(some of it done after I've finished my 2002 book)
Here's some basic information about those ancient Aramaic gospels. Surprisingly enough, hardly anyone seems to have read them in our day and age! But, then again, I guess this is not all that surprising, anyways, because the last edition of these gospels came out in 1910!
And here, for the first time on the Internet, is the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew in English translation. This is Burkitt's 1904 translation of the Aramaic Matthew.
Chapters 1 to 7 of the Aramaic Matthew.
Chapters 8 to 14 of the Aramaic Matthew.
Chapters 15 to 21 of the Aramaic Matthew.
Chapters 22 to 28 of the Aramaic Matthew.
In the following articles, I write about some of the very unusual features that are found in these Aramaic texts. Their most unusual feature may be that there are hundreds of textual parallels between them and the Magdalene Gospel!
One of the very prominent features of the Magdalene Gospel, that leaps right into your eyes, is the image of the "Gentle Jesus" -- the Jesus who's invariably a lot nicer with people around him, than in the usual canonical texts. But now, I've identified the very same feature in the Aramaic gospels.
So here's the information about the "Gentle Jesus" as seen in the Old Syriac version of Matthew 17:7. It was originally posted to TC-List, and eventually lead to my expulsion.
In the following article, I write about just one of the many passages in these Aramaic texts that, even on the surface of it, has all the appearance of being more original than its canonical Greek counterpart (Luke 11:52-12:1). So it certainly does look like the Aramaic text more original! And also, the "Gentle Jesus" image comes through here as well...
And here's yet another passage where the Magdalene Gospel happens to feature a unique parallel with the Aramaic version of the gospel of John. This parallel in Jn 4:47 is very clear and obvious... This article also examines some basic questions about how such unique agreements between these two texts may have originated.
And this is an article about Jesus and his disciples. Here, again, the image of the "Gentle Jesus" is apparent. (This was posted originally to the Johannine Literature discussion group.)
Here's an article about yet another interesting passage that seems to have belonged to the earliest compositional stratum of the Gospel of Matthew. This article was posted to Usenet in September 2002. Another unique parallel between the Magdalene Gospel and the Aramaic texts is found here.
"did Jesus cross the border"? (Mt 15:21)
And here's Part 2 of this article.
Since the above items dealt with the journey of the Canaanite woman to meet Jesus, here is some additional analysis of the same passage. This material was already discussed a while back, in June 2000, when I was just starting my research on the Magdalene Gospel. This is a re-edited and updated version of it. It looks like some late Greek editors of this passage tried to make the disciples of Jesus look bad... And this is still the version that everyone's reading!
Here's one of these cases where our mainstream scholars goofed majorly. They claim that the original author of Mark didn't know the basic geography of Galilee... But, in actual fact, this supposed ignorance of Mark now seems quite imaginary. And, in this case as well, the King James Version of Mark surely seems more original than the "textual improvements" that the modern scholars have embraced.
This is one more case where the Aramaic Mark is clearly more original than its Greek version (the case of the "Strange Exorcist" in Mk 9:38). And, again, the Magdalene Gospel goes here with the Aramaic text. "Greek text is the most corrupt!" (Part 1)
Here you can find Parts 2 and 3 of the above.
This study investigates the earliest version of Matthew 4:1 (the introduction to the Temptation of Jesus). What sort of a Spirit was leading Jesus to the wilderness? It looks like, in this case, the Magdalene Gospel happens to preserve the source of Matthew!
And here is a study that aims to reconstruct the earliest version of Jn 6:15 (the verse portraying how the people of Israel saw Jesus after his Feeding of the Multitudes). Various Diatessaronic versions of this incident seem to contain this verse in its original form. This material is a bit more complicated, because of the multiple comparisons involved. It was originally posted to TC-List, where the professional scholars didn't quite know how to deal with all this new evidence...
The following study investigates how the word "Behold" is used in a variety of ancient manuscripts of Luke. Greek, Aramaic, and Old Latin manuscripts of Luke are compared in 3 large Tables. What this study seems to demonstrate quite clearly is that the Old Syriac Luke was certainly not a translation of the canonical Greek text. Also, some of the older parts of Luke seem to be pinpointed by this study.
And this is the continuation of the above study, applying the same methodology to the Gospel of Matthew. But, in this case, we also have an opportunity to compare the 3 existing versions of the Hebrew Matthew to the same range of ancient manuscripts as in the study above. The conclusion that I reach is that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew clearly represents a very ancient textual tradition, that may go back to the original Semitic-language Matthew, as attested for us by massive early patristic evidence (which modern scholarship is still trying very hard to belittle, and/or to sweep under the rug).
Here are my comments about a very interesting article by Dr. Jan Joosten, that appeared in a recent issue of Harvard Theological Review. In the course of his analysis, Dr. Joosten makes use of both the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and of the Magdalene Gospel.
Jan Joosten, THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS AND THE DIATESSARON, Harvard Theological Review 95, (2002), pp. 73-96.
Joosten on Barnabas and the Diatessaron (Apr 14, 2003), http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/message/747
Joosten on Barnabas and the Diatessaron: Part 2 (May 6, 2003), http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/message/6305
Click here to return to Yuri's New Testament Research Page.