Forums | MacLife

resedit · 2008-11-20 7:59 am

So ... I'm working on a piece of propaganda ... I mean ... a well thought discussion of the synoptic problem, and I came across some interesting evidence that suggest Romans may have actually been written in Aramaic and not Greek. It's not anywhere near conclusive, but it did raise my eyebrows.

My thoughts on the Synoptic problem -

Mathew was clearly written by someone who was intimately familiar with Judaism and Jewish prophecy. It also was written probably to a Jewish audience. Furthermore, it was written by someone who was fairly well schooled at writing as it is a very well structured document.

There is 0 physical evidence for Q, if Q ever existed all evidence of it is gone. There is however some evidence of an Aramaic gospel attribute to Matthew. The evidence actually is a reference to an account by Mathew written in the language of the Hebrews, which could have meant Hebrew but probably was referring to Aramaic.

I think Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.

Know the saying about the Camel fitting through the eye of a needle? Apparently in the written Aramaic script, the word for Camel is extremely close to the word for Rope. I'm not saying Jesus said Rope and not Camel, but I think the illustration of Rope through the eye of a needle make a little more sense, though both get the point across just fine. But Rich and Poor are both monetary measurements at different extremes just like Rope and Thread are same type of object but at different extremes. The Bible should not be altered unless we find an old document that says Rope, but it is an interesting thought.

Anyway - I think Mathew was written first and written in Aramaic. Acts details that fairly early on, the Christians (which were still called the Disciples of Jesus at that time) started spreading their speech to the Greeks. The need for a Greek gospel existed, and Mathew was translated into Greek. Old Aramaic copies of Mathew were probably destroyed during the war, though may have survived and been incorporated into the P e s h i t t a - which is the Syrian translation, in a dialect of Aramaic.

(I have to put spaces into P e s h i t t a or else the filters turn it into smurf)

Matthew as a Greek document was better than nothing, but being an account largely targeting the Jews, it was not ideal for the Greek speaking gentiles, to whom Jewish prophecy and customs did not mean much. According to Acts, Peter went to the Gentiles fairly early, I think Peter commissioned John Mark to write a gospel better suited for them, which he did largely using Matthew as a source. Most of Mark is in Matthew, I think Mark is a condensed "readers digest" version altered to not be as focused on the Jews and to include some of Peter's own experiences and accounts. Mark probably used the Greek version of Matthew as a source, and Peter's testimony as a source.

Luke was written, as it states, to try and give an orderly account of things. Luke was not an eye witness and states he used sources, the proponents of Q like to say he didn't use Mathew because there is no need for Q if Luke used Matthew, but there is absolutely no valid reason to say that Luke didn't use Matthew and there is quite a bit of textual evidence that he did, namely copying fatigue - where he starts off a story in a different way than Mathew using different phrases and details but slips into Matthews details and phrases by the end of the story. There are also literally hundreds of "minor agreements" between Mathew and Luke against Mark - where all three have the same story but Luke and Matthew use identical phrases different than Mark.

Anyway - that's my current model of the Synoptic gospels.
Matthew written first, in Aramaic (possibly Hebrew). Now lost.
Matthew translated to Greek - possibly changes a rope to a camel.
Mark then written in Greek, using Matthew and Peter as sources, written for the purpose of being a gospel for the gentiles who did not know Jewish prophecies, culture, traditions. Mark use Camel in the needle story because of the mis-translation when Matthew translated into Greek.
Luke then written using Matthew, Mark, and interviews as an attempt to make an "orderly" account for Theophilus. Luke use Camel because both Matthew and Mark did.

Of course, Jesus could have also really said Camel. The Talmud apparently has a similar saying about an Elephant and the eye of a needle, but I think that is post Jesus Talmud, so the Elephant / Needle thing in the Talmud may be a Rabbi hearing Camel and Needle after the mis-translation "took" and decided to borrow it for his own object lesson, but went with an Elephant instead of a Camel - I mean, if you are going large land animal, go all the way!

-=-

But - what about Romans?

Here's a verse in Romans that does not make very much sense:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6-8

One would hardly die for a righteous man, yet perhaps for a good man?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Here is the Aramaic script comparison that may clear things up a bit:

It seems possible that a scribe translating it into Greek may have made a mistake - they are very similar, it would be an easy mistake to make, especially if one was tired.

What's really interesting though - the Syrian P e s h i t t a uses "wicked" in that location.
We do not know how the P e s h i t t a came about, I think the oldest copies we have are from the 5th century C.E., so we probably have older Greek copies of Romans, but it wouldn't surprise me if Romans was originally written in Aramaic and translated to Greek for the Gentiles. The translation to Syrian (dialect of Aramaic) may have been a cleaner translation, at least as far as that verse goes.

Anyway - it's just something that made my eyebrows rise, so ... I thought I'd share it.

resedit · 2008-11-20 8:01 am

btw - what's here isn't the "well thought out discussion" - I've only begun the research on that, I probably won't post that here as it will be a long boorish document to those not interested. What's here is just a summary of what's kind of in my mind at the moment.

resedit · 2008-11-20 8:33 am

Well, the Elephant / Needle thing is Babylonian Talmud (Berakoth), so the source I read that said it was later was clearly wrong - I believe Elephants were in Babylon, the NT authors may have been using the largest animal that their audience would be familiar with.

StaticAge · 2008-11-20 8:38 am

Very cool read Res. Personally, I always found the speculation of what language Matthew wrote in interesting, because all the earliest historical accounts say he originally wrote it in Hebrew- Papias, Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius all say so- and his quotes from the rest of the Bible differ in wording from other similar quotes, as if he isnt quoting from the Septuagint, but from the actual Hebrew. Its only modern speculation that Hebrew may likely have been a dead language by then, but I think its a very interesting idea that Matthew wasnt just writing to a limited audience of Jews, but an even more limited audience of devoutly religious Jews who were familiar with the old texts, or that it may even have been a gospel aimed at the scholars of his day possibly as a sort of revolutionary canon aimed at the base of their authority and meant to infect it. Or (what I think) is that perhaps Jews were not so uneducated as some propose them to have been.

The verse from Romans 5:7 I have thought to mean that people wouldnt sacrifice their lives for a person who simply fulfills his obligations out of a sense of duty (δικαιου), but for someone who is also warm, understanding and sympathetic and who really cares about people (αγαθου), they might. But the information about the Syrian smurf is very interesting, I'd like to see what else your research turns up.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-11-20 8:43 am)

daemon · 2008-11-20 9:01 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

Hiro, with the prompting of his Catholic and linguist ex-girlfriend Juanita, begins to unravel the nature of this crisis. It relates back to the mythology of ancient Sumer, which Stephenson describes as speaking a very powerful ur-language. Sumerian is to modern "acquired languages" as binary is to programming languages: it affects the entity (be it human or computer) at a far lower and more basic level than does acquired/programming language. Sumerian is rooted in the brain stem and related to glossolalia, or "speaking in tongues"—a trait most of L. Bob Rife's convertees display. Furthermore, Sumerian culture was ruled and controlled via "me," the human-readable equivalent of software which contains the rules and procedures for various activity (harvests, the baking of bread, etc). The keepers of these important documents were priests referred to as en; some of them, like the god/semi-historical-figure Enki, could write new me, making them the equivalent of programmers or hackers.
As Stephenson describes it, one goddess/semi-historical-figure, Asherah, took it upon herself to create a dangerous biolinguistic virus and infect all peoples with it; this virus was stopped by Enki, who used his skills as a "neurolinguistic hacker" to create an inoculating "nam-shub" that would protect humanity by destroying their ability to use and respond to the Sumerian tongue. This forced the creation of "acquired languages" and gave rise to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel. Unfortunately, Asherah's meta-virus did not disappear entirely, as the "Cult of Asherah" continued to spread it by means of cult prostitutes and infected women breast feeding infants; this weakened form of the virus is compared to herpes simplex and to the way individuals are infected by religion. Furthermore, Rife has been sponsoring archaeological expeditions to the Sumerian city of Eridu, and has found enough information on the Sumerian tongue to reconstruct it and use it to work his will on humanity. He has also found the nam-shub of Enki, which he is protecting at all costs.

StaticAge · 2008-11-20 9:12 am

Snow Crash is a good book.

JakeTheTall · 2008-11-20 9:49 am

Why are these no gospels written by the Jesus Christ ?

ShnickyShnack · 2008-11-20 10:16 am

There were, but he couldn't get a publisher.

mo' ron · 2008-11-20 10:21 am

JakeTheTall wrote:
Why are these no gospels written by the Jesus Christ ?

He was too busy doing blow.

JakeTheTall · 2008-11-20 10:38 am

Was Paul the anti-Christ, then ?

daemon · 2008-11-20 11:41 am

Well, here's another clue for you all; the walrus was Paul.

Glass Onion

sturner · 2008-11-20 12:31 pm

On topic please.

ukimalefu · 2008-11-20 2:16 pm

the Camel fitting through the eye of a needle?

There was a small door, built into a bigger door in one of those bible cities. The small door was known as "the eye of the needle". Or so some people say. It was very difficult for a camel to go trough it, but not impossible. Rich people can be good and go to heaven.

I like that theory.

Also, the texts have been revised over the years. Things may have been omitted or changed. Intentionally or not.

And yeah, there's also the "lost in translation" thing. "Traduttore Traditore".

sturner · 2008-11-20 3:27 pm

Ah yes, the city gate would have large doors, and a small man-sized door in one of them.

Duke Stratosphere · 2008-11-20 4:43 pm

JakeTheTall wrote:
Why are these no gospels written by the Jesus Christ ?

Apparently nothing that he wrote still exists. I did a rather extensive paper on the New Testament in school and I never found any claim that he ever wrote anything. The odds seem pretty good to me that he could probably write, though. They say his brother wrote the Book of James, which is my personal favorite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the Bible there's at least mention of Jesus telling the apostles to write things down... so that kinda counts, doesn't it?

resedit · 2008-11-20 6:32 pm

ukimalefu wrote:
the Camel fitting through the eye of a needle?

There was a small door, built into a bigger door in one of those bible cities. The small door was known as "the eye of the needle". Or so some people say. It was very difficult for a camel to go trough it, but not impossible. Rich people can be good and go to heaven.

I like that theory.

The problem with that theory is that there is no physical evidence it ever existed and that explanation doesn't start showing up in writings about the passage until well over 1000 years after Christ, so it probably is not accurate.

resedit · 2008-11-20 6:34 pm

Duke Stratosphere wrote:
JakeTheTall wrote:
Why are these no gospels written by the Jesus Christ ?
Apparently nothing that he wrote still exists. I did a rather extensive paper on the New Testament in school and I never found any claim that he ever wrote anything. The odds seem pretty good to me that he could probably write, though. They say his brother wrote the Book of James, which is my personal favorite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the Bible there's at least mention of Jesus telling the apostles to write things down... so that kinda counts, doesn't it?

He probably could read given the story of the debate with the teachers in the temple when he was a boy.

There also is the story where he wrote something in the sand.

TB · 2008-11-20 8:27 pm

No Offence, but I always found Luke's "orderliness" over-rated. He couldn't even match up his accounts of Jesus' appearances between the resurrection and the ascension in the end of his gospel and the beginning of Acts. Of course, if he isn't the author of Acts, then there's less of a problem. The synoptic problem is interesting though. As is the problem of whether Paul contradicts James. He does, but maybe we shouldn't rush to conclusions. Paul was always more interesting than the earthly Jesus anyway.

resedit · 2008-11-20 9:15 pm

The style of Luke and Acts is apparently so similar that no one questions they were written by the same person.

I'm not familiar with the problem between Luke and Acts

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

That's all there is for it in Acts.
That is not in contradiction to what is in Luke, it does add some details.
Remember, the author of Luke was not an eye witness to the events, he may not have had those details when he wrote his first letter to Theophilus. So he starts the second letter by filling in those key details, details important to what he was about to write - the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.

Macskeeball · 2008-11-20 10:28 pm

What is Q?

resedit · 2008-11-20 11:01 pm

Macskeeball wrote:
What is Q?

The first letter of a German word that I believe translates as "Source"

The theory is that it is a lost gospel or book of sayings (depending upon who you talk to) that both Mathew and Luke (and some say Thomas) used as a source.

The general theory is that Mark was written first, most liberal scholars date it shortly after 70 AD. They don't know when Q was allegedly written.

Mathew used Q and Mark as a source.
Luke used Q and Mark as a source.
Mathew and Luke had no knowledge of each others gospels.

However, if you allow Luke to have used Matthew as a source, then there is no need for Q to explain the similarities.

Since there is evidence that Luke did use Matthew and no evidence that Luke did not use Matthew, Occam's Razor says until some real evidence for Q exists, the most logical explanation is that Matthew used Mark, Luke used Matthew and Mark, Q never existed.

I think Matthew was written first and in a different language, if Matthew was not written in Aramaic or Hebrew than it was clearly written by someone who spoke Aramaic/Hebrew natively as it carries many aspects of Aramaic into the Greek.

If you speak Aramaic and are writing for an audience that speaks Aramaic (1st century Jews) you are probably going to write in Aramaic. There is some evidence that Greek Matthew drew upon Greek Mark, one possible explanation for that though is that Greek Mark used Aramaic Matthew as a source (which may explain why he starts so many sentences with καὶ) and that when translating Matthew into Greek, Mark was used as a reference. Thus Aramaic Matthew was a source for Greek Mark, and Aramaic Matthew and Greek Mark were sources for Greek Matthew. But that's rather speculatory.

Reference to a work attributed to Matthew in Aramaic (possibly Hebrew) exists, which is more than we have for Q, but no actual fragment has been identified.

I'm hoping someday there will be a major find of early first century church documents that are fairly intact - perhaps in the vicinity of Antioch - but unfortunately, scrolls often deteriorate and don't survive time, and that was the medium they chose to use.

daemon · 2008-11-21 3:27 am

Wow. Conspiracy theory generally has more real evidence in its favor.

Interesting details I did not know. I've actually made it my business to avoid much exposure to this stuff. I suppose a real loathing of the Catholicism I left contributes to that.

As for finding that lost scroll...

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/science_fict … ticle.html

good luck

TB · 2008-11-21 1:56 pm

resedit wrote:
The style of Luke and Acts is apparently so similar that no one questions they were written by the same person.

I'm not familiar with the problem between Luke and Acts

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
That's all there is for it in Acts.
That is not in contradiction to what is in Luke, it does add some details.
Remember, the author of Luke was not an eye witness to the events, he may not have had those details when he wrote his first letter to Theophilus. So he starts the second letter by filling in those key details, details important to what he was about to write - the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.

The post resurrection appearances of Jesus in Luke could be put into a small time frame. It's as if the author of the gospel had taken the immediacy of Mark's gospel and transferred it to this part of his story. The writer of Acts, though, by inserting the words "forty days" has changed the story. You might see this as adding more details; I see this as two slightly different accounts. As you point out, most scholars believe that the same man wrote both works. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, I just think that Luke was more sloppy, inconsistent, or less orderly than some think.

resedit · 2008-11-21 7:54 pm

The post resurrection appearances of Jesus in Luke could be put into a small time frame. It's as if the author of the gospel had taken the immediacy of Mark's gospel and transferred it to this part of his story.

The end of Luke does not demand a time frame smaller than 40 days.
You are inventing a contradiction where there is none.

Last edited by resedit (2008-11-21 7:54 pm)

TB · 2008-11-21 9:27 pm

resedit wrote:
The post resurrection appearances of Jesus in Luke could be put into a small time frame. It's as if the author of the gospel had taken the immediacy of Mark's gospel and transferred it to this part of his story.
The end of Luke does not demand a time frame smaller than 40 days.
You are inventing a contradiction where there is none.

I'm inventing nothing. I'm just a reader taking to task a writer who sets high standards for himself and fails to meet them.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2008-11-20 7:59 am

New Testament Authorship

#2 2008-11-20 8:01 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#3 2008-11-20 8:33 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#4 2008-11-20 8:38 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#5 2008-11-20 9:01 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#6 2008-11-20 9:12 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#7 2008-11-20 9:49 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#8 2008-11-20 10:16 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#9 2008-11-20 10:21 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

JakeTheTall wrote:

#10 2008-11-20 10:38 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#11 2008-11-20 11:41 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#12 2008-11-20 12:31 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#13 2008-11-20 2:16 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#14 2008-11-20 3:27 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#15 2008-11-20 4:43 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

JakeTheTall wrote:

#16 2008-11-20 6:32 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

ukimalefu wrote:

#17 2008-11-20 6:34 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

#18 2008-11-20 8:27 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#19 2008-11-20 9:15 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#20 2008-11-20 10:28 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#21 2008-11-20 11:01 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

Macskeeball wrote:

#22 2008-11-21 3:27 am

Re: New Testament Authorship

#23 2008-11-21 1:56 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

resedit wrote:

#24 2008-11-21 7:54 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

#25 2008-11-21 9:27 pm

Re: New Testament Authorship

resedit wrote:

Board footer