Aramaic Translation Of The Bible

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Thepasserby, Sep 24, 2014.

  1. Thepasserby

    Thepasserby Thepasserby

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,705
  3. Thepasserby

    Thepasserby Thepasserby

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Thepasserby

    Thepasserby Thepasserby

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a comparison to the KJV (my copy).

    Proverbs 2:10-11

    KJV: When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

    Aramaic Translation:
    10. Whereas wisdom shall enter into your heart, and knowledge shall heal your soul.
    11. Good counsel shall protect you, and the learning of the just shall deliver you. - Proverbs Chpt. 2 Vrs. 10 - 11
     
  5. Thepasserby

    Thepasserby Thepasserby

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a translation by Paul D. Younan.

    www.peshitta.org

    Peace, Love, and Light.:)
     
  6. greentwiga

    greentwiga New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been studying the Septuagint. The main difference is in the numbers for year prior to David, especially the numbers found in the books of Moses. The Aramaic generally agrees with the Septuagint. I have found that the numbers agree much better with history than the Masoretic text.
     
  7. theophony

    theophony God Sounds. Agape.

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand that Jesus and his followers spoke ancient Aramaic. However, our earliest biblical manuscripts are in ancient Greek (ancient Hebrew for some of the OT). Any Aramaic translation would have occurred after the original manuscripts (they are not Jesus' original words, but a translation of the most original words we have into Jesus' language), and thus, may or may not be as authentic as the Greek/Hebrew. Thoughts?
     
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,660
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    Yes. But it used to be assumed that the region was a 'backwater' of the Roman empire, until more and more archaeological evidence turned up pointing to the contrary.

    It now appears that Greek was a common second language to the upper echelons of Jewish society in Judea. If you lived in a town or city, or were involved in commerce, you spoke Greek. It's quite likely that Greek was a second tongue to Jesus and His companions.

    Yes. It's unlikely they were written in Aramaic and then translated.

    Sounds reasonable.

    Luke we know is addressing a non-Jewish audience, and the literary structure of his Gospel reflects Greek style. The journey motif Luke employs (half the gospel is on the road to Jerusalem) is a common motif in Greek literature.

    Whilst Luke thinks in Greek, Matthew thinks in Hebrew. His Gospel is a really sophisticated piece from a very well-educated Jew. The Gospel follows a narrative structure that is a favoured Hebrew technique. Why write in Greek then? Because that was the language of the educated Jew. We have sacred texts transcribed into Greek because Hebrew was something only the priesthood read, we have funerary inscriptions in Greek. Hebrew was becoming the language of the synagogue, but not the street. Aramaic was a dialect.

    There was a 'sayings gospel' of Matthew, according to Papias, 'in the language of the Hebrews', which might have been in Hebrew, or Aramaic. I think Matthew combined this logia document with Mark.

    Mark is not so happy in Greek. He uses Aramaic terms. It's notable that both Matthew and Luke incorporate Mark's grammatical errors, which suggests a reverence for the text. If we accept the most likely source for Mark as the oral tradition of Peter, you can see why.

    John, again, is educated in Greek, but it's clear John moves easily in the higher social circles. He's known to the Jewish authorities, he's allowed in when Jesus was being questioned after His arrest, while Peter stayed outside.

    Personally I think Jesus spoke Aramaic to his friends and Greek when dealing with Gentiles.
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Love was allowed in, Faith was asked to stay outside....

    My understanding is Aramaic had fewer words that Greek, hence the parables.
     
  10. theophony

    theophony God Sounds. Agape.

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the info, Thomas! I learned a great deal. It's amazing some of the knowledge that people have here
     
  11. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,279
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Yes theophony.... there is a bundle of knowledge.... and Thomas is an incredible source....
     
  12. greentwiga

    greentwiga New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is the question of When. Our Masoretic texts are fairly recent. Can we show that the Masoretic text is unchanged? no. The Septuagint was known to have been translated 100 or more years before Christ. The Septuagint was quoted in the Bible, not the Masoretic. The Samaritan Bible, which is just the five books of Moses was translated into Aramaic, probably well before the Septuagint. The two have maintained quite separate histories since. Thus, the agreement between the two would argue that the Masoretic text was changed after those translations. The fact that the most important changes were in the numbers of the years. It is like someone was trying to iron out perceived problems.
     
  13. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    Just to throw a wrench into the discussion, although it seems the verdict is clear the Aramaic texts are translations of the Greek. The point is even more clarified in the fact that the Aramaic texts are probably not more closely linked to Jesus (PBUH) since it is well documented that he primarily spoke Syriac which is a sister language to Aramaic. Although a person who spoke Aramaic should understand Syriac, the fact remains that the text if it were direct from Jesus (PBUH) would have been Syriac. As stated before, it is likely with Jesus' (PBUH) noted grasp of language and learning at the time that he probably did speak Greek, if not fluently it was probably near it. I would love to study the older translations of the Talmud. As you can probably tell I am Muslim, but would love to see how the older text differed from that used in the KJV and how that compares to the teachings of Islam. Where would one find an English translation of the Samaritan Bible and Septuagint that the translation can be trusted enough for understanding?
     
  14. theophony

    theophony God Sounds. Agape.

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't even get me started on the KJV...
     
  15. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    565
    Are you saying that Jesus wrote parts of the Bible himself?
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,660
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    Please remember that translations were done according to the time and place.

    The idea behind the KJV was a translation in the 17th century into the vernacular that matched the 'beauty' of the language perceived in the original; how well it succeeded in so doing might be questionable, but no doubt many contemporary criticisms are due largely to the fact that English language has changed over the centuries.

    No doubt in years to come people will look at our contemporary translations and think them dreadful.

    As for translations, it really depends on what you're looking for. If I'm contemplating the text, I go for a stylistic translation. If I'm studying the text I go for a technical version, with lexicons and commentaries to hand.
     
  17. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    :D By no means would I suggest that. But the quotes recorded from him should have been recorded the way he said them, in Syriac dialect. Also there should be people who spoke the same language out there that received his message that spoke his language as their primary language. Much of the confusion in Christianity comes from this IMO. There is no conclusive book that was what Jesus himself said should be written (and certainly none that he wrote). Instead we have Gospels according to Mark, which were collected by a third unknown entity, and recorded and copied and (I suspect) corrected to fit into the Greek language (also inherently putting some of their own views/styles into the writing). Literary Scholars also suggest the other 3 gospels collected into the modern Bible to be copies of Mark with added information (either personally added or it could be argued that the author knew something more than the one who wrote Mark). However, even then the names of the Apostles change slightly (again this can be an ambiguation issue or a name translation issue).

    The problem Muslims have with the Bible in general is the fact that it doesn't contain the Gospel. Jesus states many times that he went out to preach the Gospel, but anyone who studies the Bible knows that there is no way for him o go out and preach about his death (as found in the Gospels according to St John, Luke, Mark, or Matthew) that he doesn't know is coming yet (assuming Christian doctrine atm please try not to think that this is evidence of my view in future discussions). Also there are many occurances of what the apostles do without Jesus being there that he could not have known to teach. So with that in mind where is the Gospel Jesus taught? Surely someone felt the inclination that such an important thing should be written down. And I suspect it was. That's one of the reasons when I was looking into the Bible's authenticity I looked into the books that we know of that were left out. And why. Without theologically challenging Christianity as a whole, I cannot go into that. I will leave that for another time and date.

    I have read several translations of the dead sea scrolls, and a couple versions of the Bible (namely KJV, NIV, and looked into RSV) and would be very interested in a differing version of the OT than the Modern Torah (english translation) and the OT in the modern Bible.
     
  18. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    Who is doing the commentary and lexicons? Is it a Christian with modern Christian ideals in mind when doing the analysis? If so then the scientific approach to learning what it has to say is easily misplaced with predispositions. Am I saying it has to be a non-Christian? No, but it should b based on the text alone and not what someone wants it to say. Most study versions I've found have this issue.
     
  19. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    565
    Not sure I followed, by "Jesus states many times that he went out to preach the Gospel" you believe that "the Gospel" is an actual text that he carries around and reads from? Did he write that text himself?
     
  20. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    :confused:

    I can't tell if you are dense or think I know nothing about the Bible, or I guess you not knowing could also be possible.

    The Gospel, was a series of teachings that Jesus spread during his time in prophethood. All prophets had a message God had for them to spread. The Gospel (Injeel in Arabic) was the message Jesus was sent to spread. No it wasn't written by Jesus, it was passed to him from God. He wouldn't have needed to write it down, as something given to you from God directly isn't something you forget (admittedly this is my own view, but it seems to be upheld throughout all texts).

    However, since you couldn't understand what I wrote about the Gospel not being in the Bible I will explain. I will admit I did not realize the NIV changed the word until now from the Gospel to "the good news of God". Such as Mark 1:14. So if you take what seems to be any version other than NIV (i'm sure others have followed suit by changing it) Jesus was teaching the Gospel. What was that Gospel? Or if it was "good news of God" what was the news? Mind you Jesus was not aware that he was supposed to die at this point (again for argument purposes I'm agreeing with Bible on Crucifixion). So the Gospel, message, or "good News" couldn't have been that Jesus was God (or any of the other ideas amongst different denominations which propel a deity invokation) and that he was sent to be sacrificed for all people's sins. I'm not sure on the policy on this site about arguing logical vs illogical or for / against any religion so I am actively trying not to. I do know there are several books that were intentionally left out of the Bible for the simple sake that they did not promote what the Church wanted to be true. They also missed several books from slightly closer to Jesus's life and ascension that were not discovered until much later. I suspect someone at some point had a copy of verbatim what Jesus preached in each of his sermons, but those are either hidden or destroyed at this point. Please if this does not explain clearly what I meant, tell me exactly what I am saying that does not make sense as your short remarks are fairly insulting.
     

Share This Page