Was the New Testament Originally Written in Greek?

[Mr E]

The monument was discovered in 1736 in Jerusalem by the director of the Vatican (Pontifical) Library, Father
Joseph Assemani, after whom the manuscript is named. Currently kept in the Vatican Apostolic Library (code: Vat. slav. 3). A digital copy is available on the official website of the Vatican Library: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.slav.3

 

[Mr E]

Here's the last page for you...

 

[MatthewG]

@EclipseEventSigns,

Paul did get taught what Jesus said, from others when he got in touch with them, and the spirit opened Paul up to the old testament as well, and lead him to many truths which are written in the letters, which is something to praise God for, like i shared with you before, and you with me, the Gospels probably did come around 60 AD, or maybe a little bit before, and it could have also been written in aramaic, like you stated, all I know is that on the sign above Jesus head, it was written he was the King of the jews, it was written in hebrew, latin and greek.

Some of the Gospels could have been originally in hebrew, save maybe Luke? Luke was a gentile, or perhaps a Hellenized Jew.

What is it that you enjoy about the languages, do you study them in school perhaps?

Ps.
Also if people continue to overtake your thread, and insult you, there is always the option to turn on ignore or make a new thread on a different subject. Don't let them deter you if you are looking for honest interaction with others. There is also the report button. Abuse on here shouldn't be a thing.

God be with.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

---

---

Just stop now. You are embarrassing yourself. What you are posting isn't even remotely the same as anything that is being discussed.
You should probably examine the existing information in Assemani's publications - in the Latin. It's just laughable what you are posting and thinking you are doing anything that is serious research.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

@EclipseEventSigns,

Paul did get taught what Jesus said, from others when he got in touch with them, and the spirit opened Paul up to the old testament as well, and lead him to many truths which are written in the letters, which is something to praise God for, like i shared with you before, and you with me, the Gospels probably did come around 60 AD, or maybe a little bit before, and it could have also been written in aramaic, like you stated, all I know is that on the sign above Jesus head, it was written he was the King of the jews, it was written in hebrew, latin and greek.

Some of the Gospels could have been originally in hebrew, save maybe Luke? Luke was a gentile, or perhaps a Hellenized Jew.

What is it that you enjoy about the languages, do you study them in school perhaps?

Ps.
Also if people continue to overtake your thread, and insult you, there is always the option to turn on ignore or make a new thread on a different subject. Don't let them deter you if you are looking for honest interaction with others. There is also the report button. Abuse on here shouldn't be a thing.

God be with.

Thanks! Yes "report" is useful to clean up the bad behaviour in this forum on MANY threads.

 

[Mr E]

Just stop now. You are embarrassing yourself. What you are posting isn't even remotely the same as anything that is being discussed.
You should probably examine the existing information in Assemani's publications - in the Latin. It's just laughable what you are posting and thinking you are doing anything that is serious research.

You are living in a world of make-believe.

The document is available to all.

In the Gospel of Assemani there are many and interesting inscriptions, liturgical instructions and marginal notes. They are several layers - by different authors and from different decades, even centuries. Some of them came from the hand of the main copyist - the inscriptions inside the text, which indicate the beginning of each reading, and the notes (in Glagolitic script) which prescribe the text and singing (the so-called liturgical notes. Most of the inscriptions are Cyrillic. Studies in recent times have mainly focused on them, because they have not been fully explored, but it is clear that almost all of them were written at a time when the Assemanian Gospel with its Glagolitic script was still in church use. ... So far there is no unanimous opinion. in the science of the value of these attributions. However, their palaeographical and linguistic-orthographical features make it necessary to precisely check their relation to the main Glagolitic text, especially since this text was repaired in damaged (erased) places by a later hand with a Glagolitic script with one-ero spelling, and in the beginning of the manuscript and in Cyrillic. …

Various assumptions have been made and continue to be made about the time of Asemani's Gospel. Today, opinions fluctuate between the middle or second half of the 10th century, on the one hand, and the beginning of the 11th century, on the other. Different approaches to this question also give different results within the specified limits.

The Assemani Gospel was found in 1736 by the orientalist scholar Joseph Simon Assemani, a prominent Catholic figure and then prefect of the Vatican Library in Rome. On his second trip to the Middle East, he saw it in a Slavic Greek. monastery in Jerusalem, bought it from the monks and after a while brought it to Rome together with other manuscripts. Invited by Assemani to pronounce on the antiquity of the newly discovered gospel, Matei Karaman, without carrying out a basic study, suggested that the manuscript is very old and did not originate later than the famous Svidas (1081). This first estimate, albeit in the form of a guess, is too accurate. However, it remained an isolated fact throughout the 18th century. It should be borne in mind that the Asemani Gospel is the first Old Bulgarian. a Glagolitic monument seen by the scientific world, who at that time still had no idea about the existence of the oldest Slavic Glagolitic schools. Assemani died in 1768, and after some time his relative, the Appamean Archbishop Stefan Evodius Assemani, handed over the gospel to the Vatican Library, already named after its discoverer.

 

[The Learner]

If it is true that the 4 Gospels existed in Aramaic by at least 78 AD, what evidence is there for the rest of the New Testament?

Start with what Peter says. In II Peter, he references Paul's multiple letters having been available and read by those Peter is addressing.

[2Pe 3:15-16 LSB] 15 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter's audience had been able to read what Paul had written. So who was Peter's audience. We find out a few verses previous:
[2Pe 3:1 LSB] 1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you ...

Who was the first letter addressed to?
[1Pe 1:1 LSB] 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

It was to the Christians of Jewish heritage who were living outside of the Jewish homeland. Where are those places? In modern day Turkey. So the writings of both Peter and Paul had made it through that entire area. They were able to read it in a language they understood. That language was Aramaic and not Greek. Aramaic was the lingua franca outside of the Roman Empire. It was the lingua franca of the Jewish people whether in their homeland or those living in exile. This is demonstrated in Acts 21:26-40. Paul is arrested after some visiting unbelieving Jews slander him and rile up the residents of Jerusalem. The Roman commander arrests him and is just about to put him in prison. Paul talks to the commander in a different language and he is shocked to hear Paul speaking Greek. This convinces the commander that Paul is being slandered and Paul is allowed to address his accusers - in their own language. He does not speak to them in Greek but in their own language - stated to be the language of the Hebrews.

So things are not as we have always been told. While Paul did know Greek, that does not mean the entire Jewish population knew or spoke Greek. And the content of the New Testament probably was not originally in Greek. But it was translated very soon after being written in Aramaic.

Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

John 19:20
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

John 12:20
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Acts 17:4
And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Acts 17:12
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 19:10
And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:17
And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

Acts 20:21
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 21:37
And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?

Romans 1:14
I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: greek

www.biblegateway.com

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

John 19:20
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

John 12:20
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Acts 17:4
And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Acts 17:12
Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 19:10
And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 19:17
And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

Acts 20:21
Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 21:37
And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?

Romans 1:14
I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: greek

www.biblegateway.com

Fantastic! You can use a word search. What are you trying to say by this? Explain and expound each passage in context and cultural practice. Let's see what you come up with.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You are living in a world of make-believe.

The document is available to all.

In the Gospel of Assemani there are many and interesting inscriptions, liturgical instructions and marginal notes. They are several layers - by different authors and from different decades, even centuries. Some of them came from the hand of the main copyist - the inscriptions inside the text, which indicate the beginning of each reading, and the notes (in Glagolitic script) which prescribe the text and singing (the so-called liturgical notes. Most of the inscriptions are Cyrillic. Studies in recent times have mainly focused on them, because they have not been fully explored, but it is clear that almost all of them were written at a time when the Assemanian Gospel with its Glagolitic script was still in church use. ... So far there is no unanimous opinion. in the science of the value of these attributions. However, their palaeographical and linguistic-orthographical features make it necessary to precisely check their relation to the main Glagolitic text, especially since this text was repaired in damaged (erased) places by a later hand with a Glagolitic script with one-ero spelling, and in the beginning of the manuscript and in Cyrillic. …

Various assumptions have been made and continue to be made about the time of Asemani's Gospel. Today, opinions fluctuate between the middle or second half of the 10th century, on the one hand, and the beginning of the 11th century, on the other. Different approaches to this question also give different results within the specified limits.

The Assemani Gospel was found in 1736 by the orientalist scholar Joseph Simon Assemani, a prominent Catholic figure and then prefect of the Vatican Library in Rome. On his second trip to the Middle East, he saw it in a Slavic Greek. monastery in Jerusalem, bought it from the monks and after a while brought it to Rome together with other manuscripts. Invited by Assemani to pronounce on the antiquity of the newly discovered gospel, Matei Karaman, without carrying out a basic study, suggested that the manuscript is very old and did not originate later than the famous Svidas (1081). This first estimate, albeit in the form of a guess, is too accurate. However, it remained an isolated fact throughout the 18th century. It should be borne in mind that the Asemani Gospel is the first Old Bulgarian. a Glagolitic monument seen by the scientific world, who at that time still had no idea about the existence of the oldest Slavic Glagolitic schools. Assemani died in 1768, and after some time his relative, the Appamean Archbishop Stefan Evodius Assemani, handed over the gospel to the Vatican Library, already named after its discoverer.

You don't list the source for any of this so it really isn't known if the writer is can be trusted. But in any case, it's not even anything remotely similar to what the 78 AD Codex is. It says right in your text "Old Bulgarian". It's not even in Aramaic (Syriac). Not even close.

 

[The Learner]

"
Porter’s observation is therefore insightful:

It is not possible to settle the various issues regarding the linguistic milieu of first-century Palestine, as Fitzmyer rightly notes, except to say that the archaeological, linguistic and sociological evidence seems to indicate that the region was multilingual, including at least Aramaic and Greek in widespread and frequent use . . . Therefore, the likelihood that Jesus, along with most Gentiles and Jews, was multilingual himself is strong.[13]

...
The Aramaic Hypothesis[23] is an inadequate solution for many of my questions: (1) If Aramaic was the dominant language in first-century CE Palestine (and throughout the Roman Empire), why were all the NT documents written in Greek? (2) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why was Greek the common language (koinē) of the period? (3) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why was Greek so prevalent in the literature, the architecture, and the culture of both Galilee and Judea in the first century CE? (4) If Aramaic was the source behind the Gospels (and the NT), why do the documents of the GNT show signs of being original compositions rather than translations? (5) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why would the Jews be bilingual (some even trilingual)? (6) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why were many cities (e.g., Ptolemais and Scythopolis) and regions (e.g., Decapolis and Idumea) called by Greek names? (7) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why did many Jews adopt Greek names (e.g., Andrew, Philip, Nicodemus, and Theophilus)? (8) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why were Greek customs and practices adopted by the culture (e.g., measurements, pottery, and Greek loanwords)? (9) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why would Jews inscribe words in Greek on ossuaries?

These questions lead me to reconsider the validity of Aramaic’s dominance as a language in the first century CE. Contrary to contemporary scholarship, I find that Greek was more widely used in both written and oral form by Jesus, his disciples, and the Jews who inhabited first-century Palestine. Interestingly, the evidence reveals that Greek became the dominant language spoken among Jews and Gentiles in Galilee in the first century CE. Fitzmyer’s statement below admits more than he may have intended:

If asked what was the language commonly spoken in Palestine in the time of Jesus of Nazareth, most people with some acquaintance of that era and area would almost spontaneously answer Aramaic. To my way of thinking, the defense of this thesis must reckon with the growing mass of evidence that both Greek and Hebrew were being used as well. I would, however, hesitate to say with M. Smith that “at least as much Greek as Aramaic was spoken in Palestine.” In any case, the evidence for the use of Aramaic has also been growing in recent years.[24]

The “growing mass of evidence” has now become a convincing witness to the wide use of Greek in Palestine even among the members of the inner circle of disciples who followed Jesus.

Notes​

Did Jesus Speak Greek? | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

 

[The Learner]

Did Jesus Speak Greek?: The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine Paperback – May 12, 2015
by G. Scott Gleaves (Author), Rodney Eugene Cloud (

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

"
Porter’s observation is therefore insightful:


...
The Aramaic Hypothesis[23] is an inadequate solution for many of my questions: (1) If Aramaic was the dominant language in first-century CE Palestine (and throughout the Roman Empire), why were all the NT documents written in Greek? (2) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why was Greek the common language (koinē) of the period? (3) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why was Greek so prevalent in the literature, the architecture, and the culture of both Galilee and Judea in the first century CE? (4) If Aramaic was the source behind the Gospels (and the NT), why do the documents of the GNT show signs of being original compositions rather than translations? (5) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why would the Jews be bilingual (some even trilingual)? (6) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why were many cities (e.g., Ptolemais and Scythopolis) and regions (e.g., Decapolis and Idumea) called by Greek names? (7) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why did many Jews adopt Greek names (e.g., Andrew, Philip, Nicodemus, and Theophilus)? (8) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why were Greek customs and practices adopted by the culture (e.g., measurements, pottery, and Greek loanwords)? (9) If Aramaic was the dominant language, why would Jews inscribe words in Greek on ossuaries?

These questions lead me to reconsider the validity of Aramaic’s dominance as a language in the first century CE. Contrary to contemporary scholarship, I find that Greek was more widely used in both written and oral form by Jesus, his disciples, and the Jews who inhabited first-century Palestine. Interestingly, the evidence reveals that Greek became the dominant language spoken among Jews and Gentiles in Galilee in the first century CE. Fitzmyer’s statement below admits more than he may have intended:


The “growing mass of evidence” has now become a convincing witness to the wide use of Greek in Palestine even among the members of the inner circle of disciples who followed Jesus.

Notes​

Did Jesus Speak Greek? | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

Most of those 9 questions are fallacious assumptions. They aren't based on a facts.

 

[Mr E]

You don't list the source for any of this so it really isn't known if the writer is can be trusted. But in any case, it's not even anything remotely similar to what the 78 AD Codex is. It says right in your text "Old Bulgarian". It's not even in Aramaic (Syriac). Not even close.

Try harder. Don’t you consider yourself a great researcher and me inept? I found a copy of the entire thing I less than an hour on the Internet. Images of every page. It’s ripe with handwritten marginal notations and footnotes added by numerous scribes over hundreds of years. It is NOT a copy of the four gospels at all. And sorry… it’s not from 78CE

This note is written to you December 18th 77CE. Year of the Geeks 388.

Does writing that make it so?

Muster up some discernment. I’ll throw you a bone. Quit searching for English documents.



I gave you the link to the whole codex-- you know, the one at the Vatican Library....

DigiVatLib

digi.vatlib.it

 

[MatthewG]

@EclipseEventSigns,

Paul did get taught what Jesus said, from others when he got in touch with them, and the spirit opened Paul up to the old testament as well, and lead him to many truths which are written in the letters, which is something to praise God for, like i shared with you before, and you with me, the Gospels probably did come around 60 AD, or maybe a little bit before, and it could have also been written in aramaic, like you stated, all I know is that on the sign above Jesus head, it was written he was the King of the jews, it was written in hebrew, latin and greek.

Some of the Gospels could have been originally in hebrew, save maybe Luke? Luke was a gentile, or perhaps a Hellenized Jew.

What is it that you enjoy about the languages, do you study them in school perhaps?

Ps.
Also if people continue to overtake your thread, and insult you, there is always the option to turn on ignore or make a new thread on a different subject. Don't let them deter you if you are looking for honest interaction with others. There is also the report button. Abuse on here shouldn't be a thing.

God be with.

No problem, best not engage, with people who desire to heap abuse, and not let you be.

It should be common sense that people should leave others alone after they ask them to stop.

Those who do not are indeed harassing and abusing.

Just a friendly reminder, to any and all people on this forum. Do not let anyone on here abuse you; after asking them to stop. You can still forgive and love them, but you gotta let it go, either report and also use ignore.

 

[The Learner]

I know for a fact that fitzmyer admited trilingualism to me in the culture of Jesus.

ANE TODAY - 201510 - Did Jesus Speak Greek? - American Society of Overseas Research (ASOR)

www.asor.org

https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj20e.pdf

https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL99_1_1Fitzmyer1979.pdf

Did Jesus Speak Greek?

That Jesus spoke Aramaic there is no doubt.

www.baslibrary.org

Doubting Jesus: A Catholic Biblical Scholar Responds to Skeptical Questions

A couple weeks ago, we launched an #AMA (Ask Me Anything) with Dr. Brant Pitre, who is one of today's premier Catholic biblical scholars. His latest book, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (Random House, 2016) seeks to debunk skeptical attitudes toward the Gospels p

strangenotions.com

The Language of the New Testament

"The Language of the New Testament" published on 01 Jan 2003 by Brill.

brill.com

6 Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Differing Phenomena of Targum and Translation in the Second Temple Period and Post-Second Temple Period

"6 Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Differing Phenomena of Targum and Translation in the Second Temple Period and Post-Second Temple Period" published on 01 Jan 2014 by Brill.

brill.com

Jesus Was Bilingual

Jesus Was Bilingual was published in Honoring Richard Ruiz and his Work on Language Planning and Bilingual Education on page 213.

www.degruyter.com

 

[MatthewG]

When Jesus met with the Samaritan woman, would there language they spoke be different than the language in Nazareth?

 

[The Learner]

https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/9789004263406_08-Buth-Distinguishing.pdf

https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/109147.pdf

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/porter01.pdf

Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context: A Study in the Interdirectionality of Language 3110266172, 9783110266177 - DOKUMEN.PUB

Most historical Jesus and Gospel scholars have supposed three hypotheses of unidirectionality: geographically, the more...

dokumen.pub

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/voelzlinguisticmilieu.pdf

Why the New Testament was Written in Greek, Not Hebrew

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476993X231185789

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/13946/Moyer%2C%20Clinton.pdf?sequence=1

 

[Mr E]

Have a look at the upper right hand corner.... Folio 140

 

[The Learner]

While the majority of Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew, the collection also includes many Aramaic and Greek texts, as well as some Arabic texts and a small number of Latin fragments.

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Languages and Scripts

The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library offers an exceptional encounter with antiquity. Using the world's most advanced imaging technology, the Digital Library preserves thousands of scroll fragments, including the oldest known copies of biblical texts, now accessible to the...

www.deadseascrolls.org.il

There are tens of thousands of scroll fragments. The number of different compositions represented is almost one thousand, and they are written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The Qumran Library - Scrolls from the Dead Sea | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

The scrolls, and scroll fragments, recovered in the Qumran comprise a library covering the regions history from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

www.loc.gov

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, with some fragments written in the ancient paleo-Hebrew alphabet thought to have fallen out of use in the fifth century B.C. But others are in Aramaic, the language spoken by many Jews—including, most likely, Jesus—between the sixth century B.C. and the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In addition, several texts feature translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, which some Jews used instead of or in addition to Hebrew at the time of the scrolls’ creation.

6 Things You May Not Know About the Dead Sea Scrolls

From their accidental discovery to their sale in the classifieds, find out more about the ancient collection of texts.

www.history.com

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1813/13946/Moyer%2C%20Clinton.pdf?sequence=1

 

[The Learner]

Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=51608

---

Almost 100 years ago, the Jewish Semitic scholar D. S. Margoliouth attempted to translate the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) back into Hebrew. He knew for a fact from the prologue to Ben Sira that it had been translated into Greek directly from a Hebrew original, and he had at his disposal not only the Greek text, but Syriac and Latin translations as well. Yet when sizable portions of a Hebrew Ben Sira were discovered in the Cairo Geniza, it was found that he did not correctly translate even one single verse! Back-translation (called “Ruckubersetzung” in German) is extremely touchy business, even when we are dealing with sources that are only one step removed from the original. But to postulate that accurate Ruckubersetzung can be carried out from sources four or five steps removed from the alleged original is almost unthinkable. And it is entirely out of the question to suggest that wholesale reconstruction -- not just retranslation -- of an alleged original text (here, the “Life of Jesus”) can be carried out from such a distance. Such an effort can only be viewed as pure conjecture. To reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic text of even the Lord’s Prayer -- based on the extant witness of Matthew and Luke -- is fraught with difficulty. To attempt to reconstruct the entire (alleged) original Hebrew Gospel -- without access to even the supposed primary Greek sources -- is nothing more than a counsel of despair.

---

http://thinkitthru.tv/recoveringtheinspiredtextPF.htm
In short, if Jesus did in fact speak Galilean Aramaic, where are the manuscripts in that dialect? if there are not enough of them ---- one is bound to make many errors related to the range of meanings of words at any given time.
The Neclected Role of Semantics in the search for the Aramaic words of Jesus by L. D. Hurst JSNT 28 (1986) Pp 63-80
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/9/28/63.extract
The Current State of Research on Galilean Aramaic Michael Sokoloff
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Vol. 37, No. 2, Colloquium on Aramaic Studies (Apr., 1978), pp. 161-167
http://www.jstor.org/pss/545141
This may explain why Josheph Fitzmyer refuted his own Kepha Kepha reconstruction in
Biblical Archeology Review. -- Queries & Comments," Biblical Archaeology Review 19.3 [1993], 70 fitzmyer refutes the kepha kepha reading based on the fact that it does not account for the greek play on words.
For those unaware,
Fitzmyer, purposed the aramaic kepha kepha reading in a few books,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Aramaic Kepha' and Peter's name in the New Testament," Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson
To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series) by Joseph A. Fitzmyer

The pinnacle of the gospel story may be Jesus' dramatic statement, "You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church." The saying seems to contain an obvious Greek wordplay, indicating that Jesus spoke in Greek. However, it is possible that "Petros...petra" is a Hebrew wordplay.
http://new.studylight.org/ls/ds/print.cgi?a=471
They are aware of the above responses:
Catholic Answers

Final Authority-Catholics can not prove that Jesus said Kepha-Kepha in Matthew 16:18

Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18 http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=51608 [hr] Almost 100 years ago, the Jewish Semitic sch

www.tapatalk.com