Aramaic/Hebrew Origins Of The New Testament

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

We include some of their documentation in this short study. Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) was inspired in Aramiyt and Abariy (Hebrew and Aramaic) and then later translated into Yuuaniy (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) Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). This list is by no means the total amount of scholars admitting the fact that the Briyt Hadash was in fact written in Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew). Many other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the Briyt 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’asiym (sn-Acts) 26:14, 21:40, 22:2.

Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) Based on the Tanak (sn- Old Testament)

The inquiring Scriptures student soon realizes that the Briyt 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 Briyt 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 Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) - view of truth. Those who would object to this REALITY must be asked the question, “Does arguing for a Yuuaniy (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 Briyt 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 Briyt 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 Briyt 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’asiym (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 Briyt 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) Yuuaniy (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 Yuuaniy (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 U.S.A. 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 Yuuaniy (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?

These Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) survivals attest (prove) to a Aramiyt/Abariy (Aramaic/Hebrew) original - and a Yuuaniy 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 Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament), as taken from the Yuuaniy (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 Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament) originally composed in Hebrew/Aramaic is found in the clear Abariy/Amariyt (Hebrew/Aramaic) word order extant in the Briyt 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 Briyt Hadash (sn- New Testament). Had the original Briyt Hadash (New Testamant) been composed in Yuuaniy (sn-Greek), these sayings would have been put into Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) form and expression. For example, what did YAHUAH ha Mashiyha (Messiah) and others mean by statements that do not make sense in Yuuaniy 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 Ramaiym (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 Briyt 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 Briyt 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 Yuuaniy (sn-Greek).

Greek Unpopular in Yishral (sn- Israel, Judea)

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 Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) speaking. Their revulsion (hate) of the Yuuaniym (sn-Greeks) and the Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) language derives from the fact that the Makabiym (sn-Maccabees) had just defeated the Yuuaniym (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 Yuuaniy (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 Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Yuuaniy (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 Yuuaniy (sn-Greek) sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Yuuaniy (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.