[Lexicog] Re: When Semantics Doesn't Matter

Sat Jun 30 20:53:48 UTC 2007

Dear Scott,

I am flattered that you agree with me.

<<The New Testament was derived from Greek, not Hebrew.>>

Don't rush with this statement. For long time there are discussions
among the biblical scholars, what was the original language of the New 
Testament or at list of four synoptic Gospels and Acts. It is perfectly clear 
that Jesus and apostles spoke a Galilean dialect of Jewish Aramaic. Several passages in the NT even tote that the Aramaic speech in Galilee was different from that of Judaea.
The text which is printed in the bibles is a translation from Greek. But
it is not perfectly clear that Greek is the original language. If to assume
that the Gospels were written down 30-40 or 50 years after Christ's
death, the most logical answer would be it was written in Aramaic, because 
Aramaic was a major spoken language in Palestine, while aristocracy
and some urban population spoke Greek and Latin (but not as mother tongue).
Some scholars accepted as an axiom that the original text of NT was
Greek, but there are several arguments for Aramaic (you probably remember
Jesus' words: Talitha kumi (which means in Aramaic "young one, arise!) or eloi, eloi lama sabachtani (Aram. "my god, my god, why you've forsaken me")   or addresses of the apostles to Jesus: "Ravvi", Rabbi (my master) or ravvuni (my rabbi). These are examples of Aramaic words that remained in the Greek text even after the translation was finished. In addition, there are some proverbs cited in the NT, which are definitely known in Aramaic. I do not believe that the question of the original language of the NT was definitely solved as Greek, while I know that it is a prevailing opinion among the scholars.
As a supporting outside source for the solution you can use an example of Josephus. Josephus was a younger contemporary of Jesus, native of Palestine,
witness of the events of Jewish war against the Romans. If you would judge his
Greek works, you would never tell that they were not originally written in other
language than Greek. However Josephus himself writes that he originally composed his works in Aramaic, but because they were written for the most 
part for the non-Jewish audience they were  translated and re-written in Greek
(btw., not much different from the Greek of the NT). 
So whatever the source for NT translation, even it is a Greek text, it is not
100% proof that Greek is the original language of the NT.
I still think if the Gospels were written originally between 50-80 C.E. in Palestine,
they must be written in Aramaic, since it was the mother tongue of Jesus, apostles and their audience, because more than once Jesus states, that he 
was sent to preach among the Jews (Judaeans) and not among the heathens, to fulfil the Torah (Law of Moses), but not to destroy it. His discussions with Pharicees and other Jewish groups, including Samaritans, would not be possible other than in Aramaic. Only since apostles started their  missions  outside of the area of Palestine (in lands of Asia Minor, Greece and Rome), the use  of Greek entered  into the sphere  of  the early  Christianity  or judeo-Christianity, if you will.
It seems that small fragments of Aramaic text  of the NT turned out in the Dead Sea scrolls, but they are so tiny  that it is  difficult  to state this certainly. Also
about end of the 19th cent. the sermon on the mountain turned in Aramaic. This was printed in G. Dalman's Aramaeische Dialektproben. 

Hayim Y. Sheynin

bolstar1 <bolstar1 at yahoo.com> wrote:                                  Hayim, I liked your points, point by point. 
 I'm a little confused though about your reference to the Bible 
 translation. The New Testament needs differentiation from the Old 
 Testament. The New Testament was derived from Greek, not Hebrew. It 
 was clumped together with the Old Testament, into what modern 
 Christians call "The Bible." Hebrew (Aramaic language), with Hebrew 
 writing being the source text of the Old Testament (written and 
 spoken by Hebrews) --  was copied, text for text, point by point, 
 iota by iota........from generation to generation -- assumably from 
 the hand of Moses himself.  
      But the New Testament, largely written by Paul the Apostle to 
 Greek cities and Greek Christians, was translated from Greek. 

 Scott Nelson

 lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com, Hayim Sheynin <hsheynin19444 at ...> 
 wrote:
 >
 > <<Shakespeare is better in German translation.>>
 > 
 > Let me share some thoughts relating to this generalization.
 > 1. For whom Shakespeare is better in German translation? It is
 > clearly for the people who know German better than English.
 > 2. Can you imagine that somebody knows a second language
 > better than his native language (mother's tongue)?
 > 3. Is this generalization relates to a feeling of a scholar 
 (philologist,
 > linguist, literary scholar) or an impression of a common reader.
 > 4. Are in German literary references of Shakespeare and his sources
 > are better understood?
 > 5. Do Shakespeare's witticisms and phraseology sound better in 
 translation?
 > 6. Can anybody state that KJV of the Bible or German Luther's 
 translation
 > or any other translation of the Bible be better than Hebrew 
 original.
 > 7. Can anybody state that any translation of a classical work (I 
 mean 
 > one written in classical Greek or ancient Latin) be better than the 
 original?
 > 8. There are many excellent translations from language A to 
 language B,
 > and how laudable they can be they never are going to be equal to the
 > original.
 > 9. If somebody who tried his hand in translation can confirm the 
 statement 
 > above, it would be interesting to analyze this.
 > However taking in account all the aspects of translation it is very 
 difficult
 > to accept this opinion.
 > 
 > Hayim Sheynin   
 > 
 > bolstar1 <bolstar1 at ...> wrote:                                  
 Bill: Now I'm chuckling over your point about Shakespeare reading 
 >  better in German than in English(I know it wasn't your own 
 statement, 
 >  but it was just so darn cute.) This would be an example of the use 
 of, 
 >  for lack of a better term, hyperbolic hyperbole. I have always 
 thought 
 >  it a waste of time, personally, to have read through all of 'War 
 and 
 >  Peace' -- you know, that tidbit of a book by Leo-the-Sparse -- 
 without 
 >  enjoying Leo's rhetorical genius (Oh, what I must have missed in 
 the 
 >  translation.) Leo T.quaintly once said of Shakespeare, ""The works 
 of 
 >  Shakespeare, borrowed as they are, and externally, like mosaics, 
 >  artificially fitted together piecemeal from bits invented for the 
 >  occasion, have nothing whatever in common with art and poetry." 
 >      Granted, Tolstoy may have been in a temporary stupor, or maybe 
 his 
 >  wife had spilled hot coffee on his pants that morning, or perhaps 
 he 
 >  didn't read a German translation of Shakespeare......but whatever 
 the 
 >  reason, he may be in on the theory that Shakespeare wasn't such a 
 hot 
 >  literary number as he is purported to be. I'd like to see more 
 proof of 
 >  this though. 
 >  
 >  Scott Nelson
 >   
 >  
 >  --- In lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com, billposer@ wrote:
 >  >
 >  > I have been told by people whose knowledge of both
 >  > Shakespeare and German is better than my own that
 >  > Shakespeare is better in German translation.
 >  > It seems odd that anything would be better in translation,
 >  > but I suppose that the English of Shakespeare is sufficiently
 >  > different from Modern English that this may be like saying
 >  > that Shakespeare is better in Modern German translation than
 >  > in Modern English translation, which is not so implausible.
 >  > 
 >  > Bill
 >  >
 >  
 >  
 >      
 >                        
 > 
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 > Got a little couch potato? 
 > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
 >

---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070630/ef012a9d/attachment.htm>