aramaic

[sahjimira]

I hada nnew testament Aramaic version (which Iccan't find) is it reliable because it's written wwell translates to English, from Aramaic? should I get s version of the Bible translated from Hebrew or aramaic if there is one,,?

 

[Lulav]

I hada nnew testament Aramaic version (which Iccan't find) is it reliable because it's written wwell translates to English, from Aramaic? should I get s version of the Bible translated from Hebrew or aramaic if there is one,,?

I think for now your best bet is sticking to a familiar version, trying to take on too many things at once can only lead to confusion.

Were you referring to the Peshit t a?

 

[sahjimira]

Thanks for your reply. What's a Peshit? I was referring to an Aramaic NT or a Bible translated to english

 

[yonah_mishael]

It's not Peshit. It's Peshitta, which is the Syriac (Aramaic) version of the Bible.

 

[sahjimira]

Thanks. I meant the gaelalian Aramaic if there is one. The complete Jewish Bible is translated from Hebrew right?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thanks. I meant the gaelalian Aramaic if there is one. The complete Jewish Bible is translated from Hebrew right?

I would imagine that it was translated from the Greek, as Greek is the language of the New Testament. The Peshitta is a translation of the Greek, too.

 

[Open Heart]

The complete Jewish Bible is translated from the Greek.

Your Aramaic Bible is also translated from the Greek. Any translation into English from the Aramaic is going to be a translation of a translation: the quality is not going to be as good, just as a photocopy of a photocopy is not as good as a photocopy of an original.

You are best off going with a translation from the Greek for the NT, and from the Hebrew for the Tanakh.

 

[Wgw]

The complete Jewish Bible is translated from the Greek.

Your Aramaic Bible is also translated from the Greek. Any translation into English from the Aramaic is going to be a translation of a translation: the quality is not going to be as good, just as a photocopy of a photocopy is not as good as a photocopy of an original.

You are best off going with a translation from the Greek for the NT, and from the Hebrew for the Tanakh.

Not neccessarily. It really depends on the translation. The Douay Rheims represents, to a large extent, a translation from the Latin Vulgate. The beauty of the Peshitta and the Vulgate is they represent early translations from the Greek, and other sources in the case of the OT; they provide a frame of reference.

That said, one should not accept the Aramaic Primacy hypothesis; the Greek NT texts are original. What is more, the Peshitta is certainly not, as Lamsa argued, the original text of the NT. The Aramaic Source Hypothesis argued by @SteveCaruso is very helpful however.

Note that I am Syriac Orthodox; my church actually uses the Peahitta as its main liturgical text. The Western Peshitto as it is known features all of the books of the Athanasian canon, and there is a rather nice 19th translation of it by Murdoch.

 

[sahjimira]

Not neccessarily. It really depends on the translation. The Douay Rheims represents, to a large extent, a translation from the Latin Vulgate. The beauty of the Peshitta and the Vulgate is they represent early translations from the Greek, and other sources in the case of the OT; they provide a frame of reference.

That said, one should not accept the Aramaic Primacy hypothesis; the Greek NT texts are original. Ehat is more, the Peshitta is certainly not, as Lamsa argued, the original text of the NT. The Aramaic Source Hypothesis argued by @SteveCaruso is very helpful however.

Note that I am Syriac Orthodox; my church actually uses the Peahitta as its main liturgical text. The Western Peshitto as it is known features all of the books of the Athanasian canon, and there is a rather nice 19th translation of it by Murdoch.

 

[sahjimira]

Oh boy..lots of good stuff. Sounds like nearly everything was translated from Greek. How about CJB, Greek translation also?

 

[Wgw]

Oh boy..lots of good stuff. Sounds like nearly everything was translated from Greek. How about CJB, Greek translation also?

I am not familiar with the CJB alas.

 

[Goatee]

What about the original Aramaic that Jesus used? Would that precede the Greek and Hebrew as the Our Father in Aramaic goes like this:

Abwûn O cosmic Birther, from whom the breath of life comes,
d'bwaschmâja who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
Nethkâdasch schmach May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Têtê malkuthach. Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha. Let Your will come true in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna. Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,
Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên. detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others.
Wela tachlân l'nesjuna Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),
ela patzân min bischa. but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.
Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn. From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.
Amên. Sealed in trust, faith and truth. (I confirm with my entire being)

Source

This is very different to how we say it today.

 

[SteveCaruso]

What about the original Aramaic that Jesus used? Would that precede the Greek and Hebrew as the Our Father in Aramaic goes like this:
This is very different to how we say it today.

No it doesn't. That isn't even remotely close to what the Classical Syriac (5th century Aramaic) text it's "translated" from says.

See here.

Additionally, Jesus did not speak Syriac. He spoke Galilean Aramaic. If you'd like a closer look at what that might have sounded like, here's my own reconstruction based upon the Galilean dialect.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I think it depends on what you're using the Bible for. I rather like reading the bible as ancient religious text in the context of other ancient religious texts so as to better understand the history of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions. However, when I go to Mass I don't read the Bible, the Bible, and especially the Gospel is read to me by the Priest, I prefer it read in Latin but don't mind if the text is translated, the context of this situation is very worlds different. The context is one of a high religious experience of great magnitude which calls for reverence to the Scripture and to the Holy Eucharist. I would actually argue that depending on the context there is a Religious Bible and there is an academic Bible, I really and honestly love both.

The best way to read the Bible academically is in a number of languages, ancient and modern, across a variety of canonical variations and so as to assess the varieties of contexts for the text.

 

[Dave-W]

That said, one should not accept the Aramaic Primacy hypothesis; the Greek NT texts are original. What is more, the Peshitta is certainly not, as Lamsa argued, the original text of the NT.

That everything NT was originally written in Greek and that the Lord and the Pharisees were speaking Greek just does not make sense.

I am of the opinion that various texts were probably written in a number of languages originally but when collected together in the 2nd century got translated into Greek, with most quotes from the Tenach taken from the LXX. (as it was in common usage by the greek speaking congregations)

While most of Paul's letters were to Greek speaking groups, they almost certainly were in Greek. Romans could have been equally likely to be in Latin, while Matthew, Hebrews and maybe the letters of Peter and James could have been in Aramaic.

 

[Open Heart]

That everything NT was originally written in Greek and that the Lord and the Pharisees were speaking Greek just does not make sense.

Hold on! They don't necessarily go together. I don't think anyone is saying that Jesus and the Apostles originally were speaking in Greek. That would be foolish. BUT the rest of the NT (with the possible exception of Matthew) WAS written originally in Greek, because Jerusalem was the only Jewish church, all the rest were Gentile, Greek speaking churches.

 

[Dave-W]

You don't think they spoke Latin in Rome?????

And I do take issue with Jerusalem being the ONLY Jewish church. Who do you think Peter and James and the author of Hebrews were writing to? Certainly NOT gentile churches.

 

[Wgw]

That everything NT was originally written in Greek and that the Lord and the Pharisees were speaking Greek just does not make sense.

Note that no one (credible) actually says that. Although if not in Aramaic, which seems not unreasonable, it is more likely that our Lord spoke Koine Greek to Pontius Pilate than anything else.

I am of the opinion that various texts were probably written in a number of languages originally but when collected together in the 2nd century got translated into Greek, with most quotes from the Tenach taken from the LXX. (as it was in common usage by the greek speaking congregations)

However, there is no evidence the texts are translations from Aramaic. Rather, what is credible is the Aramaic Source Hypothesis, of which our own @SteveCaruso is rather well qualified in.

While most of Paul's letters were to Greek speaking groups, they almost certainly were in Greek. Romans could have been equally likely to be in Latin, while Matthew, Hebrews and maybe the letters of Peter and James could have been in Aramaic.

There is no textual evidence that these are translations. Regarding Latin, this language was not used in the church in Rome until the late second century, during the episcopate of Victor I. It is worth noting that even St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a decidedly Western saint, wrote in Koine Greek.

The reason is of course that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, particularly in the East; it was not the mative tongue of Rome, but it was exceedingly widely spoken and understood.

 

[Dave-W]

Although if not in Aramaic, which seems not unreasonable, it is more likely that our Lord spoke Koine Greek to Pontius Pilate than anything else.

Pilate was Roman. It is equally likely that the conversation was in Latin. But do you think HE spoke Koine Greek to his disciple Simon Zealotes?

 

[Goatee]

I am sure that Jesus could speak any language he came across!