judge

Was pauls letter to Rome written in Aramaic and then translated into greek?

Romans chapter 5 verse 7 appears to indicate this.

The NIV taken from the greek reads...

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. (doesn't make a lot of sense)

The Aramaic makes a lot more sense.

Rarely will anyone die for a wicked man, though for a good man someone might die.

The Aramaic word for righteous looks almost exactly the same as the word for wicked. There is only one letter difference.

It appears the translator mistook the word for wicked as the word for righteous.

Peter Kirby

Romans 5 Greek (RSV)
6: While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7: Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.
8: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

5:7. Μόγις τις ὑπὲρ τοῦ δικαίου ἀποθανεῖται· ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν.

Romans 5 Syriac (Murdock)
06 And if at this time, on account of our weakness, Messiah died for the ungodly:
07 (for rarely doth one die for the ungodly; though for the good, some one perhaps might venture to die:)
08 God hath here manifested his love towards us. Because, if when we were sinners, Messiah died for us;
09 how much more, shall we now be justified by his blood and be rescued from wrath by him?

05:07 LMaKSeN 7438 G'e;R 3714 A_NoW 1427 KLoI, 7196 RaWi;EeA 20310 MoAeT, 11464 KLoI, 7196 YoB,eA 7942 G'e;R 3714 YoC, 8136 MaMRaK 12441 A_NoW 1427 LaMMoT, 11463

The word for ungodly used above is RaWi;EeA 20310 [RaSHiYEeA]. You state that there is only a one letter difference between this word and the Aramaic word for righteous.

The word for "worthy, righteous, just," found in Matthew 13:49, is ZaD'i;XeA 5539 [ZaD'iYQeA].

The word for "righteous, just, upright," found in Matthew 1:19, is C'iANoA 9882 [K'iANaA].

What's the exact word in Aramaic (meaning "righteous") that is assumed to be the one with which "ungodly" [RaSHiYEeA] in the Aramaic of Romans 5:7 has been confused? I would like to do the comparison.

On the assumption that the Peshitta is the source for all the other versions (including Latin and Armenian and Ethiopic and Coptic as well as Greek), I would be interested to know whether there are any parallels to the Peshitta's Rom 5:7 in the other versions.

On the face of it, the Aramaic version gives a more sensible and less difficult reading. There are always two ways to interpret such a fact: either a later scribe flubbed up the original straightforward statement, or a later scribe brushed up the original difficult construction.

At first, it seems like Paul is setting up a contrast over whether one of us would save particular types of men, which impression makes the Aramaic understandable and the non-Aramaic obscure. But it is possible to make some sense out of the non-Aramaic rendering of the verse. F. F. Bruce writes: "There is little distinction between 'righteous' and 'good' in this verse; 'good' represents agathos, not chrestos ('kindly'). Some would take 'good' as a neuter here, as though it denoted a good cause rather than a good man, but this is unlikely. 'Even for one who is righteous or good', Paul argues, 'you will scarcely find any one willing to sacrifice his life--well, perhaps a few people might go so far as to do so--but God shows his love for us in Christ's sacrificing his life for those who were neither righteous nor good, but ungodly sinners' (cf. 1 Jn 4:10)." (Romans, p. 117)

I find Rom 5:7 to be an intriguing but inconclusive bit of data concerning the Aramaic version. The alternative explanation that a translator of Paul's epistles stumbled just as we have in understanding the Greek reading is all too plausible.

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Apologies I should have said "blameless" rather than "righteous".
The word for "blameless" is RESHYANA.
I found this link which will help as it has both words written in Aramaic.

http://www.AramaicNT.org/Site-Index/...ghteousMan.php

Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

There's also another way in which we can interpret this passage. Namely, a late Greek editor of "Paul's letter" made the meaning more difficult to understand on purpose. So, in such a case, the Peshitta preserves this passage as it stood in the earlier Greek text.

IMHO this is exactly what happened here.

I can easily accept that the Peshitta preserves this passage in a more pure form. But this isn't the same as saying that it was originally written in Aramaic.

In general, this seems like a very common case. Because both the Old Syriac and the Peshitta _very often_ contain passages that are simpler and a lot easier to understand, as compared to what we find in the parallel Greek passages. And the same applies to the Magdalene Gospel, of course.

Best,

Yuri.

judge

Hi again Yuri.


Yuri:
There's also another way in which we can interpret this passage. Namely, a late Greek editor of "Paul's letter" made the meaning more difficult to understand on purpose. So, in such a case, the Peshitta preserves this passage as it stood in the earlier Greek text.

IMHO this is exactly what happened here.

Judge:
If a late greek editor deliberately changed the text to make it more difficult to understand then how did he manage to change ALL greek manuscripts?

Lets see, yu are saying that Romans was written in Greek then translated into Aramaic, but after it was translated into Aramaic a late editor went and changed all greek copies?

This seems way too difficult to believe.


Yuri:
I can easily accept that the Peshitta preserves this passage in a more pure form. But this isn't the same as saying that it was originally written in Aramaic.

In general, this seems like a very common case. Because both the Old Syriac and the Peshitta _very often_ contain passages that are simpler and a lot easier to understand, as compared to what we find in the parallel Greek passages. And the same applies to the Magdalene Gospel, of course.

Judge:

Ok...I can show you many examples of bible difficulties being resolved by looking at the peshitta.
Can we look at these passages in the old syriac which are "easier to understand"?

By the way the verse I just cited is not merely "simpler and easier to understand". It reads differently.

But anyway lets have a look at your best example.

leftfist

why would Paul write to a church in Rome in Aramaic?

judge

Presumably because Aramaic was the language he was most comfortable with.

Have a lok at Acts chapter 21:37-40 from the NIV.


As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?"
"Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?"
Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."
Having received the commander's permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic

The Church of the East still to this day conducts its services in Aramaic.
Still to this day letters going out around the globe are written in Aramaic and later translated if necessary.

As far back as we know tis is the way it has always been done.

leftfist

The REB translation of those verses gives a different impression.

"...The commandant said, 'So you speak Greek?' Then you are not the Egyptian who started a revolt..."

Paul did speak Greek, and he spoke Greek to this commandant, and that's how the commandant knew he was not the Egyptian. And since the people he was addressing at the end of the passage were Jews in Jerusalem, it makes sense that he would speak to them in the Jewish language no matter how familiar he was with Greek.

judge

OK...so lets say Paul spoke both greek and aramaic.
Which language did he write his letter to Rome in?

I have given an example of a mistranslation from aramaic to greek.

Is there any such evidence going the other way?

What does the evidence indicate?

Peter Kirby

First we would have to agree on the text to represent the Greek version and the text to represent the Aramaic version for the Epistle to the Romans. (Then, if someone had the time, we would want to catalogue the differences between the Greek and Aramaic. Lastly, where there is evidence, we would want to look at which difference is more likely to be prior.)

I am willing to use the NA-26 edition for the Greek. For those who don't know Greek, the RSV translation can be used. (You may find it helpful to refer to Perseus with its built-in grammar/dictionary links.)

What edition and translation of the Aramaic would you like to use?

Also, it might help you to know that I have taken introductory Greek at UCI but have no knowledge of Aramaic.

best,
Peter Kirby