Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hi i have some questions and comments but its quite long.
Hello everyone i trust God is blessing the works of your hands. happy sabbath by the way.

Im new to this website as a matter a fact im new to the whole idea of reading an aramaic based Bible, I had heard of The Masoretic text Septuagint and even the Samaritan Pentateuch and the latin vulgate ( i havent really read those two though) i had heard of a "syriac" version i had had a curiosity to read it to my astonishment its very good i like it though i will admit it seems a bit different at the same time for example the use of Arameans in the Epistles is still a bit strange like my NIV version says in Romans 3:9 what shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not At all we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. Lamsa's said Arameans instead of Gentiles though i think using the term gentiles in this sense would make more sense because hes writing to the Romans why use Arameans in that instance? i dont know what to make of it im not saying its wrong but im just saying it just sounds a bit different. why write in Aramaic to the Romans? the Gospels i can understand because that was the lingua franca there. even though i know he wrote to congegrations in Christ some of which were Jewish but its just harder for me to picture A lot of Aramaic speakers in Rome . I could see Greek speakers but as ive stated before i am willing to hear any opinions in this regard and i do not want to offend anyone with this opinion certainly if they are Assyrian. I am respectful and i do agree that The Peshitta is great and it cleared up a lot of mistranslations the KJV has but like i said im not used to hearing the term Aramean in the NT but my principal question was.

what script do you think that the disciples wrote in ? that is to say was it in Hebrew script? the aramaic portions in Daniel is written with Hebrew characters correct? the Aramaic texts in the dead sea scrolls was written in Hebrew characters aswell right? ( not 100% sure just making that assumption) so my question is , is the language characters the disciples would have used would they have been Hebrew or the Aramaic characters used in the texts we have today? Im just curious as to the characters because they probably used Hebrew to transliterate the Aramaic like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the portions of Aramaic in the OT. I have a tanakh at my house of course its the masoretic text but i dont know enough hebrew or aramaic to be able to distinguish it too well plus i once met a Jewish guy who told me he had an Aramaic and Hebrew class and i asked him and he said it was the same script but he studied a fifth century Jewish law well i can't remember the exact century but if i recall i think thats what he said. so thats my question would the disciples have written the peshitta nt in hebrew characters or the one that we read today. ( i dont know the correct name for it) But then again im sure that in Mesopotamia they wouldn't have used Hebrew characters to write Aramaic . By the way i want to thank everyone whos emailed me it did help with my previous questions i will email you all back . God bless bye
my name is Christian I am a Christian and im ready to listen and learn, aswell as give my points of view.
Shlomo akhi,

The Hebrew script you are referring to is the Asshuri script or square script which I believe Ezra had a hand in developing way back when. I, for one, am intringued by the Estrangelo script since it's a kind of link to modern Arabic as well as being the script used in the Peshitta. I plan on learning this a work in progress. The evidence, however, is that the Asshuri script was used in the land of Israel, and "in vogue" at the time and place of Jesus. This simplifies things for me since I am already very familiar with the Asshuri script from Tanach and modern Hebrew. There is a Peshitta rendering (plus the bonus of a Hebrew translation) in the Asshuri script available on this very site! I have ordered a copy and I'm on pins and needles until I receive it! This is a true Godsend to me since up until now I left the finer points of word definition in the testimony that is popularly called the New Testament to the Greek aficionados. But no longer!!!! I thank God for the oportunity to study the Gospels in the original the words of the Master Himself! I am beside myself with joy at this! We also have a number of lexicons available that are a tremendous help for us English speakers who read Asshuri script. I have downloaded volume 1 of Jastrow's lexicon of both Talmud and Targums...but I am presently unable to locate volume 2 because of poor computer skills on my part. I hope to be able to do this soon. I hope this helps you. Oze v??hadar! (strength and honour!)

Welcome Christian,

It is good to hear from new members of the forum and exchange ideas. I was quite puzzled by the idea of Paul writing to Roman Christians and others in Aramaic. Then I read Lamsa's comment that The Roman Christians were Jews who had become Christians, as is plain in chapters 1-3; they knew the laws of Moses , he quotes extensively from The Psalms in chapts. 2 and 3, and in 2:17,
Paul addresses his audience thus: "Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law..."
So Romans was written to Jews ; it was also written to Gentiles -
see 11:17.
Also consider 1 Cor. 10:1: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Paul here refers to Israel as "our fathers", even though the nation was full of unbelievers. This is clearly a reference to a Jewish audience.
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
4:7 ?? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
4:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Here he assumes a Jewish understanding of Passover in his audience (in Corinth !).

7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

The Corinthians Paul wrote certainly were familiar with the Jewish law , feasts and traditions as well as the OT scriptures, which Paul quotes extensively in 1 & 2 Cor., especially concerning the law of Moses and Israel's history.

Galatians, we know , was written to refute the Judaizers in the church. Gentiles don't normally Judaize.
It would seem that most , if not all the churches were founded , or at least very well represented by former Jews converted to Christ.

It is well established that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the semitic peoples of the middle east , including Asia Minor, from 6th cent. BC until AD 700 . at least. (See Paul's history of Aramaic, on this web site). Wherever the diaspora took them, The Jewish people took their Aramaic language and OT scriptures (or Aramaic Gospels)with them.
Paul would have had to write his native Aramaic to the churches and also had a translator (like Luke,who was Syrian who also knew Greek ) translate Aramaic to Greek.

Remember, the order of preaching was "to the Jew first..."
Every church founded and every epistle written would of necessity, by order of The King of kings, be to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

In the case of languages, the scripture must be written in Aramaic first, and also in Greek. This means an Aramaic original and a Greek translation, by Divine fiat.

Burkan b'Maran ,

Dave B
gbausc Wrote:Remember, the order of preaching was "to the Jew first..."
Every church founded and every epistle written would of necessity, by order of The King of kings, be to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

In the case of languages, the scripture must be written in Aramaic first, and also in Greek. This means an Aramaic original and a Greek translation, by Divine fiat.

The counterargument that Greek primacists use is that the purpose of the Greek Septuagint was to give the Tanakh to the dispersed Jews who could no longer read Hebrew.

Alfred Edersheim is often quoted, attempting to assert that not only was Greek the primary language of Jews in the nations, but also of the Jews in Galilee and Judea.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)