A dumb question.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter jay29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jay29

Guest
Why do people go to the Greek language of the scriptures for a correct translation when Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic?

Shouldn’t it be from English ---->Latin----->Greek---->Aramaic?

I notice most people stop at the Greek. Why not take it a step further back to the original language spoken? I know the rock in Mathew 16, there is no difference in the Aramaic language spoken in terms of the rock, for example…
Please explain…:confused:
 
jay29 said:
Why do people go to the Greek language of the scriptures for a correct translation when Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic?

Shouldn’t it be from English ---->Latin----->Greek---->Aramaic?

I notice most people stop at the Greek. Why not take it a step further back to the original language spoken? I know the rock in Mathew 16, there is no difference in the Aramaic language spoken in terms of the rock, for example…
Please explain…:confused:
Click to expand...
The earliest extent copies of the New Testament books are in Greek. Most were originally written in Greek (all except for Mark and maybe Matthew, IIRC). St. Luke, St. John, St. Paul and St. Peter all wrote in Greek only.

The OT that Jesus quotes in the Gospel is almost exclusively the Septuagint a (Greek translation of the OT that is older than the Masoretic Hebrew OT that Jews use today). Jesus never, to my knowledge, quotes the Hebrew Bible.

So, basically, the Apostles and Jesus used Greek as a written language. Very little of the Bible was ever written in Aramaic, and none of it survives.

Greek is effectively the “original language” of the Bible for Christian purposes. Relatively few Jews of that era spoke Hebrew, and Greek was the language of the eastern Roman Empire.

Hope that helps.

God Bless
 
Didn’t Jesus and the Apostles speak Aramaic? If so, why don’t we translate the Greek into the Aramaic and get the correct interpretation?
 
jay29 said:
Didn’t Jesus and the Apostles speak Aramaic? If so, why don’t we translate the Greek into the Aramaic and get the correct interpretation?
Click to expand...
Translation is almost never 1:1, and always involves interpretation of some sort. Just as there’s not just one English translation of the Bible, there would not be one Aramaic translation that we could call definitively “correct,” either.

That said, some of the Eastern Catholics use Aramaic as their liturgical language. (Is it Fr. Mitch Pacwa who jokes that the Latin Mass is far too new-fangled for his folks?) It’s possible that some of them use an Aramaic translation of the Scriptures, though I don’t know that for sure.

Usagi
 
jay29 said:
Didn’t Jesus and the Apostles speak Aramaic? If so, why don’t we translate the Greek into the Aramaic and get the correct interpretation?
Click to expand...
Because the Scriptures were written for the world. Only a handful at the time could read Aramaic.
 
NotWorthy said:
Because the Scriptures were written for the world. Only a handful at the time could read Aramaic.
Click to expand...
That could be true.

Additionally, I sometimes…and if you will forgive me my “cynicism” think that often times some people will stop at the Greek…simply because there are so many meanings for one word…I have seen cases where there are as many as 13 meanings… We had one here in these forums a few days ago or so. The “multiple” meanings make much room to allow for “interpretations” that can fit the agenda of the person “translating” the passage… :eek: Oh, say it isn’t so…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top