Bible in Aramic First?

A friend of mine says that the Bible was 1st written in Aramic, immidently after Christ Died. That the letters were written in aramic(ALL of them), and that the gosepls were written shortley after. I told her she was wrong, the bible was Written in Greek 1st, am i right, or is she, fast help would be nice, because i am seeing her again tommarow and i wanna check my facts thanks.

The letters were largely addressed to people outside of Palestine, so why would they be in Aramaic? The Gospels may have been, but traditionally only Matthew has been considered to have first been written in Aramaic. Even during the first centuries it was commonly held that Greek was the common tongue of most of the NT.

Another thing, how long did early christians go without a bible? Evrything was by word of mouth, right? Then the Gosepel writers wrote everything down later on, right?

[quote=RomanRyan1088]A friend of mine says that the Bible was 1st written in Aramic, immidently after Christ Died. That the letters were written in aramic(ALL of them), and that the gosepls were written shortley after. I told her she was wrong, the bible was Written in Greek 1st, am i right, or is she, fast help would be nice, because i am seeing her again tommarow and i wanna check my facts thanks.
[/quote]

The Old Testament was a combination of Hebrew, translated into Greek for the Jews outside of Palestine. Aramaic was more a spoken language. The New testament was mostly written in Greek with the possibility of a few letters and Matthews Gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic then shortly thereafter translated into Greek. By the end of the first century Greek was the common language until the 300’s then Latin became the common language. Jerome translated the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Latin which is the Official language of the Catholic Church and his Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church.

The letters were the first to be written, and the Gospels later, but we don’t have exact dates, nor do we even know for sure which Gospel was written first. Word of mouth was the key to teaching Christianity for its early years, and by necessity; most of the Apostles were likely illiterate. Even once written down, the Gospels didn’t get a wide circulation for a good while simply because everything was hand-written and it took time to reproduce even a single copy. It was also safer to teach orally because the religion was heavily persecuted by the non-believing Jews.

  1. The language is ARAMAIC (pronounced AR-eh-may-ik).

  2. The canon of the New Testament (that is, which writings were to be considered as the inspired word of God) was not finalized until the 5th century. Before that the early bishops disagreed on which writings were to be included. The Gnostics, for example, viewed some writings to be inspired by God. One controversial Gnostic gospel:

“presents Jesus as a little boy bringing clay birds to life and causing the death of some playmates who had irritated him. In response to this, the bishops began to develop official lists of inspired writings, called canons, which later resulted in a general agreement on what writings make up our Bible today. Even by the fourth century, however, the canon of the New Testatment was not yet finalized.” (quoted from “The Compact History of the Catholic Church” by Alan Schreck.)

[quote=La Chiara]1. The language is ARAMAIC (pronounced AR-eh-may-ik)
[/quote]

Not in Texas. :thumbsup: Just Kidding, I stand corrected.

[quote=La Chiara] 2. The canon of the New Testament (that is, which writings were to be considered as the inspired word of God) was not finalized until the 5th century. Before that the early bishops disagreed on which writings were to be included. The Gnostics, for example, viewed some writings to be inspired by God. One controversial Gnostic gospel:

“presents Jesus as a little boy bringing clay birds to life and causing the death of some playmates who had irritated him. In response to this, the bishops began to develop official lists of inspired writings, called canons, which later resulted in a general agreement on what writings make up our Bible today. Even by the fourth century, however, the canon of the New Testatment was not yet finalized.” (quoted from “The Compact History of the Catholic Church” by Alan Schreck.)
[/quote]

Jesus would kill another, common, that sounds so silly.

Clay Birds to life? Well maybe? It was in the Passion of the Christ, Right?

I want to point out that the Gnostics weren’t Christians, and weren’t part of the decision making process on Canon anyway. They were further removed from Christianity than Mormons are today; Gnosticism actually predates Christianity.

[quote=RomanRyan1088]A friend of mine says that the Bible was 1st written in Aramic, immidently after Christ Died. That the letters were written in aramic(ALL of them), and that the gosepls were written shortley after. I told her she was wrong, the bible was Written in Greek 1st, am i right, or is she, fast help would be nice, because i am seeing her again tommarow and i wanna check my facts thanks.
[/quote]

There is a great deal of evidence for Aramaic Primacy. Most if not all of the NT was originally written in Aramaic and translated to Greek in the 1st Century. It is certain that the Lords Sayings were originally SPOKEN in Aramaic and then translated to Greek.The oldest liturgical traditions in the Church are also Aramaic.I can post some proofs if anyone asks.

[quote=RomanRyan1088]Another thing, how long did early christians go without a bible? Evrything was by word of mouth, right? Then the Gosepel writers wrote everything down later on, right?
[/quote]

There was no Canonical NT until the years 392. Before that there was a general consensus but no universal agreement on which books were Inspired and which not. The Gospel was PREACHED and the various liturgical ttradition preserved that Oral Tradition handed down by the Apostles. The final compliation of the NT books were those books which agreed with the Tradition.

[quote=Ghosty]I want to point out that the Gnostics weren’t Christians, and weren’t part of the decision making process on Canon anyway. They were further removed from Christianity than Mormons are today; Gnosticism actually predates Christianity.
[/quote]

I don’t think this is correct. The Gnostics were one of the first heresies faced by early Christianity. Some of Augustine’s writings (in the 4th century) were in response to the Gnostics.

[quote=La Chiara]I don’t think this is correct. The Gnostics were one of the first heresies faced by early Christianity. Some of Augustine’s writings (in the 4th century) were in response to the Gnostics.
[/quote]

Yes he did. But nevertheless Gnosticism pre-dates Chritianity. The Gnostics abopted Christian terminology and theology and made it their own.

The Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, which is still celebrated daily in Byzantine and Orthodox monasteries all over the world, is in Aramaic. Just as it says, it was written and used by St. James the Apostle. So I would say many of the books were also in Aramaic.

PaniRose

[quote=Pani Rose]The Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, which is still celebrated daily in Byzantine and Orthodox monasteries all over the world, is in Aramaic. Just as it says, it was written and used by St. James the Apostle. So I would say many of the books were also in Aramaic.

PaniRose
[/quote]

The Rite of St James is Aramaic to be sure. But the Byzantine Rite is in Greek. The Rites that use Aramaic are those of the Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malankar Church, and the Syro-Malabarese Church. Cyril of Jerusalem used the Rite of St James as a basis for the Byzantine Rite which, as I mentioned, is in Greek.

But it must be noted that the oldest liturgical traditions in the Church are Aramaic.
[left] [/left]

[quote=La Chiara]2. The canon of the New Testament (that is, which writings were to be considered as the inspired word of God) was not finalized until the 5th century. Before that the early bishops disagreed on which writings were to be included. The Gnostics, for example, viewed some writings to be inspired by God. One controversial Gnostic gospel:
[/quote]

Canons of Scripture begin to be decided in the late 300’s. A letter from the Pope again lists the same books in the 5th century and the canon isclosed and finalized by Trent in the 1500’s.

I have a similar disagreement on my end as well.

My friend claims George Lamsa’s Bible is the only one to be relied upon because he translated it from Aramaic - the language he claims to have been the original source of all the books - Old and New.

metamind.net/AramaicBible.html

But when I look at this site I’m immediately drawn to the introduction as very suspicious:

Protected in a Living Time Capsule For Sixteen Centuries in the Mountains of Northern Mesopotamia, The Aramaic Bible, called the* Peshitta** in the Middle East, was translated into English, for the first time in 1933 and Published as** “The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts”** in 1957.*

Was the Bible the Catholic Church considers to the THE Bible protected in a time capsule and discovered???

Is this bible the same as ours? Because if it isn’t then I can finally put this particular disagreement to rest.

[quote=La Chiara]I don’t think this is correct. The Gnostics were one of the first heresies faced by early Christianity. Some of Augustine’s writings (in the 4th century) were in response to the Gnostics.
[/quote]

Actually, he opposed the Manichaens. But I think the Manichees were a spinoff of sorts from the Gnostics (regarding matter as evil, etc.)

Actually the first gosepl according to the church fathers was written in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew was written to first century Jews who at that time spoke and read Aramaic. The other gospels were not directed to the Jews specifically as the church became increasingly gentile the same goes for the catholic epsitles. The letters of Paul were directed to gentile churches. The only other book besides Matthew that might have been originally written in Aramaic was the Letter to the Hebrews as many scholars beleive the greek in this letter is awkward and hints at a transliteration form the Aramaic langugage.

But the gospel of Matthew most strongly suggest Aramaic origins. Saint Jerome had copies of the original Aramaic which he used to check his translation but they have been lost to us today.

From the catholic encyclopedia on the Aramaic origins of Matthew

Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.

Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his “Hist. eccl.” (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (“Ad Damasum”, xx; “Ad Hedib.”, iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: “It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume.” This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew’s Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome (“De Viris Ill.”, xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.