Irenaeus Likely Originally Wrote in Aramaic

[Secret Alias]

I think what closes the book is the number of times Harvey identifies Irenaeus as using a text of Paul which resembles only the Syriac. For instance in Book Five:

That he uses these words with respect to the body of flesh, and to none other, he declares to the Corinthians manifestly, indubitably, and free from all ambiguity: "Always bearing about in our body the dying of Jesus, [Agreeing with the Syriac version in omitting "the Lord" before the word "Jesus," and in reading aei as ei, which Harvey considers the true text] that also the life of Jesus Christ might be manifested in our body. For if we who live are delivered unto death for Jesus sake, it is that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh." [4555] And that the Spirit lays hold on the flesh, he says in the same Epistle, "That ye are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, inscribed not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart." [4556] If, therefore, in the present time, fleshly hearts are made partakers of the Spirit, what is there astonishing if, in the resurrection, they receive that life which is granted by the Spirit? Of which resurrection the apostle speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians: "Having been made conformable to His death, if by any means I might attain to the resurrection which is from the dead." [4557] In what other mortal flesh, therefore, can life be understood as being manifested, unless in that substance which is also put to death on account of that confession which is made of God? as he has himself declared, "If, as a man, I have fought with beasts [The Syriac translation seems to take a literal meaning out of this passage: "If, as one of the men, I have been cast forth to the wild beasts at Ephesus."] at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? For if the dead rise not, neither has Christ risen. Now, if Christ has not risen, our preaching is vain, and your faith is vain. In that case, too, we are found false witnesses for God, since we have testified that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up. [This is in accordance with the Syriac, which omits the clause, eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai] For if the dead rise not, neither has Christ risen. But if Christ be not risen, your faith is vain, since ye are yet in your sins. Therefore those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all men. But now Christ has risen from the dead, the first-fruits of those that sleep; for as by man [came] death, by man also [came] the resurrection of the dead." [Adv Haer 5.13]

[Secret Alias]

I really don't see what Andrew finds the idea of Irenaeus using a Syriac text of Paul so controversial now that I remember what Harvey showed over and over and over again.

[Secret Alias]

From Harvey's preface:

A point of some interest will be found of frequent recurrence in the notes; which is, the repeated instances that Scriptural quotations afford, of having being made by one who was as familiar with some Syriac version of the New Testament, as with the Greek originals. Strange variae lectiones occur, which can only be explained by referring to the Syriac version. It will not be forgotten that S. Irenaeus resided in early life at Smyrna; and it is by no means improbable that he may have been of Syrian extraction, and instructed from his earliest infancy in some Syriac version of Scripture. It is hoped also that the Hebrew attainments of Irenaeus will no longer be denied.

[Adam]

So if even Paul may have written originally in Aramaic, how much more likely that the gospels were (in part, anyway) originally written in Aramaic. Some top scholars of the past argued even for all of them in Aramaic, but more reasonably now I argue for the original Passion Narrative, half of "Q" (including Proto-Marcus), and Special Luke (as argued by James R. Edwards) having first been written in Aramaic.
In contrast I would assign the Signs Source, half of Q (Double Tradition + Triple Tradition per my view), and the rest of Matthew, Mark, and John having been started in Greek. (Very little finishing up Luke was added in Greek, just 1:1-4 for sure.)

[Bernard Muller]

In Adversus Marcionem the Latin text makes a very unusual argument about 2 Corinthians 4:4:

I am aware that certain expressions can be made of doubtful meaning through accent in pronunciation or manner of punctuation, when there is room for a double possibility in such respects. Marcion was catching at this when he read, In whom the god of this age, so that by pointing to the Creator as the god of this age he might suggest the idea of a different god of a different age. I however affirm that it must be punctuated like this: In whom God; and then, Hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age: In whom, meaning the unbelieving Jews, in whom was covered up—among some is still covered up—the gospel beneath Moses' veil. [Adv Marc 5.11]

I do not see a problem here. Tertullian read 2 Cor 4:4 in gMarcion as it is written in gLuke: "In whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers". But Tertullian did not like the interpretation of the Marcionites in their favor, and proposed a punctuation which would attribute "of his age" to the unbelieving Jews, as such "In whom God, of his age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers."
To make it more understandable, Tertullian had "In whom God, has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age."
a) Tertullian conveniently eliminated "the" in front of God/god.
b) Tertullian avoided to interpret "the god of this age" as Satan, as I would. Satan being the god of this age is not necessarily marcionite, but very likely part of Paul's innermost (subconscious) beliefs.

Tertullian was obviously recycling an argument from Irenaeus. That's very clear.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

I think what closes the book is the number of times Harvey identifies Irenaeus as using a text of Paul which resembles only the Syriac. For instance in Book Five:

That he uses these words with respect to the body of flesh, and to none other, he declares to the Corinthians manifestly, indubitably, and free from all ambiguity: "Always bearing about in our body the dying of Jesus, [Agreeing with the Syriac version in omitting "the Lord" before the word "Jesus," and in reading aei as ei, which Harvey considers the true text] that also the life of Jesus Christ might be manifested in our body. For if we who live are delivered unto death for Jesus sake, it is that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh." [4555] And that the Spirit lays hold on the flesh, he says in the same Epistle, "That ye are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, inscribed not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart." [4556] If, therefore, in the present time, fleshly hearts are made partakers of the Spirit, what is there astonishing if, in the resurrection, they receive that life which is granted by the Spirit? Of which resurrection the apostle speaks in the Epistle to the Philippians: "Having been made conformable to His death, if by any means I might attain to the resurrection which is from the dead." [4557] In what other mortal flesh, therefore, can life be understood as being manifested, unless in that substance which is also put to death on account of that confession which is made of God? as he has himself declared, "If, as a man, I have fought with beasts [The Syriac translation seems to take a literal meaning out of this passage: "If, as one of the men, I have been cast forth to the wild beasts at Ephesus."] at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? For if the dead rise not, neither has Christ risen. Now, if Christ has not risen, our preaching is vain, and your faith is vain. In that case, too, we are found false witnesses for God, since we have testified that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up. [This is in accordance with the Syriac, which omits the clause, eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai] For if the dead rise not, neither has Christ risen. But if Christ be not risen, your faith is vain, since ye are yet in your sins. Therefore those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all men. But now Christ has risen from the dead, the first-fruits of those that sleep; for as by man [came] death, by man also [came] the resurrection of the dead." [Adv Haer 5.13]

These readings are mostly not distinctively Syriac.

For example the omission of "the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 4:10 is simply the reading of the best manuscripts as well as the TR.

The others tend to be Western i.e. found in Codex Bezae and/or the Latin as well as the Syriac.

Andrew Criddle

[Garon]

Write to Rocco A. Errico.

http://www.roccoaerrico.com/

[Secret Alias]

But Andrew I just grabbed one of dozens of pages of translated Irenaeus material where examples of the Syriac MS have been noted by Harvey. Yes I am aware of criticism of Harvey's position. The same readings appear in other witnesses. But Harvey isn't 'wrong' per se. There are just other explanations for the phenomena. Now we have additional evidence (from yours truly) that suggest again that Irenaeus was drawing from a Syriac Bible.

[Secret Alias]

An critique of Harvey's position finds the following readings as explained only by the Syriac

1. Col 3:11
2. Rom 9:26
3. 1 Cor 1:26
4. Acts 7:41
5. Acts 7:42
6. Acts 9:15
7. Acts 17:26

But even with this the study notes that the variant readings shared with Bezae and the Old Latin and the Peshitta make it difficult to determine the point of origin. My evidence I think reopens the investigation.

[Secret Alias]

Since Bernard doesn't think it is important to examine texts in ancient languages his comments will be ignored as Irenaeus plainly states that he is appealing to the plain meaning and word order of the material in the language of the texts he used. There are many other forums and discussions where Bernard's appeal to 'his ideas' and 'his interpretation' have relevance. Not this discussion.