godnotgod
Thou art That
More evidence.....
As you read through this lesson, ask yourself the question, Which Came First - Aramaic or Greek? Which one is a translation of the other? Is Aramaic Primacy or Greek Primacy correct?
To help answer that question, look at the following verses from the [Greek] New Testament:
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (KJV)
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (NIV)
Luke 1:31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (KJV)
You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. (NIV)
You probably missed it because the verses are so familiar, but there is a conflict in those two verses. Matthew 1:21 says that she (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you (Joseph) will call his name Jesus. In Luke 1:31, however, the angel is talking to Mary. The angel says you (Mary) will be with child, and you (Mary) will call his name Jesus. So Matthew says that Joseph named Jesus, yet the angel in Luke commands Mary to name him. Which verse is correct - did Mary or Joseph name Jesus?
If you trace the various Greek and Latin manuscripts, you find that there is a split here. Some manuscripts say she (Mary) will call his name Jesus, while some manuscripts say you (Joseph) will name Jesus. Greek and Latin have completely different forms for these variants. The split between you will call and she will call is reflected in several English versions.
Now, at this point most people will explain away the difference by suggesting that perhaps they agreed to name Jesus together. Fine. Maybe they did. But the question is - how did this conflict get into an inspired text in the first place? Isn't the New Testament the inspired Word of God, incapable of error?
Well, it just so happens that if we look at the Aramaic Pe****ta, there is no conflict at all. In fact the Aramaic Pe****ta explains how this variant reading could have occurred in the first place. In the Aramaic New Testament, both verses use the verb form tikra. If you know Hebrew or Aramaic, you will instantly realize that tikra comes from the verb kara, meaning to call. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, tikra can either be you will call (masculine singular), or she will call (feminine singular).
Thus, the Aramaic Pe****ta actually has an ambiguous form here. It could mean either she (Mary) will call, or you (Joseph) will call. Only the context can determine which is correct. In the context, given that Mary is being addressed by the angel, it has to mean she will call.
However, consider this conflict in the light of the question, Which Came First - Aramaic or Greek? This conflict, or textual variant, only occurs in Greek and Latin manuscripts. There is no conflict in the Aramaic Pe****ta, just an ambiguous form that could be translated she will call or you will call, and which needs to be resolved by the context. Surely this means that the Aramaic Pe****ta must have come first, and Greek and Latin translated from it? Otherwise, how would those variants have arisen in Greek?
Suppose, for instance, that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Let's say the original Greek manuscript said you will call his name Jesus. Why in the world could/would that ever be changed to she will call?! That is a completely different form in Greek!
If, on the other hand, the Aramaic Pe****ta came first, it is easy to see what has happened. Aramaic, of necessity, has an ambiguous form that needs to be resolved by the context. Some time later, it was translated into Greek, then Latin. Some translators looked at the form in Aramaic, and translated it as she will call. Other translators translated it as you will call. Or maybe it got revised later, because that's what you do with translations - you change things later based on re-reading the original text.
The point here is simply this. A reasonable person, presented with the above evidence, would have to conclude that the Aramaic Pe****ta came first, and the Greek and Latin manuscripts were translated from it. There is no conflict in Aramaic, yet the Greek/Latin has very different words that are easily explained if they have been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta. In fact, this surely suggests that the Greek was translated considerably later, when presented with a written Aramaic Pe****ta text. Otherwise, a translator would surely just go back to one of the disciples and ask them what was meant in this verse - she will call, or you will call?
Examples like this, where problems/conflicts/variants in the Greek text of the New Testament simply do not occur in the Aramaic Pe****ta, and indeed variants in Greek suggest that Greek has been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta, must surely be evidence that the Aramaic Pe****ta came first. It happens so often, and so neatly, that a reasonable person must conclude that the Greek text has been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta, and not the other way round.
Aramaic Primacy is an evidence-based belief, and the evidence points to the Aramaic Pe****ta as being the original text of the New Testament from which Greek has been translated, then Latin and English.
Who named Yeshua? Pearls of the Pe****ta (Aramaic New Testament).
Aramaic You/She Will Call (Matthew 1:21 vs Luke 1:31)
As you read through this lesson, ask yourself the question, Which Came First - Aramaic or Greek? Which one is a translation of the other? Is Aramaic Primacy or Greek Primacy correct?
To help answer that question, look at the following verses from the [Greek] New Testament:
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (KJV)
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. (NIV)
Luke 1:31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (KJV)
You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. (NIV)
You probably missed it because the verses are so familiar, but there is a conflict in those two verses. Matthew 1:21 says that she (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you (Joseph) will call his name Jesus. In Luke 1:31, however, the angel is talking to Mary. The angel says you (Mary) will be with child, and you (Mary) will call his name Jesus. So Matthew says that Joseph named Jesus, yet the angel in Luke commands Mary to name him. Which verse is correct - did Mary or Joseph name Jesus?
If you trace the various Greek and Latin manuscripts, you find that there is a split here. Some manuscripts say she (Mary) will call his name Jesus, while some manuscripts say you (Joseph) will name Jesus. Greek and Latin have completely different forms for these variants. The split between you will call and she will call is reflected in several English versions.
Now, at this point most people will explain away the difference by suggesting that perhaps they agreed to name Jesus together. Fine. Maybe they did. But the question is - how did this conflict get into an inspired text in the first place? Isn't the New Testament the inspired Word of God, incapable of error?
Well, it just so happens that if we look at the Aramaic Pe****ta, there is no conflict at all. In fact the Aramaic Pe****ta explains how this variant reading could have occurred in the first place. In the Aramaic New Testament, both verses use the verb form tikra. If you know Hebrew or Aramaic, you will instantly realize that tikra comes from the verb kara, meaning to call. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, tikra can either be you will call (masculine singular), or she will call (feminine singular).
Thus, the Aramaic Pe****ta actually has an ambiguous form here. It could mean either she (Mary) will call, or you (Joseph) will call. Only the context can determine which is correct. In the context, given that Mary is being addressed by the angel, it has to mean she will call.
However, consider this conflict in the light of the question, Which Came First - Aramaic or Greek? This conflict, or textual variant, only occurs in Greek and Latin manuscripts. There is no conflict in the Aramaic Pe****ta, just an ambiguous form that could be translated she will call or you will call, and which needs to be resolved by the context. Surely this means that the Aramaic Pe****ta must have come first, and Greek and Latin translated from it? Otherwise, how would those variants have arisen in Greek?
Suppose, for instance, that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Let's say the original Greek manuscript said you will call his name Jesus. Why in the world could/would that ever be changed to she will call?! That is a completely different form in Greek!
If, on the other hand, the Aramaic Pe****ta came first, it is easy to see what has happened. Aramaic, of necessity, has an ambiguous form that needs to be resolved by the context. Some time later, it was translated into Greek, then Latin. Some translators looked at the form in Aramaic, and translated it as she will call. Other translators translated it as you will call. Or maybe it got revised later, because that's what you do with translations - you change things later based on re-reading the original text.
The point here is simply this. A reasonable person, presented with the above evidence, would have to conclude that the Aramaic Pe****ta came first, and the Greek and Latin manuscripts were translated from it. There is no conflict in Aramaic, yet the Greek/Latin has very different words that are easily explained if they have been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta. In fact, this surely suggests that the Greek was translated considerably later, when presented with a written Aramaic Pe****ta text. Otherwise, a translator would surely just go back to one of the disciples and ask them what was meant in this verse - she will call, or you will call?
Examples like this, where problems/conflicts/variants in the Greek text of the New Testament simply do not occur in the Aramaic Pe****ta, and indeed variants in Greek suggest that Greek has been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta, must surely be evidence that the Aramaic Pe****ta came first. It happens so often, and so neatly, that a reasonable person must conclude that the Greek text has been translated from the Aramaic Pe****ta, and not the other way round.
Aramaic Primacy is an evidence-based belief, and the evidence points to the Aramaic Pe****ta as being the original text of the New Testament from which Greek has been translated, then Latin and English.
Who named Yeshua? Pearls of the Pe****ta (Aramaic New Testament).
Last edited:
