Not reading the Bible in Greek- why?

[angellous_evangellous]

English speakers, at any rate, don't need Greek. The English language has about a hundred translations, some twenty of which are highly rigorous and done by committee. Such bibles have variant readings in the footnotes, so if the committee disagrees about a passage, you can see that as a reader.

I dunno, man. My knowledge of Greek helps me appreciate both literal and non-literal translations, and I can tell when the committee is swayed by theological, ecclesiastical, or even just reshape the translation to allow it to flow in English grammar.

The NIV is a great example of this... they seem to choose texts and translation according to evangelical leanings and it is the best English translation to date as far as flow and sentence structure, even if it is not being true to the Greek syntax (and etc).

I was reading the ESV last night and it seems clumsy and choppy in English, but it clearly reflects Greek grammar and syntax, and the glosses are a bit truer to the Greek.

One bottom line is that translators have to choose the text and choose between various translation possibilities ... the only way to have a consistent text is to have a theological bias.

 

[shortfade2]

exactly. In order to understand all the meanings you need to read the original.

 

[godnotgod]

There is a very hot debate going on as to whether the NT was originally written in Greek or Aramaic. The claim that it was written in Aramaic is referred to as The Aramaic Primacy Theory. There is evidence to support both views, but one researcher has come to the following conclusion:

"Both the Greek writers and Aramaic speakers had access to the Aramaic oral traditions. Most people were illiterate, oral in orientation and preference. The original pattern of learning and transmitting any teaching was by memory and oral recitation.

When the Aramaic Christians got ready to put the growing collection of writings into their own language, they had the advantage of the oral traditions, by which they could determine the likely original words in the teachings of Jesus, as relayed to us by Paul or the Gospel writers. They and their church members likely had the various oral teaching sets already memorized."

The "Original (Oral) Aramaic"
"It would not have made sense to retranslate these back from Greek. They would just use the wording of the (oral) Aramaic versions they already knew. It was in their mother tongue. That was the language in which they had (orally) learned it and repeated it in their worship services. So they would not be as concerned what Greek word had been used by which writer when he wrote the Greek version for a Greek audience. This accounts for much of the difference that might have occurred in the Greek versions and the later Aramaic versions.

Lancaster, Lamsa and company have it right in that regard — the Aramaic version was primary. But not because the Gospel — and definitely not because the whole New Testament collection — was written originally in Aramaic. But rather, because the base of the teachings of Jesus was Aramaic, and these teachings circulated freely and copiously, initially orally, in the years and decades following his life on earth."

see here:

Aramaic Primacy — Was the New Testament first Written in Aramaic?

Since the NT has been newly translated into English directly from the Aramaic, it would seem to make more sense to go directly to the source, rather than to an intermediate Greek translation, besides having to learn Greek. Apparently, there is much supporting evidence on the Pe****ta sites which demonstrate why Greek (and Old Syriac) was not the original language of the NT.

You can download free PDF copies of the Pe****ta bible in various translations, the Lamsa translation appearing to be one of the best. If you Google 'Pe****ta" you will come up with various sites dedicated to the study of the Pe****ta.

Here are Dr. George Lamsa's online Aramaic Pe****ta translations:

http://www.lamsabible.com/

I have even come across Aramaic to English translations of original sermons given by Yeshua to his disciples.

You can start with the link I provided, as there are many links given on that page to other important material regarding Pe****ta and Aramaic Primacy.



Also, check this out:

http://www.aramaicpe****ta.com/Online_Version/unpublished_proofs/aramaic_pe****ta_unoriginal.htm

 

[Oberon]

There is a very hot debate going on as to whether the NT was originally written in Greek or Aramaic.

Not really. Virtually every scholar of the NT agrees that the NT was originally composed entirely in greek. The oral tradition which the gospels attest to was largely in Aramaic, but the actual texts are were all composed in Greek. There are and have been a small minority of scholars who argue otherwise, but they are vastly outnumberd, so I wouldn't call it a "hot debate."

 

[godnotgod]

Not really. Virtually every scholar of the NT agrees that the NT was originally composed entirely in greek. The oral tradition which the gospels attest to was largely in Aramaic, but the actual texts are were all composed in Greek. There are and have been a small minority of scholars who argue otherwise, but they are vastly outnumberd, so I wouldn't call it a "hot debate."

Aramaic Primacists are not bona-fide scholars of the NT?

Does the fact that Aramaic Primacists are in the minority mean they are in error? Maybe it means exactly the opposite, if mere numbers are to be any kind of gauge for authenticity.

Initial evidence I have found throughout the internet about this subject seems to indicate that it is indeed a hot topic, minority view or not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Aramaic Primacists are not bona-fide scholars of the NT?

Does the fact that Aramaic Primacists are in the minority mean they are in error? Maybe it means exactly the opposite, if mere numbers are to be any kind of gauge for authenticity.

Initial evidence I have found throughout the internet about this subject seems to indicate that it is indeed a hot topic, minority view or not.

I know that this question was not addressed to me... but the only access we would have to an Aramaic New Testament would be "back translations" from the Greek MSS to Aramaic.

Now there are thousands of NT MSS and none of them say exactly the same thing, so even discovering what the original Greek "translations" from Aramaic were is fraught with difficulty.

 

[Oberon]

Aramaic Primacists are not bona-fide scholars of the NT?

Does the fact that Aramaic Primacists are in the minority mean they are in error? Maybe it means exactly the opposite, if mere numbers are to be any kind of gauge for authenticity.

Initial evidence I have found throughout the internet about this subject seems to indicate that it is indeed a hot topic, minority view or not.

I do believe they are in error, but that wasn't my point, nor was I saying they aren't bona fide NT scholars. I was merely disagreeing with your designation that this issue is a "hot debate." For the most part, it isn't a debate at all. There are a few scholars who argue that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, for example, but the idea that the texts we have were originally written in greek is held by almost all NT scholars.

 

[godnotgod]

....the only access we would have to an Aramaic New Testament would be "back translations" from the Greek MSS to Aramaic.

There are several Pe****ta translations. The one you are referring to is known as the "Old Syriac" Pe****ta, which is rejected as being the original by Aramaic Primacy scholars:

The “Old Syriac”

"The very name of this version is a slap in the face to Pe****ta primacists. It is modeled after the name of the Old Latin, the alleged precursor to the Latin Vulgate. It is generally accepted by most Bible scholars that this version precedes the Pe****ta and the Pe****to. As you will soon discover, this notion is completely false and illogical.

The Old Syriac contains the four Gospels only. It consists of two main documents, the Old Syriac Sinaiticus, and the Old Syriac Curetonianus. These two manuscripts disagree with each other to such an extent, that it is highly questionable why they are considered to be “one version”. Furthermore, the Old Syriac agrees very closely with the Greek Codex Bezae, considered by many Greek scholars to be the “original Greek”. This is one of the main reasons why Greek primacists rate the Old Syriac as the “best Aramaic”.

To add insult to injury, scholarly consensus holds that the Pe****ta (and the Pe****to along with it – it seems that most Greek primacists are unaware that there are differences between the Pe****ta and the Pe****to, however slight) was translated from the Greek by Rabulla, the bishop of Edessa from 412-435 AD. One of the main proponents of this belief has been noted textual critic, F.C. Burkitt. Scholarly consensus says that it was the “Byzantine Greek”. The irony of this belief is that from the many split words discussed earlier in this series, sometimes the Pe****ta agrees with the Byzantine Greek, and sometimes with the Alexandrian Greek, heavily implying that both Greek traditions actually stem from the Pe****ta."

Does the Pe****ta stem from the Old Syriac?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are several Pe****ta translations.

Don't waste your time with these websites.

 

[godnotgod]

For the most part, it isn't a debate at all. There are a few scholars who argue that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, for example, but the idea that the texts we have were originally written in Greek is held by almost all NT scholars.

....except by those NT scholars who are Aramaic Primacists.

The fact that the general consensus is being challenged by a minority makes it a hot topic, considering the nature of the topic itself.

The falsehood, held by everyone at one time, including the established authority of the Church itself, that the earth was flat, was exposed by only one man.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

....except by those NT scholars who are Aramaic Primacists.

The fact that the general consensus is being challenged by a minority makes it a hot topic, considering the nature of the topic itself.

The falsehood, held by everyone at one time, including the established authority of the Church itself, that the earth was flat, was exposed by only one man.

Well, when people write and talk about this in the real world, no scholar calls another one a "Greek Primacist." :biglaugh:

 

[godnotgod]

Don't waste your time with these websites.

Your seemingly authoritative dismissal without explanation implies that there is something false about them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your seemingly authoritative dismissal without explanation implies that there is something false about them.

haha, no, it simply means that I can identify sophomoric polemic.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, when people write and talk about this in the real world, no scholar calls another one a "Greek Primacist." :biglaugh:

Biblical scholars who are Aramaic Primacists do all the time:

".....it seems that most Greek primacists are unaware that there are differences between the Pe****ta and the Pe****to..."

....or did you think that orthodox Christians were the only ones to qualify as scholars?* How convenient to have a monopoly on The Truth!

Christian scholar: isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[godnotgod]

haha, no, it simply means that I can identify sophomoric polemic.

Uh...heh..heh..heh...yes?... do go on.

 

[godnotgod]

Ditthoheads don't call each other ditthoheads, either.:spam:

 

[godnotgod]

.....

 

[Oberon]

....except by those NT scholars who are Aramaic Primacists.

The fact that the general consensus is being challenged by a minority makes it a hot topic, considering the nature of the topic itself.

Well, perhaps we are arguing semantics here. Generally, a hot debate in scholarship (at least all the fields I am familiar with) refers to an issue without consensus in which a large number of scholars have diverse views. We don't have that here. There are virtually no NT or Biblical scholars who argue that any part of the NT was originally written in Aramaic. This is pretty much accepted in NT scholarship. There are a very small number of dissenters, but that doesn't mean there is a hot debate.
Virtually all the literature takes this as proven beyond reasonable doubt, and virtually all the experts are in agreement. That hardly constitutes a "hot debate."

Its more akin to the one or two scholars who argue that we don't have enough evidence for the historical Jesus.

The falsehood, held by everyone at one time, including the established authority of the Church itself, that the earth was flat, was exposed by only one man.

Yes, but you can't really compare consensus opinion of the past century with consensus opinion prior to or at the beginning of the enlightenment.

 

[godnotgod]

Virtually all the literature takes this as proven beyond reasonable doubt, and virtually all the experts are in agreement. That hardly constitutes a "hot debate."

Well, sir, the reason it is a hot debate is exactly because there is a popular consensus position against which evidence exists to the contrary. I do not base what is true on the fact that a consensus exists. I base it on the evidence. The issue is a hot debate because the overwhelming majority of scholars and lay people alike continue to claim Greek primacy, and to ignore or dismiss as insignificant the evidence put forth by others.

I am Latino. In our culture, the Virgin of Guadalupe is overwhelmingly revered as a Christian deity in Mexico. However, when people are shown the fact that she is actually Tonantzin, the Aztec goddess of fertility, and that the Church only used her as a device to convert millions of indigenous Indians to Catholicism, people will still refuse to accept the truth, choosing instead the "consensus" as held by the "experts", with comments such as:

"Well, even if it is true, my family has believed what they believe for many years. We are not about to change our view now!"

What I gather from my study of the issue is that Aramaic was the language of the common people, mostly illiterate, while Greek was mostly that of the educated class. While it is possible that Jesus spoke both Aramaic and Greek, he congregated amongst the common people, and certainly preached in Aramaic to them. Being illiterate, they relied upon oral tradition as the repository of the teachings. Therefore, the oral tradition in Aramaic is the original, while the Greek texts, though they may have been published publicly and prior to the Pe****ta, are still at least one step removed from the original tongue that the gospels were transmitted in.


The Church of the East claims the following:

"With reference to....the originality of the Pe****ta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Pe****ta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Pe****ta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament


"Can one prove that the Greek is the original? Nobody actually can. It’s just taken for granted. Since all the Greek versions have corruptions, contradictions etc, it is clear that they are not the originals. Many will shout “Manuscript evidence” at the top of their lungs, as supporting evidence of Greek primacy. “Manuscript evidence” – the favourite term of the Greek primacist and it means nothing. There are 5000 Greek mss and fragments of mss. So what? There are millions of English Bibles worldwide, was the Bible then written in English? There is plenty of “publishing evidence” that the New Testament was written in English!?

Are the Pe****ta Manuscripts Older?

 

[godnotgod]

haha, no, it simply means that I can identify sophomoric polemic.

Well, if you admit that their position may hold water, then they can hardly be identified as sophomoric, can they?