Aramaic/Hebrew Origins Of The New Testament

Aramiyt (sn-Aramaic) – Abariy (sn-Hebrew) Origin of the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament)

Below is evidence which clearly points towards the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) being originally written in Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) and not Yuuniy (sn-Greek). Christianity itself is tainted with Yuuniy (sn-Greek) thinking, Hellenized creeds (ways of the Greeks), and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Yuuniy (sn-Greek) translated Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). Scholars are increasingly validating (having to admit) the case for a Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) original Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament).

We include some of their documentation in this short study. Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) was inspired in Aramiyt and Abariy (Hebrew and Aramaic) and then later translated into Yuuniy (sn-Greek). The testimony to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Abariym (sn-Hebrews). At the end of this article is a list of scholars and their writings supporting an original Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). This list is by no means the total amount of scholars admitting the fact that the Bariyt Hadash was in fact written in Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew). Many other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) was originally a collection of Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) works. The Scriptures’ Abariy (Hebrew) writers were led by the Set-Apart Spirit (sn- Holy Spirit) to write in their native Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) language, just as Shaul (sn- Paul) was spoken to from On High in the Abariy (Hebrew) tongue. See Ma’ashiym (sn-Acts) 26:14, 21:40, 22:2.

The inquiring Scriptures student soon realizes that the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) is undeniably Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) in grammar, idiom, and thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) believer. If the Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) is rooted in the Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) language, then its teachings also derive from the Abariy (Hebrew) culture and are embedded in the Abariy (Hebrew) – and not Yuuniy (sn-Greek) – view of truth. Those who would object to this REALITY must be asked the question, “Does arguing for a Yuuniy (sn-Greek) Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from the truth, knowing that the Tanak (sn- Old Testament) is a thoroughly Abariy (Hebrew) work?” Is the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) a complete replacement of the Tanak (sn- Old Testament) teachings, with entirely new truths flavored with Hellenistic (Greek) thought, practice, and understanding? Not according to the Apostle Shaul (sn- Paul). He wrote that the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) is built on the foundation of the Tanak (sn- Old Testament) prophets as well as the apostles (Apasiyiym sn-Eph 2:20). Yahusha ha Mashiyha (Messiah) gave the directive to “search the Scriptures,” Yahuhanan (sn- John) 5:39. The only “Scriptures” in existence at that time were those from the Tanak (sn- Old Testament). The Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) writings were not yet finished and/or compiled at that time. In His parable of Ala’azar (sn-Lazarus), Yahusha ha Mashiyha (Messiah) again advised the unknowing to listen to “Mashah (sn- Moses) and the prophets,” meaning the Tanak (sn- Old Testament). See Luqah (sn- Luke) 16:29. It was these same Tanak (sn- Old Testament) Scriptures that the “noble Baruiyaiym (sn-Bereans)” used to establish truth in Ma’ashiym (Acts) 17:11, and the very ones Shaul (sn- Paul) told Tiymutiy (Timothy) would make one perfect, 2 Tiymutiy (sn-Tim) 3:16-17.

Aside from approaching TRUTH from the right Scriptural foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). One of the arguments advanced against the truth of the set-apart (sn- sacred) Names is that the Names the Creator and Savior appear as “God” (Theos) and “Jesus” in the Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) Yuuniy (sn-Greek) text. The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the “original” texts, then who are we to change them to something else? The issue though is that these names weren’t in the “original” texts! Apart from this argument’s erroneous premise, “God” is not the same word as the Yuuniy (sn-Greek) Theos, and “Jesus” is only partly a Greek term. So, we must ask, is it legitimate to change someone’s name simply because you are writing about him/her in some other language? Names are transliterated (for pronunciation), not translated. Names don’t change pronunciation. If a book about the president of the United States of America were written in or translated into Russian, would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for the U.S. President? Of course not. His name would still appear as his USA Name. By the same token, the Father and Son’s Name are the same in every language. Therefore we must call on them by their Names as revealed through the Hebrew tongue. There is no more a Russian equivalent name for “George Washington” than there is a Yuuniy (sn-Greek) or English equivalent of the Hebrew “YAHUAH” and “Yahusha ha Mashiyha.” “God,” “Lord,” and “Jesus” are not equivalents, they are REPLACEMENTS.

Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) Words Out of Place?
A peculiar discrepancy within the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) is this: if the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) were originally composed in Yuuniy (sn-Greek), why does it contain many untranslated Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Aramaic/Hebrew terms in their Yuuniy (sn-Greek) writings? The only valid explanation is that the Yuuniy (sn-Greek) language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) terms taken from an original Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) text and translated into Yuuaniy (sn-Greek).

These Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) survivals attest (prove) to a Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) original – and a Yuuniy sn-Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew). The following AMARIYT/ABARIY (ARAMAIC/HEBREW) words are included in the King James Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament), as taken from the Yuuniy (sn-Greek) translation. Aba sn-Abba (“dearest father“); Mashiyha sn-Messiah (“Anointed one“); Rabiy sn-Rabbi (“my teacher“); Ahushiya’ah Na sn-Hosanna (“Save! We beseech“); Aman sn-Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); taliyta qumiy sn-talitha cumi (“damsel arise“); apatah sn-ephphatha (“be opened“); qarban sn-corban (“a dedicated gift“); Shabat sn-Sabbath (“repose“, “desist” from exertion); Shatan sn-Satan (“adversary“); mamun sn-mammon (“riches“); riyqa sn-raca (“to spit in one’s face“); kaman sn-cummin (herb); Marana Ta sn-Maranatha (“Master, I pray you overthrow“); Pas’ha sn-Pesach (“Passover“); Amanual sn-Emmanuel (title meaning “Al lives with us“); Alahiy Lamah Shabaqtaniy sn-Eli lama Sabachthani (“my Al, why have you forsaken me?”)

Even more compelling evidence for a Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic is found in the clear Abariy/Amariyt (Hebrew/Aramaic) word order extant in the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal that is common to Amarity/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) and Shamiym (sn-Semitic) languages. Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) does not befit good Yuuaniy (sn-Greek), but does reflect excellent Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) grammar. In addition, many Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) idioms (ways of life) and expressions are scattered throughout the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). Had the original Bariyt Hadash (New Testamant) been composed in Yuuniy (sn-Greek), these sayings would have been put into Yuuniy (sn-Greek) form and expression. For example, what did YAHUAH Mashiyha (Messiah) and others mean by statements that do not make sense in Yuuniy sn-Greek (or English), but are powerful in the Amariyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew)? Such expressions include: “If your eye is evil” (Mat. 6:23); “let the dead bury the dead” (Mat. 8:22); “for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry” (Luqah sn- Luke 23:31), and “thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head” said Shaul (sn- Paul) in Rumaiym (sn-Rom) 12:20. Numerous examples of Shamiym (Semitic) poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) of these books.

Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts. For example, a beautiful expression in classical Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) is found in Luqah (sn- Luke) 16:23: “…he lift up his eyes…and saw…” Other sayings peculiar to Aramiyt/Hebrew (Aaramic/Hebrew) and found in the Bariyt Hadash (New Testament) writings include: “Lay these sayings in your years,” “Cast out your name as evil,” “He set his face to go,” and “The appearance of His countenance was altered.” Whole sentences or paragraphs in the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) can be retranslated word for word back into the Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew). Luqah (sn- Luke) 10:5-6 is just one example: “And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.” This passage is a synthesis of vivid Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) idioms unknown in the Yuuniy (sn-Greek).

Greek Unpopular in Yishral (sn- Israel, Judea)

Many linguists and historians now attest that the books Matithyahu (sn-Matthew), Ma’ashiym (sn-Acts), Abariym (sn-Hebrews), and the Book of Hazun (sn-Revelation) were composed in Abariy sn-Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included below). The rest of the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) was written in Aramiyt (Aramaic) do to the fact that Aramiyt (Aramaic) had become the language of the land since the Yishraliym (Israelites) had been taken into captivity in the 6th Century BC by the Babaliym (Babylonians). Early “church fathers” validate that the Book of Matithyahu (sn- Matthew) was originally written in Abariy (Hebrew). See Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus’ Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius’ Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).

Amariyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) were the languages of Yahudah (sn-Judah) and Galiyl (sn-Galilee) in the first century. Yahudiym (sn-Jews) in this area were not Yuuniy (sn-Greek) speaking. Their revulsion (hate) of the Yuuniym (sn-Greeks) and the Yuuniy (sn-Greek) language derives from the fact that the Makabiym (sn-Maccabees) had just defeated the Yuuniym (sn-Greeks) and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine. The eminent first century Yahudiym (sn-Jewish) historian, priest, and scholar Josephus (real name Yusaf biyn Matityahu) admitted that he could not speak Yuuniy (sn-Greek) fluently and that the Yahudiym (sn-Jews) frowned on any Yahudiy (sn-Jew) who did. Josephus states: “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Yuuaniym (sn-Greeks), and understanding the elements of the Yuuniy (sn-Greek) language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Yuuniy (sn-Greek) with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations” (Antiquities, 20:11:2). If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak Yuuniy (sn-Greek) sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Yuuniy (sn-Greek)? From what we’ve learned, why would they even want to do so? They didn’t. They wrote their Books in either Amariyt (Aramaic) or Abariy (Hebrew), which were the languages they spoke.

Abariy (Hebrew) Writing to Abariy (Hebrew) People

The common perception is that Shaul (sn- Paul) was a Hellenist Yahudiy (sn-Jew) from Tarazah (sn-Tarsus) who wrote his letters to Yuuniy (sn-Greek) speaking assemblies in Asia Minor, Rome, and Greece. Shaul (sn- Paul) was first and foremost a Parashiy (sn-Pharisee) – a Yahudiym (sn-Jewish) sect strongly opposed to Hellenization (Greek way of life). He was of the tribe of Biniymiyn (sn- Benjamin) and a “Abariy of Abariym (Hebrew of Hebrews),” Piyliypiyniym (sn-Philippians) 3:5. A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression “Hebrew of Hebrews” means completely “in language, attitudes, and lifestyle.” Shaul (sn- Paul) was educated at the feet of Gamaliyal (sn-Gamaliel), a great doctor of Abariy (Hebrew) Law, Ma’ashiym (sn-Acts) 22:3. Although he was born in Tarazah (sn-Tarsus), a city speaking mainly Aramaic, Shaul (sn- Paul) grew up in Yarushalam (sn- Jerusalem), the center of strict Parashiy Teaching (Pharisaic Judaism), Acts 22:3. The epistles Shaul (sn- Paul) wrote were to various assemblies of the Dispersion. Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Yahudiym (sn-Jews) and supplementary collections of gentiles. Read about the Tashlaniyqiy sn-Thessalonia) Assembly in Ma’ashiym (sn Acts )17:1-4, as well as the Qarantiym (sn-Corinthians) in 1 Cor. 10:1-2. The converted Yahudiym (sn-Jews) in these assemblies would receive Shaul’s (sn- Paul’s) letters and then teach the gentiles among them. It wasn’t the Guiym (sn-Gentiles) who were converting Yahudiym (sn-Jews) to a Yuuniy-Ramaiy (Grecian-Roman) faith with a Yuuniy (sn-Greek) Savior (Jesus) and doctrines of mystery worship! It was completely the other way around. It was the Yahudiym (sn-Jews) teaching the Guiym (Gentiles) the ways of the Yahudiym (Jewish) Mashiyha (Messisah)!!

Typically Shaul (sn- Paul) went first to the synagogue (temple) when he traveled to contact these and other assemblies (see Ma’ashiym sn-Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8). The language of the second Temple and synagogues at this time was Abariy (Hebrew) or Amariyt (Aramaic), not Yuuaniy (sn-Greek). His letters in Abariy (Hebrew) or Amariyt (Aramaic) to these Yahudiym (sn-Jews) and Guiym (sn-Gentiles) of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the Bashurah (Good News) to “the Yahudiy (sn-Jew) first and then to the Guiy (sn-Gentile),” Rumaiym (sn-Romans) 1:16. As an example, Shaul (sn- Paul) specifically addressed Yahudiym (sn-Jews) of the Qarantiy (sn-Corinthian) assembly: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Mashah (sn- Moses) in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Qaranatiym sn-Cor. 10:1-2).

Truth from Yuuniy (Greek) or Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew)?

Understanding basic truth is to know that YAHUAH chose the Yahudiym (sn- Hebrew/Jew) people to make a Covenant with and to bring the truth to the world. A True Worshiper should bathe themselves in the Scriptures that were first delivered to Yahudiy (sn- Hebrew) patriarchs, Yahudiy (sn- Hebrew) prophets, and Yahudiy (sn- Hebrew) apostles who lived by the instructions of a Savior from the human lineage of King Duiyd (sn- David), who was a a Yahudiy (sn-Jew). Shaul (sn- Paul) was a champion of the Yahudiym (sn-Jewish) cause first, then he went to the Guiym (sn-Gentiles)
He was the champion of a Yahudiy (sn-Jew) Mashiyha (sn-Messiah) and Scriptures given in a Abariy (Hebrew) Tanak (sn-Old Testament). These Tanak Scriptures (sn- Old Testament) were what he taught in his students. Note: “But I confess this to you, that after the way which they call heresy, so I worship the Aluah of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14). “Law and prophets” refers to the Tanak (sn- Old Testament) Scriptures. Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today? A Yuuniy (sn-Greek), pagan dominated heritage? Or the birthright of those grafted into the promise of Yishral (sn- Israel), established by the Heavenly Father YAHUAH Himself? Shaul (sn- Paul) wrote to the assembly at Rum (sn-Rome), “Who are Yishraliym (sn- Israelites); to whom pertains the adoption, and the esteem (sn- glory), and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Aluah, and the promises?” (Rom 9:4).

If Christianity and organized religions were honest with itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Abariy (sn -Hebrew) and not Yuuniy-Rumaiy (Greco-Roman) Scriptures. That its salvation comes from a Savior who came as a Yahudiy (sn- Hebrew) not to establish a new religion but to build and gow on what was before. YAHUAH Mashiyha (Messiah) and the Scriptures are Abariy (sn- Hebrew). If this one pivotal truth were taught today (which is what we are doing), real understanding of the Scriptures will break out everywhere, and the Scriptures would at last be truly revealed.

Scholars Who Support A Amariyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) Original Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament)

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Scriptural (Biblical) authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Amariyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) origin of the Bariyt Hadash (sn- New Testament): ● Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety. ● D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety. ● E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Scriptures, Appendix 95. ● Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29. ● Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety. ● Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew. ● Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4. ● Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185. ● Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), p. 14. ● Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament) in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety. ● Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Scriptures from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII. ● Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), pp. 66, 68. ● Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata…in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156. ● Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92. ● Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, (1927) p. 7. ● Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275. ● R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety. ● Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety. ● Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the Brit Chadash (sn- New Testament), entirety. ● Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety. ● F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.