From the Wiki article on the Aramaic Primacy that was linked:
“George Lamsa’s translation of the Peshitta New Testament from Syriac into English brought the Aramaic Primacy issue to the West. However, his translation is poorly regarded by most academics in the field.[1] With the rise of the Internet, Aramaic primacists began to pool arguments in favor of their case. Prominent advocates include Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Raphael Lataster, James Trimm, and Steven Caruso; none of whom are associated with mainstream academia in this field, and work mainly through the medium of the Internet.”
Erg. Poorly regarded by most academics in the field. None of whom are associated with mainstream academia. Work mainly through the INTERNET. I think you should be hearing klaxons going off.
The first mistake is the use of Wikipedia. The second is using a Wiki that isn’t necessarily all that supportive of the theory.
So what we have here is that most of academia in the field believes that the NT was written in Greek.
Again, from your source:
“Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from oral Aramaic, but hold that the Gospels’ text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence in the Gospel of Mark of scattered, but only occasional, Aramaic expressions, transliterated and then translated.”
If this is the case, then there is a problem with the Marian Doctrines. If the Gospels were originally written in Greek, where ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus are mentioned throughout the Gospels, as you have quoted, the terms would mean just that.
There is little or no indication that those mentioned had a close personal relationship that could be used as a basis to call Jesus ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, while not using the same terms for the Apostles, esp. John, or the women that followed Jesus.
We have no indication of an Aramaic primacy. I can see where one would come in real handy for the Roman Catholic Church...
So what we have here is that most of academia in the field believes that the NT was written in Greek.
The reason I linked to the Wikipedia article on Aramaic Primacy is that it provides numerous links to arguments on both sides of the issue.
The main flaw with the Wikipedia article is that it gives readers the mistaken impression that radical Aramaic Primacy and radical Greek Primacy are the only two possible positions, when in fact there are many degrees in between. The question is not whether or not Aramaic sources existed. Of course they did. The question is to what extent they influenced the Greek version.
Defenders of radical Aramaic Primacy contend that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic and that the Greek version is not only a translation, but a very bad one.
Defenders of radical Greek Primacy contend that the only parts of the New Testament which were translated from Aramaic are the sayings of Jesus.
No mainstream scholar goes so far as to deny any Aramaic influence at all.
The sayings of Jesus were all spoken originally in Aramaic. Yet somehow they found their way into the Greek New Testament. Somebody, somewhere along the line, had to translate those sayings from Aramaic into Greek. No one denies this.
For a good example of radical Greek Primacy, see Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins' online refutation of Aramaic Primacy and his online review of Christopher Lataster's Aramaic Primacy for Dummies.
While savaging Lataster's theories on Aramaic Primacy, Jenkins nonetheless acknowledges: "Lancaster, Lamsa and company have it right in that regard — the Aramaic version was primary. But not because the Gospel — and definitely not because the whole New Testament collection — was written originally in Aramaic. But rather, because the base of the teachings of Jesus were in Aramaic, and circulated freely and copiously in the years and decades following his life on earth."
In short, Jenkins acknowledges Aramaic influence on the New Testament, but insists that this Aramaic influence came from oral traditions, memorized and passed down by word of mouth, rather than from written sources.
Personally, I do not see why it would make much difference if the Gospel writers were drawing their material from oral or written sources. The point is, at least some of those sources were originally Aramaic.
Hmmm. I don't think this is really a Protestant vs. Catholic issue. Roman Catholic scholars are not leaning toward Aramaic Primacy, as far as I know -- at least not toward the radical position which is so hotly debated nowadays.
The most passionate defenders of Aramaic Primacy seem to be people of Middle Eastern descent who are motivated by pride in their Aramaic heritage, and, in some cases, by their belief in the special sanctity of the Aramaic Bible, as taught by the Assyrian Church of the East.
Most of these folks are fiercely anti-Catholic. They accuse the Roman Catholic Church of suppressing Aramaic and of mistranslating the Bible.