Basic HTML Version
sorne influence in the preparation
of the King James Version of 1611 ,
in which many
ot
its Latinisms
were adopted" (p. 267). However,
the Catholic Old Testament trans–
lation (the Douay Version) was
completed too late (1609-161 O) to
be of much use in the formulation
of the King James.
You also stated that Greek was
not the original language of the
New Testament. lf you have refer–
ence to the everyday language of
Jesus, you are probably correct.
That is, from all indications Jesus
spoke Aramaic on a day-to-day
basis. Yet the society of Palestine
at that time was to a certain extent
tri lingual, with Hebrew and Greek
being spoken as the normal lan–
guage of a minority of the popu–
lation. Even though Jesus evidently
used Aramaic most of the time (as
shown by such passages as Mark
5:41 and 15:34), He may very well
have used Hebrew and Greek on
occasion.
Therefore the oral teachings of
Jesus as we find them in the Gos–
pels are probably mostly render–
ings into Greek. lt is also possible
that sorne small parts of the New
Testament were originally written in
Aramaic and later translated into
Greek . On the other hand , we
know that huge sections were writ–
ten to people who did
not
know
Aramaic. Paul 's epistles were all
written to Greek-speaking areas of
the world and were composed
originally in Greek.
Furthermore, even though Ara–
maic may underlie certain sections
of the New Testament, not one
shred of this presumed original has
come down to us. We do not have
a single bit of Aramaic material
from Jesus or the early Church.
The only thing that has survived is
the Greek edition.
Sorne people have been con–
fused by claims that the Peshitta
(Syriac) version of the New Testa–
ment is earlier than the Greek. This
can be easily disproved. Although
Syriac is an Aramaic dialect, it is
part of
eastern
Aramaic whereas
the Aramaic of Palestine of Jesus'
time belongs to
western
Aramaic .
The two are clearly distinguished
The
PLAIN TRUTH
February 1978
by Aramaic specialists. The Pesh–
itta and other Aramaic versions of
the New Testament are plainly
translations of the Greek text , as
Aramaic scholars recognize. and
not original compositions. They
date from several centuries after
the time of Christ.
We acknowledge sorne weak–
nesses of the King James V.ersion ,
but these faults must be under–
stood in light of the handicaps
mentioned earlier. Fortunately, we
have at our disposal today the Re–
vised Standard Version,
The New
English Bible,
and severa! other
very praiseworthy modern trans–
lations that effectively bridge the
knowledge gap of 350 years. For
more on this subject, request our
free reprint articles "Which Trans–
lations Should You Use?" and
·'HowWe Got the Bible.' ·
m
"Your answer to the question
Kt
concerning the brothers of
Jesus (October-November
Plain
Truth)
stated that Eusebius wrote
that James, the leader of the New
Testament Church , was Jesus'
brother, and was succeeded in this
office by a second brother, Simon.
Eusebius clearly states that Simon
(or Simeon) was not a brother but a
cousin of Jesus, and a cousin by le–
gal relationship only, be ing a
nephew of Joseph."
Ernest
F.,
Santa Monica, California
11
You are correct. Eusebius
wrote: "After the martyrdom
of Jesus ... those of the apostles
and disciples of our Lord, that
were yet surviving, carne together
from all parts with those that were
related to our Lord according to
the flesh .... These consulted to–
gether, to determine whom it was
proper to pronounce worthy of
being the successor of James.
They all unanimously declared
Simeon the son of Cleophas, of
whom mention is made in the sa–
cred volume, as worthy of the epis–
copal seat there. They say he was
the cousin german [Greek ,
anepsios] of our Savior, for Hege–
sippus (one of Eusebius' chief
sources] asserts that Cleophas
was the brother of Joseph" (C. F.
Cruse translation , London, 1847).
So this " Simeon" was evidently
the cousin of Simon the half–
brother of Jesus mentioned in Mat–
thew 13:55 and Mark. 6:3. Eu–
sebius, again quoting Hegesippus,
elsewhere affirms that this Simeon
was a cousin rather than a
younger brother of Jesus by giving
Simeon ' s age about A.D. 107:
" ·... Sorne reported Simeon the
son of Cleophas, as a descendant
of David, and a Christian; and thus
he suffered as a martyr, when he
was a hundred and twenty years
old, in the reign of the emperor
Trajan. and the presidency of the
consular Atticus. · " At this time
Jesus would have been only
around 11O years old, if still in the
flesh, which means that this Sim–
eon could not have been His
younger brother (assuming Hege–
sippus' information was correct.)
Of course none of this relates to
the original question of Mary's "per–
petua! virginity, " since the Bible
definitely states that she did bear
Jesus' half-brothers and half-sisters
(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3).
m
" In your booklet
~hy
Were
Kt
You Born?,
you claim that we
can become God. How do you rec–
oncile this belíef with biblical state–
ments such as lsaiah 43:10 and 44:6
that there is only one God and that
there will be no other?"
Clayton
R.,
Montpelier, Vermont
11
1saiah's declarations ("Be–
fare me there was no God
formed, neither shall there be after
me" and " 1am the first , and 1am
the last; and beside me there is no
God " ) were clearly made in the
context of monotheism. lsaiah was
stating in these passages that there
were no other gods beside the
God of Israel; that pagan gods
were not really gods (see lsa.
44:9). His comments are not to be
taken as referring to the ultimate
destiny of man . They must be
viewed in the context of the time,
when Israel was surrounded by pa–
gan nations worshiping many
gods.
35