Bible translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjdonnelly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mjdonnelly

Guest
Was the original verses of the Bible written in Arameic (sp?) ?

If not, then what language?

Also, what translation of the bible is from the original written to english.

I would like to know because I would like to see how it is written as compared to the NAB and the NRSV. I think there are translation errors that are compounded when translating across more than one language. For example, parts of the Our Father.
 
Biblical Scholars agree that most of the OT was written in Hebrew and parts in Aramaic. The Common belief in the West is that the NT was written in Greek whereas the Eastern Churches hold that the NT was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek by either the Apostles or other 1st century Christians. The Current Published text of the NAB with revised Psalms and NT has been rejected by the Holy See for its use of Inclusive Language in referance to God. The NRSV has the same problem. Stick with the RSV-CE, 1966 edition. The 1970 Edition of the NAB is very good but it was translated at the expense of more familiar traditional language (Full of Grace etc). The Jerusalem Bible, 1966 edition is an excellant translation, though hard to find. The NEW Jerusalem Bible is horrible. There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. If you want that one you will need to buy a Lectionary. It is based on the NAB but it is NOT the same in all places. The Pope rejected the published version and changes were made before it could be used in Church. You can find an Interlinear Greek and Hebrew Bibles at many Christian book stores. An Aramaic Interlinear can be found online at peshitta.org/ MANY problematic passages in the Greek are NO problem in the Aramaic. It is an wonderfull study tool. I have used it numerous times. The translation from Aramaic to English is not finished though. My personal favorite is the Navarre Study Bible. It contains the RSV-CE and the Latin text along with tons of commentary taken from the Church Fathers and other Church Documents. For simple reading of the Bible I use the RSV-CE.
 
I think what you want to know is “what is the sources that make up the Bible.” Right?

Languages that were originally used in transmission of the Scriptures range from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. It is much more complex then just a certain language, but our Bibles are translated from ancient manuscripts.

The New Testament was mostly written in Greek, originally. But there are some isolated instances of Syriac/Christian Aramaic. And Matthew was written in Hebrew early on, but there are no manuscript evidence of it, but just documented by Eusebius. But Koine Greek was the most widely used dialect for the NT Scriptures. And our Bibles are translated from either 1) ancient manuscripts such as the Vaticanus 2) or edited Greek texts that use an eclectic approach by using a variety of manuscirpts and using the variances. There are great works such as what was done by Reuben Swanson who lined 45 of the best NT Greek manuscirpts in horizontal lines to compare them.

The OT comes from originally Hebrew and Aramaic. And the oldest OT manuscripts come from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They date back to about 250BC. The Greek Septuagint was the first translation of the OT, and it was the official text of the early Church, and quoted by the authors of the NT when they quoted the OT.

But beware! Many of the translations of the OT come from the Masoretic Text, which are Hebrew. That sounds good considering the original OT was mostly Hebrew. But the catch is this, and it is a biggy. The Masoretic Text only dates back to about 1000AD. That is 1000 years after the Christian movement. And they differ in many places from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint, which date back much further then the Masoretic Text. And it is believed that the Masoretic Text is a Pharisee revision. And it is very sad that many translations have depended soley upon the Masoretic text for it’s OT platform.

My suggestion to you is this. If you don’t learn Greek, then learn as much about textual criticism as you can. It is very complex, and may take years to grasp, but a deep study of it will bring to light how the Bible was put together. Just type in textual critism on your search engine. The Catholic Encylopedia may have some things about it.

Also, there are some resources I recommend. I have “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible,” it is an English translation of the Biblical books from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is really good! Also, if you can get a Greek NT, either an interlinear or a Greek NT with a dictionary, then it can be a very helpful tool to descern Scripture.

But here is what I believe about English translations. I study Greek, and have done some translating myself in the past, and I have found that the NAB is very very accurate as far as the NT goes. The OT is not that great. But I have a Greek Septuagint version from Brenton, who has the Greek on one side and his English translation on the other-side of the page. So between the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible and the Greek Septuagint, I feel I can’t go wrong with the OT. I don;t know Hebrew, so I have to use an English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But I do know Greek and can use the Septuagint. If the Septuagint was good enough for the NT authors to quote from, then I guess I can feel safe enough to use it.
 
Here are some good sites that will help you out. The first one, you will need to download the Greek and Hebrew font to see the Greek and Hebrew in it’s ture form. But this site is amazing. westover.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=lu+13%3A3&section=0&it=nas&oq=lu%252013%3A3&ot=lxx&nt=na&new=1&nb=lu&ng=13&ncc=13This second one is the Syriac Peshitta.
peshitta.org/

This 3rd one is the Latin Vulgate and English together. latinvulgate.com/

This 4th one is my favorite. It has photocopies of ancient manuscripts. alpha.reltech.org:8080/
 
There is also a distinction concerning how the Bible was written and how it was orally transmitted. The Gospels were spoken orally for years before being written down and they would have been spoken in the local languages of the day, depending on what community you were in.

This oral history was then written down, usually in Greek I believe.
 
Charles,

You are correct. And that is one of the reasons why there are different manuscript traditions, such as Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, etc. That is one of the reasons why there are variances, omissions, additions, different wording, etc among some manuscripts. Though some of those were made by scribal error at times, but many variants came about by different sets of scribal traditions. The last chapter of the gospel of Mark is a perfect example. Some traditions omitted it, some had a longer ending, and some had a shorter ending.

It may sound alarming but it really is not that big of a deal with variants because even between all of the 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT, there is only about 2.8% difference between them, and most of the differences is spelling. That is pretty doggon good considering Xerox was not in buisness back then. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
metal1633,

I recently got The New Jersulam Bible. Can you tell me why it is horrible. Without knowing Bible comparisons I bought it because it has a lot of essays by the Church Fathers in appropriate places for further perspective of a passage. I thought it was a great idea! What’s wrong with it?

Thanks,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top