Aramaic Primacy of the NT

5/1/2015

This article has been moved to our new website: Torah Apologetics. Please click here to be redirected there to read it.

Jeromie

7/4/2015 09:29:31 am

Thank you so much for your article. It's great to read from someone that presents all sides of this issue. You've given me a lot to think about. I will consider your incites while I study the AENT. I ordered it the day before I read your article. Thanks again.

J. A. Brown link

7/4/2015 01:22:17 pm

Thank you for taking the time to read it. I know there's a lot to it, and I will actually be adding a new section soon.

I personally don't have a bias towards one or the other; I just want to cut through all the misinformation. That's what many of my articles are written for.

I do not own an AENT (I have borrowed one before) but I still appreciate the work that went into it.

Marcio Antonio Torres Bueno

7/6/2015 05:09:07 am

Mr. Brown,
Congratulations for your wonderful work.
You've cleared the issue about "leper" and "potter" (Mt.26:6). I have a doubt in Acts 8:27 - "eunuch" x "believer", in some new translations of Peshitta. Is this the same mistake as in Mt.26:6?
May God bless you forever.
Márcio - Brazil

J. A. Brown link

7/6/2015 05:35:11 am

Marcio,

Thank you for your comment. Now, regarding Acts 8:27...

In Greek, we find the word used is εὐνοῦχος (eunouchos), meaning quite literally, "eunuch." It is where we get the English word from. The confusion arises in the Peshitta, where we find the word used is מהַימנָא (m'haim'na). This word is used in place of the Greek eunouchos. Those who claim Aramaic Primacy state that this word does not mean eunuch, but rather "faithful one." They then go on to say that since a eunuch was prohibited from entering the assembly, he would therefore not be allowed to go to Jerusalem. That means this man could not possibly have been a eunuch. Then, they say, the Aramaic word explains that he wasn't a eunuch, he was a faithful one, and thus there is no issue. This, however, is again misleading. The simple fact is, this is the only word Syriac has to translate both the Greek enunouchos, and the original Hebrew word, סריס (Saris). In fact, if this word simply means "faithful one" then we have lost all significance in Isaiah 56, when YHWH says that the eunuch should no longer say "I am a dry tree" and that even he would have a place in the House of YHWH, IF he takes hold of the commands and the Sabbaths. Now if this simply means "faithful one," why would he say "I am a dry tree"? No, this word is used as equivalent to the Greek eunouchos and the Hebrew saris, and it means the same. Though to be technical, even the Greek term does not have to always mean someone who is a eunuch, but rather someone who is a bed-chamber servant. As in the case of the Kushite in Acts 8; what better man to guard to bedchamber of a Queen, than a man who cannot violate her due to being a eunuch? Lastly, if it simply means "faithful one" then how do we reconcile this with Matthew 19:12, which again uses the same word? How can one be born faithful, or be made faithful with men's hands, or even make themselves faithful for the sake of the Kingdom? No, this can only be understood on a consistent level as the same as the Greek text.

Stephen Otto

10/17/2015 01:32:24 pm

Great job again!

Controversy Corner

Aramaic Primacy of the NT

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives