Gehenna and Sheol in the Aramaic NT

[marie glen]

Back to the Opening Post - Um.. I'm a little behind.. I'll make the comment a different color..

aimtana (darkness, obscurity, mist)
verses that contains lexeme 1:2347 ܥܡܛܢܐ
Acts 2:20, 13:11; 2Peter 2:4, 2:17; Jude 1:6, 1:13

In Peter 2:4 - What word is used in your Aramaic instead of Tartarus? (Greek, tartaroó - #G5020) - [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/2-4.htm]

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English, says - https://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-4.htm
And if God did not spare the Angels who sinned, but cast them down in chains of darkness into the lowest depths and handed them over to be kept for the judgment of torment,

I'm doubly curious, as I've always wondered if what is truly referred to isn't a pit, but deepest darkness. Kind of like in Rev 9 when "noisy locusts come out of the smoke" of the bottomless pit, which I take to also be deepest darkness, or potential - imperfection being a bottomless pit of potential?

In Greek myth "Tartarus" is a pit..

In the Iliad (c. 700 BC), Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth." While according to Greek mythology the realm of Hades is the place of the dead, Tartarus also has a number of inhabitants.

So.. to me, it just doesn't jive!

:Chinscratch: Peter in 1 Peter begins the letter - " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," - which "soujourners of the dispersion" could be Hebrew believers.. (so the more chance it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic - it's not so clear which, it seems.)

But! in 2 Peter it's - "Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:" (YLT) ...though he does refer to Noah, Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah.. (Hebrew history)

https://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm
"5020 (tartaróō) is a Greek name for the under-world, especially the abode of the damned – hence to cast into hell" (A-S); to send into the subterranean abyss reserved for demons and the dead.

[In Greek mythology, Tartarus was a "place of punishment under the earth, to which, for example, the Titans were sent" (Souter).]

It appears to me, tartaroo is one word.. but because of the mythology it becomes "cast into tartarus" or implied, hell.

But what if we ignored the mythology? Was the word used only for "Tartarus" the pit? :dunno:

If 2 Peter 2:4 was written or said in Aramaic, what word would be used?

Am I confused and the abyss and Tartarus are not the same?

[marie glen]

I just noticed my iphone auto-corrected Pecrapta / Pe$hitta in one of my replies to read Pecrapta - I can only imagine the confusion if you read it..

Ahaa.. now I get it.. Not my innocent, in this case, iphone, lol.. so I guess it was my confusion :laughing7:

Which I can now see after reading further in the thread..

[lastpost]

Ah yes friend, and lovely it is, is it not!

There is also so much in the Greek that is lost in translation – so much that it would be extremely unlikely to be chance...

From...
http://christswords.com/content/did-christ-teach-greek

Double Meanings and Wordplay

...Spending time with the Greek of Christ's words will gradually convince any serious student that the work couldn't be a translation. There is so much in it, especially double meanings and other wordplay, the makes sense only in the Greek. There are many to many examples to cite, but you can go through all the posts discussing them here http://christswords.com/wordplay_lists. These posts currently show with the most recent first, even though that work doesn't follow the order of the Gospels themselves.

Scholars claim wordplay in Aramaic translation. They claim this proves that the Aramaic is the source. For example, in the parable of the mustard seed (Matt 13 31-32) has some wordplay in Aramaic, "It is smaller ( zearoya, in Aramaic) than all the seeds (zeraona). But when it grows (rabbath) it is greater (rabba) than all the herbs."

While the similarity between rabbath (grows) and rabba (greater) sounds like a choice of words from the same root. This is a choice of the translator working from Greek into Aramaic. There are always many word choices in any language for general ideas such as "greater" and "growth." Think of all the synonyms in English. The similarity between zearoya (smaller) and zeraona (seeds) could easily be a coincidence or, again, the choice of the translator.

Wordplay that seems to add new dimensions of meaning is common in Greek. So common that just today, before rewriting this article, the days post examined the phrase, "the Teacher and Master" in Jhn 13:13 that Christ reverses in Jhn 13:14 to "Master and Teacher." There seems to be no reason for this in English, but in Greek, the "and" is from kai which also means "as". So the first verse Christ his followers call him the "Teacher as Master." In English, we might call a great teacher a "master" as well. However, in the following verse, Christ describes himself as a "Master as Teacher," a Superior who is also teaching them. This makes perfect sense if you read the contents of Jhn 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master. The topic is what he is teaching. His reversal of these words is clever, funny, and says something important about Christ's role. And it only works in Greek where an "and" is also an "as."

...


Personally, I am pleased that there is a little uncertainty because the important thing from my point of view is that Christ is the One unchanging constant of Whom all can be certain - and of our One God we can be certain, without all of the encumbrances that man has always sought to throw upon Him with his words.

[marie glen]

Personally, I am pleased that there is a little uncertainty because the important thing from my point of view is that Christ is the One unchanging constant of Whom all can be certain - and of our One God we can be certain, without all of the encumbrances that man has always sought to throw upon Him with his words.

That's very nice.. And true.. Father and Son, forever constant! :cloud9:

[DavidFord]

I have no idea how close or how far removed the Hebrew is to the Aramaic.. (and vice versa)

They're sister languages.  Aramaic has been around for a very long time, and the way its alphabet characters have been represented through the years has changed a lot.  One of the iterations of Aramaic letters is what you'd recognize as Hebrew letters. There are many similar words in Aramaic and Hebrew. You might find this of interest:

George M. Lamsa's Introduction (probably to his translation into English of the Aramaic OT-- itself a translation from Hebrew, with a little original Aramaic e.g. in Daniel-- and the Aramaic NT)
https://amallulla.org/lamsa/

[DavidFord]

Spending time with the Greek of Christ's words will gradually convince any serious student that the work couldn't be a translation. There is so much in it, especially double meanings and other wordplay, the makes sense only in the Greek.

What are 3 of the most-impressive instances of "double meanings" in Greek manuscripts you're aware of?
Are you aware of any instances of Janus parallelism in Greek manuscripts?

Janus Parallelism: Mt 13:31-32
He [Yeshua] spoke another mathla [parable] in figure to them and said,
"The kingdom of Heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed
that a man took (and) sowed in his field.
And it is smaller than all the small seeds,
but when it grows it is greater than all the small herbs,
and becomes a tree
so that the birds [or: blossoms/flowers]
of heaven come (and) nest in its branches."

This has Janus Parallelism poetry, since the Aramaic word rendered 'birds' can also mean blossoms/flowers.
Hence, one way to read the poem would be to focus on the plant aspects:
seed - sowed in field - seeds - grows - herbs - tree - blossoms/flowers - in branches.
Another way to read the poem would be to focus on the bird aspects:
tree - birds of heaven - nest in branches.

Cyrus Gordon located a Janus parallelism in the Song of Songs 2:12, where the word for "pruning" can also mean "singing"-- see Lataster on poetry.
Song of Songs 2:12 (NIV), my bracket
Flowers appear on the earth;
the season of singing [or: pruning] has come,
the cooing of doves
is heard in our land.

Here are two possible ways of focusing on certain aspects of the poem:
flowers - earth - season - pruning - land.
____________ - season - singing - cooing - heard.

fun with varying definitions of a word: Mt 19:12
Another instance of Yeshua having fun with varying definitions of a particular word is in Matthew 19:12:
"For there are mahaymina who were born thus from the womb of their mother.
And there are mahaymina who became mahaymina by men.
And there are mahaymina who made themselves mahaymina for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
He who is able to comprehend, let him comprehend."

'Mahaymina' can mean eunuch or believer or many similar words; see Lataster. The verse could be translated this way:
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from the womb of their mother.
And there are eunuchs who became believers by men.
And there are believers who made themselves eunuchs [i.e. chose celibacy] for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
He who is able to comprehend, let him comprehend.'
See also Acts 8:27.

fun with varying definitions of a word: Jn 3:8
Yet another case of Yeshua having fun with varying definitions of particular words is from his conversation with Niqodemus at John 3:8:
"The Rukha [Spirit or wind]
will nashaba [breathe or blow] where it desires,
and you hear its qala [voice or sound],
but you do not know (from) where it comes or (to) where it goes;
likewise is everyone who is born from Rukha [Spirit]."

Yeshua has fun with three Aramaic words. One rendering is,
The _wind_ will _blow_ where it desires/wills,
and you hear its _sound_,
but you do not know from where it comes or where it goes;
likewise is everyone who is born from _spirit_.'
Another rendering is,
"The _Spirit_ _breathes_ where he desires/wills,
and you hear his _voice_,
but you do not know from where he comes and where he goes;
thus is everyone who is born from the _Spirit_."

Niqodemus was perplexed, probably in part because of the wordplay. See Paul Younan & Glenn David Bauscher. Cf. John 20:22, where Yeshua "breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Rukha d'Qudsha'"[Spirit of Holiness].

[DavidFord]

In Peter 2:4 - What word is used in your Aramaic instead of Tartarus? .... If 2 Peter 2:4 was written or said in Aramaic, what word would be used?

I asked another person, Do you think some angels were shut up in:  Tartarus?  "the deeps"?  "infernal regions"? "the lowest depths"?

2 Peter 2:4 (NKJV)  For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to [a: Lit. Tartarus] hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

translations from Aramaic, from http://dukhrana.com
(Etheridge) For if Aloha upon the angels who sinned was not lenient, but in chains of darkness shut them in the deeps, and delivered them to be kept to the judgment of pain;
(Murdock) For, if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to the infernal regions in chains of darkness, and delivered them up to be kept unto the judgment of torture,

2 Peter 2 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/2_peter/2.htm
4 And if God did not spare the Angels who sinned, but cast them down in chains* of darkness into the lowest depths* and handed them over to be kept for the judgment of torment*, 5 And he did not spare The First World but he preserved Noah, the eighth man, a Preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood over the world of the wicked, 6 And when he burned the cities of Sadom and Amorah and condemned them in an overthrow, when he set an example to the wicked who were to come,

Glenn David Bauscher, _The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English- with Psalms & Proverbs_ 7th edition (2012), 610pp. On 559:
Greek has ... -"Tatarused", "Cast into Tartarus"?  - a participle from "Tartarus" not found anywhere else in Greek literature.  The noun form - "T..." is found in The LXX (Job 40:20) where it refers to "the quadrapeds in _the deep_".  This use of the noun is much more in keeping with the meaning of the Aramaic in this verse ... (tekhtytha) - "the depths".

[DavidFord]

Spending time with the Greek of Christ's words will gradually convince any serious student

Re: Mt 7:6, do you prefer the translation from Greek, or the translation from Aramaic?

Mt 7:6 (NKJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207%3A6&version=NKJV;MOUNCE
"Do not give what is holy to the dogs;
nor cast your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet,
and turn and tear you in pieces.

Mt 7:6 from Aramaic, based on Younan, http://dukhrana.com
You should not hang earrings on dogs,
and you should not place your pearls before pigs,
that they should not trample them by their feet,
and they overtake and wound you.

Mt 7:6 (The Passion Translation)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A6-8&version=TPT
"Who would hang earrings on a dog's ear
or throw pearls in front of wild pigs?
They'll only trample them under their feet
and then turn around and tear you to pieces!
Footnotes:
Matthew 7:6 As translated from the Aramaic. The Greek is "Don't let the dogs have consecrated [holy] meat." The Aramaic word for "earrings" is almost identical to the word for "holy." Earrings and pearls are symbols of spiritual truths given to us by God. They give us beautiful "ears" to hear his voice and impart lovely pearls of wisdom, which are not to be regarded lightly or shared with those who have their hearts closed. The Aramaic word for "throw" is almost identical to the word for "to instruct" or "to teach." The value of wisdom is not appreciated by those who have no ears to hear it.

For Mt 24:51, do you prefer the translation from Greek, or the possible translation from Aramaic?

Matthew 24:51 (HCSB)
He will cut him to pieces[a:  Lit _him in two_]
and assign him a place with the hypocrites.
In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(Is a dismembered person-- presumably a dead corpse or about to be a dead corpse-- really supposed to become company with hypocrites that are weeping and gnashing their teeth?)

Lewis, Agnes Smith.  1913.  _Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest_ (London:  Williams & Norgate), 226pp. 
https://archive.org/details/cu31924091301089
On 109-110, with her bracket:
Dr Arnold Meyer has pointed out that the verb used in Luke xii. 46 and in Matt. xxiv.51 in all the Syriac versions, _palleg_, has the primary meaning of "cut in pieces," and the secondary one of "appoint to some one his portion."^1[1:  Cf. _Jesv Muttersprache_, p. 115.  Dr Meyer attributes these meanings to the _Afel_ form of the verb.  But they belong also to the form _Pael_.]  If we suppose that our Lord used it in the primary sense, the difficulty as to how the man survived so trying a process becomes insoluble.  But if we take it in the secondary one, we must assume that the Evangelist, whilst investigating about all these things, and writing them down carefully in Greek for the benefit of Theophilus, misunderstood a Syriac idiom by taking it too literally.  The translation would then be:  "_and shall allot his portion, and shall place him [or it] with the unfaithful_," etc.
This parable, as Dr Rendel Harris has pointed out, is possibly taken from the story of Achikar, which belongs to the Pseudepigraphy of the Old Testament, and just missed getting into the canonical Apocrypha.  Achikar had a wicked and ungrateful nephew named Nadan, who behaved in precisely the same way as this bad servant did, and who met with a similar fate.

Compare:
Pashka, Joseph.  2003.  _The Aramaic Gospels and Acts:  Text and Translation_ (USA:  Xulon Press), 300pp.  On 53, Mt 24:51:
and will separate from him his share to give among the hypocrites;
there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.

I would punctuate that as:
and will separate from him his share to give;
among the hypocrites there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.

[DavidFord]

the Greek of Christ's words... couldn't be a translation

Which is better:  Mt 19:28 in Aramaic, or in Greek?

Mt 19:28 from Aramaic, based on Younan, http://dukhrana.com
Yeshua said to them,
"Amain I say to you that,
you who have come to follow me,
in the new ailma [world/age] when the Barh-d'Ansha [Son of Man] sits upon the throne of shubkeh [his glory],
you also will sit upon twelve seats,
and you will judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mt 19:28 (NKJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019%3A28&version=NKJV;MOUNCE
So Jesus said to them,
"Assuredly I say to you, that
in the regeneration [Greek:  palingenesia],
when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory,
you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Strong's Concordance 3824. paliggenesia
https://biblehub.com/greek/3824.htm
paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal
Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration
Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.
HELPS Word-studies
3824 paliggenesía (from 3825 /pálin, "again" and 1078 /génesis, "birth, beginning")....

[DavidFord]

There is also so much in the Greek that is lost in translation

(such as Jesus condemning himself to hell?)
Do you think Jesus is liable to the fire of Gehenna?

Mt 5:22
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5.htm
3004 [e]
eipē
εἴπῃ  ,
shall say

3474 [e]
Mōre
Μωρέ  ,
Fool
Adj-VMS

1777 [e]
enochos
ἔνοχος
liable

1510 [e]
estai
ἔσται
will be

1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
to

3588 [e]
tēn
τὴν
the

1067 [e]
geennan
γέενναν
hell

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
-

4442 [e]
pyros
πυρός  .
of fire

Mt 23:17
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/23.htm
3474 [e]
17   mōroi
17   μωροὶ
17   Foolish
17   Adj-VMP

2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and

5185 [e]
typhloi
τυφλοί  !
blind

[marie glen]

Here's a great example of confused translation.. whether due to language or letter mixup I know not :gsmile:

Can a camel or a rope go through the eye of a needle? Obviously neither one.
Now it sounds more logical Jesus would use rope as the example.. than a camel! Yet how much did it change the intent of what Jesus said?

The main thing of the saying is — with God nothing is impossible!

Language study is awesome! But thank the good Lord, no one has to be a language expert to usually get the jist of what is being said.

Couple that with the Holy Spirit (/Presence) of God to reveal and convince.
"With God there is nothing impossible" including, and especially(!) Universal Reconciliation of all "in heaven and earth".

Like end of Acts summarizes/concludes, it's all about hearing and seeing, understanding with the heart, and thus turning to Him, and being healed.

Like some other things, language study is great and to be very commended (all study!) and can yield much insight.. But like many other things, it is not a requirement of all God's people - which of course, no one has said :laughing7: but taking into account the human tendency to run with things, and so often to the extreme.. I found myself pondering this. How wonderful and wise He is .. and how "wisdom is justified of His children".. An awkward turn of phrase right there.. :Chinscratch: ..but I'm too lazy right this minute to seek the verse and the interlinear, or the possible Aramaic/Hebraidi. And I think I get the intent of it.. That we're all different.. from your nose to the grindstone 'scholars' to the humblest, believer who understands salvation and love and are able to leave it at that, simply loving, and winning some over by their simple gentleness and love.
:cloud9: ..And of course a blend of both qualities is a good thing too! :Peace2:

[marie glen]

the Greek of Christ's words... couldn't be a translation

Which is better:  Mt 19:28 in Aramaic, or in Greek?

Mt 19:28 from Aramaic, based on Younan, http://dukhrana.com
Yeshua said to them,
"Amain I say to you that,
you who have come to follow me,
in the new ailma [world/age] when the Barh-d'Ansha [Son of Man] sits upon the throne of shubkeh [his glory],
you also will sit upon twelve seats,
and you will judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mt 19:28 (NKJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019%3A28&version=NKJV;MOUNCE
So Jesus said to them,
"Assuredly I say to you, that
in the regeneration [Greek:  palingenesia],
when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory,
you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Strong's Concordance 3824. paliggenesia
https://biblehub.com/greek/3824.htm
paliggenesia: regeneration, renewal
Original Word: παλιγγενεσία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: paliggenesia
Phonetic Spelling: (pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: a new birth, regeneration
Definition: a new birth, regeneration, renewal.
HELPS Word-studies
3824 paliggenesía (from 3825 /pálin, "again" and 1078 /génesis, "birth, beginning")....

Personally this verse, I do like the Aramaic better. And I do come down on the side of thinking Jesus likely spoke Aramaic/Hebraidi.
:thumbsup:
And thankfully even in the Greek it gives a good indication of the saying's intent.

P.S. - “cut to pieces” or apportion his to another? Oh how those translators loved to [1] run with verses & meanings - even inserting “for ever” in verses where no time word originally even is! And [2] seem to love often the most extreme application! I agree “cut in pieces.. sever in two” makes no logical sense. Considering, both the word possible uses, AND, other verses and the overall saving of “all” pas/the whole! Which we find very repeated if our ears and eyes are open.

? Unless the judgment He’s speaking of is earthly..?

[CST]

So many Greek manuscripts contain things that do not turn up in other versions.

In what languages are 3 of those "other versions"?
Do you think John 7:53–8:11 was part of the original John?

New American Bible (Revised Edition)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8&version=NABRE
7:53–8:11 The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after Jn 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Lk 21, but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jer 17:13 (cf. note on Jn 8:6) and the statement, "I do not judge anyone," in Jn 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.

"The epistles of Paul where clearly written, as can be understood from their content, to be sent and read to Christian communities whose first language was clearly either Greek or Latin."
3 illustrations in support of the claim that those "Christian communities" "first language was clearly either Greek or Latin"?
Do you think Paul's mentions of "bowels" is something that would be easily understood by a native speaker of:  Greek?  Latin?  Aramaic?  Hebrew?

search for "bowels" on KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=bowels&begin=47&end=73
2 Corinthians 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
Philippians 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
Philemon 1:12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
Philemon 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
1 John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

"whether or not any of the New Testament epistles were written in Aramaic we haven't got any surviving record of any"
The 4 gospels existed in Aramaic at the latest as of A.D. 175 (the year of Tatian's death). We presently have a surviving translation from that Aramaic into Arabic.
The Assyrian Church of the East has been faithfully and carefully recopying the Aramaic NT books they received since they received them in Aramaic.

In many languages, that's the point and your making my point for me by quoting the story of the woman caught in adultery and saying wasn't in 'older' Greek versions but is in 'newer' ones. (I'm dubious on how these are dated) So was it in the Aramaic version? That would be neat and handy.

I've always been a bit confused by the story of Jesus and the Rich Man. Jesus ends by saying that is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven. However, in at least one Greek manuscript of one of the gospels the word kamelos (camel) is replaced with the word kamilos (rope). Oh, well not I can see that, trying the pass a rope through the eye of a needle instead of the smaller thread designed for it. Yet this only works in Greek and seems about universally rejected because almost all Greek versions say 'camel'. This seems less likely if there were more accurate Aramaic versions laying around. This is Greek textual problem.

1. Paul was writing to Gentiles who would not have had Hebrew or Hebrew based languages as their first language.
2. Paul was big on the fact that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to become jews to become Christians, so there would be no reason for them to learn Hebrew or Hebrew based languages.
3. The were mostly historically Greek cities historically Greek influence on their culture.
4. One of them was Rome and the Romans would definitely speak Latin as its first language and maybe Greek as a second.

Don't use the KJV as an argument. The fact that bowels is the translation into English they used does not mean it is the best translation even if it remains the best translation for English readers.

So I don't know if 'bowels' would be readily understood by a speaker of Greek or not because I don't know their idioms. I know that we are translating from the Greek text so that's what we think the Greek version says what ever you think an imagined Aramaic version says.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Greek wasn't translated to Aramaic and then into Arabic and historically even the most faithful recopying tends to produce errors.

The epistles of Paul where clearly written, as can be understood from their content, to be sent and read to Christian communities whose first language was clearly either Greek or Latin.

Do you think Paul's mentions of "heart" and "eyeservice" and "the eyes of your heart" are things that would be easily understood by a native speaker of:  Greek?  Latin?  Aramaic?  Hebrew?

search of KJV for "heart"
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=heart&begin=47&end=73&limit=500

Colossians 3:22
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+3%3A22&version=KJV;MOUNCE
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh;
not with eyeservice [Greek:  ophthalmodoulia], as menpleasers;
but in singleness of heart [Greek:  kardia], fearing God;

Ephesians 6:6
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A6+&version=KJV;MOUNCE
Not with eyeservice [Greek:  ophthalmodoulia],
as menpleasers;
but as the servants of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart [Greek: psyche.  I looked for a Greek manuscript with kardia but didn't find one; did KJV translators use a manuscript having kardia?]

Strong's Concordance 2588. kardia
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2588.htm

Strong's Concordance 4641. sklerokardia (hardness of heart)
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/4641.htm

Strong's Concordance 2589. kardiognostes (knower of hearts)
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2589.htm

Ephesians 1:18 (Disciples' Literal New Testament)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+1%3A18&version=DLNT;MOUNCE
so that you, the eyes [Greek:  ophthalmos] of your heart [Greek:  kardia] having been enlightened,
may know what is the hope of His calling,
what is the riches of the glory of His inheritance among the saints

Idioms again, I don't know what idioms the Greeks would or wouldn't know but I suspect Paul might use them without thinking.

I am open to the possibility to that the fact that Matthew was original written in Hebrew or Aramaic because he was writing to a Hebrew audience.  The same is true for the Epistle to the Hebrews, that being in Greek is strange. But mark is taken to be written to Gentiles, Luke and Acts to one specific Gentile, these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic not when they feel the need to explain themselves every time they put Jewish/Hebrew references in.

[DavidFord]

Personally this verse, I do like the Aramaic better.

Which do you like the best:  the long KJV version of Mk 9:49, the short NASB version, or the Younan translation of the Aramaic?

Mark 9:49 (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+9%3A49-50&version=KJV;NASB
For every one shall be salted with fire,
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Mark 9:49 (based on Younan), http://www.dukhrana.com
For with fire everything will be destroyed/ vaporized/ scattered
and with salt every sacrifice will be seasoned.

Mark 9:49 (NASB)
49 "For everyone will be salted with fire.

https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-9
9:49 ....Verse 49 has many manuscript variations. These were probably due to the uncertainty of (1) how the verse related to Mark 9:48 or (2) what the verse itself meant.

Leviticus 2:13 (NASB)
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=offering+salt&qs_version=KJV%3BNASB
Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt,
so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering;
with all your offerings you shall offer salt.

Per 2 Peter and Mk 9:49, all will be destroyed/ vaporized with fire.  (Appearing also in Genesis 1:1, 'the heavens and the earth' is a Hebraic 'merism,' a way of saying 'all things.')
2 Peter 3:7
(Etheridge) But the heaven which is now, and the earth, by his own word are set,
being reserved unto fire, unto the day of judgment and the perdition of wicked men.
(Murdock) And the heavens that now are, and the earth, are by his word stored up,
being reserved for the fire at the day of judgment and the perdition of wicked men.
(Lamsa) But the present heavens and earth are sustained by his word,
and are reserved for fire on the day of judgment which is the day of destruction of ungodly men.
(KJV) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:12
(Etheridge) expecting and desiring the coming of the day of Aloha;
that (day) in which the heavens, tried with fire, shall be dissolved,
and the elements burning shall melt ?
(Murdock) expecting and desiring the coming of the day of God,
in which the heavens being tried by fire will be dissolved,
and the elements being ignited will melt ?
(Lamsa) Looking for and longing for the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being tested with fire shall be dissolved,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
(KJV) Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

[DavidFord]

In many languages, that's the point and your making my point for me by quoting the story of the woman caught in adultery and saying wasn't in 'older' Greek versions but is in 'newer' ones. (I'm dubious on how these are dated) So was it in the Aramaic version? That would be neat and handy.

The story of the woman caught in adultery isn't in the Peshi tta.
Do you think John 7:53–8:11 was part of the original John?

I've always been a bit confused by the story of Jesus and the Rich Man. Jesus ends by saying that is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven. However, in at least one Greek manuscript of one of the gospels the word kamelos (camel) is replaced with the word kamilos (rope). Oh, well not I can see that, trying the pass a rope through the eye of a needle instead of the smaller thread designed for it. Yet this only works in Greek and seems about universally rejected because almost all Greek versions say 'camel'. This seems less likely if there were more accurate Aramaic versions laying around. This is Greek textual problem.

"this only works in Greek"
gmla:  1. camel/camels. 2. rope/ coarse thread.
Mt 19:23, based on Younan, http://dukhrana.com
Yeshua then said l'talmiduhi [to his students],
"Amain I say to you that,
it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
24. And again I say to you that
it is easier l'gmla [for a rope] to enter into the eye of a needle
than (for) a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Allaha."

Most translations into Greek have "camel" instead of "rope." Observes Barnstone (2012), 19, "In converting an Aramaic proverb into Greek, through a misreading. . . a 'course thread' became a 'camel,' fortuitously creating a wondrous metaphor."
At least one Greek manuscript has the Aramaic correctly translated:

Bailey, Kenneth E. 1976, 1980. __Poet & Peasant_ and _Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables of Luke__ (MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 238pp. & 187pp. On 165 of the 2nd half:
"Rather than _kamelon_, if we read _kamilon_ (as some ancient manuscripts give us) we are not talking about a large, four-footed animal but rather a rope."

1. Paul was writing to Gentiles who would not have had Hebrew or Hebrew based languages as their first language.
2. Paul was big on the fact that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to become jews to become Christians, so there would be no reason for them to learn Hebrew or Hebrew based languages.
3. The were mostly historically Greek cities historically Greek influence on their culture.
4. One of them was Rome and the Romans would definitely speak Latin as its first language and maybe Greek as a second.

Do you think the book of Romans was originally written in:  Latin?  Greek?  Hebrews?

Don't use the KJV as an argument. The fact that bowels is the translation into English they used does not mean it is the best translation even if it remains the best translation for English readers.

The unpolished KJV is pointing to something very un-Greek and something very-Semitic in the Greek manuscripts:

Strong's Concordance 4698. splagchnon
https://biblehub.com/greek/4698.htm
splagchnon: the inward parts (heart, liver, lungs, etc.), fig. the emotions
Original Word: σπλάγχνα, ων, τά
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: splagchnon
Phonetic Spelling: (splangkh'-non)
Short Definition: bowels, compassion, pity
Definition: the inward parts; the heart, affections, seat of the feelings.
HELPS Word-studies
4698 splágxnon – properly, the internal organs ("viscera"); (figuratively) "gut-level compassion" (visceral feelings); the capacity to feel deep emotions (sympathy, empathy, etc.) ....
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4698: σπλάγχνον
σπλάγχνον, σπλαγχνου, τό, and (only so in the N. T.) plural σπλάγχνα, σπλάγχνων, τά, Hebrew רַחֲמִים, bowels, intestines (the heart, lungs, liver, etc.);
a. properly: Acts 1:18 (2 Macc. 9:5f; 4 Macc. 5:29, and in Greek writings from Homer down).
b. in the Greek poets from Aeschylus down the bowels were regarded as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of the tenderer affections, especially kindness, benevolence, compassion (cf. Lightfoot on Philippians 1:8; Winers Grammar, 18); hence, equivalent to our heart (tender mercies, affections, etc. ....

So I don't know if 'bowels' would be readily understood by a speaker of Greek or not because I don't know their idioms.

See above.

I know that we are translating from the Greek text so that's what we think the Greek version says what ever you think an imagined Aramaic version says.

When the KJV speaks of kidneys, hearts, bowels, faces, and eyes-- as did Hebrew-speakers often-- that's an invitation to take a closer look at the Greek.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Greek wasn't translated to Aramaic and then into Arabic and historically even the most faithful recopying tends to produce errors.

The Greek mss. have numerous errors.  The Aramaic mss., not so much.

Idioms again, I don't know what idioms the Greeks would or wouldn't know but I suspect Paul might use them without thinking.

I'm sure that 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' Paul did "use them without thinking.

I am open to the possibility to that the fact that Matthew was original written in Hebrew or Aramaic because he was writing to a Hebrew audience.  The same is true for the Epistle to the Hebrews, that being in Greek is strange.

OK.

But mark is taken to be written to Gentiles, Luke and Acts to one specific Gentile, these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic not when they feel the need to explain themselves every time they put Jewish/Hebrew references in.

What are the main reasons leading you to conclude that "these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic"?
Which do you prefer:  Mk 10:51-52 translated from Greek, or Aramaic?
In the Greek, Jesus follows up his question by telling the beggar to go,
while in the Aramaic, Jesus follows up his question by telling the beggar to see.

Mk 10:51-52 (NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010%3A51-52&version=KJV;MOUNCE;NIV
51 "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52 "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you."
Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

Mk 10:51-52 (based on Younan), http://dukhrana.com
51.  Yeshua said to him,
"What is it (that) you desire me to do for you?"
And the blind man said to him, "Rabbi, that I may see!"  52.  And Yeshua said to him,
"See. 
Your faith has made you whole."
And immediately he saw, and went off down the road.

[marie glen]

It's true there was a lot of explaining Aramaic names and such.. I never really noticed that before.  :dontknow:

[marie glen]

 :Chinscratch: Jesus was called "Rabbi", that's very Hebraic.

Mark 9:49 I like better in the NASB, but the rest in the Lamsa..

I forgot about Hebrews.. but i wonder also about 1 Peter..
:Peace2:

[DavidFord]

mark is taken to be written to Gentiles, Luke and Acts to one specific Gentile, these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic

Are you OK with Greek manuscripts rendering every 'lord' as 'kyrios'?
Which do you prefer:  Lk 2:11 in the Greek, or in the Aramaic?

Lk 2:11 (NIV)
Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you;
he is the Messiah, the Lord [Greek:  Christos kyrios].
Lk 2:11 (based on Younan), http://dukhrana.com
For today is born to you in the medintha [city] of Dawid the Paruqa [Deliverer]
who is MrYa [Master YHWH], the Meshikha [Messiah/ Anointed One].

Which do you prefer:  Mk 12:35-37 in the Greek, or in the Aramaic?

Mk 12:35-37 (NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012%3A35-37&version=NIV;MOUNCE
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked,
"Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David?
36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
"'The Lord [Greek:  kyrios] said to my Lord [Greek:  kyrios]:
    "Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet."'
37 David himself calls him 'Lord.' [Greek: kyrios] 
How then can he be his son?"
The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Mk 12:35-37 (based on Younan), http://dukhrana.com
35. And Yeshua, while teaching in the temple, answered and said,
"How do the Sapra [Scribes] say that the Meshikha is the son of Dawid?
36. For Dawid spoke by the Rukha d'Qudsha [Spirit of Holiness] that,
Said MrYa to Mari [Master YHWH to my Lord],
Sit on my right until I place your enemies (as) a footstool under your feet'.'
37. Since Dawid calls him 'Mari,' [my Lord]
how then is he his son?"
And all of the crowd were gladly hearing him.

What's your opinion of the translation and commentary below?
Acts 12:20 (based on Younan)
And because he [Herod] was angry at the Tyrians and at the Sidonians, they gathered and came to him as one and persuaded Blastus, the chamberlain of the malka [king], and asked of him that (they) might have shayna [peace; cultivated land], because the provision of their country was from the kingdom of Herodus.
[re: shayna, the Greek versions took this Aramaic word to mean "peace"; a possible secondary meaning of the word is "cultivated land"; a famine (cf. Acts 11:28) or Herod's hostility might have prompted a desire for peace, and/or for cultivated land. - based on Paul Younan remarks.  'Shayna' can mean tranquility/peace-- see Lk 11:21, Lk 12:51, and esp. Acts 10:36.  For Acts 12:20's and James 3:18's 'shayna,' it could go as 'peace,' and could also go as 'cultivated land.'

[DavidFord]

Jesus was called "Rabbi", that's very Hebraic.
Mark 9:49 I like better in the NASB, but the rest in the Lamsa..
I forgot about Hebrews.. but i wonder also about 1 Peter

What do you wonder about 1 Peter?
The Greek manuscripts contain numerous transliterations-- usually without but sometimes with accompanying definitions supplied-- of Hebrew and Aramaic words, e.g., amen.

Strong's Concordance 281. amén
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/281.htm
amén: truly
Original Word: ἀμήν
Part of Speech: Hebrew Form (Indclinable)
Transliteration: amén
Phonetic Spelling: (am-ane')
Short Definition: verily, truly, amen, so let it be
Definition: verily, truly, amen; at the end of sentences may be paraphrased by: So let it be.

What do you wonder about re: 1 Peter?
What does this mean to you?:
Mark 9:49 (NASB)
"For everyone will be salted with fire.

[WhiteWings]

Here's a great example of confused translation.. whether due to language or letter mixup I know not :gsmile:

Can a camel or a rope go through the eye of a needle? Obviously neither one.
Now it sounds more logical Jesus would use rope as the example.. than a camel! Yet how much did it change the intent of what Jesus said?

Look a bit at the context.
It's hard for rich people to enter heaven.
A thick rope has many strands, which have even more fibers.
Look at each one as a dollar in a persons bank account.

A rich man is no longer rich when the dollars are gone from his bank account.
Likewise a rope is no longer a rope when most of it is removed.

So a rope needs to become thin on fibers and a rich man thin on money.

[CST]

Personally this verse, I do like the Aramaic better.

Which do you like the best:  the long KJV version of Mk 9:49, the short NASB version, or the Younan translation of the Aramaic?

Mark 9:49 (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+9%3A49-50&version=KJV;NASB
For every one shall be salted with fire,
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Mark 9:49 (based on Younan), http://www.dukhrana.com
For with fire everything will be destroyed/ vaporized/ scattered
and with salt every sacrifice will be seasoned.

Mark 9:49 (NASB)
49 "For everyone will be salted with fire.

https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-9
9:49 ....Verse 49 has many manuscript variations. These were probably due to the uncertainty of (1) how the verse related to Mark 9:48 or (2) what the verse itself meant.

Leviticus 2:13 (NASB)
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=offering+salt&qs_version=KJV%3BNASB
Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt,
so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering;
with all your offerings you shall offer salt.

Per 2 Peter and Mk 9:49, all will be destroyed/ vaporized with fire.  (Appearing also in Genesis 1:1, 'the heavens and the earth' is a Hebraic 'merism,' a way of saying 'all things.')
2 Peter 3:7
(Etheridge) But the heaven which is now, and the earth, by his own word are set,
being reserved unto fire, unto the day of judgment and the perdition of wicked men.
(Murdock) And the heavens that now are, and the earth, are by his word stored up,
being reserved for the fire at the day of judgment and the perdition of wicked men.
(Lamsa) But the present heavens and earth are sustained by his word,
and are reserved for fire on the day of judgment which is the day of destruction of ungodly men.
(KJV) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:12
(Etheridge) expecting and desiring the coming of the day of Aloha;
that (day) in which the heavens, tried with fire, shall be dissolved,
and the elements burning shall melt ?
(Murdock) expecting and desiring the coming of the day of God,
in which the heavens being tried by fire will be dissolved,
and the elements being ignited will melt ?
(Lamsa) Looking for and longing for the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being tested with fire shall be dissolved,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
(KJV) Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

First, stop throwing various versions at us and asking us which we 'prefer' as if our preference has any bearing on which is the  correct original version. Our preference towards something is no measure of truth. Altghough on this matter the Younan is clearly my least favourite.

In many languages, that's the point and your making my point for me by quoting the story of the woman caught in adultery and saying wasn't in 'older' Greek versions but is in 'newer' ones. (I'm dubious on how these are dated) So was it in the Aramaic version? That would be neat and handy.

The story of the woman caught in adultery isn't in the Peshi tta.
Do you think John 7:53–8:11 was part of the original John?

I've always been a bit confused by the story of Jesus and the Rich Man. Jesus ends by saying that is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven. However, in at least one Greek manuscript of one of the gospels the word kamelos (camel) is replaced with the word kamilos (rope). Oh, well not I can see that, trying the pass a rope through the eye of a needle instead of the smaller thread designed for it. Yet this only works in Greek and seems about universally rejected because almost all Greek versions say 'camel'. This seems less likely if there were more accurate Aramaic versions laying around. This is Greek textual problem.

"this only works in Greek"
gmla:  1. camel/camels. 2. rope/ coarse thread.
Mt 19:23, based on Younan, http://dukhrana.com
Yeshua then said l'talmiduhi [to his students],
"Amain I say to you that,
it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
24. And again I say to you that
it is easier l'gmla [for a rope] to enter into the eye of a needle
than (for) a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Allaha."

Most translations into Greek have "camel" instead of "rope." Observes Barnstone (2012), 19, "In converting an Aramaic proverb into Greek, through a misreading. . . a 'course thread' became a 'camel,' fortuitously creating a wondrous metaphor."
At least one Greek manuscript has the Aramaic correctly translated:

Bailey, Kenneth E. 1976, 1980. __Poet & Peasant_ and _Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables of Luke__ (MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 238pp. & 187pp. On 165 of the 2nd half:
"Rather than _kamelon_, if we read _kamilon_ (as some ancient manuscripts give us) we are not talking about a large, four-footed animal but rather a rope."

1. Paul was writing to Gentiles who would not have had Hebrew or Hebrew based languages as their first language.
2. Paul was big on the fact that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to become jews to become Christians, so there would be no reason for them to learn Hebrew or Hebrew based languages.
3. The were mostly historically Greek cities historically Greek influence on their culture.
4. One of them was Rome and the Romans would definitely speak Latin as its first language and maybe Greek as a second.

Do you think the book of Romans was originally written in:  Latin?  Greek?  Hebrews?

Don't use the KJV as an argument. The fact that bowels is the translation into English they used does not mean it is the best translation even if it remains the best translation for English readers.

The unpolished KJV is pointing to something very un-Greek and something very-Semitic in the Greek manuscripts:

Strong's Concordance 4698. splagchnon
https://biblehub.com/greek/4698.htm
splagchnon: the inward parts (heart, liver, lungs, etc.), fig. the emotions
Original Word: σπλάγχνα, ων, τά
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: splagchnon
Phonetic Spelling: (splangkh'-non)
Short Definition: bowels, compassion, pity
Definition: the inward parts; the heart, affections, seat of the feelings.
HELPS Word-studies
4698 splágxnon – properly, the internal organs ("viscera"); (figuratively) "gut-level compassion" (visceral feelings); the capacity to feel deep emotions (sympathy, empathy, etc.) ....
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4698: σπλάγχνον
σπλάγχνον, σπλαγχνου, τό, and (only so in the N. T.) plural σπλάγχνα, σπλάγχνων, τά, Hebrew רַחֲמִים, bowels, intestines (the heart, lungs, liver, etc.);
a. properly: Acts 1:18 (2 Macc. 9:5f; 4 Macc. 5:29, and in Greek writings from Homer down).
b. in the Greek poets from Aeschylus down the bowels were regarded as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of the tenderer affections, especially kindness, benevolence, compassion (cf. Lightfoot on Philippians 1:8; Winers Grammar, 18); hence, equivalent to our heart (tender mercies, affections, etc. ....

So I don't know if 'bowels' would be readily understood by a speaker of Greek or not because I don't know their idioms.

See above.

I know that we are translating from the Greek text so that's what we think the Greek version says what ever you think an imagined Aramaic version says.

When the KJV speaks of kidneys, hearts, bowels, faces, and eyes-- as did Hebrew-speakers often-- that's an invitation to take a closer look at the Greek.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Greek wasn't translated to Aramaic and then into Arabic and historically even the most faithful recopying tends to produce errors.

The Greek mss. have numerous errors.  The Aramaic mss., not so much.

Idioms again, I don't know what idioms the Greeks would or wouldn't know but I suspect Paul might use them without thinking.

I'm sure that 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' Paul did "use them without thinking.

I am open to the possibility to that the fact that Matthew was original written in Hebrew or Aramaic because he was writing to a Hebrew audience.  The same is true for the Epistle to the Hebrews, that being in Greek is strange.

OK.

But mark is taken to be written to Gentiles, Luke and Acts to one specific Gentile, these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic not when they feel the need to explain themselves every time they put Jewish/Hebrew references in.

What are the main reasons leading you to conclude that "these aren't likely to be originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic"?
Which do you prefer:  Mk 10:51-52 translated from Greek, or Aramaic?
In the Greek, Jesus follows up his question by telling the beggar to go,
while in the Aramaic, Jesus follows up his question by telling the beggar to see.

Mk 10:51-52 (NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2010%3A51-52&version=KJV;MOUNCE;NIV
51 "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52 "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you."
Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

Mk 10:51-52 (based on Younan), http://dukhrana.com
51.  Yeshua said to him,
"What is it (that) you desire me to do for you?"
And the blind man said to him, "Rabbi, that I may see!"  52.  And Yeshua said to him,
"See. 
Your faith has made you whole."
And immediately he saw, and went off down the road.

Do I think the story of the woman caught in adultery is in the original? More to the point how much does it matter if it isn't? That is isn't in the Pecrapta is interesting but what's most interesting is that it's in multiple versions of John and at least one of Luke have been written which it seems to have been added to.

That suggests that on at least three occasions three different communities have felt compelled to add this to there texts but didn't know where to put it. It's also possible that it was put in the original, removed by someone who question it veracity of wondered why the Pharisees were listening to Jesus, if they're actually free to stone the woman for adultery they don't need Jesus' permission. It's possible that the people who translated the Greek to the Aramaic that became the Pecrapta didn't have a version with it in or else where part of a tradition that doubted its veracity. It absence from certain manuscripts, even the earliest, is not necessarily final proof it should not be there.

Useful to know that the Aramaic appears to say rope. But I should point out that this feature seems only to be found in Greek versions of Matthew, which as I say, I'm slightly more inclined to believe has Hebrew or Aramaic roots.

I believe Romans was originally written in Greek. I don't think there's any suggestion by anyone it was originally written in Latin. I don't know much about the history of Latin. Certain members of the early church may have written in Greek as a means to increase the chance of concealing the content of the documents from nosy Romans though that doesn't seem to likely because Greek documents would start sitting out like a sore thumb. Hebrew and Aramaic definitely would.

It's possible Paul did write his epistles in Aramaic but immediately had them translated into Greek before transmission. The Aramaic ones were never intended to be seen or read by anyone other than the translator which may also have been Paul.

I don't have that much trouble understanding the 'bowels' idioms when translated into English why to you suppose the Greeks would? My point about idioms here is that Paul may have used them because they came naturally to them without realizing that they might not make as much sense to his Greek audience. And anyway, I don't think his Greek speaking readers were likely to be in a complete vacuum in regards to Hebrew and Aramaic. At least some of the people sustaining and running the church would likely have such roots and fill them in.

The Greek manuscripts seem to vastly outnumber the Aramaic ones. Obviously in those incidents the incidence of errors increase. After all most errors are spotted by comparing where the Greek manuscripts disagree.

I've told you many of my main reasons for believing the Greek provenance of the books of the New Testament. The Greek of the people they were originally sent to and the number of times Hebrew references are explained to that audience in them. That and I don't think all the atheist scholars out there are invested in saying they were originally in Greek if the evidence suggests otherwise.

As for your comparative example? i see no significant difference that couldn't be put down by how different translators chose to express the passage in English. For all I know the translation you have given for the Aramaic another translator may think just as valid for the Greek.

[lastpost]

Once there were two young friends who enjoyed reading stories and poetry. When they were a little older, one of the friends travelled to another country because there was much work there.

Many years later the friend returned to his childhood home and met his old friend, now a farmer, for the first time in 15 years.

"How did you cope with being away from your friends and family for so long?" said the farmer friend.

"Oh, I was fine, I made friends with the locals and I also had a most wonderful book full of stories with rhymes, teasing alternative meanings, and cultural treasures, which kept me fully enthralled for many a night!" replied the friend enthusiastically, and he sold it to his friend for a sack of corn.

When the friend took his new book home to read, he discovered it was in the language of the country that his friend had lived in for 15 years, so he took it to the baker's wife who was from that country, and after a few months she had translated it for him in exchange for a sack of barley.

Now, after many weeks of reading, the farmer was most disappointed with his new book, and he was even more unhappy with his old friend. He thought to himself:

"How mediocre this book is, there is no poetry in it, no depth or richness in the words, and I find what there are of cultural messages to be flat and unexciting. My friend has surely become a dishonest fox while he has been away. I now have 2 books that are good for nothing except to light my evening fire". And, with that, he placed the books on the hearth and set a flame to them.

.

[MusicLover123]

Once there were two young friends who enjoyed reading stories and poetry. When they were a little older, one of the friends travelled to another country because there was much work there.

Many years later the friend returned to his childhood home and met his old friend, now a farmer, for the first time in 15 years.

"How did you cope with being away from your friends and family for so long?" said the farmer friend.

"Oh, I was fine, I made friends with the locals and I also had a most wonderful book full of stories with rhymes, teasing alternative meanings, and cultural treasures, which kept me fully enthralled for many a night!" replied the friend enthusiastically, and he sold it to his friend for a sack of corn.

When the friend took his new book home to read, he discovered it was in the language of the country that his friend had lived in for 15 years, so he took it to the baker's wife who was from that country, and after a few months she had translated it for him in exchange for a sack of barley.

Now, after many weeks of reading, the farmer was most disappointed with his new book, and he was even more unhappy with his old friend. He thought to himself:

"What mediocre this book is, there is no poetry in it, no depth or richness in the words, and I find what there are of cultural messages to be flat and unexciting. My friend has surely become a dishonest fox while he has been away. I now have 2 books that are good for nothing except to light my evening fire". And, with that, he placed the books on the hearth and set a flame to them.

Is this a true story?

[lastpost]

As far as I know it is not based on fact.

[jabcat]

I just noticed my iphone auto-corrected Pecrapta / Pe$hitta in one of my replies to read Pecrapta - I can only imagine the confusion if you read it..

I think I will take that word out of the forum filter.  More likely to show up in this usage as the other I would guess.  We'll see how it goes :)