Aramaic Primacy
A part of the history of the Christian Church, and the Church of the East in particular, is that the Apostles wrote their Letters / Books first in Aramaic; which were then translated into Greek, and then the Aramaic originals were sent to Mesopotamia. The Doctrine of Addai touches on this. "But the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which you are reading in on every day before the people, and the letters of Paulus, which Shimon Cepa SENT US from the city Rome, and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, which Yoḥannan (John) the son of Zowdai (Zebedee), SENT US from Ephesus; them, even these books, be ye reading in them in the churches of the Anointed One ..." (Addai 46:8-13 [vs. 78-79]). All 27 books of the Greek New Testament show evidence of an Aramaic Original to back that claim. There are also Aramaic words in those books unnecessarily; thus showing they are translations. Additionally, Paulus addresses both Jews and Arameans (Syrians) in his letters to the Romans [i.e. Latin speakers] and the Greeks [i.e. Greek speakers]. He does that because he wrote his writings first in Aramaic, then Greek. An Aramaic speaker, whether he was born in Mesopotamia or Syria, was called an Aramean (Syrian). "Saint Aprem (Ephrem) the Syrian" was born in N'ṣiwin, Mesopotamia and moved to Urhay, Mesopotamia. He was called a Syrian because he spoke Aramaic (Syriac); NOT because he was born in Syria or lived there. Also, while a Greek Pauline letter to the Greek speaking Corinthians would make sense, a Greek Epistle to the Romans doesn't make much sense. The common people there spoke Latin, not Greek. Only a few business merchants would have spoken Greek.
At the very beginning of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Paul said that the gospel of Christ…is the power of God to salvation to every one who believes, whether they are Jews first, or Arameans (Syrians).” (Rom. 1:16 Lamsa). So we see that the message in Paul’s letter was first directed to the Jews, then the Arameans.
Another proof that the epistle to the Romans was originally written in Aramaic is that the Aramaic text clears up the following verse: “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.” (Rom. 5:7 NKJV). Why would it be hard for someone to give up their life to save a righteous man? This verse doesn’t make sense in the Greek New Testament. The Aramaic New Testament makes sense and says this: “Hardly would any man die for the sake of the wicked; but for the sake of the good, one might be willing to die.” (Lamsa). The words “wicked” and “righteous” are both five letter words in the Aramaic language. The three letters that are different from “righteous” to “wicked” are similar in the Dead Sea Scroll Script; and obviously the Greek translator saw the word “righteous” instead of “wicked” in this verse.
At the very beginning of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Paul said that the gospel of Christ…is the power of God to salvation to every one who believes, whether they are Jews first, or Arameans (Syrians).” (Rom. 1:16 Lamsa). So we see that the message in Paul’s letter was first directed to the Jews, then the Arameans.
Another proof that the epistle to the Romans was originally written in Aramaic is that the Aramaic text clears up the following verse: “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.” (Rom. 5:7 NKJV). Why would it be hard for someone to give up their life to save a righteous man? This verse doesn’t make sense in the Greek New Testament. The Aramaic New Testament makes sense and says this: “Hardly would any man die for the sake of the wicked; but for the sake of the good, one might be willing to die.” (Lamsa). The words “wicked” and “righteous” are both five letter words in the Aramaic language. The three letters that are different from “righteous” to “wicked” are similar in the Dead Sea Scroll Script; and obviously the Greek translator saw the word “righteous” instead of “wicked” in this verse.
A third proof of an Aramaic original of Romans is contained in the following verse: For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” (Rom. 8:15 NKJV). Why would Paul be using a Aramaic word, “Abba” if he was addressing Greek speakers in Rome? And I’m not saying I believe the residents of Rome spoke Greek.
Paul’s letters to the Corinthians also show proof of an Aramaic original. In First Corinthians, Paul said his letter was to the Aramaic speaking peoples (the Jews and the Arameans): “But for those who are called, both Jews and Arameans, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God;” (1 Cor. 1:24 Lamsa).
A second witness of an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of First Corinthians is at the following verse. “So if I do not understand the utterance, I shall be as a barbarian to the speaker, and the speaker shall be as a barbarian to me.” (1 Cor. 14:11 Lamsa). The word Bar-ba-ros (Barbarian) is in the Greek text in this verse. Barbarian is actually a loan word from the Aramaic, which literally means “an outer son” or “foreign son;” but in application, a “stranger and uncivilized person.” Barbarian is from the Aramaic words bra “son” and ba-ra-ya “outer, distant, further, foreign.” The final a in bra was dropped in the merging of the two words; putting the word "son" in its construct pronunciation of bar "son of." The second word Ba-ra-ya is related to the Aramaic word ba-ra, which means: “the outside, open country, wild.” Ba-ra-ya appears at the following places in the Aramaic Bible: (Matt. 8:12; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 2 Cor. 4:16). Barbarian is pronounced bar-bra-ya or bur-bra-ya (Chaldean or Assyrian pronunciation) and bar-ba-ro-yo (Syriac pronunciation) in Aramaic.
Note: Sometimes the two letters "b and r" are pronounced bar (son of), as in the Chaldean compound words bar-na-sha "son of man, human" and bar-bra-ya "barbarian." However, sometimes bar is pronounced bir or bur (son of) in both Chaldean and Assyrian. When the pointed (or written) a vowel precedes the letter r, sometimes the a has a i (think of the word stir) or u (think of the word fur) sound. The word "son of" is transliterated as bur in Alexander Oraham's Assyrian Dictionary. A Chaldean book would transliterate the pronunciation as bir or ber (think of the word Berlin). It's the same sound or pronunciation in a word that is spelled the same.
Paul’s letters to the Corinthians also show proof of an Aramaic original. In First Corinthians, Paul said his letter was to the Aramaic speaking peoples (the Jews and the Arameans): “But for those who are called, both Jews and Arameans, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God;” (1 Cor. 1:24 Lamsa).
A second witness of an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of First Corinthians is at the following verse. “So if I do not understand the utterance, I shall be as a barbarian to the speaker, and the speaker shall be as a barbarian to me.” (1 Cor. 14:11 Lamsa). The word Bar-ba-ros (Barbarian) is in the Greek text in this verse. Barbarian is actually a loan word from the Aramaic, which literally means “an outer son” or “foreign son;” but in application, a “stranger and uncivilized person.” Barbarian is from the Aramaic words bra “son” and ba-ra-ya “outer, distant, further, foreign.” The final a in bra was dropped in the merging of the two words; putting the word "son" in its construct pronunciation of bar "son of." The second word Ba-ra-ya is related to the Aramaic word ba-ra, which means: “the outside, open country, wild.” Ba-ra-ya appears at the following places in the Aramaic Bible: (Matt. 8:12; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 2 Cor. 4:16). Barbarian is pronounced bar-bra-ya or bur-bra-ya (Chaldean or Assyrian pronunciation) and bar-ba-ro-yo (Syriac pronunciation) in Aramaic.
Note: Sometimes the two letters "b and r" are pronounced bar (son of), as in the Chaldean compound words bar-na-sha "son of man, human" and bar-bra-ya "barbarian." However, sometimes bar is pronounced bir or bur (son of) in both Chaldean and Assyrian. When the pointed (or written) a vowel precedes the letter r, sometimes the a has a i (think of the word stir) or u (think of the word fur) sound. The word "son of" is transliterated as bur in Alexander Oraham's Assyrian Dictionary. A Chaldean book would transliterate the pronunciation as bir or ber (think of the word Berlin). It's the same sound or pronunciation in a word that is spelled the same.
And a third witness that First Corinthians was originally written in Aramaic is at the following verse: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maran atha.” (1Cor. 16:22 KJV). The Aramaic words maran itha (our Lord came) were transliterated as maran atha here. Dr. Lamsa transliterated these words as maran etha. The Syriac pronunciation of these words is moran etho. Why are these words in the Greek text if Paul was writing to Greek speakers in Corinth?.
“…and the cry of the reapers has already entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.” (James 5:4 Lamsa). The Aramaic word Tswa-uth (hosts) is the same as the Hebrew word Tse-va-oth (armies). Their meanings and spelling are the same but their pronunciation is different. When the Divine Name YHWH appears before the word “hosts,” the Greek text many times translated that statement as “the Lord of Sabaoth.” However, Sabaoth isn’t really a Greek word. A Greek person may be taught that Sabaoth means “hosts, armies” but this word isn’t used in the Greek Language outside of the above statement. The LXX translators interpreted the word Tse-va-oth as: dynameon [of armies] (2 Kingdoms 6:2; i.e. 2 Sam. 6:2), parembole [camp] (Judg. 8:10), et cetera elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament outside of that phrase. Dr. Lamsa kept the word sabaoth from the KJV translation at this verse, but the Aramaic text clearly says: “…the LORD of hosts.”
“And because ye are children, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, even that [heart] which cries out: Abba, Abbun [Oh Father, our Father].” (Gal. 4:6 P’shitta). The final two Aramaic words may also mean: - “the Father is our Father.” What needs to be taken from this verse is that the word Abba is found in the Greek text; proving an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of Galatians. The Galatians were residents of Galatia. Galatia was a PLACE [territory] to the right of [next to] Asia Minor. That AREA was formerly part of BOTH the Assyrian & Baḅylonian Empires (2 Macc. 8:20). Currently, that AREA is part of Modern Day Turkey. Aramaic had to be at least one of its languages. Ga-la-ti-a also looks like the Aramaic word gal-ta (also pronounced gil-ta), which means “an error, mistake in writing.” Paulus also spoke in his Letter to Galatia that: “There is neither [No one is a] Jew nor Aramean … for all of you are one [& the same] in Yeshua the Anointed One” (Gal. 3:28 P’shitta). Thus the residents there spoke Aramaic. So it doesn't just make sense to send a Greek letter to the Galatians. The letters and books of the New Testament were sent to people that spoke Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The letters and books sent to Aramaic speaking persons have an Aramaic city (or region) name. And the letters and books sent to people that spoke Greek or Latin have a Greek or Latin name.
“…and the cry of the reapers has already entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.” (James 5:4 Lamsa). The Aramaic word Tswa-uth (hosts) is the same as the Hebrew word Tse-va-oth (armies). Their meanings and spelling are the same but their pronunciation is different. When the Divine Name YHWH appears before the word “hosts,” the Greek text many times translated that statement as “the Lord of Sabaoth.” However, Sabaoth isn’t really a Greek word. A Greek person may be taught that Sabaoth means “hosts, armies” but this word isn’t used in the Greek Language outside of the above statement. The LXX translators interpreted the word Tse-va-oth as: dynameon [of armies] (2 Kingdoms 6:2; i.e. 2 Sam. 6:2), parembole [camp] (Judg. 8:10), et cetera elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament outside of that phrase. Dr. Lamsa kept the word sabaoth from the KJV translation at this verse, but the Aramaic text clearly says: “…the LORD of hosts.”
“And because ye are children, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, even that [heart] which cries out: Abba, Abbun [Oh Father, our Father].” (Gal. 4:6 P’shitta). The final two Aramaic words may also mean: - “the Father is our Father.” What needs to be taken from this verse is that the word Abba is found in the Greek text; proving an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of Galatians. The Galatians were residents of Galatia. Galatia was a PLACE [territory] to the right of [next to] Asia Minor. That AREA was formerly part of BOTH the Assyrian & Baḅylonian Empires (2 Macc. 8:20). Currently, that AREA is part of Modern Day Turkey. Aramaic had to be at least one of its languages. Ga-la-ti-a also looks like the Aramaic word gal-ta (also pronounced gil-ta), which means “an error, mistake in writing.” Paulus also spoke in his Letter to Galatia that: “There is neither [No one is a] Jew nor Aramean … for all of you are one [& the same] in Yeshua the Anointed One” (Gal. 3:28 P’shitta). Thus the residents there spoke Aramaic. So it doesn't just make sense to send a Greek letter to the Galatians. The letters and books of the New Testament were sent to people that spoke Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The letters and books sent to Aramaic speaking persons have an Aramaic city (or region) name. And the letters and books sent to people that spoke Greek or Latin have a Greek or Latin name.
The proof of an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of Revelation will be based on the Aramaic text found in the Crawford Codex. I believe the Crawford Codex contains the original text of the five books (2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude & the Revelation) that were not included in the canon by the Church of the East. I have found proof of this. Dr. Lamsa used the Harklean Syriac Version for the source of his Aramaic to English translation of those five books. Though I will be quoting Dr. Lamsa’s translation of Revelation; I will be using the Crawford manuscript text of Revelation, which is the original text for those books in the Greek translation.
The Harklean Version is a revision from the Philoxenian version which was done in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harqel. Thomas aimed at providing a literal translation of the Greek, even if that meant unintelligible Syriac. The Harklean is considered a masterpiece in mirror translation; every particle in the original Greek is somehow represented in Syriac. The Harklean Version along with the other Bible versions and revisions into Syriac were done by the Monophysite bishops because of theological reasons; so their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect. The Patriarch of the East expelled them and their works were condemned. Dr. Lamsa states that: “in some provinces, owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine emperors, these new revisions were introduced. But when the territory was occupied by the Persian government, they were destroyed.” (Lamsa Bible Introduction p. viii). The following verses will show proof of an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of Revelation.
“And his feet were like the fine brass of Leḅanon, as though they were burned in a furnace..” (Rev. 1:15 Lamsa). The Greek text has the word chal-ko-li-ba-nos [NMS], which was translated as “fine brass” in the KJV. This word has troubled scholars because it appears nowhere else in Greek literature; except in two places in the book of Revelation. See also: (Rev. 2:18). Chal-ko-li-ba-no [DMS] is actually two words that got merged into one. It is from the Greek words chal-kos [NMS] (brass) and li-ba-nos [NMS] (Leḅanon). There are at least two other instances where two or more Aramaic words were combined to form a new Greek word in the Greek New Testament translation. The Harklean and the Crawford manuscript of Revelation both say "Leḅanese brass" or “brass of Leḅanon.” Though the Harklean manuscript has an additional one letter variant spelling for "Leḅanese (of Leḅanon)." Thomas obviously believed chal-ko-li-ba-nos was saying “brass of Leḅanon” in Greek. Otherwise he may have been aware of this reading from the Crawford manuscript.
The Harklean Version is a revision from the Philoxenian version which was done in A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harqel. Thomas aimed at providing a literal translation of the Greek, even if that meant unintelligible Syriac. The Harklean is considered a masterpiece in mirror translation; every particle in the original Greek is somehow represented in Syriac. The Harklean Version along with the other Bible versions and revisions into Syriac were done by the Monophysite bishops because of theological reasons; so their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect. The Patriarch of the East expelled them and their works were condemned. Dr. Lamsa states that: “in some provinces, owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine emperors, these new revisions were introduced. But when the territory was occupied by the Persian government, they were destroyed.” (Lamsa Bible Introduction p. viii). The following verses will show proof of an Aramaic original behind the Greek text of Revelation.
“And his feet were like the fine brass of Leḅanon, as though they were burned in a furnace..” (Rev. 1:15 Lamsa). The Greek text has the word chal-ko-li-ba-nos [NMS], which was translated as “fine brass” in the KJV. This word has troubled scholars because it appears nowhere else in Greek literature; except in two places in the book of Revelation. See also: (Rev. 2:18). Chal-ko-li-ba-no [DMS] is actually two words that got merged into one. It is from the Greek words chal-kos [NMS] (brass) and li-ba-nos [NMS] (Leḅanon). There are at least two other instances where two or more Aramaic words were combined to form a new Greek word in the Greek New Testament translation. The Harklean and the Crawford manuscript of Revelation both say "Leḅanese brass" or “brass of Leḅanon.” Though the Harklean manuscript has an additional one letter variant spelling for "Leḅanese (of Leḅanon)." Thomas obviously believed chal-ko-li-ba-nos was saying “brass of Leḅanon” in Greek. Otherwise he may have been aware of this reading from the Crawford manuscript.
Note: Only the Dative Form appears in Revelation or the whole Greek Bible. That dative form [spelling] is the same for masculine and neuter Greek words. I believe this MADE-UP composite word is masculine like Liddel & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon shows because the WORDS that make-up this COMPOSITE WORD are both masculine nouns. Thus I believe James Strong’s Dictionary lists this word [entry] as a neuter word in error - as: chal-ko-li-ba-non [NNS - Nominative Neuter Singular]. The form Libanos (libanos) [NMS] “Leḅanon” (Song 5:15; Isa. 10:34; 29:17; etc.) &/or “frankincense” (Jer. 41:5) appears in the Greek OT. The Accusative form Libanon [AMS] looks more like the word: “Leḅanon.” The Greek Bible also uses the word Anti-Libanos [Αντιλιβανος] [NMS], which the Accusative form is Anti-Libanon [Αντιλιβανον] [AMS] - for “Leḅanon” (Deut. 1:7; 3:25; Josh. 1:4).
“You say, I am rich and my wealth has increased and I need nothing; and you do not know that you are miserable and a wanderer and poor and blind and naked.” (Rev. 3:17 Lamsa). The additional words “and blind” are in the Greek text and in the Harklean version, but not in the Crawford manuscript. The words “poor” and “blind” look alike in the Aramaic text. A dreary eyed translator probably saw the word “poor” twice and thus translated the word “poor” the first time and at his second look translated it as “blind.”
“And they had a king over them, who was the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abado, but in Greek his name is Apollyon.” (Rev. 9:11 Lamsa). This verse from the Harklean Version matches the Greek text. The underlined words in the Crawford manuscript say: “And in Aramaic his renown is Shre.” Shre means "the released [-one]" or "the loosed [-one]." It's a description of Satan because he will be "released" or "loosed" from his prison or confinement (Rev. 20:3, 7). Shre was mistranslated into the active tense here. The three letter verb root looks like it has the past tense meaning and not the present or active tense meaning because there isn't a da-lath (Hebrew pronunciation da-let[h]) at the beginning of this verb. Shra, it's verb root, has many meanings depending on the context; such as: “to loosen, dismiss, break, violate, etc." It rarely means "to destroy,” but it can carry that meaning (see Matt. 26:61). Apparently the Greek translator read this verb as sha-re "the One destroying, Destroyer" and translated it as Apollyon "the Destroyer." The Aramaic word ow-du was also mistranslated into the Greek language. Ow-du is the shortened form of the word ow-du-tha "servitude, service." It's referred to as a "Hebrew" word either because it is a [shortened-] pronunciation unique in the Aramaic [-Targums] spoken by the Hebrews or John is using this word to represent and translate the Hebrew word av-don; which has the same meanings and three letter root. They both also share a fourth letter (i.e. the vav [wow]). This word could be translated into English as "service or servitude." Or transliterated as avdon if the literal Hebrew or Jewish language is meant and hence follow the pattern of other Greek renderings in the Greek New Testament.
“You say, I am rich and my wealth has increased and I need nothing; and you do not know that you are miserable and a wanderer and poor and blind and naked.” (Rev. 3:17 Lamsa). The additional words “and blind” are in the Greek text and in the Harklean version, but not in the Crawford manuscript. The words “poor” and “blind” look alike in the Aramaic text. A dreary eyed translator probably saw the word “poor” twice and thus translated the word “poor” the first time and at his second look translated it as “blind.”
“And they had a king over them, who was the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abado, but in Greek his name is Apollyon.” (Rev. 9:11 Lamsa). This verse from the Harklean Version matches the Greek text. The underlined words in the Crawford manuscript say: “And in Aramaic his renown is Shre.” Shre means "the released [-one]" or "the loosed [-one]." It's a description of Satan because he will be "released" or "loosed" from his prison or confinement (Rev. 20:3, 7). Shre was mistranslated into the active tense here. The three letter verb root looks like it has the past tense meaning and not the present or active tense meaning because there isn't a da-lath (Hebrew pronunciation da-let[h]) at the beginning of this verb. Shra, it's verb root, has many meanings depending on the context; such as: “to loosen, dismiss, break, violate, etc." It rarely means "to destroy,” but it can carry that meaning (see Matt. 26:61). Apparently the Greek translator read this verb as sha-re "the One destroying, Destroyer" and translated it as Apollyon "the Destroyer." The Aramaic word ow-du was also mistranslated into the Greek language. Ow-du is the shortened form of the word ow-du-tha "servitude, service." It's referred to as a "Hebrew" word either because it is a [shortened-] pronunciation unique in the Aramaic [-Targums] spoken by the Hebrews or John is using this word to represent and translate the Hebrew word av-don; which has the same meanings and three letter root. They both also share a fourth letter (i.e. the vav [wow]). This word could be translated into English as "service or servitude." Or transliterated as avdon if the literal Hebrew or Jewish language is meant and hence follow the pattern of other Greek renderings in the Greek New Testament.
This Greek translator however thought ow-du was a transliteration of the Hebrew word av-ad-don (destruction); even though av-ad-don starts with an aleph and not an ayin as ow-du does. The Crawford text gives a good description of Satan because he serves God and it's only by God's permission that Satan can successfully act against godly people (see Job 1:12; 2 Cor. 12:7).
Note: The letters "aw" have an "ow" sound in a lot of words. That combination can variantly be pronounced as ō in those same words. Ow-du (or Ō-du) has the same letters of the name Ab-du (servant - see Ezra 8:6). Abdu is one of the Aramaic transliterations of the Hebrew name e-ved (Eḅed - servant). Sometimes a final wow is added to an Aramaic transliteration of a Hebrew name to make that name not look like an Aramaic word; which Abdu without the wow would look like the indefinite spelling for the word "servant" in Aramaic. The Hebrew words e-ved (servant) and av-don (service) or the Aramaic words abdu [ow-da] (servant) and ow-du[tha] (service) are all related. They all share the letters Ayin, Bet[-h], and Dalet[-h]. These words describe the Satan (Adversary) as having a "serving" role.
“Then I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” (Rev. 20:12 Lamsa). The Harklean and Greek text has the words “of life” in this verse. The Crawford manuscript says: “..the book of judgment..” Those two Aramaic words look very similar in the Dead Sea Scroll Script. How did the Crawford manuscript get “..the book of judgment..,” if it is not the original? The words “life” and “judgment” do not look alike in the Greek language. If the dalath and yod letters were close together in the DSS Hebrew script, they can look like the letter ḥeth. The nun can look like a yod. So the word דִּינָא dina "judgment" can look like the word חַיָּא ḥaiyah "life." - This isn't the first time where it looks like a Greek translator misread a Aramaic letter or word in the Crawford text of Revelation. Thus the Crawford Aramaic text of Revelation looks [screams] original. (Ps. 149:9) appears to refer to this Book of Judgment. It says: "To execute on them a WRITTEN JUDGMENT. Splendor (honor) is for all His pious ones. Praise ye Yah!" The Aramaic translation words the first part as: "to execute on them THE JUDGMENT THAT IS WRITTEN ..."
Note: The letters "aw" have an "ow" sound in a lot of words. That combination can variantly be pronounced as ō in those same words. Ow-du (or Ō-du) has the same letters of the name Ab-du (servant - see Ezra 8:6). Abdu is one of the Aramaic transliterations of the Hebrew name e-ved (Eḅed - servant). Sometimes a final wow is added to an Aramaic transliteration of a Hebrew name to make that name not look like an Aramaic word; which Abdu without the wow would look like the indefinite spelling for the word "servant" in Aramaic. The Hebrew words e-ved (servant) and av-don (service) or the Aramaic words abdu [ow-da] (servant) and ow-du[tha] (service) are all related. They all share the letters Ayin, Bet[-h], and Dalet[-h]. These words describe the Satan (Adversary) as having a "serving" role.
“Then I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” (Rev. 20:12 Lamsa). The Harklean and Greek text has the words “of life” in this verse. The Crawford manuscript says: “..the book of judgment..” Those two Aramaic words look very similar in the Dead Sea Scroll Script. How did the Crawford manuscript get “..the book of judgment..,” if it is not the original? The words “life” and “judgment” do not look alike in the Greek language. If the dalath and yod letters were close together in the DSS Hebrew script, they can look like the letter ḥeth. The nun can look like a yod. So the word דִּינָא dina "judgment" can look like the word חַיָּא ḥaiyah "life." - This isn't the first time where it looks like a Greek translator misread a Aramaic letter or word in the Crawford text of Revelation. Thus the Crawford Aramaic text of Revelation looks [screams] original. (Ps. 149:9) appears to refer to this Book of Judgment. It says: "To execute on them a WRITTEN JUDGMENT. Splendor (honor) is for all His pious ones. Praise ye Yah!" The Aramaic translation words the first part as: "to execute on them THE JUDGMENT THAT IS WRITTEN ..."
Also, the second book that is talked about in (Jubilees 30:31) may be referring to the Book of Judgment. The Hebrew text says this: "And if they shall transgress and shall do according to all the ways of the uncleanness, they will be recorded on the heavenly tablets as enemies so that they will blot out (erase) the number of the living [from the Book of Life], and they will be recorded in the Book of those who are being hidden and those who will be cut off (destroyed) from the earth." Compare (Rev. 20:13-15).
If a book is translated from one language to another, then there should be some evidence of this transition. The following verses will show that the Crawford manuscripts of Revelation are the original, while the Harklean text of Revelation shows that it is a translation. The Crawford manuscripts contain correct Aramaic speech while the Harklean text is greatly influenced by Greek communication.
The Harklean translation uses many of the same Greek words in the text of Revelation. Some examples include pud-re (from po-de-re - ephod at 1:13, tro-nos (from thro-nos - throne) and lam-pe-de (from pl. lam-pa-des - lamps) at 4:5, and qros-til-los (from krus-tal-los - crystal) at 4:6. The Crawford manuscripts have true Aramaic words for the previous examples plus more elsewhere within the text. The Crawford text has ap-po-ḏa (ephod), curs-ya (throne), nah-hi-re (lamps) and gli-ḏa (crystal) in the place of the borrowed Greek words in the Harklean text. Additionally, Aramaic words that got transliterated into the Greek text of Revelation received a Greek spelling and pronunciation. When Thomas was translating from the Greek into Aramaic; he retained the Greek pronunciation significantly while departing from the original Aramaic spelling and pronunciation. Some examples include Zmurna and Laodicea. Zmurna was translated as Smur-na in the Greek text. Thomas translated Smurna as Smurna in his translation. Laodicea (Laodikeia), though a Greek word, is pronounced Laḏiqia in Aramaic. Since Thomas was translating from the Greek, he kept the Greek pronunciation significantly by translating that word as Laodiqia.
If a book is translated from one language to another, then there should be some evidence of this transition. The following verses will show that the Crawford manuscripts of Revelation are the original, while the Harklean text of Revelation shows that it is a translation. The Crawford manuscripts contain correct Aramaic speech while the Harklean text is greatly influenced by Greek communication.
The Harklean translation uses many of the same Greek words in the text of Revelation. Some examples include pud-re (from po-de-re - ephod at 1:13, tro-nos (from thro-nos - throne) and lam-pe-de (from pl. lam-pa-des - lamps) at 4:5, and qros-til-los (from krus-tal-los - crystal) at 4:6. The Crawford manuscripts have true Aramaic words for the previous examples plus more elsewhere within the text. The Crawford text has ap-po-ḏa (ephod), curs-ya (throne), nah-hi-re (lamps) and gli-ḏa (crystal) in the place of the borrowed Greek words in the Harklean text. Additionally, Aramaic words that got transliterated into the Greek text of Revelation received a Greek spelling and pronunciation. When Thomas was translating from the Greek into Aramaic; he retained the Greek pronunciation significantly while departing from the original Aramaic spelling and pronunciation. Some examples include Zmurna and Laodicea. Zmurna was translated as Smur-na in the Greek text. Thomas translated Smurna as Smurna in his translation. Laodicea (Laodikeia), though a Greek word, is pronounced Laḏiqia in Aramaic. Since Thomas was translating from the Greek, he kept the Greek pronunciation significantly by translating that word as Laodiqia.
Note: Thomas did transliterate the word smurna as smurna in his Aramaic translation. The common people that don’t know this Greek pronunciation pronounce this word as smorna though. The sixth Aramaic letter has two vowel sounds, which are “u” and “o.” Most names of people and places from the Hebrew Bible are spelled the same way in the Aramaic Bible. Because the vowel points were not used then, the local people ended up pronouncing those words differently than the Hebrew pronunciation. If a person knows Hebrew as well, then he would be able to pronounce those words correctly by using the same consonants from the Aramaic transliteration. This pronunciation phenomenon is also true of Greek and Latin names of people and places in the Aramaic New Testament. Most of those words can be pronounced correctly if a person knows Greek or Latin by using the Aramaic spelling for those words.
“The Spirit of prophecy came upon me on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying,” (Rev. 1:10 Lamsa). The Harklean text shows that it is a translation from the Greek because it contains the same words (the Lord’s day), which are in the Greek text. Those words refer to Sunday. The Crawford text says: “the first of the week.” CHURCH FATHERS & THE FORMER PATRIARCH OF THE EAST:
The Church Fathers bear witness that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.
A letter was sent to the former Patriarch of the East asking him about the Peshitta text. It should be noticed that he said the Peshitta NT was never changed. This is from the Lamsa Bible (p. ii):
Patriarchate of the East, Modesto, California, April 5, 1957
“With reference to your letter concerning Lamsa’s translation of the Aramaic Bible, and the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”
Mar Eshai Shimun (Shimon)By Grace, Catholicos PatriarchOf the East
“The Spirit of prophecy came upon me on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying,” (Rev. 1:10 Lamsa). The Harklean text shows that it is a translation from the Greek because it contains the same words (the Lord’s day), which are in the Greek text. Those words refer to Sunday. The Crawford text says: “the first of the week.” CHURCH FATHERS & THE FORMER PATRIARCH OF THE EAST:
The Church Fathers bear witness that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.
A letter was sent to the former Patriarch of the East asking him about the Peshitta text. It should be noticed that he said the Peshitta NT was never changed. This is from the Lamsa Bible (p. ii):
Patriarchate of the East, Modesto, California, April 5, 1957
“With reference to your letter concerning Lamsa’s translation of the Aramaic Bible, and the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”
Mar Eshai Shimun (Shimon)By Grace, Catholicos PatriarchOf the East
1st Note: Mar Shimun (Shimon) became an American citizen in 1949. Because of the uncertainties caused in 1933 by the independence of Iraq from colonial rule, he ultimately relocated to the United States. He was assassinated on November 6, 1975.
2nd Note: When Mar Ishai Shimon XXIII said that the Peshitta is without change or revision, he is referring to the Peshitta NT text as written in the current cursive Estrangela or Classical script; which hasn't changed. Unfortunately, many ancient and valuable Aramaic texts were lost during World War I. However, there are preserved 5th century and beyond Peshitta manuscripts that attest that the Peshitta hasn't changed or been revised. In the "Introduction" of the Lamsa Bible, he narrates how the Peshitta isn't a revision from an Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament. Also, if there was any change, then it would have happened before the 5th century. Thus, besides the forms of six letters that are significantly different between the two cursive Aramaic scripts, I believe the Peshitta text was changed in three areas. The original Peshitta text was written in the square Aramaic or Biblical Hebrew text. We know this because the Church Fathers mention Matthew, Paul and Luke, and say that those authors wrote their books or letters in the Hebrew language or in Hebrew letters. The cursive Estrangela Aramaic script has never been the script for Hebrew; but the block Ashshuri (Assyrian) script has. That Hebrew script only used the yod to show the future tense and hence that leads us to the second change, which is the use of the nun instead of the yod to show the future tense; for the later Estrangela Script. The third change involved removing the Divine Name יהוה "Yahweh" from the Aramaic text and replacing it with the word מָרִיָא "the LORD" in certain places. The Samarian Targums and Psalm Targums still have the Divine Name in the Aramaic text. However, the other three main Targums show evidence of the removal of the Divine Name with the annotations of " ייי " and " יוי " in the translations (targums). There is no reason to believe the NT authors would have written LORD instead of the Divine Name when quoting the Old Testament containing it. Yeshua said he made his Father's Name known (Jn. 17:6, 26). A Christian's prayer or wish should be that God's Name be hallowed (Matt. 6:9). Additionally, common Hebrew idioms such as "spoken of the LORD," "angel of the LORD" and "in the name of the LORD" originally have the word Yahweh in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Aramaic word MARIA "LORD" also wasn't used in the Palestinian Targums of the Old Testament (i.e. Onqelos & Yerushalem Targums). Yeshua and the Apostles wouldn't have said/wrote that word. So that begs the question of what was in its place. It's obvious that it was the Divine Name. Yeshua and his disciples would have been aware of the Palestinian songs with MARA "the Lord" as the translation for God's Divine Name. Or the Samarian and Jewish Targums with the Name fully written or indicated with the various replacements (annotations) ['יוי ,ייי ,ה, etc. ]. The Name and annotations weren't read as written though. They were read in Aramaic as MARA "the Lord," SHMA "the Name" or Adonai [This transliterated word was adopted from the Hebrew (see 2 Chron. 20:17; Letter to Marcian v.4)].
2nd Note: When Mar Ishai Shimon XXIII said that the Peshitta is without change or revision, he is referring to the Peshitta NT text as written in the current cursive Estrangela or Classical script; which hasn't changed. Unfortunately, many ancient and valuable Aramaic texts were lost during World War I. However, there are preserved 5th century and beyond Peshitta manuscripts that attest that the Peshitta hasn't changed or been revised. In the "Introduction" of the Lamsa Bible, he narrates how the Peshitta isn't a revision from an Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament. Also, if there was any change, then it would have happened before the 5th century. Thus, besides the forms of six letters that are significantly different between the two cursive Aramaic scripts, I believe the Peshitta text was changed in three areas. The original Peshitta text was written in the square Aramaic or Biblical Hebrew text. We know this because the Church Fathers mention Matthew, Paul and Luke, and say that those authors wrote their books or letters in the Hebrew language or in Hebrew letters. The cursive Estrangela Aramaic script has never been the script for Hebrew; but the block Ashshuri (Assyrian) script has. That Hebrew script only used the yod to show the future tense and hence that leads us to the second change, which is the use of the nun instead of the yod to show the future tense; for the later Estrangela Script. The third change involved removing the Divine Name יהוה "Yahweh" from the Aramaic text and replacing it with the word מָרִיָא "the LORD" in certain places. The Samarian Targums and Psalm Targums still have the Divine Name in the Aramaic text. However, the other three main Targums show evidence of the removal of the Divine Name with the annotations of " ייי " and " יוי " in the translations (targums). There is no reason to believe the NT authors would have written LORD instead of the Divine Name when quoting the Old Testament containing it. Yeshua said he made his Father's Name known (Jn. 17:6, 26). A Christian's prayer or wish should be that God's Name be hallowed (Matt. 6:9). Additionally, common Hebrew idioms such as "spoken of the LORD," "angel of the LORD" and "in the name of the LORD" originally have the word Yahweh in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Aramaic word MARIA "LORD" also wasn't used in the Palestinian Targums of the Old Testament (i.e. Onqelos & Yerushalem Targums). Yeshua and the Apostles wouldn't have said/wrote that word. So that begs the question of what was in its place. It's obvious that it was the Divine Name. Yeshua and his disciples would have been aware of the Palestinian songs with MARA "the Lord" as the translation for God's Divine Name. Or the Samarian and Jewish Targums with the Name fully written or indicated with the various replacements (annotations) ['יוי ,ייי ,ה, etc. ]. The Name and annotations weren't read as written though. They were read in Aramaic as MARA "the Lord," SHMA "the Name" or Adonai [This transliterated word was adopted from the Hebrew (see 2 Chron. 20:17; Letter to Marcian v.4)].
The removal of the Divine Name is part of the history of Jewish & Christian scribes. Christians followed the belief and custom of the Jews to not pronounce God's name out of reverence. Also, we know that the Divine Name wasn't written to aid disposal of a retired Torah Scroll, etc. It made it easier to bury or burn any scrolls without cutting out the Name throughout the texts. Additionally, according to The Massorah, by C.D. Ginsburg (i.e. Gins.), the Jewish scribes altered the original Hebrew Old Testament text by changing YHWH to Adonai in 134 places (133 places in BHK and BHS; which restored the Divine Name at Ps. 68:26). They also changed YHWH to Elohim in 8 places. Some of the best manuscripts and early editions read the Tetragrammaton versus Adonai in those places. The Aramaic Translations (Targums) also confirm that the Divine Name was in those places. What caused this change? Well, it was natural for the copyists to write Adonai instead of YHWH because it expressed the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, which they were forbidden to pronounce. Christian copyists likewise replaced the Divine Name and replaced it with the word "LORD." The P'shitta New Testament has the words MARIA "LORD" and MARA "Lord" many times throughout. So only where the word MARIA "LORD" appears is where the Divine Name was. Nevertheless, the overall integrity of the Aramaic Peshitta text has been preserved. The Targums by Onqelos (c. 110 CE), who lived from (c. 35 -120 CE), have the same grammar as the Peshitta with the exception of using the yod instead of the nun to show the future tense. Again, the Peshitta originally used the yod; and hence the Peshitta represents Aramaic grammar for the first century.
The Peshitta text also agrees substantially with the Neofiti Targums (c. 1st century - based on grammatical spelling & geographical words) and the Jerusalem Targums (circa 50 BCE). The Jerusalem (Pseudo Jonathan) Targums came first, then Neofit Targums and finally the Onqelos Targums. The Onqelos Targums represent the best in first century Aramaic grammar but the other two Targums show us later Aramaic grammar than the Aramaic books in the Dead Sea Scrolls; and hence how the Aramaic language evolved, getting closer and closer to the first century grammar of the Peshitta Bible.
The Peshitta text also agrees substantially with the Neofiti Targums (c. 1st century - based on grammatical spelling & geographical words) and the Jerusalem Targums (circa 50 BCE). The Jerusalem (Pseudo Jonathan) Targums came first, then Neofit Targums and finally the Onqelos Targums. The Onqelos Targums represent the best in first century Aramaic grammar but the other two Targums show us later Aramaic grammar than the Aramaic books in the Dead Sea Scrolls; and hence how the Aramaic language evolved, getting closer and closer to the first century grammar of the Peshitta Bible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the Aramaic books of Enoch, Tobit, the Testament of Levi, etc. Those books were authored before the 1st century and were faithfully copied; retaining the older spellings of words. This is because they are religious or holy books. They don't represent the Aramaic grammar spoken or written in the 1st century. The differences are minor though. The word "that" was spelled with two letters as di and later became one letter as "d." The word cdi ( [Note: the sheva of the first letter is silent] - Dan. 3:7; etc.) "when" became cad and the letter he "h" was replaced with the letter alap "a" at the end of verbs, pronouns, adjectives and sometimes rarely nouns (examples: innah to inna "I," bạah to bạa "he sought," etc.). The "h" was likely replaced with the "a" because the "h" means (translates into the pronouns) "him, his and her" when attached to words.
Extra Note: The surviving Qumran Aramaic text of Tobit shows that the Tetragrammaton (Divine Name) was removed and replaced with FOUR DOTS in three places (Tobit 3:14; 13:15; 14:2 - [4Q196 - Frag. 18]). Fragments 4Q198-4Q200 also contain Tobit chapter 14. [4Q198 - Frag. 1] has the word ALAHA "God" replacing the Divine Name "YHWH" at Tobit 14:2. So we see that the word "God" was sometimes used to replace the Divine Name as well.
3rd Note: It is possible that the Aramaic in Urhay and other areas also used the nun for the future tense in the 1st century. Evidence for that is we have the Estrangela P'shitta New Testament, which uses the nun to show the future tense in verbs. It's supposed to represent first or second century Aramaic grammar. The Aramaic "Doctrine of Addai" uses the nun to designate the future tense and purports to cover 1st and 2nd century history. Mara, the son of (bar) Serapion writes to his son Serapion II in a 3rd century letter [CAL Listing: (M.b.Serapion)]. He uses the nun to designate the future tense. Then we have 4th century Saint Aprem (Ephrem) writing a commentary on the Diatessaron (~ AD 150) and hence the P'shitta New Testament. He is writing with the nun and it looks like he is quoting and using the same words and grammar of the 2nd century Diatessaron or 1st century P'shitta New Testament; which also use the future nun letter. I don't see any reason why those written works would be updated with the nun versus the yod to show the future tense in Aramaic grammar. It's just as easy to read those books with either letter. Also, updating those written works may make them look suspicious or fraudulent. Nevertheless, I'll consider it a possible theory that the text of those written works were updated to the modern script (i.e. from yod to nun usage). The Estrangela Script with the yod being used to show the future tense, does date to the first century. The following link shows some first century (AD 6) Estrangela script where the yod is used to designate the future tense - http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1367.html. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) also has some 1st-4th century Estrangela Script [Titled: Old Syriac Inscriptions (1st-3rd c.)] written with the yod to designate the future tense on its website. A lot of that text deals with the descendants of King Aḅgar, Manu, etc.
Extra Note: The surviving Qumran Aramaic text of Tobit shows that the Tetragrammaton (Divine Name) was removed and replaced with FOUR DOTS in three places (Tobit 3:14; 13:15; 14:2 - [4Q196 - Frag. 18]). Fragments 4Q198-4Q200 also contain Tobit chapter 14. [4Q198 - Frag. 1] has the word ALAHA "God" replacing the Divine Name "YHWH" at Tobit 14:2. So we see that the word "God" was sometimes used to replace the Divine Name as well.
3rd Note: It is possible that the Aramaic in Urhay and other areas also used the nun for the future tense in the 1st century. Evidence for that is we have the Estrangela P'shitta New Testament, which uses the nun to show the future tense in verbs. It's supposed to represent first or second century Aramaic grammar. The Aramaic "Doctrine of Addai" uses the nun to designate the future tense and purports to cover 1st and 2nd century history. Mara, the son of (bar) Serapion writes to his son Serapion II in a 3rd century letter [CAL Listing: (M.b.Serapion)]. He uses the nun to designate the future tense. Then we have 4th century Saint Aprem (Ephrem) writing a commentary on the Diatessaron (~ AD 150) and hence the P'shitta New Testament. He is writing with the nun and it looks like he is quoting and using the same words and grammar of the 2nd century Diatessaron or 1st century P'shitta New Testament; which also use the future nun letter. I don't see any reason why those written works would be updated with the nun versus the yod to show the future tense in Aramaic grammar. It's just as easy to read those books with either letter. Also, updating those written works may make them look suspicious or fraudulent. Nevertheless, I'll consider it a possible theory that the text of those written works were updated to the modern script (i.e. from yod to nun usage). The Estrangela Script with the yod being used to show the future tense, does date to the first century. The following link shows some first century (AD 6) Estrangela script where the yod is used to designate the future tense - http://www.peshitta.org/forums/forumid6/1367.html. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) also has some 1st-4th century Estrangela Script [Titled: Old Syriac Inscriptions (1st-3rd c.)] written with the yod to designate the future tense on its website. A lot of that text deals with the descendants of King Aḅgar, Manu, etc.
It's also true that Syria started to write their cursive Aramaic Script with the nun letter for the future tense around the fourth century. Additionally, in the 5th century, Jews living in Yerushalem, Palestine sent a letter to King Marcian [CAL - A Letter of the Jews to Marcian]. It was sent, in their view, because of the evil synod of Calqidon (Chalcedon), Bithynia [Modern Day: Turkey]. The letter was written in the Estrangela script with the nun letter showing the future tense because that was the script of the country (or area). Hence we see the ease of communication by using the same Aramaic in a different script. They just had to remember to use the nun letter for a verb's future tense.
4th Note: Because of persecutions, wars and illiteracy; a lot of Aramaic speakers don’t know their own history concerning the originality of the Peshitta New Testament. That is, however, changing fast.
5th Note: There are several Hebrew books where the Divine Name has been removed. The Hebrew text of Ben Sira (the descendant of Sira) has the Divine Name removed and replaced with the annotation ''' (the middle yod is actually raised up - i.e. superlinear). The Divine Name was also removed from the Hebrew text of "the Correct Record (AKA Book of Yasher);" even though you see the English word "Lord" in the translation. Lastly, Shem-Tob's Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew, which is a translation from the Greek NT, removed the Divine Name and replaced it with the annotation " H", " an abbreviation of the word HASHEM "the Name."
6th Note: There are old LXX manuscripts of Old Testament verses that have the Divine Name in Hebrew characters: יהוה, or with similar looking Greek letters: ΠΙΠΙ, which were later replaced with the abbreviated word kurios (K͞S - Lord) or kuriou (K͞U - of the Lord) in later Greek Old Testaments. The Greek New Testament according to Codex Vaticanus (c. 300-325) has the Greek word "Lord" abbreviated as "KS" or "KU" - with a horizontal line across the top. Did it follow the same erasure of the Divine Name like the Greek Old Testament? I think it's possible that the Greek New Testament originally contained the Divine Name. When the Divine Name was removed from quotations of the Greek Old Testament, that is probably when the Divine Name was removed from the Greek New Testament around the beginning of the second century. Otherwise, the other theory would be that the Apostles or Greek translators just translated the Divine Name as kurios "Lord." I'm aware that Codex Vaticanus also abbreviates the words Yesus "Jesus" and Christos "Christ." Thus the abbreviations could be just abbreviations like how the Coptic New Testament has some of its words abbreviated.
“Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people and ASSYRIA the work of my hands and Israel my heritage.” (Isa. 19:25 Lamsa).
In order to conserve space, I have decided that this is enough proof that the New Testament was originally penned in Aramaic. I encourage individual Christians to read the original Aramaic text for themselves to be convinced and eliminate any doubt. The original Aramaic New Testament of course has many more proofs that it is the original. Other evidence includes that the Aramaic contains much more meaning by its words and manners of speech (idioms). There are also Greek names that are from the Aramaic pronunciation that are different than the established Greek pronunciation from the Hebrew Old Testament. Textual Criticism is also another proof. A final proof is that there are coded messages in the Aramaic New Testament that have been found by following the same procedure in which the Hebrew text was put into Code finder.
Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © (Ɔ) 2016. All rights reserved.
In order to conserve space, I have decided that this is enough proof that the New Testament was originally penned in Aramaic. I encourage individual Christians to read the original Aramaic text for themselves to be convinced and eliminate any doubt. The original Aramaic New Testament of course has many more proofs that it is the original. Other evidence includes that the Aramaic contains much more meaning by its words and manners of speech (idioms). There are also Greek names that are from the Aramaic pronunciation that are different than the established Greek pronunciation from the Hebrew Old Testament. Textual Criticism is also another proof. A final proof is that there are coded messages in the Aramaic New Testament that have been found by following the same procedure in which the Hebrew text was put into Code finder.
Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © (Ɔ) 2016. All rights reserved.
Help financially support this Website so it will continue for future generations. The "Donate" allows you to give a one time or monthly donation.
FREE-WEBSITE-TRANSLATION, if you need it, initially translates the home page when the website address is copied & pasted into the box. It will translate the other pages also but you will need to paste in the full address of the other pages (i.e. /folder name/sub-page name).