Aramaic

Aramaic is said to be the language spoken by the Jews in the time of Jesus, including by Jesus himself. There are even Aramaic versions of the New Testament. However, I argue that the Aramaic gospel is merely a translation of the Greek New Testament. Greek is likely the original language because there are two gospels mentioning the same saying using the same word in Greek, but other languages (including Aramaic) use words of different meanings, one of which is mistranslated.

The Greek word in question is βιάζεται (Strong’s number 971) appearing exactly twice, in Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16; and the word βιασταὶ (Strong’s number 973), appearing only in Matthew 11:12 describing the persons exhibiting the former characteristic.

Here are the Strong’s definitions for these words:

Although Strong’s definition allows βιάζεται to have multiple meanings in English depending on the voice, we apply Occam’s razor to say that “force” is the primary meaning (derived from βία), and the other voices are derivatives of “force” to fit the voice, i.e. (reflexively) to force oneself into, or (passively) to be forced.

Now let’s consider Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 in various languages:

Even though the Greek used the same word βιάζεται, all the other translations use “taken over by violence” for Matthew 11:12, but “forcing into” for Luke 16:16.

Interestingly, the Chinese Union Version translated βιάζεται in both verses correctly, using the same word 努力 (strive, work hard). This is how I first became aware of the translation differences compared to English.

By virtue that Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 apparently express the same saying, and Greek uses the same word, we can deduce that Greek is most likely the original language.

I argue that it would have to be a very unlikely coincidence if two different words in another language somehow became fused into the same word in Greek. There is no lack of alternatives in Greek: “the violent ones” (i.e. raider) could have been επιδρομέας or επιτεθείς.

On the other hand, it is more likely for translations to diverge from the original text when they are translated by different persons who understand the same word differently. Or perhaps the translator failed to recognize that Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 express the same saying because they are presented in a different context: Matthew 11 was about John the Baptist, whereas Luke 16 is about the Pharisees. Even though the contexts are different, there is no reason to believe that the followers of John the Baptist are going to succeed in raiding the kingdom of heaven by violence, but the followers of Pharisees will merely try to press into it forcefully.

The real meaning of these verses is the same: people will strive to enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who try harder will gain entrance. Saying that the kingdom of heaven can or will be taken over by violence is a mistranslation.

Therefore, it follows that the Aramaic is not the original language for the New Testament, as it contains the same translation error as KJV and NIV for Matthew 11:12.