Great Article on Translation Accuracy

[ClementofRome]

They could not have been Greek speaking churches, as there is Aramaic poetry, punnery, and scribal errors underlying the Greek text

http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Timothy/GreatPoem
http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Corinthians/ToBeBurned
http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Peter/ZealousEmulation
http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=Romans/DoWeWaitForIt
http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=Romans/RighteousMan

And these are just examples

Peace!
-Steve-o

Hey Steve-o, I don't want to hassle you here, but i don't think that any amount of poetry or punnery could convince me that the churches in Rome and Corinth (and even other European churches) were predominately Aramaic speaking congregations??? Thusly, Paul wrote to them in Aramaic....

The issues of the mixed church (Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians) is so predominate in Paul's letters, that to have written to them in Aramiac would seemingly have been a slap in the face to over 1/2 of every congregation. Paul was a brilliant man and was most likely tri-lingual if not quadrilingual. When he preached to the Gentiles did he not preach to them in Greek (or even Latin possibly). Now it would not surprise me for Paul to have been thinking in his mind Aramiac (as he would have been fluent and most likely his first language) and then transferring into Greek as it went onto the paper, so these supposed Aramaicisms could actually underly the Greek. I have a number of Japanese students and when they write, they are thinking in Japanese and then putting it on paper in English and MANY Japanesisms come across into English.

Just some thoughts.

 

[The Thadman]

Hey Steve-o, I don't want to hassle you here, but i don't think that any amount of poetry or punnery could convince me that the churches in Rome and Corinth (and even other European churches) were predominately Aramaic speaking congregations??? Thusly, Paul wrote to them in Aramaic....

The issues of the mixed church (Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians) is so predominate in Paul's letters, that to have written to them in Aramiac would seemingly have been a slap in the face to over 1/2 of every congregation. Paul was a brilliant man and was most likely tri-lingual if not quadrilingual. When he preached to the Gentiles did he not preach to them in Greek (or even Latin possibly). Now it would not surprise me for Paul to have been thinking in his mind Aramiac (as he would have been fluent and most likely his first language) and then transferring into Greek as it went onto the paper, so these supposed Aramaicisms could actually underly the Greek. I have a number of Japanese students and when they write, they are thinking in Japanese and then putting it on paper in English and MANY Japanesisms come across into English.

Just some thoughts.

BUt why would you have a poem that rhymes, has meter and verse in Aramaic, then send it to someone in Greek where it loses all of this? That makes absolutely no sense. These aren't Japaneseisms, these are full-fledged translational phenomena.

How do you account for polysemy in this framework? Greek MSS traditions can be divided right down the middle: One half has word X where the other half has word Y. Both words are completely different from eachother, but an Aramaic word exists in all Aramaic MSS to date in that same spot that has both distinct meanings.

For example:

In Romans 8:24, some manuscripts read:

For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who dechomai (hopes) for that which he sees?

Where others read:

For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who elpis (waits) for that which he sees?

In the Aramaic MSSs, it reads:

For we were saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. For who skai (waits/hopes/expects) for that which he sees?

There are many more (BETTER) examples, but they take time to type up. i suggest you actually look at the articles I posted.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[zoomie71]

I'd think that if Paul's desire was to maintain Christianity as just one of dozens of sects present in the 1st century Roman world, that writing in Aramaic would keep his audience necessarily small. But since his passion, his commission was to go to the gentiles (all of them), Aramaic would make no sense as a method of mass communication (in that day). If you wanted wide circulation with a maximum number of first and second-language speakers, Koine Greek was the means.

Much of the discussion on whether the NT was written in Aramaic rests on the use of the Syriac peshitta scriptures. While Syriac and Aramaic are related languages, they are not the same. In any case, as I'm not a textual scholar, I'll let someone who is do the talking.

Here's a detailed discussion on the Syriac/Aramaic question:

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-peshitta.html

And another dealing with how the stylistic elements of Hebrew and Aramiac are certainly parts of the Koine NT books:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

Some would argue that this points toward Aramiac originals (Matthew would seem to be the best argument). But may linguists maintain that as Koine was a lingua franca, that it would be natural for those writing in it to have their style, syntax, etc., shaped by their primary language.

In any case, the weekend is coming, and so is church - trust you all will have a blessed Lord's Day!

Regards,

Zoomie

 

[PaladinValer]

A person can try to use Aramaic meter and verse in a different language's writing, especially if it is the lingua fraca of the time and area. And Koine Greek was very much that.

 

[ClementofRome]

Boy,this thread has taken an intersting turn. Thanks for the challange Thadman and also your references zoomie. I will look at all of thise articles.

Steve-o, might not the logic of your example above be turn around on itself? The translators of the Aramiac went with the words that were available to them that parallel the Greek? Might the translators from Greek to Aramaic have had textual variants at their disposal? Without knowing all of the intricacies of the primacy of Aramiac argument, I am just trying to rationalize your example above.

 

[The Thadman]

Boy,this thread has taken an intersting turn. Thanks for the challange Thadman and also your references zoomie. I will look at all of thise articles.

Well, it does have to do with translation accuracy

Steve-o, might not the logic of your example above be turn around on itself? The translators of the Aramiac went with the words that were available to them that parallel the Greek? Might the translators from Greek to Aramaic have had textual variants at their disposal? Without knowing all of the intricacies of the primacy of Aramiac argument, I am just trying to rationalize your example above.

Then they would have "translated" many more passages into unnatural Aramaic. There are even some mistakes that make no sense in the Greek but would make perfect sense if the Greek scribes chose to translate less literally, or had better lexicographical tools at their fingertips.

We wouldn't know poor Simon as a leper, he was a potter by trade. The Aramaic words are identical save for one vowel, and like Hebrew, Aramaic at that time did not have vowel marks. They came about in the 5th century. The Greek misses this one.

We would know that Jesus was not talking about putting a camel through the eye of a needle, he was talking about ship-binding rope, something that his disciples (who were fishermen) would understand, and would work better with the imagery of a needle. The two words are from the same root, and are again only seperated by an unwritten vowel. This can only go one way.

In Romans we would know that someone would not be willing to die for a wicked man, but for a good man he would possibly dare to die. The Aramaic words are only separated by a 30 degree angle on one of the penstrokes. Reading it as "wicked" works with the context of the verses, where if it is as the Greek reads "agathos" or "good" is makes absolutely no sense. This can only go one way.

And we would not understand the strange differences in details that Luke has in his Gospel (for example) as suddenly Simon the Canaanite becomes Simon the Zealot, two words that are identical save for their initial consonants (that are both gutteral). This can only be from an Aramaic source.

Finally, Paul would not have written elaborate Aramaic poetry and then translated it into Greek, thus eliminating all poetic devices: Rhyme, Meter, Parallelism, Messianic and Priestly Allusion, and Rootplay. For a full analysis see my article:

http://www.aramaicnt.org/index.php?PAGE=1st-Timothy/GreatPoem

So no, I do not think that it is possible that it could have gone the other way.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[ClementofRome]

Steve-o,
Do you consider John's Apocalypse to have been originally Aramiac? If so, how do you explain the solecisms (greek grammatical irregularities) that are found throughout. The work of GK Beale (and myself as his graduate research asst.), The Book of Revelation (NIGNTC), Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1996, proved that these solecisms were direct allusions to the LXX. If Rev. was originally written in Aramiac why would a Greek translator take the time and effort to seek out certain passages from the LXX and insert them into the present translated text as grammatical irregularities.

I just have too many questions at this point to buy your thesis...and you are CORRECT my friend, it does have to do with correct translation.

Assuming that you are correct (and that is a HUGE assumption at this point), which Greek text seems to be more true to the Aramiac....the Textus Receptus or part and/or parcel of the eclectic text? Now THAT is on topic.

 

[zoomie71]

Thadman - just a quick question....

I've been doing a little wandering about the net, as this subject interests me (more out of historical curiosity than any theological issue). I've come across a number of references to George Lamsa's work, and also a good number of comments from reputable folk highly criticizing Lamsa's theological conclusions (as well as some of his textual ones). From what I've seen, and this is only an opinion, it seems that Lamsa is not one to use as reliable source material.

So, I'm wondering, how much of what you're proposing has to do with Lamsa's view of things?

Regards,

Zoomie

 

[artybloke]

BUt why would you have a poem that rhymes, has meter and verse in Aramaic, then send it to someone in Greek where it loses all of this?

I don't know. Why would anyone translate The Divine Comedy from Italian terza rima, where it rhymes and has metre etc to English where it loses all this? I don't doubt that Paul was thinking in Aramaic, and he may even have used Aramaic poetic or liturgical sources for parts of his letters; but if he wanted to reach the greatest number of people in the churches to which he wrote, he would have written in the lingua franca of his day, which in the Eastern Mediterranean was Greek.

A person can try to use Aramaic meter and verse in a different language's writing, especially if it is the lingua fraca of the time and area. And Koine Greek was very much that.

Paladin - I like this idea - a bit like the Welsh metrical roots of Gerard Manley Hopkins (who wrote in English) or the way the sonnet travelled from Italy (Petrarch) to England?

 

[The Thadman]

Thadman - just a quick question....

I've been doing a little wandering about the net, as this subject interests me (more out of historical curiosity than any theological issue). I've come across a number of references to George Lamsa's work, and also a good number of comments from reputable folk highly criticizing Lamsa's theological conclusions (as well as some of his textual ones). From what I've seen, and this is only an opinion, it seems that Lamsa is not one to use as reliable source material.

So, I'm wondering, how much of what you're proposing has to do with Lamsa's view of things?

Regards,

Zoomie

When it comes to George Lamsa, he is both a blessing and a curse for the Aramiaic Primacy movement.

He, and a man named Neil Douglas-Klotz, are probably the most well known Aramaic Primacists in the world. Lamsa was a pioneer into the study, investigating the first true Aramaic Primacy phenomena and gained the most popularity but, he (unfortunately), like Neil, is not a good scholar.

Both of them (Lamsa and Klotz) are known to make up information about the language to suit their theologies and pull "idioms" out of God-knows where, which have absolutely no basis in scholarship. Lamsa's translation is basically a modified KJV, and Klotz's translations are like something out of a New Age handbook.

In short, although Lamsa has hit true on some issues, he's far from a reputable source. If you're looking for good sources, you should read the work of Matthew Black, Paul Younan (http://www.Peshitta.org), Andrew Gabriel Roth, and James Trimm (http://www.nazerene.net) and always get a collaboration of sources, as everyone has there own agenda.

A good article on what Aramaic Primacy entails can be found on my website: http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE=Articles/AramaicPrimacy

Peace!
-Steve-o