What, however, is the origin of the the expression ‘Lamb of God‘ as used by the Baptist, and what is its precise force? The phrase does not occur in Isa. 53, where v.7, which brings in the simile of a lamb, simply says that the Servant was ‘like a lamb that is led to the slaughter (not, ‘to the sacrifice’), and like a ewe (LXX αμνος) that before her shearers is dumb’. The words ο αιρων κτλ. are based, not on this verse but v.11, ‘and their iniquities he shall bear’, where the simile is dropped and ‘My righteous Servant’ preceeding forms the back-reference of the emphatic ‘he‘. ‘The Lamb of God‘ suggests the sense, ‘the offering’; and combining v.7 and v.11 of Isa. 53 with v.10 which allowing for the influence of Ge. 22:8, we may perhaps consider that we have accounted for the use of this phrase.

A more probable solution, however, is suggested by Dr. Ball’s remark that Heb. טָלֶה tâlé ‘lamb’ has come in its Aram. form טַלְיָא talyâ to mean ‘child’, ‘boy’, ‘young man’, ’servant’.* In the last sense it denotes in Pesh. e.g. Abraham’s ‘young men’ (Gen. 22:3; so also in Targ. Jerus.), the priest’s ’servant’ (I Sam. 2:13.15) and the centurion’s ’servant’ (Mt. 8:6.13). Thus ο αμνος του Θεου may stand for טַלְיָא דֵאלָהָא, intended primarily to bear the sense, ‘the Servant of God’, i.e. Yahweh’s righteous Servant who, according to Isa. 53:11.12, was to bear the sins of many. IF this is so, there may well be a word-play in the choice of the term טַלְיָא, suggesting as it does the lamb-like or sinless character of the ideal Servant; thus, ‘the Lamb of God’ is a render by no means excluded by this new interpretation. Further, since טַלְיָא also bears the sense ‘child’, it is not unlikely that the thought of ‘the Child of God’ is also present.† In vv.31-34 the sign by which the Baptist was to recognize ο ερχομειος, viz. the descent and abiding on Him of the Spirit, was, as we have already remarked, the sign of Yahweh’s ideal Servant. After witnessing this the Baptist says, καγω εωρακα και μεμαρτυρηκα οτι ουτος εστιν ο υιος του Θεου. It is not impossible that ο υιος του Θεου may again represent the Aram. טַלְיָא דֵאלָהָא, interpreted as ‘the Child of God’ but intended to primarily mean ‘the Servant of God’. A sufficient explanation of the same term by αμνος in v.29 but by υιος in v.34 may be found in the difference of context, the first passage picturing the טַלְיָא as a sacrifice, the second as baptizing with the Holy Spirit.

If it be objected against this explanation of αμνος = טַלְיָא in the sense ‘Servant’ that the term be used in Deutero-Isaiah to denote the ideal Servant is regularly Heb. עֶבֶד = Aram. עַבְדָּא, properly ‘bond-servant’, it may be replied that the choice of טַלְיָא rather than עַבְדָּא is sufficiently explained by the word-play invoived. While עַבְדָּא = δουλος, טַלְיָא = παις. Both Greek terms are indifferently used in LXX to render the עֶבֶד of Deutero-Isaiah, but the preference for παις (δουλος in 49:3.5; παις in 42:1, 49:6, 50:10, 52:13); and it is παις which is used of our Lord as the idea Servant in Acts 3:13, 4:27.30.

* The fem. of this word, t^elîthâ ‘maiden’, is familiar to every one from Mk. 5:41.
† Dr. Ball renders the assumed Aram. original, ‘Behold the Young Servant or Child of God’, and does not bring the expression into connexion with Deutero-Isaiah.

It is interesting to not the wordplay and that the meaning of טַלְיָא talyâ as “servant” is found almost exclusively in Galilean Aramaic. Although what scholarship calls “Galilean” Aramaic today is a later dialect than that of Jesus (a few hundred years later) that it does contain many of the features that scholars believe would have been present earlier. This pun just might be one of them. Other Aramaicists such as Geza Vermes endorse this view, however they tend to give more weight to the “Child of God” interpretation, and its similarity to how the word “kid” (i.e. young goat) is used in English.

[This article is currently in the middle of being reformatted. Please bear with us as we roll it over to our new webpage.]

by Daniel Gaztambide

In my first article on the Quest for the Historical Jesus, I had made a quick review of certain things that many modern biblical scholars held as fact (Gaztambide, 2005)1 . In this article I just want to elaborate on some of my claims, in particular the relationship between the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke: commonly called the Synoptic Gospels. Once we’ve all gotten acquainted with some “landmarks” in critical scholarship we can move on to higher ground and talk about “deeper” topics of New Testament studies. Earlier I had 2 argued that

”… within the Synoptics, Matthew and Luke use Mark, as well as a second source(Holtzmann, 1863). This second source involves material not found in Mark, but shared by Matthew and Luke. Subsequently named ‘Q’ (Acronym for Quelle, German for source), it has been singled out as having been another Gospel altogether. That adds an extra account to our Synoptics.”

St. Augustine believed the order in which the Gospels were organized within the cannon reflected how they were written and who was who’s source. Matthew was written first, Mark edited Matthew (Extensively if this were to be true)3 , and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. This view became quite dominant throughout orthodox Christianity, and is routinely respected within its pious institutions to this day. However, scholars from the 17th century onward have highly contested this view in light of some problems with the traditional model4.

The german scholar J.J. Griesbach (1783) had seen various attempts at a harmonization of the differing Gospel accounts. He considered such exercises at reconciling the differences between them as unrealistic, and had the genius to place the narratives of Mark, Matthew, and Luke in parallel columns, giving a side by side �synopsis� of the life of Jesus5 . Instead of presenting a tool that would help compare the accounts of the �Synoptic� Gospels as a united message, he created a mechanism by which their sharp contrast and curious relationships became highly apparent. Many scholars have argued over how to interpret the relationship between the Gospel literature ever since. Griesbach presented his own view, that Luke had known Matthew, and that Mark had edited both6 . Although his view has lacked support in recent years, it would nevertheless be the vision of a fellow German that would become dominant:

”The future belonged to a view initially popularized by a German scholar of a later generation. H.J. Holtzman, in a 1863 study of the synoptic Gospels set forth a ”two- document hypothesis” to explain the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. As it has developed, this view can be succintly stated in two propositions: (1) Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written and was used independently by the authors of Matthew and Luke as their main written source; and (2) Matthew and Luke also possessed another written document, now lost, that consisted primarily of Jesus’ teachings. This hypothetical document received the designation ‘Q’ (for Quelle or ’source,’ in German).” W. Barnes Tatum, In Quest of Jesus, (1999:41)7

One of the particularly original things about Holtzman’s theory8 involves the ordering of the Gospel material. He was the first who broke the mold of tradition and scholarship of his time by setting Mark up as prior to its brethren. This has been upheld by modern scholars based on various criterion. First, there is the sheer length and content of the Gospels. Mark is the shortest and simplest of the Synoptics, sharing much of its narrative with Luke and Matthew. The latter two, however, wove other stories into Mark’s narrative and produced their respective Gospels- with birth epics, geneologies, extra teachings, and detailed resurrection accounts (Tatum, 1999: 42; Ehrman9 , 1997: 74-75; Harris10 , 2001: 103-107). In addition, Luke and Matthew also used Mark’s own stories with some degree of editing when necessary11 (Ehrman, 1997: 73-4).

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to present a full defense of this �Two-Source hypothesis�, I intend12, Pharisees see the disciples of Jesus plucking said grain on the Sabbath, and accuse them of breaking the day of rest. In the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus defends his disciples’ actions with Scripture and sapiential wisdom:

”.25And He said to them, ”Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 2.26how he entered the house of God, when Abi’athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 2.27And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 2.28so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” Mark 2:25-28.

It would seem that Jesus really showed those Pharisees with his interesting use of Scripture, preaching on the importance of God’s grace and men’s necessities over structured legalism… but is this the case? Does his application of the OT passage hold true under scrutiny? The text Jesus tries to quote in this passage is 1 Samuel 21:2-10, in which David requests the loaves of the Presence13 for food. A simple reading reveals some problems concerning application of this story to Jesus situation. Nowhere does it say that David came to the Temple on a Sabbath, nor do any Jewish sources contemporary to Jesus provide such a reading. Jesus stresses David’s emergency and need (Let us recall that at this point in the narrative of David is being chased by King Saul: 1 Samuel 18-20. ) over ritual law, but nowhere in Mark’s narrative is it obviously present that the disciples were dying of hunger! More importantly, Jesus claims that the High Priest at the time was Abi’athar, but the Priest mentioned in this narrative is his father Ahimelech. Furthermore, it is somewhat clouded in ambiguity whether Ahimelech himself is High Priest or simply a levite present upon David’s arrival. Apparently, the Markan Jesus has confused the son for the father and made him High Priest to boot (Meier, 2004)14. Such an embarassment could not be allowed to stand, and here enter Matthew and Luke.

In Matthew 12:1-8, the situation is forged to better accommodate the quoted passage. The Evangelist argues that the disciples 12:1�…were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat �, hence providing a defensive reasoning for the transgression. Also, Matthew eliminates the mention of who was High Priest altogether, hence salvaging Jesus from a position of embarassment to a more sophisticated exegesis15, as well as arguing that they have a right to eat, since something greater than the temple is here, presumably Jesus. Posthumously, Jesus even gets the chance to turn the argument around a lash out against the Phariseees themselves16. In Luke 6:1-5, the Evangelist dealt with the more crucial problem by eliminating the reference to Abiathar. He also edits Mark for his own theology by removing the element of the Sabbath being made for man and not vice-versa, but allows the authority of the �Son of Man� over the Sabbath to remain.

In the above example, Matthew and Luke saw material in Mark that was highly problematic and embarassing to their respective theologies, and went through great lengths to turn the narrative around to present Jesus in a positive light. The very fact that they edit and use Mark points to its use as a source, and hence prior to Matthew and Luke in its dating. Now we turn to another example to help illustrate the phenomena the we have termed ‘Q’.

Perhaps the most aesthetically beautiful pair of passages in the entire New Testament is found in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23. We usually refer to them as �The Beautitudes�, and as stated before, they are found in Matthew and Luke, but they are not present in Mark. They contain more or less the same wording, save for the apparent differences between them. Here are the two passages for comparison:

Matthew 5:3-12

3a)”Blessed are the poor in spirit,
b) for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4a)”Blessed are those who mourn,
b) for they shall be comforted.
5a)”Blessed are the gentle,
b) for they shall inherit the earth.
6a)”Blessed are those who hunger
b) and thirst for righteousness,
c) for they shall be satisfied.
7a)”Blessed are the merciful,
b) for they shall receive mercy.
8a)”Blessed are the pure in heart,
b) for they shall see God.
9a)”Blessed are the peacemakers,
b) for they shall be called sons of God.
10a)”Blessed are those who have been persecuted
b) for the sake of righteousness,
c for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11a)”Blessed are you when people insult you
b) and persecute you,
c) and falsely say all kinds of evil
d) against you because of Me.
12a)”Rejoice and be glad,
b) for your reward in heaven is great;
c for in the same way they persecuted
d) the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:20-23

20a)…Blessed are you who are poor,
b) for yours is the kingdom of God.
21a)”Blessed are you who hunger now,
b) for you shall be satisfied.
c) Blessed are you who weep now,
d) for you shall laugh.
22a)”Blessed are you when men hate you,
b) and ostracize you, and insult you,
c) and scorn your name as evil,
d) for the sake of the Son of Man.
23a)”Be glad in that day and leap for joy,
b) for behold, your reward is great in heaven
c) For in the same way their fathers
d) used to treat the prophets.

We consider passages like these to make up the corpus of ‘Q’. But now the question is, which version is closer to ‘Q’? Is it Matthew or is it Luke? We retain the view that Matthew and Luke operated apart from each other, but had the Common Sayings Source ‘Q’ at their disposal. The themes in Luke’s version seem aimed at the destitute, those who are poor, who hunger, and weep because of their plight and lot in life, while Matthew is preocuppied with themes of upright morals and ethics which reflect his view of Jesus as a teacher of the Torah. Luke only shares about half the material in the passage with Matthew (Matthew 5: 3=Luke 6: 20; Matthew 5: 6=Luke 6: 21; Matthew 5: 11-12=Luke 6: 22-23). This could mean one of two things: that he either edited ‘Q’ by excluding those sayings, or Matthew edited ‘Q’ by including those sayings from his own tradition17 . The topics Matthew discusses in his version of the Beautitudes deal with mercy, compassion, righteousness and the like. It simply doesn’t make sense that if Luke had access to such sayings in Q that he simply dropped them, since they have themes that flow within his own narrative. By this reasoning it is highly likely that Luke is using whatever he found in ‘Q’, while Matthew elaborated on the text with his own traditions. But of course, arguments could be made to the contrary, and for that reason I seek18 ; Robinson, Hoffman, Kloppenborg, & Moreland, 200219 ; Mack, 199420 ; Funk, Hoover, & the Jesus Seminar, 199721 ). One of the more interesting hermeneutics in ‘Q’ scholarship has been to include non-canonical Gospels for the purpose of determining ‘Q’s content. In this case, the Sayings Gospel of Thomas22 was brought in to compare the sayings within it with Luke and Matthew:

54)Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
69- a) Jesus said, “Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father.
b) Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled.”
68)Jesus said, “Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no Place.”

Looking at these parallels (Thomas 54 = Matthew 5: 3 = Luke 6: 20; Thomas 69 = Matthew 5: 6a = Luke 6: 21a-b; Thomas 68 = Matthew 5: 11-12 = Luke 6: 22-23) we see that there are certain instances where Matthew seems to have included material of his own. Instead of what might be read as the economically (and hence socially) poor in Thomas and Luke, Matthew interprets as �poor in spirit�, the depressed and disillusioned (which are psychological states which may correlate with being poor and destitute, but is not limited to such a state). Likewise, while Luke and Thomas may be read as saying that those who are hungry will be fed, Matthew reads that those who hunger for restitution and justice will get it, a very different theme altogether. Finally, Matthew and Luke actually agree more on less on the themes of persecution and ostracizing that are also present in Thomas. Based on this evidence, it stands very strongly that Luke 6:20=Thomas 54 and Luke 5: 11-12=Thomas 69b are original portions of Q which Matthew has edited. As for the Matthew 5: 11-12=Luke 6: 22-23, the wording is so similar and without significant break that it probably goes back to the corpus of the ‘Q’ source as well23. Hence, the Gospel of Thomas can serve as a useful tool in trying to reconstruct the earliest form of the sayings that can be traced back to ‘Q’ (Funk, Hoover, & the Jesus Seminar, 1997).

In the end, we presented a short review of the history behind the Synoptic Problem up to that which is strongly held in contemporary New Testament Scholarship. In order to better conceptualize the two-source hypothesis we have looked at key passages which show the priority of Mark over Matthew and Luke, as well as the independence of the material shared between the two. This block of material independent of Mark we have traced to a hypothetical sayings source called ‘Q’, which is used and abused by its editors to suit their particular theological needs. We had a small test of the hypothesis and found it to conform to modern scholarship, as well as discussed what the corpus of this phantom Gospel may have looked like. One very important question remains. Since we have found this other source within the Synoptics, could it have its own image of Jesus? And if so, since it exists within our Canonical Gospels, is ‘Q’ itself �canonical�? It is the opinion of this author as well as others that if certain Gospels have been included within a collection of great relevance and considered �canonical�, then sources unearthed from within these writings must also be �canonical� (Smith, 1997)24.

Bibliography:

Borg, Marcus. The Lost Gospel ‘Q’: Original Sayings of Jesus. Ulysses Press: Berkely, CA. 1999.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY. 1992.

—————————-. The Essential Jesus- Original Sayings and Earliest Images. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, NY. 1998.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 1997.

Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; & The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What did Jesus Really Say? HarperCollins: New York, NY. 1997

—————–. Profiles of Jesus. Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa, CA. 2002.

Gaztambide, Daniel. So Sayeth the Lord…According to Who? AramaicNT.org: http://www.aramaicnt.org/NEW/index.php?p=52. 2005.

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A student’s introduction; 4th Edition. McGraw Hill Higher Education: Nashville, TN. 2001.

Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol 66, 2004. Pgs 561-581.

Smith, Mahlon H. The Canonical Status of ‘Q’. Virtual Religion Index: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/q_canon.html#Top. 1997.

———————. Jesus: A Sourcebook. Peaquod Press. 2000.

Tatum, W. Barnes. In Quest of Jesus. Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN. 1999.

Footnotes:

1. Gaztambide, D.. (2005). So sayeth the lord…according to who?. Retrieved Jul 16, 2005, from AramaicNT.org Web site: http://www.aramaicnt.org/site/index.php?mode=article&entry=28 [back]
2. July 2005: Daniel Gaztambide is a honors student of Psychology and Religion at Rutgers University. Any correspondence concerning this article should be sent to him at gazti@eden.rutgers.edu, or mailed to 31045 RPO Way, New Brunswick, NJ. 08901 [back]
3. Compare, for example, Mark 1: 1-9 with Matthew 1-3. Matthew starts of with the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth, escape to Egypt, and baptism by a reluctant and humble John the Baptist. Mark, however, skips Jesus’ early years and starts of with his baptism in a more nonchalant manner- John doesn’t question the ritual’s necessity in the case of Jesus. Mark also fails to mention John’s rather violent assault on the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is so pronounced in Matthew. If Mark had truly edited Matthew as a source, then he would have left out the entire birth narrative, as well as the elements that mark Jesus’ superiority of John in such a more blatant fashion. He also leaves out the Abrahamic-Davidic genealogy which would have legitimized his kingship. [back]
4. Although the purpose of this article is not to in any way demean traditional thought, its aim is to present critical scholarly thought on problems presented by trying to harmonize the Gospel accounts. Each of the Gospels treats the material on the life of Jesus in rather unique ways reflecting their theological views, again ”Each author wanted their own view of Jesus to be accepted as the valid one. Considering the competition we must take notice that they can’t all be the historical, factual Jesus.” , So Sayeth the Lord…According to WHO?, 2005. [back]
5. For a vivid presentation of this phenomena, see John W. Marshall’s ‘The Five Gospel Parallels’ at http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/syn-ini.htm. It’s a great resource that now sports parallels between the Gospels and Paul, Synoptics plus John, and ‘Q’ and the Gospels. [back]
6. Griesbach, J.J.. (1783). A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke. , : . [back]
7. Tatum, W.B.. (1999). In Quest of Jesus. ‘Revised and Enlarged’ ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. [back]
8. Holtzman, H.. (1863). Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter (The Synoptic Gospels: Their origin and historical character). Leipzig, : Engelmann. [back]
9. Ehrman, B.D.. (1997). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.. New York , NY: Oxford University Press. [back]
10. Harris, S.L.. (2001). The New Testament: A student’s introduction. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: McGraw Hill Higher Education. [back]
11. Editing of Markan material by Luke or Matthew usually involved dealing with highly embarrassing material for their respective arguments concerning Jesus’ teaching or identity. Editing also took place where it was necessary to strong arm Mark to fit their particular theologies. This will be argued in greater detail later in the article. [back]
12. All quotes are from the Life Application Study Bible- Updated Edition, New American Standard Bible. Zondervan. 2000. [back]
13. See Leviticus 2:2; Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 2:16; Leviticus 24: 5-9; Exodus 25:30 [back]
14. Meier, John P. The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol 66, 2004. Pgs 561-581. [back]
15. 5�Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?� Matthew 12: 5. [back]
16. 7�But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.� Matthew 12: 7. [back]
17. This points to the four-source hypothesis, which is the modern revision of Holtzman’s two-source hypothesis. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to enter into a detailed discussion about the theory, it basically recognizes that there is material in Matthew and Luke that is their own material independent of Mark or ‘Q’. These independent sources are called �M� (For material found only in Matthew) and �L� (For material found only in Luke). An example of this phenomena in Luke would be the independent �Prodigal Son� (Luke 15:11- 32) and the �Good Samaritan� (Luke 10: 29-37), and �Words of the Law� (Matthew 5: 17) and �On Adultery� (Matthew 5: 27-30). [back]
18. Borg, M.J.. (1999). The Lost Gospel Q: Original Sayings of Jesus. Berkely, CA: Ulysses Press. [back]
19. Robinson, J.M., Hoffman, P., Kloppenborg, J.S., & Moreland, M.C. (Ed.). (2002). The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English: With Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas.. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers. [back]
20. Mack, B.L.. (1997). The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins.. Reprint Edition ed. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco. [back]
21. Funk, R.W., & Hoover, R.W.. (1997). The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins. [back]
22. For a text of the Gospel of Thomas, see http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/Complete/Thomas/thomas.html at the Westar Institute’s website. [back]
23. Although the fact that the wording is not 100% exact could serve as a test case for the notion that ‘Q’ might have been a oral tradition, or that separate portions of ‘Q’ circulated in individual targums until collected into one work. [back]
24. Smith, Mahlon H. The Canonical Status of ‘Q’. Virtual Religion Index: http://virtualreligion.net/forum/q_canon.html#Top. 1997. [back]

For many years now, many churches (such as those within the modern Charismatic movement and seperately the Church of Latter Day Saints) believe that this passage in Luke describes a “sign of the spirit,” known as the “burning heart” or “burning bosom,” where the Holy Spirit descends upon a man and creates this sensation usually described as “tingly and warm” in the hollow of their chest. Strangely enough, the testimony in Acts, and the descriptions in 1st Corinthians do not mention such a thing. If it such a common occurance and an important sign, why would Luke have not mentioned it in his first work (The Gospel of Luke) and Paul passed it by?

In the Aramaic of the Syriac Peshitta, the word in question was rendered as יַקִיר. The strange nature of this reading, is that יַקִיר does not mean “burning,” but “heavy” or “slow.” “Burning” would be the word יַקִיד, which lends a new clue to the solution of this puzzle. Lining these two words up side by side, we see a possible source of confusion:

יַקִיר
יַקִיד

The words יַקִיר and יַקִיד are only seperated by the slightest of penstrokes. In most Syriac Aramaic scripts, this difference is a very important dot which appears below the letter dâlath ܕ while above the letter rish ܪ, otherwise they are identical. In “Hebrew” Aramaic scripts, dâlath דּ is determined by an angled stroke, where rish ר has a slightly rounded quality to its edge.

In Aramaic, a “heavy heart” makes more sense than a “burning heart” because the heart or לֶבָא is an idiom for the mind. To have a “heavy heart” or a “slow heart” means to be slow in thinking, unlike the idiom in English where having a “heavy heart” means to be stricken with grief or sorrow. Idioms are notoriously difficult to prove in the context of an ancient language (and rightfully so). For example, the works of George M. Lamsa are riddled with many “idioms” that simply did not exist in the language of Jesus’ day, and even more that Lamsa (as a native speaker, naturally extending semantic meaning) simply made up.

Earlier, in verse 25 of the same pericope, we find the following words which may serve as an explicit definition that the author understood such an idiom to exist:

Luke 24:25
“He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”

In this narrative, Jesus had appeared to his disciples post-mortem, and started to teach them from the scripture. In their “slowness of heart” to understand his lesson, he repremanded them as a parent repremands their child. Unfortunately, for them, the moment that they realized who they were speaking with, according to the story, he disappeared. Taking a look at Luke 24:32 in the Syriac Peshitta we see that יַקִיר, was also chosen to render the Aramaic of this verse.

Applying this newfound information to the passage, we come up with the following reading:

Luke 24:25-32

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how heavy of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.

They asked each other, “Were not our hearts heavy within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

Now this is exceedingly surprising to find within the Gospel of Luke.

Now with all of this evidence in mind, we can see that there is a parallel that is seemingly missed by the Greek texts of the New Testament by the simple confusion of two look-alike letters. Furthermore the nature of this being found in Luke points once again to Lukes knowledge of Aramaic, and is strong evidence that Luke was writing in or, at the very least, was using an Aramaic source.

Sources:

• Black, M.. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. (p. 254).
• Torrey, C. C.. Our Translated Gospels. (p. 106).

-Steve

“A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they couldn’t pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?”

Simon answered, “He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.”

He said to him, “You have judged correctly.”

This pericope with a very simple parable contains some possible wordplay if looked at from an Aramaic perspective.

There exists a parallel between the words חובא (khawbe’; debt, obligation) and חובא (khuba’; love), which share identical spelling:

חַובֵא (khawbe’) comes from the root חוב (khwab) which means “to owe” or “to incur debt.”

חוּבָא (khuba’) comes from the root חבב (khbab) which means “to love” or “to be fond of.”

Given this possible wordplay, this passage may be evidence for an Aramaic source that was used by the author of Luke during the compilation of his work as this pun is lost when read in Greek translation.

“And [he] chose twelve of them whom he called Apostles:
Simon, whom he named ‘Rock,’
and Andrew, his brother,
and James,
and John
and Philip
and Bartholomew
and Matthew,
and Thomas,
and James, Alpheus’ son,
and Simon, who was called ‘The Zealot,’
and Judas, James’ son,
and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”

-Luke 6:13c-16

Introduction

If it were not for the Gospel of Luke, the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament would practically be cut in half. When Luke’s work is taken into account, however, we depart from a number that is far under what most linguists say is necessary to be fluent in a language, and rise to a mind boggling number of words which are unique to his pen alone.

But Syria, the traditional place of St. Luke’s residence, is a country that birthed the language of Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Jesus’ lifetime, incorporated several centuries B.C. after its invasion by the Persian Empire. Why would Luke, who is traditionally a Syrian physician, write in litterary Greek about an Aramaic figure? By looking at the text of this Gospel in comparison to the other Synoptics, we can possibly draw the conclusion that the author was working, at least in part, from Aramaic source documents when compiling his work.

The Quirk

Out of the three Synoptic Gospels which tell the story of Jesus appointing twelve Apostles, Luke is the only book to label the last Simon as ζηλωτην (zêlôtên, “The Zealot”). Matthew and Mark refer to the last Simon mentioned as κανανιτης (kananitês, “The Canaanite”). So, there appears to be an oddity, since modern textual criticism theories believe that Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources. Why would the author of Luke edit Mark’s words where the author of Matthew keeps them the same?

The Evidence

The first rule of editing is not to edit something without good cause. Changing Simon from a Cananite to a Zealot would have very bold implications as the letter was addressed to a Graeco-Roman audience (”most excellent Theophilus,” 1:3).

The Zealots were a violent Jewish political movement in the 1st century CE which sought to incite the people of Rome-controlled Judea to rebel against the Roman Empire and drive it from the country by force. The movement, itself, has roots as far back as 6 AD when Judas of Galilee (also known as Judas of Gamala, who incidentally is mentioned in Acts 5:37) led an unsuccessful revolt. The historian Flavius Josephus records the following in The Jewish War, Book 18, Chapter 1:

Yet was there one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.

They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies’ fire.

Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Zadok, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

The Zealots continued to oppose the Romans due to Rome’s intolerance of their culture and on the grounds that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king descended from King David. Things came to a head in CE 66-70 with Great Jewish Revolt and when Emperor Titus besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and burned Herod’s Temple to the ground.

So why possibly would the author of Luke make such a decision, knowing that the Zealots were sworn enemies of the very audience that he was writing to? The word for “Canannite” in Aramaic is is כנעני (kanâ`nây), where the name of the Zealot movement was either קנאי (qanây) or קנעני (qanâ`nây) which literally mean “The Jealous Ones.”

כנעני
kanâ`nây

קנעני
qanâ`nây

These two words were practically indistinguishable when spoken as the only difference at the time between כ (kof) and ק (qof) was emphasis. Both are also completely indistinguishable if written sloppily as the only difference between כ (kof) and ק (qof) in square script is a tail, or in Syriac scripts, whether the body of the character is open or closed.

Conclusion

Given the similarities, it may be an appropriate conclusion that the author of Luke was utilizing an Aramaic source document when compiling his Gospel. To conclude that the author would “correct” a Greek text to an alternate reading that endorses a public enemy to a Graeco-Roman audience seems a bit far-fetched; however, even because of that possiblity it may be a stronger conclusion that in order for this quirk to exist that the author must have had a some knowledge of the Aramaic language to begin with (either to translate, or to correct his sources). Under the criterion of embarassment, it seems that the former of the two possibilites (that the author was using an ambiguous source document) is far, far more likely.

8:28 So Jesus said:
When you’ve elevated the son of Adam then you will recognize what I am!
30 When he said this, many believed in him.
31 So Jesus began to tell the Judeans who had come to believe in him
“If you stick to my teaching (logos) you will be my disciples.
32 And you’ll know the truth, and the truth will liberate you!”

In the opening to the dialogue, there are two possible sets of wordplay that require our attention:

The first is a simple comparison of the two words λογος (logos; word, teaching) and μαθητεης (mathêtês; disciples). In Aramaic, it is quite possible that these could have their origins in מלתא (melthâ’; word, teaching) and תלמידין (talmîdîn; disciples) respectively. The first three base consonants of these two words are mirror images of eachother (מלת [mlt] vs. תלמד [tlmd]), which allows for not only a pun, but some clever assonance (which from my generation rings the platitude, “be cool, stay in school”).

The second involves the words αληθεια (alêtheia; truth) and ελευθεροω (eleutheroô; to liberate, to free). It is quite possible that these respectively trace back to the roots שרר (shrar; truth) and חרר (khrar; liberate, set free) in the form of a pun. The truth very well may set you free, especially if you have a cold. ש (sh; shin) and ח (kh; khet) are both fricatives, the only difference being which part of the pallate is being employed.

33 And they replied to him:
“We are Abraham’s descendents (sperma)
and we have never been a slave to anyone!
How (can) you say: ‘You will become liberated’?
34 Jesus replied to them:
“I swear I’m telling you the truth:
Everyone who makes an error is a slave to error.

In this passage, a pun between “to make” and “slave” is also rather prominent as in Aramaic they share the root עבד (`avad), drawing a parallel between the two. This use is common between virtually all dialects of Aramaic on record, so it would certainly be found in the dialect that would have been employed.

37 I know you are descendents of Abraham but you are trying to kill me,
because there is no room for my teaching among you.
38 And so you do what you heard from your father.

Between the words עבד (`avad; to do) and אבא (’abâ’; father), there may be some more potential wordplay. Given how they are placed within the saying, it may also be part of a parallelism, and it certainly builds upon how עבד (`avad) has been used earlier in the pericope.

Also note the rhetoric: “I know you are the descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill me.” This is not a declaration of intent to physically kill, but a device of debate (for example in English “Oh stop that whining, you’re killing me!”). It emphasizes a state of disbelief or annoyance.

39 They retotred and said to him:
“Our אבא (’abâ’; father) is אברהם (’abrâhâm; Abraham)!”
Jesus says to them:
“If you are אברהם (’abrâhâm; Abraham)’s children, עבדו (`avadû; do) as אברהם (’abrâhâm; Abraham) עבד (`avad; did)!
40 Now you’re trying to kill me!
A man who has told you the truth that he heard from God. אברהם (’abrâhâm; Abraham) didn’t עבד (`avad; do) this!
41 You are עבד (`aved; doing) as your אבא (’abâ’; father)!

In verses 39 to 41, there is further play upon עבד (`avad; to do) and some further possible wordplay with אבא (’abâ’; father), and now we see another possible source of wordplay with the word אברהם (’abrâhâm; Abraham). The idea that if one’s abba is Abraham they would `abad what Abraham would `abad appears to be one, not only of criticism, but with this repetition of “ab” may be a form of mockery or insult. Pharisees from the time period had great reverence for the teachings of their elders, which later evolved into tractate Avot (lit. “Fathers”) in the Talmud, so the criticism appears to be focused upon how Pharisee elders did things versus their understanding of the practices of Abraham.

41 (cont.) They told him:
“Us? We’re not born as ממזרין (mamzrîn; bastards)!
We have one Father: God!”
42 Jesus told them:
If God was your father, you’d רחמין (râkhmîn; love) me!

Here we see another potential root-pun between ממזרא (mamzrâ’; bastard) and רחם (rkham; love), however this one might be unlikely.

43 Why don’t you משתודעין (meshtawd`în; recognize) what I’m מלתי (mlathî; saying) ((lit. “my words”))?
Because לא משכחין אנתון שמעין (lâ’ meshk’khîn ‘antûn shema`în; you can’t listen) to מלתי (mlathî; my teaching)!

In the Peshitta and in the Old Syriac (S), we see a rather interesting reading which very well may be some potential wordplay: ידע (yada; to know, understand) is found in an old eshtaphal form משתודעין (meshtawd`în). While in this form, it has nice alitterative qualities with the phrase לא משכחין אנתון שמעין (lâ’ meshk’khîn ‘antûn shema`în; lit. you’re not able to listen).

44 You are from your /)abA)/ father, and you /(ab]ad/ do what your /)abA)/ father /xmad/ wants.

(Currently being researched from this point on.)

He was a murderer from the beginning,
and did not stand for the Truth, because there was no truth in him.
When he tells a lie he speaks on his own
For he is a liar and the father of lies.
45 But I tell you the truth, and you don’t believe me.
46 Will any of you point out my error?
If I’m telling the truth why won’t you believe me?
48 And the Judeans retorted and said to him:
“Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan
and you are insane!” [lit.: “you have a demon!”]
49 Jesus retorted
“Me? I’m not insane! [lit.: “I don’t have a demon!”]
But I respect my Father, and you don’t respect me.
51 I swear I’m telling you the truth!
Anyone who treasures my teaching won’t die!
52 The Judeans said to him:
“Now we know you’re insane!
Abraham died! The prophets too!
And you’re saying:
‘Anyone who treasures my teaching won’t die’?
53 You’re not greater than our father Abraham!
He died! THe prophets died too!
What do you make yourself out to be?
54 Jesus retorted:
56 “Your father Abraham would have been overjoyed
to see my day.”
57 Then the Judeans said to him:
“You’re not yet 50 and you’ve seen Abraham?
So they picked up stones to throw at him.
59 But Jesus disappeared and left the temple.

Romans 5:7
For one would hardly die for a righteous δικαιος (dikaios; righteous, upright, lawful, or just) man; though perhaps for the good αγαθος (agathos) man someone would dare even to die.

Arguably this progression is not logical. If someone is not willing to die for a “righteous man,” why would they be willing to die for a “good” man instead? Interestingly enough, within the Syriac Peshitta, we see that where the Greek reads δικαιος (righteous, upright, lawful, or just), the Aramaic reads רשעיא (rashe`yâ) which in the Syriac dialect means “wicked.” This in turn makes the text of the Peshitta read:

Nor one would hardly die for a wicked רשעיא man; though perhaps for a good טבא (tâbâ’; good) man someone would dare even to die.

This progression makes a greater deal of logical sense, however such a diversion from a well established textual tradition is rather bold. Why would the compilers of the Peshitta do this? The answer may be within the letter /ע/ (`ayin). In the Estrangelo, Madnyaha, and Serto Alphabets, the letter /ע/ looks almost identical to the letter /נ/ (nûn) except for a difference of a mere 20 to 30° on their respective stems.

If we deliberately confuse /ע/ for /נ/, we get the word רשניא (reshnâyâ’) which does not mean “wicked” but “righteous, justice, lawmaker, ruler, or leader.” This could have been easily translated as δικαιος (righteous, upright, lawful, or just), as it would have been the least absurd of the possible renderings.

ܪܫܥܝܐ
(rashe`yâ; “wicked”)

ܪܫܢܝܐ
(reshnâyâ’; “righteous”)

(If you have Syriac Uncode fonts installed with proper Open Type support, you should be able to see the above text.)

Within the context of this passage, however, רשעיא (wicked) is arguably a more authentic reading, as we can see in the verses that surround this part of the pericope, they author is building a logical progression:

Romans 5
6 For while we were yet weak, at the right time the Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a wicked man. Yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

If δικαιος (righteous) were the original reading, then it would seem to miss the context of the author’s words. The connundrum of salvation, according to him, rests within the fact that the Christ came and died for those who were unrighteous, sinners, and ungodly, not those who were upright in the eyes of God. רשעיא (wicked), therefore, is fits this argument, completing the three lines of parallelism and building upon the author’s theological concept laid down in verse 6.

The weight of this particular quirk is certainly notable. We have the possibility of evidence that (1) the letter to the Romans came from an Aramaic source, but (2) even more importantly, this source may have been written in a particular family of Aramaic scripts. Given how young Estrangela would be at the authoring of this particular letter, more research is certainly in order.

Acts 8:27
“So he [Philip] started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,”

The Word

The focus of this inquiry is the word ευνουχος (eunoukhos) which is where the English word “eunuch” comes from. It is assigned the Strong’s Number #2135 and has the following definition:

New Testament Greek Definition:
2135 eunouchos {yoo-noo’-khos}
from eune (a bed) and 2192; TDNT - 2:765,277; n m
AV - eunuch 8; 8

1. 1) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain
1. a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women’s apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs
2. b) an emasculated man, a eunuch
1. b1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39*
3. c) one naturally incapacitated
1. 1c1) for marriage
2. 1c2) begetting children
4. d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage

The Evidence

Note the definition emphasized above. The Strong’s Lexicon has an extra entry to specifically deal with this particular use of the word. However, the only evidence for this use that is cited falls upon the story of Acts (in other words, one defines the word based upon this definition, which is in turn defined by the story; a logical loop).

If we take the Greek text for face value, we see that this particular Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple; however, such activity was forbidden. For example we see in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 23:1
“No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.”

With all of this in mind, things become rather puzzling. Why would the Book of Acts record an event that would be, when taken with the context of the situation, impossible?

An Aramaic Perspective

Although the Syriac Peshitta is by no means a source to take completely for face value, it does have an interesting possibility. Where ευνουχος is found in the Greek, the Peshitta reads מהימנא (mhaimnâ) which comes from the root הימן (haimen) which, in turn, derives the following words:

1. מהימנא (mhaimnâ) - eunuch / faithful
2. מהימנא (mhaimnâ) - believer / believing
3. הימנותא (haimânûthâ) - faith / religion
4. הימן (haimen) - to believe / to trust

The Conclusion

Due to the fact that eunuchs were forbidden from worshipping in the Temple as well as the possibility of an Aramaic source, it is a possibility that this passage in Acts might have intended to read:

Acts 8:27
“So he [Philip] started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian believer, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, “