Jump to content
IGNORED

Aramaic-English Bible translation draws criticism


Psalms37:4

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  569
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   75
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Dr. Rocco Errico, the man in the video, is the author and translator of the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English" translation.

 

Seeking video approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

Well, the video is approved, but personally, it does not get my endorsement.

The video puts forth the idea that the New Testament should come from Aramaic, not Greek.  A large problem is, that the Peshitta, the Arimaic New Testament that Lamsa translated from, is from about 400 A.D. where as we have Greek from the first century. Additionally, the church fathers were so prolific in their writings and quoting of the Bible, that we can be confident that the early church accepted the Greek texts.

So, bottom line in my opinion, the Aramaic angle is interesting, but not where I would be choosing to get my doctrine and understanding from, though no doubt Jesus did speak Aramaic, as His native tongue.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  569
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   75
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Well, the video is approved, but personally, it does not get my endorsement.

The video puts forth the idea that the New Testament should come from Aramaic, not Greek.  A large problem is, that the Peshitta, the Arimaic New Testament that Lamsa translated from, is from about 400 A.D. where as we have Greek from the first century. Additionally, the church fathers were so prolific in their writings and quoting of the Bible, that we can be confident that the early church accepted the Greek texts.

So, bottom line in my opinion, the Aramaic angle is interesting, but not where I would be choosing to get my doctrine and understanding from, though no doubt Jesus did speak Aramaic, as His native tongue.

I'm against the Aramaic translation. It's why I needed the video approved to show others. But thanks for the approval.

 

 

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

57 minutes ago, Psalms37:4 said:

I'm against the Aramaic translation. It's why I needed the video approved to show others. But thanks for the approval.

 

 

 

 

There is a person currently translating the NT from the eastern Aramaic texts. He mentions that it is quite poetic and many areas rhyme in Aramaic, whereas Hebrew (as sister tongue) and Greek miss the impact of this and the fact that much of it might have been slightly mistranslated (or transliterated incorrectly) due to the lack of idiom knowledge and colloquial expressions.

Why do we not pool our knowledge rather than use it as a weapon? Put them side by side to see what, if anything, can be learned. Check out the 'snake-bite immunity' suggestion in the Aramaic. This seems to be a rather odd idea anyway, but if you see that Aramaic equivalent, perhaps it would have save many 'kooks' from getting killed from snake bites. Same goes for the 'eye of the needle' comment. In Aramaic context idiom it means a rope made from camel hair. Not a gate (as if there would be one so small).

He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.
William Drummond

http://www.orvillejenkins.com/languages/aramaicprimacy.html (arguing mostly against Aramaic primacy)

"Aramaic in old Judah 
Recorded exchanges in the Old Testament books indicate Aramaic was already commonly used, at least by leaders, under the Assyrian Empire.

For example, 2 Chronicles 32 indicates that a decree from Sennecherib of Assyria is read to the people of Jerusalem over the walls from in front of the city.  This was apparently read in Aramaic, since it then says the king's officers speak in Hebrew extemporaneously to frighten and abuse them.

This seems to indicate the people knew Aramaic, but still spoke Hebrew in Jerusalem.  This was after the destruction of Israel, but before the Assyrians lost their kingdom to the Chaldeans from the south, who established a new "Babylonian" empire, from which we know Nebuchadnezzar and the exile of the Judean leadership.

By Jesus' time, Palestinian Jews of both domains, Judea and Galilee, would likely have spoken Aramaic as a mother tongue, since it was the common international tongue as far back as the 700s BCE, under Assyrian rule.

Judeans 
Judea, while more urban, would also have been more conservative than Galilee.  The Sadducees' influence was primarily in Jerusalem, and they were not a factor in Galilee, which was even administered as a separate country.  King Herod was the Roman administrator of Galilee and Perea (east of the Jordan), while Pilate was governor of Judea during the early 1st century CE.

Aramaic in Jesus' Time 
Aramaic was spoken in much of that area in Jesus' time.  It had been the language since before the Babylonian captivity, as the administrative language under the dominion of Assyria.

Aram (the Damascus area of Syria) was the immediate northern neighbour of Israel (of Galilee in Jesus' time).  Aramaic was the native language of Aram.  When the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians) took over the Assyrian Empire, they continued the policy of administration in the language of Aram.

When the Medo-Persians took over the neo-Babylonian Empire, they likewise retained Aramaic as the language of the empire.  Aramaic was the common language used by all those empires up till Alexander conquered the area in around 330 BCE, imposing Greek on the area."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

The translator sounds like he is muslim when he claims that Jesus didn't come to be out Savior and God didn't intend for Him to be crucified.  Wow.  If he gets that from his translation it has to be spurious, unless he is just a bad translator.  Christ's redemption was God's plan from the foundation of the world according to my Bible.  How else could He be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities? The Psalm also describes crucifixion.  Claiming He was not intended to be our Lord?  God doesn't reward and there is no hell because God doesn't punish?   The guy should be hung out to dry!   He negates the Suffering Messiah and only believes that He was ushering in the Kingdom and then failed because he was crucified.    Sounds like another gospel to me.   

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I worked for a Mohammedan for many years. He was extremely capable and very clever. Just because at that time his beliefs were different to mine, did NOT mean I would throw him under a semi and dismiss him because he was different.

Syriac, Peshitta, Aramaic.

Please keep an open and inquiring mind concerning this.
No one should fault a person who is trying hard to find truth in translations, transliterations, literary exegesis and study. Actually, 'study to show yourself approved' really means, 'endeavor to show yourself worthy'. 

The normal generic word for God is "alaha"/"aloho" (ܐܠܗܐ), which is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for God "elohim".
The translation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, on the other hand, is "maria"/"morio" (ܡܪܝܐ
), usually decomposed as mar-yah, Lord-Yah ("mar", lord, also being used by syriac speaking churches as a title for saints/doctors of the Church: "mor Ephrem" = Saint Ephrem). (Note: this word has nothing to do with the proper name Maria, coming from the Hebrew Mariam)

To answer your question, Jesus would almost certainly have used one of the two, or both at the same time as it is commonly done in Syriac: Maria Alaha.

Last remark: The arabic word Allah, used also by Arabic Christians, is no more no less related to the Aramaic Alaha than to the Hebrew Elohim. The three share a common linguistic root, which is nothing exceptional, so no point being dragged on sterile arguments concerning this point.
Concerning the cry on the cross (quote from Psalm 22:1),  the Peshitta (the earliest christian Aramaic translation) translate it using the word alaha, with the first person possessive suffix -i : alahi (ܐܲܠܵܗܝ
ܐܲܠܵܗܝ ܠܡܵܢܵܐ ܫܒܲܩ̣ܬܵܢܝ̱ ). The original Hebrew Psalm used "Eli". Since the scriptor of the Greek gospel may not have been fluent in Aramaic, or used to transliterate Aramaic with Greek characters, it may be expected that the transliterations are approximates, hence a possible : eloi/alohi confusion.

George Lamsa translated the cry from Aramaic to English as, "My God, my God, for this I was spared", reading the Aramaic as a different construction entirely, and implying that the Greek editions are 'wrong'. Western scholars have not smiled upon this translation.

The name of God in the Hebrew Bible is YHWH, pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah.

There are many words used in the Hebrew Bible for the word 'God' (not the name of God), such us El (god), Elohim (god, plural form), El Shaddai (god almighty), Adonai (master), Elyon (highest) and Avinu (our father) are regarded by many religious Jews not as names, but as epithets highlighting different aspects of YHWH and the various 'roles' of God.

The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos). Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā ܐܠܗܐ in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.

Elohim is not the name of God, it is simply 'God' in Hebrew. Many languages have some similarities because many of them share the same origin. 'God' in English, 'Elohim' in Hebrew, 'Elaha' in Aramaic, 'Alaha' in Syriac etc. but the name of God in the Bible is YHWH, not Allah as some Muslim scholars may try to relate them. Hence, the God in the Bible is YHWH and the god in the Qu'ran is Allah. The most specific Hebrew name for God is YHWH, also mistakenly referred to as Yehovah, meaning self-existent and eternal. YHWH is rooted from ‘Hayah’, the to be verb, which is from ‘Hava’, to breathe, or to be, which connects to ‘Ayil’. Finally ‘Ayil’ leads us back to ‘El’, which is the root of all the Semitic names for God. YHWH is spoken aloud on rare Jewish celebrations as just “Ya.” Jews often replaced the actual name of God for Adonay (Lord) orally and in their written scripts.

Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" is Greek transliteration of Aramaic words. If it was Hebrew, then azabthani would have been used instead of Aramaic word "Sabachthani."

Check this link for Hebrew NT of Mark 15:34.

In Hebrew, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" will become "Eliy ‘Eliy lamah `azab’taniy?"

The spoken language of first century Israel was Aramaic. Not Hebrew or Greek. Check this link for more information.

Why didn't the Jews understand "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"?

The word for God in Aramaic was Eil and Elaha (also written as Alaha). In first century Judea, they used both "Eil" and "Elaha" for God. But in Samaria, Galilee, Lebanon, and in Syria during first century, they mostly used Elaha (also written as Alaha).

Since Jesus Christ grew up in Galilee, he would have used Elaha.

If you check Matthew 27:46 of Aramaic Peshitta (Aramaic NT), then you will see "Eil Eil." This was somewhat clumsily transliterated by Greek scribe as "Eli Eli." Sometimes Greek scribes have difficulty transliterating Aramaic words into Greek. For Example, Aramaic words "Khqel Dama" in Acts 1:19 is transliterated as "Akeldama" in Greek.

YHWH is Hebrew. But Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Hebrew.

In first century Israel, Jews used Aramaic Old Testament known as Peshitta Tanakh.

The information about Peshitta Tanakh is available here.

[https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20240/what-word-did-jesus-use-for-god-in-aramaic]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...