Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Luke written in Aramaic or Greek? | Luke | Makarios | 10578 | ||
"Some have attacked the credibility of the gospel of Luke, saying there's an error in the geneology of Luke 3:36. The problem isn't with the gospel of Luke, but with the assumption that this gospel was originally written in Greek, because the Aramaic version of Luke does not have this error. BACKGROUND Luke is the only gentile writer among the writers of the scriptures. We're told in Colossians 4:11-14 that he is a gentile, whom Paul mentions in 3 of his letters. Serveral historians tell us he was born in Antioch. Among them was Jerome, who at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-23.htm#P8102_2630446 says "third is Luke, the physician, by birth a native of Antioch, in Syria, whose praise is in the Gospel. He was himself a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and composed his book in Achaia and Boeotia." Luke is also creditted by several people as having translated the Book of Hebrews into Greek. Clement of Alexandria, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original of Hebrews, which was translated into Greek by Luke. (see Bk. VI. chap. 14), but Eusebius disagreed, saying it was Clement of Rome who translated the Book of Hebrews into Greek. One early writer advocated Luke as the translator of the book of Hebrews based on the idea that the style of the Greek versions of Hebrews and the gospel of Luke was so similar. All of these writers seem to believe Luke knew both Aramaic and Greek. The common language of Syria was Aramaic, but the language of the government was Greek. There's a letter at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-159.htm by Mara, son of Serapion (c 200-300 AD) in which he talks about how the governmental language in Syria was Greek, but most people there spoke Aramaic, which resulted in their recieving tombstones that they themselves would never be able to read. As a well educated man, there would be a high probability Luke would know both. HISTORIC EVIDENCE * The Syrian Church has traditionally maintained that the gospel of Luke was written in Aramaic. * Origen (c 210 AD) believed Luke to have been written in Greek (See Preface to Translation of Origen on St. Luke , Addressed to Paula and Eustochium at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-23.htm#P8110_2634554 ). Origen also testified to a Hebrew origin to Matthew, so he's not a biased anti-semitic source. * Jerome (c 4th century) also believed in a Greek origin of Luke, calling Luke "competent in Greek". EVIDENCE OF TRANSLATION FROM ARAMAIC TO GREEK In Acts 8:27, there is a man who is called a M'HAIMNA, which can mean one of two things. It can be translated "believer" or "eunuch". The Greek text calls him a eunuch, but "believer" makes more sense given the context. This is a strong sign that the manuscript was translated from Aramaic to Greek, and that the Greek translators picked the wrong choice between the two possibilities. In Acts 11:28 it says... The Greek version says, "a great famine would spread throughout all the WORLD" The Aramaic version says, "a great famine would spread throughout the LAND" The Greek text says the famine was in "all the world". The Aramaic text just says "the land", which could be a local reference to the land of Israel. The context suggests the Aramaic text is the correct reading, since people from one part of the world were able to send help. If the famine were "throughout all the world", as the Greek text says, help could not be sent because everyone would be in trouble. Luke has the same problem as Mark in calling Simon a "leper". Also, the next section deals with Aramaic poetry found in the Aramaic version of Luke not present in the Greek version. Luke 18:25 in the KJV says, "For it is easier for a CAMEL to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" The word "camel" here appears in the Greek as kamelon and in the Aramaic as GAMLA. The Aramaic word can refer to a camel or it can refer to a large rope. Now if we replace "large rope" in this verse we have, "For it is easier for a LARGE ROPE to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" which makes a lot more sense and probably what Jesus was REALLY communicating. The Greek text does not try to translate this word, but only transliterates it as "kamelon". Perhaps when it was translated into Greek, they weren't sure which meaning to use, so they simply transliterated it." Part 1 of 2 |
||||||
2 | Luke written in Aramaic or Greek? | Luke | Makarios | 10580 | ||
"TEXTUAL EVIDENCE While the historic evidence favors a Greek origin of Luke, the Textual evidence does not. So either Luke was written in Aramaic, or the original Greek has been lost. Because the existing manuscripts believed to be the Greek version of Luke point to an Aramaic origin. It is likely that the Aramaic version was translated into Greek and became so widely circulated, that any possible "original Greek version" has since been lost to antiquity. The Textus Receptus is a composition of Greek manuscripts that read as the majority of Greek manuscripts read, and if the translated version from Aramaic outnumbered the "original Greek" enough, it would be the version included in the Textus Receptus. ERRORS IN ONE VERSION ONLY The name "Cainan" appears in the Greek version of Luke 3:36, which appears to be a mistake. In this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding Masoretic genealogies in Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18,24. The Old Syriac does not contain this reading, but reads "Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic genealogy of Gen.10:22 and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into this family line based on Deut. 25:5-6. ARAMAIC POETRY IN LUKE Also, there's always certain amounts of "loss of thought" in originally writing something in one language that happened in another. Zechariah's prayer would certainly seem to be originally uttered in Aramaic and displays the value of studying Luke from the Aramaic. A certain level of poetry comes through that does not comes through in the Aramaic version of Luke that does not appear in the Greek version. I have to credit Andrew Roth, author of Signs of the Cross, for the following poetic observance of the Aramaic Luke. But the poetry in Aramaic is so complex, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have reconstructed it from just a Greek text." SUMMARY While evidence can be cited for some translation in both directions, the greater weight of evidence favors the Aramaic text as more authoritative. The evidence suggests it may be possible that Luke was written in Greek, translated to Aramaic, and then translated back to Greek. Or the bilingual Luke may have written in both languages at the outset. This would certainly take care of the reason for the name "Theophilus" in even the Aramaic text. But then the Greek version of Corinthians calls Peter by his Hebrew name of "Kefa", so this is not a conclusive issue. But it seems that there are enough places where the Greek version of Luke shows mistranslation from the Aramaic that its hard to accept the Greek version of Luke as having any original link to an "original Greek" version of Luke. If Luke was originally written in Greek, the Greek version of Luke we have today is not it and the Aramaic version is probably therefore more authoritative." Part 2 of 2 (Taken from my friend's essay on Luke) |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Luke | Author | ||
|
billsisson | ||
|
EMILY | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
Doris | ||
|
Doris | ||
|
Leroy | ||
|
Leroy | ||
|
dltlshines | ||
|
Raychel |