wonder what
the properly pu$lished first edition will accomplish4
NoteJ The followin* comments are the hi*hli*hts from the *uest$ook on my
we$site4 If you ha"e somethin* positi"e to say& si*n the *uest$ookA it may
encoura*e others to study the $ook4 5ou may also find yourself in the ne!t
edition of this $ook4
>r& Matthew ancaster7 Australia
@efinitely the $est source for Aramaic primacy
=ar+ara Bounds7 *'A
The $ook is fantastic4 It chan*ed my thou*ht completely around4 I am now
*oin* to *et the Aramaic $i$le in n*lish4 Thank you for your $ook4 God
9less 5ou4
/OB Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
5latunde Aroloye7 Ni#eria
W25 is this an ARGFMNT?
There are people tryin* to co"er up The Truth4
We know who they are and they know who they are4
I ha"e a )amsa #eshitta 9i$le6 the only one I ha"e e"er seen4 The church I *ot
it from Y.ranklin 2all?s .F)) +A)KATIEN C2FRC2Z doesn?t promote it any
more4 They seem to ha"e $ackslidden4
Beverend arin B& ?err7 *'A
)ookin* forward to readin* more of your $ook4 In my $ook you ha"e
credentialsJ 2onesty4 +tudent of God?s Word4 +eeker of truth4 Ac:uired
knowled*e of 9i$lical lan*ua*e and related te!ts4
God $less your continued study and sharin* AN@ your achie"in* a M@
de*ree for an e!citin* future of ministerin* to people in need 66 spiritually
and physically4 My primary physician is a Christian and I am always dou$ly
$lessed when I *o to see him4 5our faith will effect how you minister as an
M@ and your study skills will aid your entire life4 Heep up the *ood work4
The effort is really hard at times $ut it ne"er matches the *reater 3oy that
comes with the learnin* and sharin* in ministry4
?enny $artwri#ht7 *'A
I 3ust downloaded your $ook4 No& this will NET $e a death6threat& rather a:
"ery heartfelt thankyou4 I ha"e thus far read only the first ( pa*es6 the first 8
were particularly fun as that I am similar to you in personality& apparently4 I
ha"e done some writin* to share with friends6 mainly with respect to
Midrashic traditions& or some of the mystical aspects of Gudaism that relate to
5+2FA& and if I did an intro& it would ha"e $een much like yours4 I dou$t
you?ll *et much praise on the intro& so you ha"e mine4 I look foreward to
*ettin* into the $ook6 I ha"e $een readin* some of Games Trimm?s stuff& $ut it
is here a little and there a little& and tou*h for me to compile4 I 3ust *ot a
#eshitta N4T4 with a 2e$rew translation that I am startin* to read& thou*h my
Appendi! C C Reader Comments /OI
2e$rew is intermediate and my Aramaic is 3ust $e*innin*4 I cannot afford
much as far as $ooks *o& and my wife likes to $e sure I know that& so I do "ery
much appreciate the price4 Thankyou "ery much and keep up the *ood work&
knowin* that it is not in "ain<
I $rowsed throu*h more of the $ook and found "ery "alua$le information
and am ea*er to *et to read it thorou*hly4 Thankyou "ery& "ery much
$hi Fai $hun#7 $hina
This $ook is well researched and it is "ery interestin* to see how the Aramaic
clears up many of the 9i$le?s contradictions and makes a lot of thin*s easier to
understand4
(ayne A& 'har%7 *'A
I 3ust finished readin* your well documented $ook& Was the N4T4 Really
Written in Greek4 I must say& you presented your ar*ument in a form that
anyone who uses rational lo*ic could only a*ree4 I think your heart is in the
ri*ht place when you offered your $ook free on the we$& $ut for a scholar& it
does not *i"e the ad"anta*e of ha"in* it in $ook form4 2a"e you considered
ha"in* it pu$lished for the $enefit of those who would like to ha"e it in $ook
form?
Ether than the fact you offered your $ook free to any one interested in
studyin* it P the rational way you put forth your ar*ument& the thin* that
impressed me most was& you said you chan*ed your $elief to suit the 9i$le P
not the $i$le to suit your $elief4 Ether than myself& I ne"er ran across another
student of Christ?s teachin*s with that form of mind4
(im%ie de an#e7 'outh Africa
Than! for all youre dedication in the work for God and his people4
/O( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Bafael $ava#noli7 =ra/il
5our $ook answered se"eral :uestions that I had& and increased my
knowled*e a$out the +criptures4 I had an intuition that the NT was ori*inally
not written in Greek& $ut I didn?t ha"e the proof4 Now I ha"e<<<
Min# i7 $hina
I ha"e downloaded and read your $ook a$out Aramaic primacy4 That is really
an eye opener4 Thank you for your kindness and encoura*ement4
5our $ook is really a $lessin* to me that *i"es a lot of solid e"idences and
"alid reasonin* a$out the ori*inality of the #eshittaD#eshitto Aramaic New
Testament4 I $elie"e this mo"ement is part of God?s restitutions of all thin*s
as prophesi,ed in the scriptures4 #raise the )ord<
=asil Antonatos7 Hreece
2ello Mr4 )ataster
Great 3o$<<
I am Greek and a practicin* Greek Erthodo! Christian and althou*h I?"e
really only $een e!posed to the Greek "ersion of the 9i$le I like to ha"e an
open mind a$out the importance of the Aramaic lan*ua*e to the early
Christian community and the 9i$le4 I do $elie"e that at least most of the new
testament was first penned and preser"ed in Aramaic and that since the near
east at that time was within the hellenistic world& Greek was the first
lan*ua*e after Aramaic that the $i$le was translated into4 It?s too $ad Aramaic
didn?t remain as a litur*ical lan*ua*e at least for the astern Erthodo!
Church4
As a Greek e"en I admit that there are many odd contradictions to the Greek
te!t of the NT4 Mr4 )ataster?s *reat 9ook sheds real li*ht on the Aramaic
lan*ua*e of the NT and our Aramaic speakin* $rethren of the Near ast4
GEE@ )FCH with your $ook4 +hlama and *eia sou4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments /OO
N( Plant7 *'A
I had $een aware of the #eshitta for a num$er of years& and had used it in my
studies as well4 "en thou*h I was aware of the anti:uity of the $ook& I had
no idea that it was considered $y many to $e the ori*inal lan*ua*e of the
New Testament scriptures4 That all chan*ed while searchin* for a copy of the
#eshitta online and stum$lin* across Raphael7s we$site4 What I found there
was a little $ook that would challen*e e"erythin* I had known a$out the
lan*ua*e in which the New Testament was penned4 )ike so many others& I
had always 3ust assumed that the New Testament was written in Greek4 Why
not? I had $een told so $y others for many years& and knew of no opposin*
ar*uments4
Raphael?s $ook set those ar*uments $efore me4 These were not the ar*uments
of a weak position& $ut of a position so stron* that I had to wonder why I had
ne"er $efore heard of Aramaic #eshitta primacy4 Raphael?s $ook compiles
ar*uments for #eshitta primacy& sendin* them out one $y one as solitary
scouts until& $y the closin* chapters& the reader is :uickly aware that these
small scouts ha"e come to*ether into $attalions& marchin* a*ainst the
entrenched walls of traditional assumption4 As with the walls of old Gericho&
the walls of Greek primacy will fall down flat4
This $ook should $e read and seriously considered $y any student of the
scriptures4 Raphael has done an e!cellent 3o$ in his task& and he has done it
for free4 9ein* of poor finances& it does my heart *ood to know that there are
still others in this world who will feed without thou*ht of monetary *ain4
And that is what makes all of the difference4 I am reminded of what is written
in the scroll of Isaiah& 02o& e"ery one that thirsteth& come ye to the waters&
and he that hath no moneyA come ye& $uy& and eatA yea& come& $uy wine and
milk without money and without price41 I am thankful to Raphael for freely
sharin*A may the )ord God reward him *raciously4
Hordon (illiam Men"ins7 $anada
Kictor Ale!ander misleads people& $ut Raphael )ataster leads people toward
a much clearer picture of the New Testament4 Raphael *oes $y Aramaic
scripture to continue the challen*e of presumptions made of this day?s status
8'' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
:uo in a similar way to what Martin )uther had $e*an in the %>''?s ;$y
challen*in* the authenticity and accuracy of the )atin Kul*ate=4 If Martin
)uther had Raphael )ataster?s Aramaic resources& the Reformation perhaps
would ha"e *one a little smoother& and there may ha"e not $een so many
splits and differences in the 9ody of Christ today4 I firmly $elie"e that
Raphael7s work is a unifyin* force not only in the 9ody of Christ& $ut in the
Gudeo6Christian tree4
Carry on Raphael<
Mi"hail Pirlo7 Australia
I ha"e $een usin* your site as part of my research on the Aramaic NT4 Great
to see a fellow Australian conti$utin* to such an important work4
Alfred ,dersheim7 *'A
I?"e $een readin* much of your $ook ?Was The New Testament Really Written
In Greek??& lately4 I want you to know that I?m "ery thankful to you and to
God& that you pro"ided this free resource& to us all4 5our $ook is simply
wonderful& and a Godsend<
>avid >arr7 *'A
Thank you so "ery much for your help in straitenin* out so many of the
words and phrases in the 9i$le from the ori*inal Aramaic te!t4 I started with
0#eshitta for @ummies1 and am now well into 0Was the New Testament
Really Written in Greek?1 and it is o$"iously much more intense in your
findin*s which are "itally helpful in understandin* the true word of God4 I
see so many ad3ustments in the many "ersions of the 9i$le which is "ery
frustratin* to see what man has done to ;in many cases= $end or remo"e
certain thin*s that do not fit into the $eliefs of their denomination4 I use your
We$ site daily for insi*hts from your work and from the offerin*s of #aul
5ounan4 Thank you a*ain for all the hard work and de"otion you ha"e put
into helpin* us understand the Aramaic #eshitta ori*inal te!t4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8'%
Mames =ec"ett7 Af#hanistan
Really *ood one
Bichard Aoe7 *'A
Thanks for pressin* on in your efforts and I do know this& the )ord has
always used the lowly of the human race to see his *lorious work come forth
and it had ne"er $een in the premise of lofty types 6 time and a*ain from
@a"id in ancient Israel to the chosen %24 In the case of the apostle #aul& the
)ord first reduced him nothin*ness& pur*ed his heart and conscience clear
$efore 2e $rou*ht forth the ministry to the human race first to the Gews and
then the rest of the nations444
Messe Hray7 *'A
Thank you for postin* your two $ooks on the #eshittaDAramaic on the we$
free of char*e4 I know that a lot of work went into $oth "olumes& and I pray
that you will recei"e your reward in 2ea"en4 Now I am a stran*e mi! ;or
mess= here4 Catholic for years& a professed Third Erder .ranciscan& ;my wife
and I= ha"e $een usin* the )amsa Aramaic 9i$le for se"eral years4 In fact&
o"er the years I ha"e felt that the astern Church is more likely to ha"e the
truth than Rome4 Thank you a*ain for your kindness4 It would ha"e $een a
lon* time $efore I could afford your $ooks& $ecause althou*h no lon*er a real
.ranciscan& we try to li"e a "ery simple lifestyle4
Marcela 5choa ions7 >>'7 Me6ico
Thank you "ery much for settin* up this "alua$le information for e"eryone4
My deepest appreciation for your *enerosity
Pastor 'te%hen ?in#sley7 *'A
Thank you for the *reat *ift of this we$site4 It will $e of *reat importance to
all who care deeply a$out the New Testament and its ori*ins4 What a *reat
resource<
Heor#e a%ian7 Indonesia
What an ama,in* we$ site< Nicely done< Con*ratulation< We are trully
$lessed $y the contents4
Forrest 'to"stad7 $anada
What you are doin*& for free is really a *ood ser"ice to those who want to
study Aramaic seriously4 I 3ust learned the first three letters ;and of course
num$ers= and am hot on the trail of $ecomin* a fluent Aramaic scholar4
Thank6you for makin* this possi$le4 Really thank6you4 It 3ust makes sense to
me that the first new testament would $e in Aramaic4
,rwin Mohn Il#un7 the Netherlands
With *reat interest I read the Aramaic #eshitta #rimacy for @ummies& also
$ecause I am a mem$er of the +yrian Erthodo! Church of Antioch4 9est
re*ards
Mim Mur%hy7 *'A
Ama,in*4 Wish I could speak Aramaic so I could appreciate the poetry4 I look
forward to selectin* my fa"orite translation4 5our efforts are a testimony to
reincarnation& for surely more than one lifetime has $een needed4 Much
success in your career as a heart sur*eon4 I suspect you are destined to make
$reakthou*hs which will $e tau*ht to others& for how else could you touch
more than one person at a time as you ha"e in your a"ocation?
Ataullah =ashiruddin ''#t PA$AF B''EH'P7 *'A
I7"e recently "isited your we$site and I found it "ery informati"e and
fascinatin*4 I7"e known that Gesus7s ;may peace and $lessin*s $e upon him=
mother ton*ue was Aramaic
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8'/
Princi%al $hief Meffery Mustice7 *'A
+iyo ;Greetin*s=&
I could not understand why my 9i$le would ha"e li& li& la?ma sa$achthani&
and I certainly did not trust the translators4 They could ha"e made a scri$al
error& or e"en a mis6interpretation4 Not to mentionA What lan*ua*e is this
written in? +o that $rou*ht me to $y my first #eshitta 9i$le $y @r4 )amsa
which re"ealed the true meanin* of the word4 5our $ook also $rou*ht to li*ht
certain re"elations a$out Aramaic Idioms& and how they could $e
misunderstood& or not understood at all4 It made me feel *ood to know that
God did not forsake Gesus durin* his time of utmost need& $ut with a 3oyous
"oice of "ictory he criedA #apa< #apa< .or this I was put asideDkeptDsparedD
This is my destiny4
Wado ;Thank 5ou=& Kery much for your $ook
#rincipal Chief Geffery Ro*er Rollin* Thunder Gustice
Wado is Thank 5ou6in CherokeeDTsala*i;Gah6)ah6Gee=
Matthew Price7 New Vealand
I appreciated your layman7s treatment of this issue of the NT ori*ins and the
inclusion of and links to more detailed papers and sites plus the "arious
n*lish translations& all a"aila$le at the click of a mouse& without commercial
interest4 This makes it "ery accessi$le to $e*in the 3ourney into the world of
the renewed co"enant of our Messiah in its nati"e settin*4 Thanks Raphael&
your work is a *reat ministry4
Bahmaneh Meyers7 *'A
2i Raphael& no way you are no$ody& as you are a son of God ;in the Aramaic
sense of e!hi$itin* di"ine :ualities& like *enerosity=4 I a*ree the interest in the
Aramaic #eshitta is e!plodin*& and your contri$ution is part of that
e!pansion4 I ha"e so far 3ust printed out and looked some at the >' pa*e $ook&
and i ha"e much interest to read it carefully4 I certainly admire your
enthusiasm& your intelli*ence& and your dedication4 I ha"e learned what little
I know throu*h $ooks and tapes& and i think dedication of heart and soul is
more important than de*rees4 +o please recycle the Sno$odyS idea and know
that +pirit is flowin* throu*h you and that is *reat<
>r B& Paul $arroll7 *'A
5esterday I accidentally disco"ered the aramaicpeshitta we$site& and am
readin* carefully throu*h your $ook with *reat interest4 Ar*uments $ased on
internal consistency ha"e $een "itally important& as they are in your e!cellent
work4 I am e!pectin* that what you and your associates ha"e accomplished
will $e "ery important to me in completin* my work on the NT4 A*ain& my
compliments on your $ook4
Byan >ooley7 *'A 8com%lete testimonial in A%%endi6 >F
Thanks for assistin* me in my :uest to fi*ure out why there are different
words $etween Greek6$ased "ersions4 2onestly& your work and Andrew
Roth7s work ha"e practically sa"ed me from a$andonin* faith in the 9i$le&
and more importantly& the God of the 9i$le< I was +E sick of lookin* at one
"ersion of the 9i$le& then another& 3ust to find completely different words
$ein* used4
Maco+ (aldro%7 *'A
May 52W2 richly $less you for your *racious *ifts and tools *i"en on this
we$site4 I ha"e lon* prayed a$out the inconsistencies of the Greek4 My .ather
answered many of them yesterday $y )A@ING me to this site4 I was in tears
as I read your words4 Thank you so much for not ro$$in* me of my money4
May the .ather richly $less you in your endea"ors4 I truly $elie"e we will
soon see the raisin* up of your sons o Lion a*ainst your sons o Greece4 Thank
you so much4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8'>
isa 'chneider7 *'A
I?m so thankful to God for your we$site<< I?"e $een searchin* for somethin*
like this for a while4
=aruch =en >aniel7 Israel
I am readin* your paper 0Was the NT really written in Greek?1 9RAKE<<<
This is an e!cellent ser"ice you are pro"idin* to the 2ousehold of .aith& I
ha"e forwarded it to other cha"erim and will make some links to your site
when I ha"e a moment to do so4
What you are doin* is central to the restoration of the Ene True .aith& the
$asis of understandin* 5eshua?s teachin*& e"en the nature of the Hin*dom of
lohim must $e $ased on 2is ori*inal teachin*& in the ori*inal lan*ua*e& I am
"ery $lessed to read your paper4 Todah Ra$$ah<
9aruch 9en @aniel
Gerusalem& Israel
Israel Ivri7 Israel
I recently found your we$site4 I am a Messianic Gew li"in* in Israel and I am
"ery interested to learn a$out Aramaic #rimacy and the #eshitta4 We ha"e
$een tau*ht in all the 9i$le colle*es that the oldest a"aila$le copies of the New
Testament were written in Greek4 There are se"eral pro$lems with usin* a
Greek New Testament as a cornerstone and hence I ha"e ne"er $een a$le to
use it as such4
Herry Jassilatos7 Hreece
I ha"e& with *reat enthusiasm& pursued your #rimacy Articles4 Althou*h I am
of Greek ethnicity& I ha"e reco*ni,ed Aramaic in its potent ori*inality4 .ew of
my church friends can su$mit their pride lon* enou*h to a*ree4
I find myself fallin* in lo"e with Aramaic< 5es& it is the ori*inal lan*ua*e of
the W2E) New Testament4 Ef all the other e:ually remarka$le semantic
8'B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
disco"eries& I find that the sin*le *reatest fact pointin* to Aramaic #rimacy is
the #oetry of our )ord444 a most su$lime and $eautiful reality4 I ha"e found
that this poetic Infrastructure permeates not only A)) of the Gospels444 $ut
A)) of the pistles and the Apocalypse as well4
My hope is that you& and your other scholarly associates continue pressin*
into your research4 It is "ital that the work $rin* a continual flood of
re"elations to the lay population Sout hereS4
Jlado ?ucera7 'lova"ia
.irstly me interest #eshitta in ori*inal lan*ua*e4 Thankyou for your *uidance4
(aldemar Man/en7 =ra/il
Thanks "ery much for this "alua$le work<< I realy appreciated it and will
search more4 It makes a lot of sense4
'te%hen 'mith7 *'A
Thank you for pu$lishin* your work on the we$4 My eyes are opened now4
.or years I?"e read the Greek "ersion of the 9i$le and was ok with it $ut now
that I?"e read the Aramaic "ersion I ha"e a $etter understandin* of what Gesus
was sayin*4 Thum$s up to you4 Heep up the *ood work4
Mohn Aaroon7 Australia
I?m an Assyrian Aramaic speakin* Christian who spent his youth shocked
and saddened $y the western world7s denial of the #eshitta and the
importance of the Aramaic lan*ua*e and astern herita*e of the Church4
Throu*h centuries of persecution we ha"e maintained our lan*ua*e and the
early Church?s teachin*s close to our hearts4 While as a nation we no lon*er
e!ist on the world map and I?"e e"en $een denied and challen*ed $y i*norant
western teachers for e"en callin* myself Assyrian ;$ecause apparently our
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8'I
nation and lan*ua*e are $oth dead<= we ha"e kept this precious and rich
lan*ua*e for the world to hear and study4
)amsa was commissioned $y the #atriarch Mar shai +himon to translate the
#eshitta into multiple lan*ua*es and today we ha"e people redisco"erin* the
Aramaic ori*ins of the 9i$le4 I want to thank you for your efforts in sheddin*
li*ht on the lan*ua*e that God himself spoke& God $less4
?evin Palmer7 New Vealand
What a *reat we$site<< .or some years now I ha"e ar*ued usin* lo*ic that the
NT was not ori*inally written in Greek $ut rather Aramaic or 2e$rew
$ecause that was the lan*ua*e of the Gews4 Why would Matthew or Mark or
Gohn or #aul or #eter or Gude write in Greek when they were writin* in most
cases to Gews?? It 3ust didn?t make sense to me4 It is therefore with *reat 3oy
that I find a we$site such as this with all the e"idence of the ori*inal lan*ua*e
of the NT4
,wan Maceod7 ,n#land
Thanks "ery much for your $ook SWas the NT really written in Greek?S I was
initially "ery skeptical when I downloaded this& and thou*ht it would $e an
article of a few pa*es lon*4 To my ama,ement& I found the $ook e!tremely
con"incin*& with lon* detailed ar*uments and e!amples that I 3ust can?t ar*ue
a*ainst4 I am now con"inced& like you& that the NT was written ori*inally in
Aramaic4
'cott Hlennin#7 *'A
I somehow came across your we$ site shortly there after4 I $e*an to look into
it and once a*ain I feel 3oyous and $eautiful4 My 9i$le has once a*ain $een
*i"en to me4 I ordered )amsa?s paper $ack 9i$le and once I *et it will ha"e it
re$ound4 Thank you for your we$ site& your time and patience in readin* this
len*thy email and stren*thenin* my faith4 May the )ord add $lessin* upon
$lessin* to your life444T2ANH 5EF4
8'( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
(illiam Friend7 Hermany
Thank you so much for all the info online ;Was the New Testament Really
Written in Greek?=4
,#+ert Niero%7 the Netherlands
I like the $ook $ecause it is understanda$le for e"ery serious $i$le student
e"en if they don?t speak 2e$rew or Aramaic and Greek4 It also deepens my
faith in God $ecause it shows the hi*h intellect of the Messiah4 Wouldn?t we
e!pect hi*her than normal intellect if 2e is the +on of God? It shows that hi*h
:uality pro"er$s from the ET are e:ualed in the NT& simply $ecause the
Author is the same4
Meff ,rmoian7 *'A
If you ha"e e"er wondered a$out which 9i$le translation you could put the
most faith in& I encoura*e you to spend the short amount of time it takes to
read this $ook4 Aramaic translations resol"e many of the trou$lesome sayin*s
Christians stru**le with4 The resultin* te!t seems more in character with the
9i$le fi*ures we hope to understand $etter4 I am impressed that many
apparent contradictions are sol"ed in a way that is far less contorted than
many apolo*ist attempts I ha"e seen4
FranpoisK@avier7 France
Gust a few lines to thank you from the $ottom of my heart for your work and
your eyes openin* $ook< I praise and thank the )ord for 2im ha"in* directed
me to your site< +ince I ha"e $een walkin* with 2im ;I *ot sa"ed and recei"ed
the 2oly +pirit on the /D%2D'>=& I?"e $een star"in* for the Truth<
Now I?m happy to ha"e a $etter understandin* of 2is words444 Thanks for
your e!cellent work4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8'O
Bo+ert BataLc/a"7 Ar#entina
I ha"e taken a real interest in the #eshitta4 I think the work you are doin* is
wonderful and God6inspired4 I li"e in southern Ar*entina in the #ata*onian
re*ion of the Andes4 I am %''\ con"inced the ori*inal NT was in Aramaic4
May Mar5ah open the windows of 2ea"en and pour $lessin*s on you and
those close to you a$o"e and $eyond what you could think or ask4
'tefan Hesler7 Finland
I noticed that the last comment came from #ata*onia& so I would like to send
mine from another side of the *lo$e& .inland4 +o you can see how wide an
audience you really ha"e4 I wish to thank you for your *reat 3o$& and for your
free distri$ution to the world4 5ou are not certainly doin* $usiness with this< I
am also "ery *rateful in *ettin* this "alua$le insi*ht into resources otherwise
una"aila$le to laymen4 Also I am inclined to think that at least some parts of
the N4T4 has ori*inally $een written in one?s nati"e lan*ua*e& i4e4 wordplays
are impossi$le to transfer from one lan*ua*e to another4 )ikewise& I could not
ima*ine #eter *oin* to school to study Greek444 May God remem$er your
work<
Mar" ,vanoff7 *'A 8com%lete testimonial in A%%endi6 ,F
I disco"ered your site while $rowsin* throu*h the Internet and was thrilled to
find it4 @r4 Geor*e M4 )amsa was my *reat& *reat uncle and his le*acy is a
lar*e part of my family?s life4 I also wanted to thank you for your hard work
on this su$3ect 6 it can $e "ery disheartenin* when people look at his work as
pseudoscience& so ha"in* people like yourself out there& warms my heart4
5/can Hecer7 Tur"ey
@ear Mr4 )ataster& I support your theory4 5our ar*uments ha"e stron* $asis4
Ef course it is not easy to $reak some constant old acceptations4 As seen in
your work& this lan*ua*e has some clues for comprehendin* the $i$le4 Ene
who is dominant on this lan*ua*e can sol"e some conflicts4
8%' Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
ars ind#ren7 'weden
This $ook is a *reat resource and it?s $road scope and le"el of detail is
impressi"e to say the least4 5ou?"e mana*ed to $rin* to*ether all the
fascinatin* and stunnin* research that is $ein* done in this field and present
it with a narrati"e that makes one want to keep on readin* until the "ery last
pa*e4 The lan*ua*e feels easy enou*h that I $elie"e e"en a person not so well
"ersed in Aramaic easily can follow the many e!amples in the $ook which
lea"es nothin* une!plained4 It is the $est and most comprehensi"e $ook on
Aramaic New Testament primacy that I?"e seen4 I?m "ery thankful that you?"e
decided to share this $ook with the world< May God 9less 5ou<
,ric Jerstee#e7 the Netherlands
I was "ery impressed $y your $ook& and sent it already to other Christians
here in 2olland ;the Netherlands=4
,naam ?rayem7 'yria
I would like to thank you "ery much for the nice free $ook SWas the New
Testament Really Written in Greek?S& that I downloaded from your site& It is
clear that you made *reat effort and search to reach such conclusions and
results& so God $less you4
I finally e!tend my $est re*ards
naam Hrayem
2istory +tudent in the Fni"ersity of @amascus 6 +5RIA
(arren Man7 Aon# ?on#
I 3ust finish readin* your SWas the New Testament Really Written in Greek?S
Man& it opened my eyes& now I found the Greek "ersion of the NT is so
lau*ha$le4 5ou are the man4 God $less you and your work4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8%%
Trula ?ahle7 *'A
@ear Mr4 )ataster& Thank you for this we$site4 I ha"e waited for many years
to find we$sites such as your own in defense of the Aramaic #rimacy and @r4
Geor*e M4 )amsa& my teacher many years a*o4 2e is a "ery precious man and
I lo"e him dearly as the pearls he *a"e me chan*ed my life fore"er4 Thank
you4
Bev& 'teve ,iten andau7 Australia
I was $orn Gewish and after my time in the Australian Army444 Well I $ecame a
Christian Minister4 My dilemma is that as time has passed I am at conflict
with my counterparts444 I ha"e always known that the New Testament was
not written in Greek4 I ha"e to commend you +ir444 .or your *uts and a$ility to
come forth and $rin* the truth finally4
MarLaKeena Nqrhi7 Finland
God $less you a$undantly for your dili*ent search for truth and ministerin*
2is sheep truthfully< This has caused :uite a re"olution in my life and I
consider it a *reat $lessin* from God4
Readin* ?Was the New Testament really Written in Greek?? has filled my
heart with *reat 3oy and I thank God for all the thin*s that it re"eals4 The most
con"incin* part for me has $een the Sinner e"idenceSJ That there is an
e!planation to all those odd sayin*s in the NT that don?t Sfit inS and a$o"e all
T2 9AFT5 E. C2RI+T?+ WER@+4
5ou ha"e done a *reat 3o$ in writin* such an important $ook< I?m sure that
God has called you to do that4
Ale6ia ?atrant/is7 'outh Africa
I thorou*hly en3oyed readin* SWas the New Testament Really Greek?S and
I?m truly *rateful that such a "alua$le resource for #eshitta #rimacy is
a"aila$le in the pu$lic domain& thanks so much and may 52W2 $less you in
all your endea"ors4
+o the NT was ori*inally written in Aramaic4 Well honestly& is that such an
unreasona$le assumption? "eryone a*rees that 5ahshua spoke Aramaic&
historical e"idence ;e*J Gosephus= emphatically declares that Aramaic was the
lan*ua*e of the Gews of %st century Israel& and e"en the Greek NT itself
admits that IT I+ a translation<<<
Aramaic would definitely made up the $ulk of the ori*inal NT and the
#eshitta is our $est resource4 And this comin* from a Greek& mind you<
2owe"er you need to $e aware that the Greek te!ts do ha"e errors& $ut
luckily we ha"e the #eshitta so we need not $e left in confusion any lon*er4
What I especially lo"e a$out the #eshitta is that it preser"es the sacred name&
so there is no dou$t that 5ahshua is 52W2& this is unfortunately lost in the
Greek4 I also found the Crawford mss "ersions of 2 #eter& 2 P Gohn& Gude P
Re"elation eye openin* and "ery helpful for study& and the #eshitta ET is a
fanastic tool for the study of 9i$le prophecy4
And finally Raphael& I want to commend you for your e!cellent #eshitta
#rimacy site& thanks for supplyin* all those free *oodies<
5our sister in Messiah&
Ale!ia Hatrant,is&
+emitic #rimacist P 9i$le #rophecy +tudent&
@ur$an& Repu$lic of +outh Africa4
(adhah Aammadi7 Uemen
I lo"ed the $ook& and I $elie"e in the Aramaic primacy of the New Testament4
5ou confirmed my $elief4 9ut you *i"e me also the proofs4 This is the $est
$ook e"er on the Aramaic primacy4 Thank you so much for your interestin*
$ook& I hope I can read more of your work4
Appendi! C C Reader Comments 8%/
Marlon >C'ou/a7 India
May 52W2 $less all of you and keep you always& for you are a people&
prepared $y 2im& precious to 2im&who ha"e made a"aila$le the truth to
those who hun*er& the truth that has so lon* $een suppressed4 There is no
force that can stop the earnest truth seeker4
>any Baoul7 Australia
.irst I want to praise you for you efforts and followin* throu*h with your
con"ictions4 5ou pro"ided irrefuta$le e"idence and lo*ical reasonin* only the
most i*norant person could i*nore4 There are so many discrepancies in the
Greek $i$le tantamount to the ne*ati"e repercussions4 We wouldn7t of had
half the schismsDdenominationsDcults under the Christian um$rella if we all
studied the #eshitta $i$le4 Christian apostates lo*ically conclude if God?s
word is flawed then so is the author or it was not di"inely inspired rather
mans imperfect writin*s4 I for one am sick of tryin* to co"er up or desperately
e!plain the contradictions& we e"en compromise and stoop to 0there mi*ht $e
errors $ut the messa*e is still there1 which I was ne"er comforta$le with4
It was *reat to read the testimonies especially the fact they were from
Christians all o"er the world4 The funny thin* a$out truth is& no matter how
much deception& co"er ups& static attemptin* to conceal it& truth cannot $e
hidden from a true seeker4
Asim 'addikue7 Pa"istan
I ha"e $een *oin* throu*h the studies at your we$ site& and I am deeply
inspired with all of the teachin*s and studies thereon4 This is such a
wonderful studies you ha"e arran*ed for all the nations& in the lon* run of
your ser"ice for the nations of the all the world4
Appendi! @ C The Aramaic #eshitta +a"es .aiths 8%>
A%%endi6 > ) The Aramaic
Peshitta 'aves Faiths
Why would I drone on and on a$out the #eshitta7s superiority o"er Greek
copies& when I can 3ust let the people e!plain to you how their faiths were
sa"ed?
-Thanks for assistin* me in my :uest to fi*ure out why there are different
words $etween Greek6$ased "ersions4 2onestly& your work and Andrew
Roth7s work ha"e practically sa"ed me from a$andonin* faith in the 9i$le&
and more importantly& the God of the 9i$le< I was +E sick of lookin* at one
"ersion of the 9i$le& then another& 3ust to find completely different words
$ein* used4
2ow am I supposed to *et to know God if I can?t e"en ha"e 2is RA) Word?
+o& my frustration turned to an*er& an*er to ra*e& ra*e to wrath& wrath to
disownin* God4 9ut findin* the #eshitta7s Truth and its specific Truths in
your work& made me 3ust *o SWEW God< I lo"e you so much<<<S It was a
crucial steppin* stone to trustin* God a*ain4 2is Ruach started the whole
thin*& $ut comin* $ack to 2im in Truth was a$solutely "ital& and yes& your
work definitely helped me do that< It 3ust makes sense4
And what I like a$out it is that it is the TRFT2& disco"ered $y you4 .indin*
your work was so e!hilaratin*A it was like disco"erin* a dinosaur of a we$site
$i**er than any pre"iously known< No I am not that *uy whose faith was
sa"ed $y your work from years a*o& $ut it *oes to show you that your work
8%B Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
has the same effect $y the power of the Ruach as it did on that other *uy4 @ue
to errors in the Greek "ersionDs my faith was twaddlin* in the pi*pen& and I
3ust had a $urnin* intuition that the New Testament was written in 2e$rew4
After watchin* the #assion of the Christ& I decided to do a wikipedia search
for Aramaic& and there you and Andrew Roth were<<< I actually *ot
introduced to his work throu*h yours& and so his tremendous help is thanks
also to you<
Anyway& I poured hours into your work& de"ourin* it and feelin* my faith
come ali"e a*ain when readin* how Alaha A$$a 2A@ IN@@ preser"ed
somethin* special for me after all<<<<< It was then that my faith was increased
enou*h to pray a*ain& and praise a*ain& and lo"e 2im a*ain4 +o& thank you
for your la$ors& and yes you can use my testimony& as I know personally how
effecti"e they can $e4 That is one of the first places I looked in your work for
credi$ility4 And seein* some Goe6schmoe from China or Australia *i"e a
personal testimony ran* MFC2 truer to your authenticity than ha"in* a
couple of well6known scholars write up a professional re"iew for you4 Thanks
a*ain for your precise mind and heart into this work& and I look forward to
your completed edition4
Also& my heart *oes out to you& do not $e discoura*ed4 #lease& see how +atan
is attackin* you4 5our work hurts him4 T2 ori*inal 9i$le444 2eck& you
pro$a$ly ha"e a special satanic a*ent workin* a*ainst you<<< 9ut $e of *ood
cheer& your persecution is of ri*hteousness7 sake& $ecause your la$ors are
undou$tedly of the Ruach& and your own spirit tells me that4 I 3ust encoura*e
you to continue li"in* in the li*ht& and it will e"entually $reak throu*h& 3ust
as dawn turns into day< 5ou7"e helped me tremendously& so likewise I will
freely help you all that I can& $y proclaimin* the messa*e of Alaha A$$a7s
Truth4 I?"e already shared your work& freely of course& with a pastor who
lo"es it4
I hea"ily recommend 0Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?1 It
rocked my world<.
Ryan @ooley& F+A
Appendi! @ C The Aramaic #eshitta +a"es .aiths 8%I
-My name is +cott and I would like to thank you "ery much for your we$
site4 It started a few years a*o& *i"e or take4 I was readin* 2 +amuel 2%J%O4 In
the Hin* Games and most other translations today ;after the 2e$rew te!t= will
either add ;% Chron4 2'J> = to this or say Goliath did this4 This mi*ht $e fine
for some& $ut not for me4 The reason for this is I went to 9i$le Colle*e and my
hi*h "iew of +cripture ;+ome people seem to think that it?s the messa*e that
counts& $ut my thou*hts are that if the +cripture is flawed then the messa*e
mi*ht $e too=4
As a result this GRAT)5 shook my faith4 Those days were horri$le4 I ne"er
want to enter a shakin* like that e"er a*ain4 At the time& I had $een a 9orn
A*ain #entecostal %>a years4 Ne!t my friend picked up a $ook Scalled
Mis:uotin* GesusS $y 9art @ hrman& thinkin* he was doin* me a fa"or4 This
once a*ain& looked "ery $leak& for after I read the Introduction444I a*ain $e*an
to feel those feelin*s of $ein* shaken4
I somehow came across your we$ site shortly there after4 I $e*an to look into
it and once a*ain I feel 3oyous and $eautiful4 My 9i$le has once a*ain $een
*i"en to me4 I ordered )amsa?s paper $ack 9i$le and once I *et it will ha"e it
re$ound4
Thank you for your we$ site& your time and patience in readin* this len*thy
email and stren*thenin* my faith4 May the )ord add $lessin* upon $lessin*
to your life444T2ANH 5EF4.
+cott Glennin*& F+A
8%( Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Appendi! C )amsa .amily ndorses This 9ook 8%O
A%%endi6 , ) amsa Family
,ndorses This =oo"
+ince startin* this work I ha"e recei"ed support from many si*nificant fi*ures
and or*ani,ations& includin* #aul 5ounan& Andrew Ga$riel Roth& the
Aramaic 9i$le +ociety& and @r4 )amsa7s familyJ
-@ear Mr4 )ataster&
I disco"ered your site while $rowsin* throu*h the Internet and was thrilled to
find it4 @r4 Geor*e M4 )amsa was my *reat& *reat uncle and his le*acy is a
lar*e part of my family?s life4 I was youn* when he passed away& $ut I still
ha"e actual& "i"id memories of him durin* his last days& which were spent at
my *randmother?s home4
Anyway& I 3ust wanted to drop you a :uick note to let you know that I was
happy to see that his hypothesis was still ali"e4 I also wanted to thank you for
your hard work on this su$3ect 6 it can $e "ery disheartenin* when people
look at his work as pseudoscience& so ha"in* people like yourself out there&
warms my heart4 Take care and please do not hesitate to contact me if you
e"er ha"e a :uestion that I may $e a$le to answer4.
Mark "anof& F+A
Appendi! . C Notes for .uture ditions 82%
A%%endi6 F ) Notes for
Future ,ditions
.uture editions can $e downloaded free from my we$site ;which includes my
other $ooks& the )amsa 9i$le& and numerous 9i$lical manuscripts and tools C
all free= atJ
httpJDDwww4aramaicpeshitta4com
Work on the ne!t edition has already $e*un and may ha"e the followin*
additionsJ
.ormattin* impro"ements4
More internal and e!ternal e"idence4
A section discussin* the lack of real "ariants amon* #eshitta manuscripts
;attested to $y many secular scholars= and a comparison to the many "ariants
in the Greek manuscripts4
A new article to show the many cases where the E+ ali*ns with the Greek
a*ainst the #eshitta& in re*ards to synta!& dispellin* the myth that the E+ is
the 0ori*inal Aramaic1& while the #eshitta is an E+ "ersion& re"ised to ali*n
with the Greek4
Comments4 This will of course $e up to you< Many people ha"e $een helped
$y the information herein4 Ene person e"en sent me a touchin* e6mail ;now
lost=& sayin* that this information sa"ed his faith C he was so sick and tired of
the errorsDcontradictions in the Greek New Testament4 I lo"e to hear such
thin*s4 If you ha"e a similar e!perience& please "isit my we$site
;httpJDDwww4aramaicpeshitta4com= and lea"e a comment ;or e6mail me at
peshittaMenthusiastNhotmail4com=4 @oin* so will persuade others to read the
$ook& helpin* them to e!perience the same $lessin*s you ha"e& and will also
encoura*e the author4
Matthew 4:D3KD8
8/ 5ou ha"e heard that it is said& 9e kind to your friend& and hate your
enemy4
88 9ut I say to you& ove your enemies& $less anyone who curses you& do
*ood to anyone who hates you& and pray for those who carry you away
$y force and persecute you&
8> +o that you may $ecome sons of your .ather who is in hea"en& who causes
his sun to shine upon the *ood and the $ad& and who pours down his rain
upon the 3ust and the un3ust4
D; For if you love only those who love you7 what reward will you haveW >o
not even the %u+licans do the same thin#W
D2 And if you #reet in %eace only your +rothers7 what is it more that you
doW >o not even the %u+licans do the same thin#W
8( Therefore $ecome perfect& 3ust as your .ather in hea"en is perfect4
Pure wisdom&
Appendi! G C A$out Raphael )ataster 82/
A%%endi6 H ) A+out
Ba%hael ataster
My full name is Raphael Christopher )ataster ;also formerly known $y my
An*lici,ed name& Christopher )ancaster=4 I am a financial planner& in"estor&
and re*istered pharmacist4 @o take a moment to "isit my we$sitesJ
httpJDDwww4Raphael)ataster4com 6 Raphael?s official we$site
httpJDDwww4Aramaic#eshitta4com 6 The Aramaic ori*ins of the 9i$le
httpJDDwww4)amsa9i$le4com 6 )amsa 9i$le online

Aramaic Peshitta Primacy - 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aramaic Peshitta Primacy - 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?

Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?

You might also like