Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:46 pm
I acknowledge Matthew and Q and Mark have Aramaisms into them, but is it enough to use that for an Hebrew/Aramaic origin of these texts (in particular for Matthew)?
I think we can finally answer that question.
Stanford Rives reconstructed the
Original Gospel of Matthew and wrote a 3 volume work looking at all of the differences, including the middle-aged Hebrew ones.
But if you
ignore the middle-aged Hebrew ones as I do, the differences between the early Greek citations are slight and pale by comparison with the Aramaicisms that are simply
Howlers in the Greek TR. They show up across the NT, not just Matthew, but there are enough in Matthew to show the TR came from Aramaic.
I drew them mainly out of a book elaborated on peshitta.org,
Was the New Testament Originally Written in Aramaic using only the first 2 chapters, which are the strongest part. The wordplays like
Jean Carmignac puts forward have an equivalent in chapter 3 of the book: Poetry and Word Plays. I know that there are some good ones in there, so take a look there for the equivalent in Aramaic in there.
He lists
28 of them, but before I spent the time on them, I'm waiting for someone to successfuly rebut any of the
Howlers from the first 2 chapters first - no one has so far. Some of the wordplays are quite strong, and some very beautiful; I feel the beauty of them even comes through in the english translation. What you should find is that some of the wordplays swing both ways, if the roots are equivalent in Hebrew and Aramaic. But I recall that he points out some wordplays that only work in Aramaic,
not Hebrew.