Irenaeus Likely Originally Wrote in Aramaic

[Secret Alias]

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]

The argument does not work in Greek but comes from Irenaeus

As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second to the Corinthians, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not," and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus--according to Paul's custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words --"In whom God," then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], "hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not," he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, "God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world." And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, "the God of this world," as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, "the unbelievers of this world," because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large. [Adv Haer 3.7.1]

So if the treatise originally derives from Irenaeus what language did he write it in? What language allows for this sort of grammatical rendering of 2 Corinthians? Answer Aramaic. Here is the Syriac:

ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܥܘܪ ܡܕܥܝܗܘܢ ܥܠ ܕܠܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ

believe not bring mind blind this world God who

now let's turn it around from right to left to left to right

(in) whom God this world blind mind bring not believe

In my mind Syriac is the most likely source for this strange reconstruction of 2 Corinthians 4:4 that Irenaeus originally made and transferred to Tertullian. Look at George Lamsa's attempt to reconstruct the passage. It is very similar to Irenaeus and I doubt there was any dependence or knowledge of the passage on Lamsa's part:

To those in this world whose minds have been blinded by God, because they did not believe ...

One of many reasons to believe that Irenaeus originally wrote in Syriac or perhaps Justin. Now at last the strange Galatians-first Pauline canon and 'Diatessaronic-based criticism' of Marcion make sense

[Secret Alias]

Indeed a confirmation of the influence of the Syriac text is found in the Old Georgian translations of Paul:

Another striking instance is in the older versions of the Pauline epistles at 2 Cor 4:4, where the resources of Georgian syntax have been called into play to remove the notion of a “god of this world." The phrase “of this world” has been linked with “the unbelievers” alluded to later in the verse. This interpretation is known from the time of Irenaeus, but Greek and Latin commentators had to resort to rhetorical theory and the punctuation of manuscripts. https://books.google.com/books?id=jiukF ... 22&f=false

Scholars basically accept that the Georgian manuscripts are translations from Syriac. Conybeare notes that the Georgian and Armenian texts of the Bible originated from lost Syrian exemplars known to Ephrem. He provides numerous examples in his chapter Proof from examples that Georgian and Armenian texts of Pauline letters have a Syriac basis

http://rbedrosian.com/Cony/Cony_1897_AJT_Peshitta.pdf

As such this is one of many proofs that the oldest core of Adversus Marcionem was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek and then Latin.

[Secret Alias]

Thus when Irenaeus says "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect" he is writing in Syriac referencing Hebrew or Aramaic as a dialect of Syriac. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

[Secret Alias]

Sent the observation off to my friend Tjitze Baarda for criticism.

[andrewcriddle]

This argument seems to require a 2nd century Aramaic version of Paul.

I agree that a 2nd century Aramaic version of the Gospels existed but I am more dubious of an early Aramaic version of Paul.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

But you can't put the cart before the horse and say 'because I don't believe an Aramaic collection of Paul didn't exist, we should ignore that only in Syriac does Irenaeus's reading of 2 Corinthians 4:4 make sense.' But this is the rule unfortunately in the study of the New Testament.

cough Secret Mark cough

What vested interest do I have for arguing that the Pauline corpus was written in Aramaic? What other explanation is there for the reading of 2 Corinthians 4:4? Irenaeus just made up stuff? Irenaeus just decided to overturn the normal way of reading sentences in Greek? Of course this suggests that Paul existed in Aramaic. So what? Horse then cart.

[andrewcriddle]

But you can't put the cart before the horse and say 'because I don't believe an Aramaic collection of Paul didn't exist, we should ignore that only in Syriac does Irenaeus's reading of 2 Corinthians 4:4 make sense.' But this is the rule unfortunately in the study of the New Testament.

cough Secret Mark cough

What vested interest do I have for arguing that the Pauline corpus was written in Aramaic? What other explanation is there for the reading of 2 Corinthians 4:4? Irenaeus just made up stuff? Irenaeus just decided to overturn the normal way of reading sentences in Greek? Of course this suggests that Paul existed in Aramaic. So what? Horse then cart.

Just to clarify.

Are you suggesting that the Pauline letters were originally Aramaic, or just that they were translated into Aramaic very early ?

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

As this example only presents Irenaeus's version of the material it can't speak to the question of whether the Pauline corpus was originally written in Aramaic. It only presents us with what appears to be a rather unusual attempt on Irenaeus's part to interpret 2 Corinthians according to the rules of the language of the text he had before him. With regards to the Greek in 2 Cor. 4:4, the noun θεὸς stands next to a genitive phrase τῶν ἀπίστων which modifies it. The text that Irenaeus has before him is unlikely to be Greek unless we accept that he tried to win debates with laughable tactics. The only language that allows for 2 Corinthians 4:4 to be interpreted in this manner is Aramaic or Syriac.

[Secret Alias]

I am actually looking at the two other 'follow up' examples that Irenaeus uses in the section and his treatment of Galatians 3:19 does not appear to have an Aramaic basis.

[Secret Alias]

But it does appear that Irenaeus and his opponents DEBATED with Aramaic texts in front of them at least. Compare his account of the Marcosians where he has clearly access to some prayers or incantations in Aramaic or Hebrew.