Today's caller re: Messianic Believers

[TheEditor]

In listening to TNP today I heard a fellow from my neck of the woods talking about Messianic Believers. Steve had said that that they need to 'remove whole books of the Bible' for it to fit their views. Well, actually, they have found creative ways around such a drastic measure. In reading the Aramaic Translation by Andrew Gabriel Roth that is making a splash in those circles, a while back I did some kanoodling on google and found an article by the Editor of that translation, on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. The novel approach (though terribly in error) is interesting. Essentially they say that Paul wasn't addressing Gentile Galatians, but Jews of the Dispersion, by a unique rendering of the word "galus":

"The Hebrew root for `Diaspora` is `Galut`, hence the term `GalutYah` According to Peter, these were the Chosen People of the Dispersion (Ten-Tribes) scattered through modern Turkey and the former area of Aremea"

So, you see, now we can read Galatians and still be under Law.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

That theory is even stranger. In my understanding Paul told Gentile believers (like the Galatians) not to be circumcised or to come under the law, but he did not place such restrictions upon Jewish Christians. According to the view you mentioned, we would have Paul seemingly telling even Jewish people not to come under the law. Then we would have to go to work on Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy and Hebrews.

[dwilkins]

I read through a good deal of AGR's stuff a few years ago and found some of it really interesting. I suggest his two books "Ruach Qadim" for a wide ranging set of arguments for Aramaic NT primacy outside of his Aramaic translation of the New Testament. I think it's unfortunate that the Messianic Jews are the center of attention in Aramaic NT primacy, but this is probably predictable since Jews would be the largest group of people we regularly deal with who have some skill in Aramaic.

For another interesting read, I suggest a book that provides a large number of proofs demonstrating Aramaic primacy (free!):

http://eaglefeather.org/series/Ancient% ... 0Greek.pdf

The author of that one eventually left Christianity. But, I've talked to others who are heavily persuaded by this position (and still endorse the PDF) such as David Bauscher. If you're interested, Bauscher has published a parallel NT based on the Aramaic texts:

http://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Centu ... PBRQHQA8GM

I'm not completely persuaded by their arguments, but I think there is more to them than we usually accept. I think it's interesting that Eusebius stipulates that the New Testament could be found in languages other than Greek very early on (far earlier than the traditional 400AD+ date allowed for the Peshitta Aramaic). I think it's very significant that Josephus claimed not to know Greek, to have failed to learn it well enough to translate "Wars of the Jews" from Aramaic, and to have needed to hire a professional Greek translator for the work instead. I would also point out that when Paul spoke Greek to the Roman commander he was a bit surprised by this, which wouldn't make sense if even Galilean fishermen knew Greek well enough to write letters in it. In any case, I hope someone takes the time to refute each of the examples in the free PDF (no one has bothered to do so to my knowledge).

Doug

[robbyyoung]

It's seems you have to live a thousand lives in order to research what all happened in the 1st Century Apostolic Era. Something as simple as getting the language right isn't even conclusive. Like most people, you here of bits and pieces of new information regarding what happened 2000 years ago, but like most things, you never really get around to looking into it. The Aramaic is one of those things, along with the Hebrew, that seems to be lost in the conversation today.

So much emphasis was put on the Greek, but was it warranted after careful review of all the available information early on? Or was it a transaltion barrier from Aramaic to others languages?

What is the concensus concerning the merits of the Aramaic from what we know today?

I will personally go down this road, finally, and research the data to ascertain if it's proves itself, by the perponderance of the evidence.

One thing is certain, Paul's letters addressed to Greek speaking people, which had no Aramaic understanding, would make no sense to be written in Aramaic.

God Bless.

[TheEditor]

Steve,

I found it odd as well. What I find stranger is that I can no longer find his pdf of Galatians (the commentary part) online anymore. About 6 months ago I read it and started to write a review to post on another forum where Messianic ideas were starting to take hold among some ex-JWs. Anyway, I had saved a copy of my text file (I decided to stay out of the discussion as it was becoming rancorous) and when I googled using some terms I "cut and pasted" from his pdf, there were no results. Period. I don't know if he shifted it out of public domain, or if the site I got it from had it without permission (it was a Messianic site), but there it goes. However, his commentary did make the following observation as I copied from it, that there is a "massive implied wordplay that permeates the entire letter" because, writes he, "the worst kind of slavery, the one without any form of compensation or an allowance to work off a debt, was called 'galuta', and those people so enslaved would rightly be called "Galatians.""

He then went on to use this grid to explain how Paul wasn't saying what he said.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

And the Jerusalem Council?

[TheEditor]

I'm not sure. But, to be fair to the point, I don't believe Roth or most of those Messianics that believe his way think that salvation is dependant on Law Keeping. They would argue that one is "saved" and then becomes "Torah Observant" as Yahweh through Yahshuah leads them. So they say...

Regards, Brenden.