Manuscripts - cristianos

List of New Testament Apocrypha Frisio occidental, frisón occidental (autónimo: Westerlauwersk Frysk), o simplemente frisón (Frysk) es una lengua hablada en su mayoría en la provincia de Frisia en el norte de los Países Bajos. La provincia poseía 643 000 habitantes en 2005, de los que el 94% podían entenderlo, 74% hablarlo, 75% leerlo y 27% escribirlo.[2] [2] «Provinsje Fryslân». Rapportaazje fluchhifking Fryske taal 2007. Consultado el 14 de julio de 2014. The Bible’s main source texts are the Swete Septuagint, the Khabouris Codex (for Aramaic), and the Tischendorf NT (for Greek). So the plan is that eventually, volunteers will use the interlinears we’re creating for these works to perform the proofreading. Apokrife teksten besibbe oan de Bibel Apokrife boeken besibbe oan it Alde Testamint Gebedens: Joazef | Manasse | Salomo Geheime Boeken: Ezechiël | Jeremia Himelfearten: Jesaja | Mozes Iepenbierings: Abraham | Adam | Daniël (Gryksk) | Elía | Ezra (Gryksk) | Ezra (Joadsk) | Mozes | Sedrach | Sefanja | Serûbbabel Psalmen: Lieten foar[...x]

it Sabbatsoffer | Oaden | Psalm 151 | Psalmen 152–155 | Psalmen fan Salomo

Apokrife boeken besibbe oan it Nije Testamint

Berne-evangeeljes: Jakobus | Mattéus | Syrysk | Tomas

Geheime Boeken: Jakobus | Jehannes

Underrjocht: Didachê | Kanons fan de Apostels | Underrjocht fan de Apostels

In the 200 years after Jesus approximately 100 books/letters/writings appeared that claimed to have a connection to Jesus or Christianity.

Nag Hammadi: discovered in 1945 in Egypt: to read these go here

Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Apocalypse of Paul
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Apocryphon (“secret writing”) of James
The Apocryphon of John
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Truth
The Interpretation of Knowledge
Pistis Sophia
Allogenes
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
The Letter of Peter to Philip
Melchizedek
On the Anointing
On the Baptism A
On the Baptism B
On the Eucharist A
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Prayer of Thanksgiving
The Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Silvanus
The Testimony of Truth
The Thought of Norea
The Treatise on the Resurrection
Trimorphic Pretennoia
The Tripartite Tractate
A Valentinian Exposition

Gospel of Judas: to read it go here

Other NT Apocrypha: to read them go here and here

Protoevangelium (Infancy Gospel) of James
Contains the first reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Infancy Gospel of Matthew)
Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
Life of John the Baptist
The Arabic Infancy Gospel of the Savior
The Gospel of Nicodemus: the Acts of Pilate and the Descent of Christ into Hell
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of Matthias
Gospel of the Seventy
Gospel of Thaddaeus
Gospel of the Twelve
Gospel of Mani
Gospel of Apelles
Gospel of Bardesanes
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of the Egyptians
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem (on the Life and Passion of Christ)
The Letter of Pontius Pilate, Which He Wrote to the Roman Emperor, Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ
The Report of Pilate
The Acts of Pilate
The Giving Up of Pilate
The Death of Pilate
The Narrative of Joseph
The Avenging of the Savior
Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Barnabus
Acts of Philip
Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew
Acts of Andrew and Matthias
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Andrew
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Thomas
Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew the Apostle
Acts of the Holy Apostle Thomas: when he went to India
Consummation of Thomas the Apostle
Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew
Acts of the Holy Apostle Thaddaeus
Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian
Revelation of Moses
Revelation of Esdras
Coptic Revelation of Paul
The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary
The Passing of Mary
The Decretals: Letters to different Popes
Memoirs of Edessa and Other Ancient Syrian Documents
- Example, The Teaching of the Apostles, The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome
- Abgar’s letter to Jesus; Answer to Abgar’s letter which Thomas wrote upon the command of Jesus
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
Apocalypse of Thomas
Apocalypse of Stephen
Liturgy of James

Additional NT Apocrypha

Gospel of Barnabas
Epistle of Barnabas

Cristianos 2

Cristianos 1

Αυτός είναι ο σύνδεσμος του Christians 3

The relationship between Mormonism and Freemasonry began early in the life of Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith’s older brother, Hyrum, and possibly his father were Freemasons while the family lived near Palmyra, New York.^[1] In the late 1820s, the western New York region was swept with anti-Masonic fervor.

Nevertheless, by the 1840s, Smith and several prominent Latter Day Saints had become Freemasons and founded a Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo, Illinois on March 15, 1842. Soon after joining Freemasonry, Smith introduced the temple endowment ceremony including a number of symbolic elements that were very similar to those in Freemasonry. Smith remained a Freemason until his death; however, later leaders in the movement have distanced themselves from Freemasonry. In modern times, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has clarified in its Now You Know series that its members may become Freemasons.^[2]

“Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-Day Saints Founders”. freemasonry.bcy.ca. Retrieved 2022-01-25.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Joseph Smith and Masonry | Now You Know, retrieved 2022-01-25

Syriac

Summary

The oldest extant New Testament text appears to be the Syriac Sinaitic a collection of gospels in the Old Syriac textual tradition dated to the 4th century. The oldest extant Old Testament text dates to the 5th century. These are about as old as the earliest Greek texts, and much older than all extant Hebrew texts except for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

New Testament

There are several different Syriac New Testament textual traditions: the Old Syriac (gospels only), the Peshitta (the whole New Testament except 2 Peter, 2&3 John, and Revelation), and the Diatessaron (a gospel harmony).

The Old Syriac: The oldest extant manuscripts of the Old Syriac gospels are the Syriac Sinaitic and the Curetonian Gospels. The Syriac Sinaitic is a palimpsest (that is a text where the original was scraped off and another text written on top) found at St. Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai peninsula (the same location as the more famous Codex Sinaiticus). It has been dated paleographically to the mid to late 4th century. The Curetonian gospels have been dated paleographically to the early 5th century. This tradition is widely believed to date back to the late 2nd century, and appears in the quotations in the writings of St. Ephrem an Eastern church father in the from the 4th century. The writings of St. Ephrem suggest that there were Old Syriac versions of Acts and the letters of Paul, but there are no extant original texts.

Peshitta The textual tradition with the greatest number of manuscripts is the Peshitta, which was the standard text of the Eastern church since at least the early 5th century. The oldest extant text is dated by colophon (that is the scribe wrote the date) to 534 AD. There are several other 6th century texts, some of which may be slightly earlier (e.g. this manuscript).

Diatessaron Sometime between 160 and 175 AD, Tatian made a gospel harmony called the Diatessaron. Although this is not considered canonical now (and was declared heretical in the 5th century) it was the standard version of the gospels used in many eastern churches in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It is unknown whether it was translated from a Greek harmony or written directly in Syriac. Although we have many ancient references to the Diatessaron and quotations of its contents, there are no complete extant texts.

Old Testament

The Peshitta Old Testament was translated directly from Hebrew with some influence from Aramaic commentaries called Targums. This translation is believed to have taken place in roughly the first century AD. The oldest extant manuscript dates to the late 5th century (London, British Library, Add. 14,425).

Many more texts can be found listed here and here.

The Syriac Sinaiticus or Codex Sinaiticus Syriacus (syr^s), known also as the Sinaitic Palimpsest, of Saint Catherine’s Monastery (Sinai, Syr. 30), or Old Syriac Gospels is a late-4th- or early-5th-century manuscript of 179 folios, containing a nearly complete translation of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament into Syriac,^[1] which have been overwritten by a vita (biography) of female saints and martyrs with a date corresponding to AD 697.^[2] This palimpsest is the oldest copy of the Gospels in Syriac, one of two surviving manuscripts (the other being the Curetonian Gospels) that are conventionally dated to before the Peshitta, the standard Syriac translation.^[3]

Bruce M. Metzger (1977), III. The Old Syriac Version, in Bruce M. Metzger (ed.), The Early Versions of the New Testament (Clarendon Press; Oxford), pp. 36–48.
^ Agnes S. Lewis, Select Narratives of Holy Women from the Syro-Antiochene or Sinai Palimpsest as Written Above the Old Syriac Gospels by John the Stylite, or Beth Mari-Qanu in ADD 778 (Studia Sinaitica IX–X; C. J. Clay; London, 1900).
^ Bruce M. Metzger (1977), IV. The Peshitta Syriac Version, in Bruce M. Metzger (ed.), The Early Versions of the New Testament (Clarendon Press; Oxford), pp. 48–63.

Text & Translation in Matthew One

There are several passages in the first chapter of Matthew’s gospel which involve points of principle, either in the textual criticism of the underlying Greek text or in the translation. Passages which relate to the birth of our Lord are of particular importance, and require careful attention. .

2-16: “begat”

In these verses the word “begat” occurs thirty-nine times in the Authorised Version (updated as “begot” in the Revised Authorised Version). The word expresses the act of generating children, with an emphasis on the role of the male parent. In most modern English versions, instead of “Abraham begat Isaac” and “Isaac begat Jacob” etc. we find “Abraham was the father of Isaac…” The reason for this, of course, is that the verb “beget” is no longer in everyday English usage. However, the use of the formula “was the father of” leads to two significant changes of emphasis.

The lesser of these changes is cultural rather than theological. On four occasions Matthew describes a father as begetting a child of or from the mother (Tamar vs.3, Rahab and Ruth vs.S, Uriah’s widow vs.6). However much it may jar upon the sensitivities of feminists, the Greek carries a definite implication that the mother’s role was thought of as instrumental or passive. Having abandoned the word “begat”, the modern versions are obliged to use such phrases as “Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth” (verse 5), thus introducing an equality of parental roles which is not in the original.

More importantly, Matthew distinguishes between the genetic relationship of father to son among Joseph’s ancestors and the non-genetic relationship between Joseph and Jesus. In a legal sense Joseph was the “father” of Jesus (see Luke 2.48), but he did not in any sense beget Him. This vital distinction becomes less clear in the modern versions.

16: “Mary, of whom was born Jesus”

The true parentage of Jesus is radically questioned by a heretical reading in the Sinai tic Syriac version (5th century), which has “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ”. Although this variant is not found in a single Greek manuscript, it nevertheless found its way into the English translation of James Moffatt and appeared in the footnotes of the Revised Standard Version (removed again in 1971) and of the New English Bible. H.F. von Soden translated this verse from Syriac into Greek and adopted it for his edition of the Greek New Testament published in 1913.

Comparison with Luke 2.33,43

This defective treatment of the virgin birth is continued by the Sinaitic Syriac at Matthew 1.21 (she shall bear to thee a son) and 1.25 (omission of “knew her not” and substitution of “bore to him a son” for “brought forth her firstborn son”). It is of no surprise subsequently to find that this Syriac manuscript favours the reading “His mother and father” in Luke 2.33 and “His parents” in Luke 2.43 (instead of “Joseph and His mother” in each case), which is also found in the Greek uncial codices Aleph B D L W and the Latin Vulgate. Although the use of the word “parents” is not heretical in itself (see Luke 2.27 and 41), a change of wording in this direction may reflect an unsound view of the virgin birth.

Some textual critics suggest, on the contrary, that the majority reading of the manuscripts- “Joseph and His mother” – was originally invented by pious copyists in order to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth (B.M. Metzger ed. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, pp. 134-5). If this was the motive of the copyists, however, it is curious that such alterations should have been so successful in verses 33 and 43 (where practically all manuscripts read “Joseph and His mother”) , but so unsuccessful in verses 27, 41 and 48 (where most manuscripts read “parents” or “father”). Textual critics are at a loss to explain this strange inconsistency to which their theory leads them.

If, on the other hand, a few early copyists or editors with heretical views wished to make Luke consistently portray Joseph as being the natural father of Jesus, they might well seek to alter the wording of verses 33 and 43 of Luke chapter 2. The same motivations which produced the heretical Syriac readings in Matthew 1.16, 21 and 25, may well have produced a similarly defective text in the few Greek manuscripts which agree with the Sinaitic Syriac in Luke 2.33 and 43, and in turn influenced the Latin Vulgate. Under Vulgate influence the same error was committed in the 16th century by Erasmus, Luther and Tyndale, but was in due course corrected by Stephanus, Beza, the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version.

In the present century the desire of textual critics to safeguard the reputation of codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B), and to preserve the “established” critical theory, has diverted attention from the unsound theological tendencies with which these sources are associated. It is regrettable that in these two verses of Luke most modern versions have unquestioningly followed such sources, without so much as a footnote to indicate that the majority of the Greek manuscripts, combined with a range of versional evidence from the 2nd to 4th centuries, testify to the reading “Joseph and His mother”.

25: “her firstborn son”

The word “firstborn” is, among other things, a confirmation that Mary had no other children before Jesus, thus corroborating the virgin birth. However, the word is omitted in eight Greek manuscripts, most critical editions and modern versions. The authorities for omission include the 4th century codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, supported by some Syriac, old Latin and Coptic evidence. In the view of many textual critics the word was added later, harmonising the text with Luke 2.7.

The documents which attest the genuineness of “firstborn” include a wide variety of 4th century patristic writings, the Peshitta Syriac, the Latin Vulgate and several other early versions, three Greek manuscripts from the 5th century (CD W) and practically all other manuscripts up to the 15th century, some hundreds in total. The suggestion that this reading arose from a tendency to “harmonise” is not an adequate explanation of this wide consensus of documents.

If anything, the motivation for altering this verse headed in a quite opposite direction. Some early church writers with ascetic tendencies were convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary (a Catholic doctrine), and that after Jesus she bore no further children. Other writers tried to use the word “firstborn” to prove that there must have been subsequent children. This was a matter of vigorous debate between Jerome and Helvidius in the 4th century. It is easy to see that some copyists who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity might have been tempted to leave out the inconvenient “firstborn”.

A convincing illustration of this particular theological motive is found in the Curetonian Syriac version of the 5th century. In the first chapter of Matthew this version twice omits a reference to Joseph as Mary’s husband (verse 16 and 19) and twice omits a reference to Mary as Joseph’s wife (verse 20 and 24), as well as omitting “firstborn” in verse 25. C.H. Wailer made the following remarks on this subject:

“The absolute omission from the Curetonian Syriac of all mention of Joseph as Mary’s husband, or of Mary as his wife is very remarkable … the feeling in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity on the mind of the translator of the Curetonian Syriac was so strong as to draw him to four distinct and separate omissions, in which he stands unsupported by any authority …

“I do not see how anyone can deny that here we have emendations of the most deliberate and peculiar kind. Nor is there any family of earlier readings which contains them, or to which they can be referred. The fact that the Curetonian text has some readings in common with the so-called Western family of text is not sufficient to justify us in accounting for such vagaries as this. It is indeed a ‘Western’ superstition which has exalted the virgin Mary into a sphere beyond the level of all that rejoice in God her Saviour. But the question here suggested is whether this way of regarding the matter is truly ancient; and whether the manuscript of an ancient version which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page is worthy to be set above the common Peshitta] version which is palpably its basis. In the first sentence of the Preface, Dr. Cure ton [the editor of this Syriac manuscript] states that it was obtained from a Syrian monastery dedicated to St. Mary Deipara [“Mary the Mother of God”]. I cannot but wonder whether it never occurred to him that the cultus of the Deipara, and the taste which it indicates, may partly explain why a manuscript of a certain character and bias was ultimately domiciled there. (Appendix VI of J .W. Burgon and E . Miller The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 1896, pp.295-6).

It is hardly surprising to find that theologically motivated changes of the kind exhibited in the Curetonian Syriac crept into a few Greek manuscripts. What is astonishing is that some of these minority variants, which were excluded from church usage over a period of at least 1,500 years, have been reintroduced into nearly every modern edition and translation of the New Testament, without question or footnote. Few users of a professedly evangelical translation such as the New International Version are aware that at Matthew 1.25 they are using a form of text which was probably produced by early scribes or theologians deliberately to enhance the invented dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

6: “the king” (2nd occurrence)

A less harmful alteration of the text is the omission by modem editors and translators of the second occurrence of “the king”, as the title of David. A 3rd century papyrus and codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, accompanied by the usual small group of later manuscripts and the Syriac and Coptic versions and some Latin evidence, omit the words. In two 5th century manuscripts (C W) and the vast majority of other Greek manuscripts, as well as most of the Latin evidence and two other early versions, the words are retained. The omission should probably be interpreted in terms of the known Alexandrian tendency to abbreviate and economise by eliminating “redundant” vocabulary. Matthew’s purpose in repeating “the king” may have been to mark the beginning of the second series of fourteen generations in his genealogical scheme.

7-8: “Asa”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Asaph” instead of “Asa”. From the Old Testament it is known that Asa was one of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 15.9-24; 2 Chronicles 14-16), whereas Asaph was the chief of David’s singers. Clearly the latter has no rightful place in the royal genealogy of Christ. The United Bible Societies’ Textual Commentary, edited by Metzger, suggests that Asaph was Matthew’s original spelling and that this was an error which Matthew derived from his source documents. Metzger explains the prevalence of Asa in the later manuscripts as resulting from a scribal tendency to correct such an error by reference to the Old Testament spelling.

It is striking that the first page of this textual handbook, which the United Bible Societies recommend for the use of Bible students and translators, thus contains a denial of the inerrancy of the gospel account. They inform us that the textual evidence for Asaph is “very strong”, consisting of the Alexandrian uncial manuscripts Aleph B C, eight “Caesarean” minuscule manuscripts, and early versions in Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Latin. However, the Bible student or translator who has a high view of the inerrancy of Scripture will draw the opposite conclusion about the relative strength of this evidence. Because he knows that Asaph is a historical error, he will question the authority of the manuscripts which exhibit that error. He will conclude that the combination of “Alexandrian” and “Caesarean” manuscripts with a variety of early versions is not to be trusted, and will prefer to rely on the evidence of the majority of manuscripts from the 5th century onwards (which also happen to be supported here by early Syriac and Latin evidence).

Burgon sums it up as a “preposterous notion, that ‘Asa’ was written Asaph by the Evangelist -in conformity with six [now eleven] manuscripts of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability” (The Revision Revised, 1883, p. 187).

“Asaph” has not been adopted by the main modem English translations, but it appears as a footnote in the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Such a note in effect questions the accuracy of Matthew’s account.

6: “the king” (2nd occurrence)

7-8: “Asa”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Asaph” instead of “Asa”. From the Old Testament it is known that Asa was one of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 15.9-24; 2 Chronicles 14-16), whereas Asaph was the chief of David’s singers. Clearly the latter has no rightful place in the royal genealogy of Christ. The United Bible Societies’ Textual Commentary, edited by Metzger, suggests that Asaph was Matthew’s original spelling and that this was an error which Matthew derived from his source documents. Metzger explains the prevalence of Asa in the later manuscripts as resulting from a scribal tendency to correct such an error by reference to the Old Testament spelling.

It is striking that the first page of this textual handbook, which the United Bible Societies recommend for the use of Bible students and translators, thus contains a denial of the inerrancy of the gospel account. They inform us that the textual evidence for Asaph is “very strong”, consisting of the Alexandrian uncial manuscripts Aleph B C, eight “Caesarean” minuscule manuscripts, and early versions in Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Latin. However, the Bible student or translator who has a high view of the in errancy of Scripture will draw the opposite conclusion about the relative strength of this evidence. Because he knows that Asaph is a historical error, he will question the authority of the manuscripts which exhibit that error. He will conclude that the combination of “Alexandrian” and “Caesarean” manuscripts with a variety of early versions is not to be trusted, and will prefer to rely on the evidence of the majority of manuscripts from the 5th century onwards (which also happen to be supported here by early Syriac and Latin evidence).

Burgon sums it up as a “preposterous notion, that ‘Asa’ was written Asaph by the Evangelist – in conformity with six [now eleven] manuscripts of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability” (The Revision Revised, 1883, p .187). “Asaph” has not been adopted by the main modem English translations, but it appears as a footnote in the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible. Such a note in effect questions the accuracy of Matthew’s account.

10: “Amon”

Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament have “Amos” instead of “Amon”. However, whereas Amon was among the kings of Judah, Amos was a prophet and not in the royal lineage. The editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament here follow similar evidence to that which supports Asaph in verses 7-8. They were “impressed by the weight” of the evidence for Amos, which they regard as being Matthew’s original text but which they simultaneously describe as an “error”. Those who believe in the accuracy of Scripture will, on the contrary, again conclude that the manuscripts cited should not be regarded as a reliable basis for the New Testament text. The sceptical tendency of modern editors and translators has resulted in the adoption of “Amos” into the text of the Revised Standard Version and the Translators’ New Testament (UBS, 1973), and into the footnotes of the Revised Version and New American Standard Bible.

11: “Jechonias”

An apparent gap in Matthew’s genealogy has long been discerned by commentators, relating to Jehoiakim who was the son of Josiah and the father of Jechonias. Various solutions have been proposed, including the suggestion that a sentence has fallen out of the original text of Matthew. Although there is no mention of Jehoiakim in most of the manuscripts, there are about a hundred manuscripts which have “Josiah begat Jehoiakim and Jehoiakim begat Jechonias” supported by the Harcleian Syriac and Georgian versions, the Diatessaron and several early fathers. In the 16th century, Colinaeus included this clause in his Greek New Testament edition of 1534, and Stephanus’ edition of 1550 cited one manuscript as having this reading. Beza included it in his Latin New Testaments of 1556 and 1565 and his Greek octavo editions of 1567-90. The first English version to include this clause was the Whittingham New Testament of 1557, relying on Beza, and was followed by the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568. It was relegated to the margin of the later editions of the Bishops’ Bible, from which it found its way into the margin of the 1611 Authorised Version.

In spite of this interesting variety of authorities for the extra clause, there is good reason to believe that it resulted from a deliberate harmonisation by a minority of copyists who mistakenly thought that Matthew intended to give a complete genealogy. It is evident that Matthew (or his source documents) deliberately imposed a pattern of three series of fourteen generations, and several genealogical steps were intentionally left out. Proof of this is found in verse 8, in particular, where the names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are left out between Joram and Ozias, as can easily be seen by comparison with 1 Chronicles 3.11-12. It is most instructive to find that, not perceiving Matthew’s careful symmetrical scheme, the Curetonian Syriac and Ethiopic versions reinserted these names in verse 8. It is highly likely that a similar harmonising tendency resulted in the insertion of Jehoiakim in verse 11 by a number of manuscripts. We can be confident that in this passage the Authorised Version has correctly preserved Matthew’s inspired wording in the text, while the reading in the margin is a respectable but less authoritative variant.

Matt. i. 1 6. “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.” This remarkable reading is in flagrant contradiction to the statements in V. 1 8, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost,” and in v. 20, “that which is begotten from her is of the Holy Ghost.” It may possibly have resulted, as Professor Burkitt thinks, from a mis-reading of the Ferrar text : —
^laKOijS Be eyivvrjaev rov ^Icoarj^, O) fivijarevdeiaa irapdtvo’; MapLa/j, eyevvrjaev
^Irjaovv Tov \€<y6/J,€vov XpicrTov.
But even if it did so, it does not destroy the effect of the story told in vv. 18-24.
On the first publication of this text, and even before it, several critics of the highest rank, including Dr. Rendel Harris, declared that this passage (Matt. i. 16) must be the work of a heretic. I agree with Mr. Conybeare in
thinking that such an one, had he made a change in the Ebionistic sense, would
have gone further, and made a clean sweep of vv. 19, 20.* THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS OR EVANGELION DA-MEPHARRESH£ ; BEING THE TEXT OF THE SINAI OR SYRO-ANTIOCHENE PALIMPSEST, INCLUDING THE LATEST ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS, WITH THE VARIANTS OF THE CURETONIAN TEXT, CORROBORATIONS FROM MANY OTHER MSS., AND A LIST OF QUOTATIONS FROM ANCIENT A UTHORS. EDITED BY AGNES SMITH LEWIS, Hon. D.D. (Heidelberg), LL.D. (St. Andrew’s), Ph.D. (Halle-Wittemberg). WITH FOUR FACSIMILES. LONDON: WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. M C M X.

Languages of the Christian Era books

Christ and Samaritan woman, by Henryk Siemiradzki, 1890

Our translation is based on the assumption that most Christian Era books (the ‘New Testament’) were originally written in Aramaic, with only Mark, Luke, and Acts being originally in Greek. This page explains why, and how it affects our Bible text.

We are not dogmatic about this; we may be wrong. However, we’re performing a public service by publishing a New Testament based on the possibility that much of it was originally in Aramaic. How so?

Despite what some claim, it’s very hard to prove that Greek was the only language used to write the New Testament (see below). Among us translators (at least in the West), we merely assume that it was all originally Greek. Meanwhile, in the Eastern churches, they have always assumed that it was originally in Aramaic!

Our translation was originally based on the Greek texts, but where the Aramaic and Greek differ, we now give priority to the Aramaic (except in Mark, Luke, and Acts). We then mark the difference with the symbol [Syr] and sometimes with translator notes, too (as of May 2023, these changes from the Aramaic are still being added).

You, the reader, can then decide if the Aramaic makes more sense. If Aramaic really were the original language of these books, then our translation would become more accurate by deferring to the Aramaic manuscripts.

Surely this concept is worth exploring, even if it later turns out to be wrong. The question is not, what if we’re wrong? The question should be, what if we’re right? For if we’re wrong, then we have a single Bible translation (out of 450 or more in English) with inaccuracies and errors from the Aramaic. Big deal. Yet if we are right, then there are dozens of English Bible translations with errors from the Greek, composed of billions of printed copies, misleading billions of people.

Exploring the possibility that the Christian Era books were originally in Aramaic (except Mark, Luke, and Acts), is, therefore, an important public service.

Arguments for Aramaic

First, the NT itself says that many ordinary Jews were “Hebrew” speaking (likely meaning the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic) in contrast to those described as “Greek-speaking”. This shows that Aramaic was the native language of many ordinary people.

Also, consider phrases directly describing ordinary people speaking “Hebrew”. Acts 6:1 says:

…the Greek-speaking Jews started grumbling about the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution.

The Jews are also referred to as Hebrew-speaking in Acts 9:29 and Acts 11:20.

Further, the Greek texts quote Aramaic words (such as the expressions of Jesus) and then tell you what they mean. This indicates that at least people’s speech had to be translated from Aramaic into Greek. Yet it never happens the other way around. There are no portions of the Aramaic NT that have to stop and explain Greek terms.

Second, we have ancient testimony from the ancient writer Irenaeus. He reports that Matthew was originally written in the dialect of the Hebrews, which, at that time, was Aramaic. This is later repeated by Jerome. Indeed, many scholars now do believe that at least Matthew was originally penned in Aramaic if none else.

Third, both the ancient historian Josephus and modern historians tell us that the common language in 1st century Palestine, especially Judea, was Aramaic (sometimes called Syrian or Chaldee). Josephus tells us that it was not only rare for a Judean to have knowledge of Greek ways, but people were hostile to it. But could this include speaking Greek?

Well, another ancient writer, Eusebius of Caesarea, describes himself imagining the Apostles talking to Jesus and saying, ‘We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only [that is, Aramaic].’

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Jesus’ disciples spoke Aramaic. So, could they have used it to write parts of the New Testament too? Perhaps!

Fourth, the tradition of the Eastern Churches is that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. Traditions can be wrong, of course (even our position is that Mark, Luke, and Acts were probably penned in Greek), but the fact that tens of millions of Christians believed such a thing, over many centuries, tells us that we should seriously consider it. They also have no historical records of their Bible ever being translated from another language. A few books (e.g. Revelation) are known to be translated from Greek in the 7th century – but some believe that even those books were originally penned in Aramaic and that the original copies were lost (however, the Crawford Codex may contain some of the original Aramaic text).

Fifth, experts in the ancient languages tell us that the Greek NT text shows clear signs of Aramaic influence. Semitic phrasing dots the entire NT. This could be from the writer being a native Aramaic speaker, and letting his native tongue ‘leak’ into his Greek. Or, it could easily be the sign of a translation from an Aramaic original into Greek.

Sixth, several textual variants and weird errors and contradictions in the Greek text can be explained by looking at the Aramaic. For example, consider split words. What are they?

A split word occurs when some Greek manuscripts use one word in a verse, but other Greek manuscripts use a completely different word in the same verse. The difference seems like a mysterious error with no explanation – until you realize that the Aramaic word can mean both things! This shows that the two Greek versions were two different translations from a single Aramaic original. One of the translators just got it wrong, while the other did not.

For example, 1 Peter 3:13 in some Greek manuscripts says:

• ‘imitators’ (μιμηταί – mimetai)

However, others say:

• ‘zealots’ (ζηλωταὶ – zelotai)

These are two completely different words. However, the Aramaic word, ܛܢܢܐ (tananeh) can mean both!

It seems that the verse was written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek in two different places by two different people, but the two translators interpreted it differently, producing two different versions.

Another example is in Revelation 22:13. About half of Greek manuscripts say, ‘the first and the last, and the beginning and the end’. However, the other manuscripts put the expression the other way around! This may be explained if the original was in Aramaic, since the word for first and beginning is the same, and the word for last and end is the same word, only differing by the reader adding their own vowels. It could easily be that one Greek translator did it one way, and another translator did it the other way.

Finally, consider the ‘mystery quote’ in 2 Timothy 2:19. Paul uses two quotes, but nobody has been able to work out the origin of the second quote. However, if you look at the Aramaic version of those words closely, it’s obvious that he’s quoting from Joel. See the translator note. The problem may have been caused by a word that has two meanings in Aramaic. It seems that the Greek translator chose the wrong meaning, creating a puzzle.

Further reasons:

There are many other reasons to suspect that most of the NT was in Aramaic. Many are outlined in the following books:

Peshitta Aramaic New Testament Evidences of Originality by Rev. David Bauscher.
New Testament Origin by George M Lamsa (out of copyright).
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? compiled by Raphael Lataster (free).
There is also much information from Paul D Younan at peshitta.org.

Note that we’re not endorsing all the arguments presented in the above sources. Some seem to be unlikely, or even incorrect. But that’s okay. Peshitta Primacists may have made a few ‘false positives’ (in our opinion), but that’s alright.

Objections to Aramaic being used to write the New Testament

“Greek was the international language at that time”

Yes, it was. However, it does not follow that all of the NT was therefore created in Greek. We can see this from looking at English, the international language of today.

While almost everyone in Wales, Ireland, and Denmark can speak English, people in those countries still produce books, poems, songs, and videos in their local languages. These works are only translated into English if they are successful. Could it not have been the same in ancient times with Aramaic and Greek?

One could also say that Aramaic was the ‘international language’ of the east, being spoken from Judah in the south, up to Syria, and across to Babylon. So actually, Aramaic is also an international language. There were, in fact, three at the time: Latin for the wider Roman Empire, Greek for the areas previously under Greek domination, and Aramaic across the entire Near East.

Also, many of the Christian letters could easily have been translated into Greek immediately. When a congregation received one of Paul’s letters, for example, the local congregation secretary (possibly called the messenger) may have translated it for those who didn’t understand Aramaic (such as Gentile converts).

“The language of the region was Greek”

Only Greek? While Greek was certainly spoken, there is much evidence that the common folk likely continued to speak Aramaic. We have ancient writers telling us that Aramaic was spoken, and we have gravestones and other engravings in Aramaic.

Also, consider that if everyone had dumped Aramaic and switched to speaking Greek, how it would have been rather remarkable, as no other invaders achieved it.

While the Greeks ruled Palestine for 300 years, the Romans ruled it for 600 years and failed to establish Latin. Then in AD 650, the Arabs conquered the area and introduced Arabic, but it didn’t displace Aramaic for centuries, and it seems to have occurred mostly by immigration. Later, the Turks arrived, ruled for 700 years, and failed to establish Turkish. Finally, in 1918 the British took over, but English never became a native language.

Further, the Church of the East survives to our day speaking Aramaic. If their ancestors had converted to Greek, then we must ask why the Church of the East doesn’t speak Greek today. It would make sense if the common people never switched to Greek, or were mostly bilingual and kept using Aramaic when talking among themselves.

“Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Greek Septuagint”

Actually, we don’t know that they did. Their quotes from the Jewish scriptures match the Greek Septuagint about 90% of the time. Therefore, it could be that when the translators turned the original Aramaic books into Greek, they just copied the verses word-for-word from the Greek Septuagint rather than translating them afresh. Yet, in about 10% of places, they translated them from scratch and did so differently.

Alternatively, they may have quoted from a now-lost Hebrew or Aramaic Bible that read much like the Greek Septuagint.

Of course, in Mark, Luke, and Acts (which we say were originally in Greek), the writer may well have quoted the Septuagint.

Reasons to believe that Mark, Luke, and Acts were originally in Greek

It’s quite possible that all of the Christian books were originally penned in Aramaic. Some argue for this. However, this project works from the position that at least Mark, Luke, and Acts were either:

1. Originally written in Greek.

2. Or, written in Aramaic for a Greek-speaking audience and were therefore translated into Greek immediately.

So whatever exactly happened, we think they were in Greek right from the start. We hold this position for these reasons:

First, Acts and Luke are addressed to someone with a Greek name. This doesn’t prove that it was written in Greek, but it suggests the possibility.

Second, the quality of the written Greek is much higher in these books than in the other Christian books. This implies that they are original works, rather than mere translations. It could, of course, just imply a very good translation, but it also suggests the possibility of a Greek origin.

Third, Acts 1:19 had to describe how the inhabitants of Jerusalem speak a different language. This is a fairly long description, rather than a quick insertion, suggesting that it may not be written to an Aramaic speaker. It sounds like an explanation provided for the man it’s addressed to, TheoPhilus.

Fourth, the clues indicating that the Christian books were originally in Aramaic become (in the opinion of our editor) unconvincing or not applicable. All of them seem to have other plausible explanations. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments for the Aramaic origin of the other Christian books, which are much more persuasive. You can look up these arguments for yourself, if you’re so inclined, using the links above.

Fifth, the Aramaic texts of Mark, Luke, and Acts, use maryah (the full spelling of ‘Lord’) as a noun to refer to Jesus. Normally this full spelling is only used as a noun when replacing the tetragram, YHWH. This suggests later trinitarian beliefs, where people wished to conflate Jesus with his Father. Therefore it suggests that these books are a later Aramaic translation of an earlier Greek work. For a full exploration of this, please see our translator note on maryah.

Sixth, we have at least one example of a mistranslation from Greek into Aramaic in Luke 14:5. The Greek word for donkey must have been misheard as son when it was translated into Aramaic. Such a misunderstanding is not possible the other way around. Please see the translator note for more information.

So while we don’t have iron-clad evidence that these books were originally in Greek, we think that it’s reasonably likely. We’re not going to be dogmatic about it either way.

Languages of the books

The following shows our working assumptions about the languages of the original books. It’s important that we’re up-front about this with you, as these assumptions influence how our translation is made and corrected.

Note, however, that we’re not dogmatic about this issue. The reasons we give for our assumptions are not watertight. We may change our minds, and that’s okay. The most important thing is to be transparent and open to new evidence and theories.

BOOK	LIKELY ORIGINAL LANGUAGE	REASON(S) & NOTES
Matthew	Aramaic	Ancient writers testified that Matthew was originally written in the language of the Hebrews, which at that time was Aramaic.The same sources say that the Greek version we have today is the second translation made into Greek from the 2nd century, as the first one was lost. This late date for the translation allowed many corruptions to enter the text.Many quotes from Jesus are in plainly-shown in Aramaic and are then specially translated into Greek. This at least shows that the words of Jesus and others were translated from Aramaic at some point – even if the Gospel itself was originally in Greek, as some believe.
Mark	Koine Greek	Ancient writers testify that Mark was the second Gospel written because Matthew was not yet available in Greek (some modern scholars and Bible skeptics say it was the other way around).Some speculate that it may have been originally written in Latin, not Greek. Note that the Gospel is missing its ending, probably because it was never finished.Many quotes from Jesus are plainly-shown in Aramaic and are then specially translated into Greek. This at least shows that the words of Jesus and others were translated from Aramaic, even if the rest of the Gospel was originally penned in Greek.
Luke	Koine Greek	There are several reasons to think Luke was written in Greek.The quality of the Greek used is the highest of any NT book, whereas the Greek is quite poor in the books we suspect were originally in Aramaic, although the Greek in Hebrews is good.It says it was written to a man with a Greek name.The Aramaic version deviates from the Greek by changing certain words, including using maryah for Jesus when it would be inappropriate (possibly reflecting the Trinitarian beliefs of later decades).
John	Aramaic	Much internal evidence, split words, and the generally poor quality of the Greek wording.
Acts	Koine Greek	See the note for Luke.
Romans	Aramaic	See the note for John.
1 Corinthians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
2 Corinthians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Galatians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Ephesians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Philippians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Colossians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
1 Thessalonians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
2 Thessalonians	Aramaic	See the note for John.
1 Timothy	Aramaic	See the note for John.
2 Timothy	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Titus	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Philemon	Aramaic	See the note for John.
Hebrews	Aramaic	See the note for John, although the quality of the Greek is admittedly better.
James	Aramaic	See the note for John.
1 Peter	Aramaic	See the note for John.
2 Peter	Aramaic (only Greek survives)	The original Aramaic may be lost, and the Aramaic copy we have today may be a 7th-century translation back into it from Greek. However, the Crawford Codex might be a surviving copy of the Philoxinian recension, which could be a copy of the original Aramaic writings, or at least contain some of the original Aramaic text. We can’t say for sure.
1 John	Aramaic	See the note for John.
2 John	Aramaic (only Greek survives)	See the note for 2 Peter.
3 John	Aramaic (only Greek survives)	See the note for 2 Peter.
Jude	Aramaic (only Greek survives)	See the note for 2 Peter.
Revelation	Aramaic (only Greek survives)	See the note for 2 Peter. Also, all of Revelation in the Crawford Codex (except most of Chapter 1) stands a good chance of being the original Aramaic text, but we can’t be sure.

Differences in our translation thanks to the Aramaic

Eventually, we will host a detailed page listing the differences in our translation thanks to Aramaic. However, it may take a long time to compile.

Ccel seems to be masoretic based. REVIEW