- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 01 2013,06:04) Quote (Lightenup @ May 25 2013,20:16) It is entirely possible that John wrote in Aramaic first and then handed it to a scribe to write in Greek.
Then again not.Greek was a widespread language by that time.
Origen (184/185 – 253/254) seemed to be under the impression that John wrote in Greek.
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only.
Not to mention verses like these:John 20:16
Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).Acts 26:14
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’If these words were originally written in Aramaic, it would make little sense to add those bolded parts, IMO.
That would be pretty obvious Mike. But never underestimate human imagination to invent a so-called plausible explanation against this to keep a doctrine or teaching alive.
Hi Mike,
No, I am not hiding. I am just spending my time researching and with family, and then there was a festival in town for two weeks and I have two jobs. So, I have just been busy with other things.Cool. I was just kidding anyway, as I'm sure you know. I've never known you to back down or hide.
Take your time.
Mike
Quote If these words were originally written in Aramaic, it would make little sense to add those bolded parts, IMO. The translators of the Greek manuscripts add words all the time to clarify. Also, the Aramaic language has different dialects and one dialect may have a unique way of saying something. Think about southern sayings compared to northern sayings. Both would be considered English but some words that are said in the North, for instance, the 'bubbler' might need clarification to a Southern audience who would call the same thing a drinking fountain.
Read this for proof of that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_vocabularies_of_American_EnglishI'm just saying that if I'm writing IN English, I wouldn't say, “which in English, means 'I'm writing in English' “.
If it was written IN Aramaic, then why say, “which in Aramaic means………” ?
(Also, your analogy doesn't work because, northern or southern, it is still ENGLISH. So I could say, “which means IN THE SOUTH…..”, or “which means IN THE NORTH…….”, but I couldn't say, “which means IN ENGLISH……..”.)
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Acts 26:14
And we all fell upon the ground, and I heard a voice, which said to me in Judean Aramaic, “Shaul, Shaul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick the goads.”John 20:16
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said to her, “Maryam.” And she turned and said to him in Judean Aramaic, “Rabbuli”, which is to say “Teacher.”Both Judean and Galilean Aramaic are two very similar dialects of Aramaic which were spoken in Israel in the 1st century. Galilean Aramaic, or sometimes called “Jewish Palestinian Aramaic”, was the dialect of the North, while Judean Aramaic was spoken around and within Judea in the South. Understanding these dialects of Aramaic will allow you to have an extremely firm grasp on the teachings of the gospels.
http://repairthebreak.com/Learn-Judean-and-Galilean-Aramaic.php
Mike,
Aramaic is a family of dialects and all the dialects can be said to be Aramaic. See here:Aramaic is a family of languages (traditionally referred to as “dialects”) belonging to the Semitic family, and more specifically, is a part of the Northwest Semitic subfamily, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and modern Hebrew alphabets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
During its 3,000-year written history,[3] Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BC – 70 AD), the language that Jesus Christ probably used the most,[4][5] the language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud.[6] However, Jewish Aramaic was different from the other forms both in lettering and grammar. Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Jewish Aramaic showing the unique Jewish lettering, related to the unique Hebrew script.
Aramaic's long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes called dialects, though they are distinct enough that they are sometimes considered languages. Therefore, there is not one singular, static Aramaic language; each time and place rather has had its own variation.
hi
to me the obvious question is for the glory of God;
did the ARAMAIC AND THE GREEK VERSION ARE THE BOTH WRITTEN UNDER THE HOLY SPIRIT
if you say NO ;then why not would God be with one group rather that with the other does not God his with anyone that trully in his heart believe and trust him ,if you say YES then why would it not be used as something to increase our understanding rather than try the make them oppose to each other,THIS IS WHAT i DO
That is good Pierre, consider both. The original would be the one that was God breathed and the other one may also be God breathed. When you come to what seems to be discrepancies, then the original would be the one to go by though. The true original would give the clearest wording so studying about that language and the idioms unique to that language would give better understanding. For instance, according to the Aramaic, the idiom about a camel going through the eye of a needle is not about a large desert type of animal but a rope used on ships according to what I have read. So, it makes a difference. Without knowing that, you probably pictured a large animal trying to go through the eye of a sewing needle which is obviously preposterous. In Aramaic, you picture a rope going through the eye of a needle. Those would be two completely different word pictures. The animal going through the eye of a needle would be impossible. The rope going through the eye of a needle might not be impossible.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 20 2013,04:57) That is good Pierre, consider both. The original would be the one that was God breathed and the other one may also be God breathed. When you come to what seems to be discrepancies, then the original would be the one to go by though. The true original would give the clearest wording so studying about that language and the idioms unique to that language would give better understanding. For instance, according to the Aramaic, the idiom about a camel going through the eye of a needle is not about a large desert type of animal but a rope used on ships according to what I have read. So, it makes a difference. Without knowing that, you probably pictured a large animal trying to go through the eye of a sewing needle which is obviously preposterous. In Aramaic, you picture a rope going through the eye of a needle. Those would be two completely different word pictures. The animal going through the eye of a needle would be impossible. The rope going through the eye of a needle might not be impossible.
kathyQuote The original would be the one that was God breathed and the other one may also be God breathed. their is no ORIGINAL ,BUT ONLY COPIES OF IT IN ALL CASES,
but the true one id the one that lines up with the entire teachings of the will and intentions of God ,not men ,
so we have to learn the scriptures in the eyes of God,not the way we would like to see it ,
Quote (Lightenup @ June 18 2013,20:26) Both Judean and Galilean Aramaic are two very similar dialects of Aramaic which were spoken in Israel in the 1st century.
But they are both Aramaic, right? So one wouldn't write in Aramaic, and then add, “which means in Aramaic…….”.They could write in GALILEAN Aramaic, and add, “which means in JUDEAN Aramaic……….”
Do you see the difference?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 18 2013,20:54) Mike,
Aramaic is a family of dialects and all the dialects can be said to be Aramaic.
But unless only ONE of those many dialects is actually CALLED “Aramaic”, and the others are NOT – your point is moot.Mike,
If I was writing to people who speak American English and quote something in British English and then translate it to them, what is odd about that? There are probably all sorts of words that the British English speakers use that need clarification to a person who speaks American English. In that case, I would specify the quote as said in 'British English.'Then, if I were to take the same document and translate it into Russian (a language that is not English in any way), I wouldn't necessarily indicate what English dialect the quote was in but probably generalize it as just 'English.'
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2013,20:18) Quote (Lightenup @ June 18 2013,20:26) Both Judean and Galilean Aramaic are two very similar dialects of Aramaic which were spoken in Israel in the 1st century.
But they are both Aramaic, right? So one wouldn't write in Aramaic, and then add, “which means in Aramaic…….”.They could write in GALILEAN Aramaic, and add, “which means in JUDEAN Aramaic……….”
Do you see the difference?
That seems to be what is done here in the Aramaic manuscript:Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Acts 26:14
And we all fell upon the ground, and I heard a voice, which said to me in Judean Aramaic, “Shaul, Shaul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick the goads.”John 20:16
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua said to her, “Maryam.” And she turned and said to him in Judean Aramaic, “Rabbuli”, which is to say “Teacher.”The authors are probably writing to a group that speaks another Aramaic dialect other than Judean Aramaic and that is why 'Judean Aramaic' is written.
Quote (terraricca @ June 19 2013,18:13) Quote (Lightenup @ June 20 2013,04:57) That is good Pierre, consider both. The original would be the one that was God breathed and the other one may also be God breathed. When you come to what seems to be discrepancies, then the original would be the one to go by though. The true original would give the clearest wording so studying about that language and the idioms unique to that language would give better understanding. For instance, according to the Aramaic, the idiom about a camel going through the eye of a needle is not about a large desert type of animal but a rope used on ships according to what I have read. So, it makes a difference. Without knowing that, you probably pictured a large animal trying to go through the eye of a sewing needle which is obviously preposterous. In Aramaic, you picture a rope going through the eye of a needle. Those would be two completely different word pictures. The animal going through the eye of a needle would be impossible. The rope going through the eye of a needle might not be impossible.
kathyQuote The original would be the one that was God breathed and the other one may also be God breathed. their is no ORIGINAL ,BUT ONLY COPIES OF IT IN ALL CASES,
but the true one id the one that lines up with the entire teachings of the will and intentions of God ,not men ,
so we have to learn the scriptures in the eyes of God,not the way we would like to see it ,
Pierre,
Do you know anything about the Massorah?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
