You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Those who can read and speak Aramaic and English, and those who are responsible for the Aramaic/English liturgy would better able to respond to your question.
Were the oldest manuscripts of the Aramaic NT compendiums of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Paul’s epistles, the gospel of Luke, the Acts of Apostles, and possibly Mark’s gospel, John’s gospel and epistles? Or, did some Aramaic speaking disciple of the apostles, or some particular scribe of an apostle transcribe all of the NT into Aramaic?
If some particular Aramaic/Greek speaking associate of the apostles, or of their disciples transcribed the Greek manuscripts of the NT into Aramaic, then we might have a better translation of the NT. The original meaning of the Aramaic speaking gospels would be intact, and possibly the meaning of the Aramaic speaking apostles who most likely wrote their epistles in the language of their Greek speaking churches.
The difficulty would be in trying to sort out the possible biases that seem to surround the various translations that preceded this current translation from which it depended to some degree, and also any possible biases the current translator might have. After all, Gabriel Roth is one person, and not a committee of translators.
Those who have an interest in the Aramaic idioms as found in the gospels would benefit, as long as there is a certain degree of caution.
Even having said all this, what do I know?
If you are literate in Aramaic and English, your contributions to difficult Gospel passages or verses that seem to be translated incorrectly, would be welcomed.
God’s peace.
Were the oldest manuscripts of the Aramaic NT compendiums of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Paul’s epistles, the gospel of Luke, the Acts of Apostles, and possibly Mark’s gospel, John’s gospel and epistles? Or, did some Aramaic speaking disciple of the apostles, or some particular scribe of an apostle transcribe all of the NT into Aramaic?
If some particular Aramaic/Greek speaking associate of the apostles, or of their disciples transcribed the Greek manuscripts of the NT into Aramaic, then we might have a better translation of the NT. The original meaning of the Aramaic speaking gospels would be intact, and possibly the meaning of the Aramaic speaking apostles who most likely wrote their epistles in the language of their Greek speaking churches.
The difficulty would be in trying to sort out the possible biases that seem to surround the various translations that preceded this current translation from which it depended to some degree, and also any possible biases the current translator might have. After all, Gabriel Roth is one person, and not a committee of translators.
Those who have an interest in the Aramaic idioms as found in the gospels would benefit, as long as there is a certain degree of caution.
Even having said all this, what do I know?
If you are literate in Aramaic and English, your contributions to difficult Gospel passages or verses that seem to be translated incorrectly, would be welcomed.
God’s peace.
M
mercytruth
Guest
Those who can read and speak Aramaic and English, and those who are responsible for the Aramaic/English liturgy would better able to respond to your question.
Were the oldest manuscripts of the Aramaic NT compendiums of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Paul’s epistles, the gospel of Luke, the Acts of Apostles, and possibly Mark’s gospel, John’s gospel and epistles? Or, did some Aramaic speaking disciple of the apostles, or some particular scribe of an apostle transcribe all of the NT into Aramaic?
If some particular Aramaic/Greek speaking associate of the apostles, or of their disciples transcribed the Greek manuscripts of the NT into Aramaic, then we might have a better translation of the NT. The original meaning of the Aramaic speaking gospels would be intact, and possibly the meaning of the Aramaic speaking apostles who most likely wrote their epistles in the language of their Greek speaking churches.
The difficulty would be in trying to sort out the possible biases that seem to surround the various English translations that preceded this current translation from which it depended to some degree, and also any possible biases the current translator might have. After all, Gabriel Roth is one person, and not a committee of translators.
Those who have an interest in the Aramaic idioms as found in the gospels would benefit, as long as there is a certain degree of caution.
Even having said all this, what do I know?
If you are literate in Aramaic and English, your contributions to difficult Gospel passages or verses that seem to be translated incorrectly, would be welcomed.
God’s peace, and my apologies for the duplicate posting.
Were the oldest manuscripts of the Aramaic NT compendiums of the oldest Greek manuscripts of Paul’s epistles, the gospel of Luke, the Acts of Apostles, and possibly Mark’s gospel, John’s gospel and epistles? Or, did some Aramaic speaking disciple of the apostles, or some particular scribe of an apostle transcribe all of the NT into Aramaic?
If some particular Aramaic/Greek speaking associate of the apostles, or of their disciples transcribed the Greek manuscripts of the NT into Aramaic, then we might have a better translation of the NT. The original meaning of the Aramaic speaking gospels would be intact, and possibly the meaning of the Aramaic speaking apostles who most likely wrote their epistles in the language of their Greek speaking churches.
The difficulty would be in trying to sort out the possible biases that seem to surround the various English translations that preceded this current translation from which it depended to some degree, and also any possible biases the current translator might have. After all, Gabriel Roth is one person, and not a committee of translators.
Those who have an interest in the Aramaic idioms as found in the gospels would benefit, as long as there is a certain degree of caution.
Even having said all this, what do I know?
If you are literate in Aramaic and English, your contributions to difficult Gospel passages or verses that seem to be translated incorrectly, would be welcomed.
God’s peace, and my apologies for the duplicate posting.
A
Abba
Guest
There are so many works available out there that are responsible and reliable scholarship that I would not be interested in reading a New Testament translation that from the start already rejects the title New Testament. To claim thousands of years later that the original writings of the New Testament was not Greek, but, instead, Aramaic, is quite a claim that is not substantiated with the simple stroke of the pen that claims that certain expressions make more sense in Aramaic and this is suppose to prove that Aramaic was the original language. The translator is also claiming that Aramaic is more of a straightforward language than the Greek and this is suppose to be to it’s advantage. The truth is the complete opposite. People chose the Greek language to communicate because it is a more exact language than the othesr and this is still the case to this day. The translator has his own agenda and thinks that it is a good thing to de-Hellenize the New Testament. I personally, do not trust the scholarship, and again, there are so much good scholarship out there that I simply would not waste my time. My eyes look straight to Rome for guidance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.