HHMI Newsgroup Archives
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
From: jstrimm@home.com
Subject: Hebraic-ARamaic NT Roots 5
Shalom all,
This is part five in a series of installments I am writing to
demonstrate that the NT, like the Tanak, was originally written in
Hebrew and Aramaic and later translated into Greek.
History of the Movement
That the New Testament, like the Old Testament, was
originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic is further verified by the
history of the early believers in Yeshua as the Messiah. The first
believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes".
Sometime later the first Gentile believers in Yeshua
called "Christians" appeared . This first congregation of Gentile
Christians formed in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where some of the
people spoke Greek and almost all spoke Aramaic, which is also
called "Syriac". Then in 70 C.E., there was a mass exodus of the
Nazarenes from their center at Jerusalem to Pella. Eventually, they
established communities in Beroea, Decapolis, Bashanitis and Perea.
These Nazarenes used Hebrew Scriptures and in the fourth century
Jerome traveled to Borea to copy their Hebrew Matthew. As a result,
while at least the book of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, very
early on Aramaic and Greek New Testament books were needed.
The Eastward Spread
In addition to these factors we must also consider the
Eastern spread of Christianity. We have heard much about the so
called "Westward spread of Christianity" but little is written of the
equally profound Eastward movement. While Paul made missionary
journeys from his headquarters in Antioch Syria, into the Western
world, most of the emissaries (apostles) traveled eastward.
Bartholomew traveled eastward through Assyria into Armenia, then back down through Assyria, Babylon, Parthia (Persia) and down into India where he was flayed alive with knives. Thaddeus taught in Edessa (a city of northern Syria) Assyria and Persia, dying a martyr by arrows either in Persia or at Ararat. Thomas taught in Parthia, Persia and India. He was martyred with a spear at Mt. St. Thomas near Madras in India. To this very day a group of Christians in India are called "St. Thomas Christians. Finally Kefa (Peter) traveled to Babylon and even wrote one of his letters from there .
That the emissaries brought Semitic New Testament Scriptures eastward with them is affirmed to us by the Church fathers. Eusebius writes:
Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it is reported hat he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew one of the emissaries, as it is said, had preached, and left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.
And as Jerome writes:
Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there [in India] preached the advent of our
Lord Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew,
which was written in Hebrew letters...
This entire region of the Near East stretching from Israel through Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Persia (Parthia) and down into India, became known as the "Church of the East." At its high point the Church of the East stretched as far east as China! By the fifth and sixth Centuries Christological debates had split the Church of the East into two major factions, Nestorians and Jacobites. Today, the Church of the East has been split into even more groups: Nestorians , Jacobites , Chaldean Roman Catholics, and Maronites. All of whom continue to use an Aramaic New Testament text.
When the Roman Catholic Portuguese invaded India in 1498 they encountered over a hundred churches belonging to the St. Thomas Christians along the coast of Malabar. These St. Thomas Christians, according to tradition, had been there since the first century. They had married clergymen, did not adore images or pray to or through saints, nor did they believe in purgatory. Most importantly they maintained use of the Aramaic New Testament which they claimed had been in use at Antioch .
The Westward Spread
Now while many of the emissaries were spreading the Messianic movement eastward, Paul was taking the movement into the Western world. From his headquarters at Antioch, the capitol of Syria, Paul conducted several missionary journeys into Europe. At this time there came a need for Greek versions of New Testament books.
As time progressed several events occurred which resulted in a great rise of anti-Semitism in the West. This began when the Jews revolted against the Roman Empire in 70 C.E.. A second revolt by Jews in Egypt occurred in 116 C.E.. Things were further complicated by the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 C.E.. In the Roman Empire anti-Semitism became very popular, and even patriotic. In the West, Gentile Christianity sought to distance itself from Judaism and Jewish customs. The Greek text began to be favored over the Semitic text and many Semitic writings were subsequently destroyed.
By 325 C.E. anti-Semitism and the priority given in the West to the Greek Scriptures had solidified. Constantine invaded Rome, making himself emperor. Constantine proclaimed Christianity to be the Catholic (universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman Empire. Before this occurred one could be killed for being a Christian, afterwards one could be killed for not being a "Christian." Constantine, who was an anti-Semite, called the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to standardize Christianity. Jews were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices were officially banned and the Greek translations officially replaced the original Semitic Scriptures.
Having alienated the Jewish Nazarenes in 325 at the Council of Nicea, subsequent councils alienated the Assyrians and Syrians over Christological debates. The Nestorian Assyrians were alienated in 431 C.E. at the Council of Ephesus while the Jacobite Syrians were alienated in 451 C.E. at the Council of Chalcedon. The division between the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and the Roman Catholic Church grew ever steeper.
With the rise of Islam in the Near East the Near Eastern Christians were even further separated from their European counterparts in the West. Relations between the Christian West and the Islamic Near East were non-existent.
As time progressed, in the West the Roman Catholic Church began to suppress the Scriptures in Europe. Those who would try to make the Scriptures available to the common man were often burned alive. Such suppression was impossible in the Near East, where the Scriptures were already in Aramaic, the common language of the people. When the Protestant reformation emerged, claiming the Greek New Testament as the original, it was a time when most Europeans were not even aware that an Aramaic version existed.
In was in this atmosphere, in 1516 that the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was published in Europe. This edition, published by Erasmus, would become known as the Textus Receptus, and serve as the standard Greek text until the 19th Century. The first edition of this work was based solely on six manuscripts, while later editions used only ten. None of these manuscripts were complete, and only one was even particularly old, dating to the tenth century. Since none of his manuscripts were complete, Erasmus was forced to invent many of his Greek portions of Revelation by translating from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. It was this poor edition which served as the evidence by which the West would embrace the Greek as the original. This edition would later serve as the basis for the King James Version.
James Trimm
**************************************************************
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
From: jstrimm@home.com
Subject: Hebraic-Aramaic NT Roots 6
Shalom all,
The following is installment six in my series on the Hebrew and
Aramaic Origin of the New Testament. In this instalment I will seek to show
that the NT is written in very bad Greek but in very good
Hebrew/Aramaic. I will show that the Greek NT is far from inerrant
but is in fact full of errors both grammatical and technical and is
written in a Semitic (Hebraic/Aramaic) grammer and idiom rather than
Greek.
Grammar of the New Testament
It has long been recognized that the New Testament is written in very poor Greek grammar, but very good Semitic grammar. Many sentences are inverted with a verb > noun format characteristic of Semitic languages. Furthermore, there are several occurrences of the redundant "and". A number of scholars have shown in detail the Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New Testament books. (For example: Our Translated Gospels By Charles Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church by Charles Cutler Torrey; An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel by Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels by Frank Zimmerman and Semitisms of the Book of Acts by Max Wilcox)
In addition to the evidence for Semitic grammar imbedded in the Greek New Testament, the fact that serious grammatical errors are found in the Greek New Testament books may be added. Speaking of the Greek of Revelation, Charles Cutler Torrey states that it "...swarms with major offenses against Greek grammar." He calls it "linguistic anarchy", and says, "The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature." Torrey gives ten examples listed below:
1. Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and who is to come" (all nom. case)
2. Rev. 1:15 "His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gender dative case) as in a furnace purified" (Fem. gender sing. no., gen. case)
3. Rev. 11:3 "My witness (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed (accus.) in sackcloth."
4. Rev. 14:14 "I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a Son of Man (accus.) having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown."
5. Rev. 14:19 "He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it into the winepress (fem), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath of God."
6. Rev. 17:4 "A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with unclean things" (accus.)
7. Rev. 19:20 "The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neut.).
8. Rev. 20:2 "And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent (nom.) who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him."
9. Rev. 21:9 "Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.) with the seven last plagues."
10. Rev. 22:5 "They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight (accus.)."
(Documents of the Primitive Church; Charles Cutler Torey; Harper and
Bothers, New York; 1941; p. 156-158)
Mistakes in the Greek New Testament
In addition to grammatical errors in the Greek New Testament, there are also a number of "blunders" in the text which prove that the present Greek text is not inerrant.
One of the mistakes in the Greek New Testament may be found in Matthew 23:35 where Zechariah the son of Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21; b.San. 96; j.Ta'anit 69) mistakenly appears as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1). This error was not to be found in the ancient Hebrew copy which Jerome held. Jerome writes of Hebrew Matthew: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for 'Son of Barachias' I find 'of Joiada' written" (Jerome; Com on Mt. 23:35)
Another mistake in the Greek New Testament is to be found in Matthew 27:9 which quotes Zech. 11:12-13 but falsely credits the quote to Jeremiah . The Shem Tob Hebrew correctly attributes the quote to Zechariah, while the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta) simply attribute the quote to "the prophet."
Yet another apparent mistake in the Greek text of the New Testament is the name "Cainan" in Luke 3:36. In this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding Masoretic genealogies in Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18, 24. (The name does appear in the LXX in Gen. 11:12 but not in the other passages where it would appear if it were a true reading) The Old Syriac does not contain this reading, but reads "Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic genealogy of Gen. 10:22 and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into this family line based on Deut. 25:5-6.
In Mk. 2:26 the Greek NT wrongly informs us that "Abitar" was High Priest at the time King David was given the show bread. In fact Ahimelech the father of Abitar was High Priest at the time (1Sam. 21:1; 22:20). However the Aramaic Old Syriac reading of Mk. 2:26 does not contain this error.
One of the more compelling evidences for the Semitic New Testament may be found in the geneology of Yeshua as given in Matthew 1. There is a well known mistake in the Greek text of this passage. While the text itself claims to give three lists of fourteen names (Mt. 1:17), the Greek text contains only 13 names in the last list:
14 names from Abraham to David:
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esrom
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Boaz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David
14 names from David to the carrying away to Babylon
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Jehosaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezekias
11. Manases
12 Amon
13. Josias
14. Jehonias (carrying away to Babylon)
13 names from carrying away to Babylon to Messiah
1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azur
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Yeshua/Jesus
Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing
Name "Abner" which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet
Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13. In Hebrew and Aramaic "d" and "r" look very
much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a
scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked
back up with the wrong name, thus omitting "Abner" from the list. The
Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked
the name "Abner." There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The
Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century
until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text
has "Aviur" where the Greek has "Aviud" thus catching the error in a
sort of "freeze frame" and demonstrating the reliability of the
reading in the Hebrew.
Semitic Idiomatic Expressions
Another evidence for a Semitic background for the New Testament is the abundance of Semitic idiomatic expressions in the New Testament text. Idiomatic expressions are phrases whose literal meanings are nonsense, but which have special meanings in a particular language. For example, the English phrase "in a pickle" has nothing to do with pickles, but means to be in trouble. When translated into Aramaic it is meaningless.
Several Semitic idiomatic expressions appear in the New Testament, the following are only a few:
"good eye" meaning "generous" and "bad eye" meaning "stingy" (Mt.6:22-23; 20:15; Lk. 11:34)
"bind" meaning "prohibit" and "loose" meaning "permit"
(Mt. 16:19; 18:18)
"destroy the Law" meaning to teach a precept of the Law incorrectly, and "fulfil [the Law]" meaning to teach its precepts correctly (Mt. 5:17).
Use of the word "word" to mean "matter" or "thing" (1Cor. 12:8)
Use of the word "Heaven" as a euphemism for "God" (Mt. 5:3; 21:25, Lk. 15:18; Jn. 3:27)
Idiomatic use of the word "face" (Lk. 9:51-52)
The phrase "cast out your name as evil" (Lk. 6:22) is a poor translation of "cast out your evil name." meaning to defame someone .
"Lay these sayings in your ears" (Lk. 9:44) means to listen carefully.
James Trimm
*********************************************************
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
From: jstrimm@home.com
Subject: Hebraic-Aramaic NT Roots 7
All,
The following is instalment seven in my series on the Hebraic-Aramaic Roots of the New Testament.
The Pauline Epistles
The common wisdom of textual origins has always been that the
Pauline Epistles were first written in Greek. This position is held
by many, despite the fact that two "church fathers" admitted the
Semitic origin of at least one of Paul's Epistles and one (Jerome)
admits to the Semitic origin of most, if not all, of Paul's Epistles.
Still, Paul is generally seen as a Helenist Jew from Tarsus who
Hellenized the Gospel. So strong has this image of Paul been
instilled in Western scholarship that even those who have argued for a
Semitic origin for significant portions of the New Testament have
rarely ventured to challenge the Greek origin of the Pauline Epistles.
For example David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament/Complete Jewish Bible (which is translated from the Greek), admits that "there is good reason to think that several of the books of the New Testament eother were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages..." (CJB p. xxxi) but he then goes on to say "Sha'ul (Paul) whose letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote." (ibid).
In this and future instalments I intend to show that Paul did in fact draw on his native Jewish and Hebraic though forms, including his native languages of Hebrew and Aramaic and that he did NOT write in Greek.
Now in Instalment four we have already quoted some Church Fathers as
indicating that Paul wrote at least some of his material in Hebrew or
Aramaic. In this instalment I intend to reinforce that point and open
the door for the internal evidence for a Hebraic-Aramaic for the
entire NT (including Paul's Letters) which will be presented in future
instalments.
Paul and Tarsus
In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city? Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions on them.
Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3:
I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah. and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key, however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat parallel passage in Acts 7:20-23:
At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was brought up in his father's house for three months. And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...
Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic = ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic = itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di).
Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely born at Tarsus.
Was Paul a Helenist?
The claim that Paul was a Hellenistic is also a misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen, Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever Hellenistic influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first century. The term Hebrew was not used as a genealogical term, but as a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts 6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenistic." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenistic" here are Helenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non-Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a clear contrast is made between Helenists and Hebrews which are clearly non-Helenists. Helenists were not called Hebrews, a term reserved for non-Helenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew" he is claiming to be a non-Helenist, and when he calls himself a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Helenist. This would explain why Paul disputed against the Helenists and why they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus (Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Helenist Jewish population in Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.
Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt
that he was in any way a Helenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee,
the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a
second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek
mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic
expression meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second
or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he
had been raised up as a Helenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed to
Helenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation Pharisee is
further amplified by his claim to have been a student of Gamliel
(Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head of the
school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna states
that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and
modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under
Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian Hermeneutics.
Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first rule of Hillel.
It is an unlikely proposition that a Helenist would have studied under
Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center of Pharisaic Judaism.
The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles
Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed to various congregations in the Diaspora. These congregations were mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians . It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the Diaspora, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England. If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Hebrew or Aramaic to a core group of Jews at each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes:
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! To them first, were committed the Words of God. - Rom. 3:1-2
It is clear that Paul did not write his letters in the native tongues of the cities to which he wrote. Certainly no one would argue for a Latin original of Romans.
One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:
1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)
2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)
All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and
Aramaic Paul would not have written material which he intended to be
read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all
religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal)
authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have
expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority
he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Semitic Style of Paul's Epistles
Another factor which should be considered in determining the origin of the Pauline Epistles is the Semitic style of the text. This Semitic style can be seen through Paul's use of Semitic poetry, Semitic idioms, Hillelian hermeneutics and Semitic terms. These factors neutralize the claim that Paul was a Helenist writing in Greek with Hellenistic ideas and style. Paul's use of Semitic poetry also points to a Semitic background for his epistles. The following are just a few examples of Paul's use of the Semitic poetic device known as parallelism:
Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the Law and make your boast in God, and know his will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law and are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish a teacher of babes which has the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law
You therefore which teach another,
teach you not yourself?
You that proclaim a man should not steal,
do you steal?
You that say a man should not commit adultery,
do you commit adultery?
You that abhor idols,
do you commit blasphemy?
You that makes your boast of the Law,
through breaking the Law, dishonor you God?
(Rom. 2:17-23)
Now there are diversities of gifts,
but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations,
but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations,
but it is the same God which works all in all.
(1Cor. 12:4-6)
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not love, I have become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries
and all knowledge,
and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains,
and have not love,
I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not love,
it profits me nothing.
(1Cor. 13:1-3)
Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion has light with darkness?
and what concord has Messiah with B'lial?
or what part has he that believes with an infidel?
and what agreement has the Temple of God with idols?
(2Cor. 6:14-16a)
Finally, my brothers, be strong in the Lord,
and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God.
that you may be able to stand against the whiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities,
against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Therefore, take unto you the whole armour of God,
that you may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth,
and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the goodnews of
peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith,
wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of
the wicked.
And take up the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God.
(Eph. 6:10-17)
Paul clearly writes using Semitic idiomatic expressions. Paul uses the term "word" to refer to some matter or thing (1Cor. 12:8) Paul also uses the Semitic form of magnification by following a noun with its plural form. This is used in the Tenach (Old Testament) in such terms as "Holy of Holies." Paul uses this idiom in such phrases as "Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5); "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" (1Tim. 6:15).
Paul was born in Tarsus, an Aramaic speaking city, and raised up in Jerusalem as a staunch non-Helenist. He wrote his Epistles to core groups of Jews at various congregations in the Diaspora to hold doctrinal authority and to be used as liturgy. There can be little doubt that he wrote these Epistles in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek.
James Trimm
New Messianic Translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic!
http://www.nazarene.net/hrv
*********************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.