[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 93 KB, 540x540, 1496426788673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16788491 No.16788491 [Reply] [Original]

How can I read the original bible? Does such thing exist? I want to read jesus parables only in aramaic. I can't find one anywhere.

>> No.16788515

The Gospel of John was composed independently of the Synoptic Gospels. The Q Source ("The Sayings of Jesus") is lost as an independent text but is incorporated into Matthew and Luke (which is probably why it's lost). One of the early Church Fathers wrote that the Sayings of Jesus were written down in Hebrew rather than Aramaic I think.

>> No.16789528

>>16788515
He spoke Aramaic, even on the cross. I'm looking for a 'sayings of jesus' in aramaic / english only

>> No.16789531

>>16789528
Going from only aramaic to also aramaic and english is retarded

>> No.16789536

>>16789531
Why do you think so? I understand that it can get lost in translation but I feel like it would still have a larger degree of accuracy

>> No.16789770

>>16788491
Read the King James Version of the Bible it is a perfect translation

>> No.16790184

source on pic related?

>> No.16790240

>>16790184
I think it's Lily-Rose Depp, don't quote me though.

>> No.16790269

>>16788491
very absorbent tongue

>> No.16790348

>>16788491
Original Bible is called the Quran.

>> No.16790374

>>16789528
What you're asking for doesn't exist. Aramaic was a popularly spoken language, but it wasn't a literary language. The Apostles and Apostolistic Fathers who recorded and collected Jesus' speech might have done so in Aramaic initially, but that collection is lost. Translation doesn't obliterate meaning, so it doesn't matter. Also, Jesus is quoted as speaking Hebrew in Acts.

>On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:
>The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.
>And the brief excerpt regarding Matthew says:
>Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.
>So, Papias uses logia in his title and once in regard to each Gospel. Eusebius, who had the complete text before him, understood Papias in these passages as referring to the canonical Gospels.

So Papias says here that John the Elder told him that Mark the Evangelist wrote down Jesus' sayings (either in Greek or Aramaic...more likely in Greek in my opinion) then Matthew the Evangelist put them in order and translated them into Hebrew (or Aramaic...I think Aramaic is more likely) and that second document (the Q Source) was used to compose Mark's Gospel, which in turn was used to write the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. (I might be misunderstanding Papias and he might have been talking about the Gospels directly rather than just collections of sayings.)

There have been attempts to reconstruct the Q Source but they've failed. The Gospel of Thomas is corrupted by falsely attributed sayings drawn from the Gnostic tradition.

There is no extant authoritative collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic.

>> No.16790385

>>16788491
The gospels are the earliest sources for Jesus' sayings and they are written in Greek. There is no original written version in Aramaic.

>> No.16790419

>>16790348
Shitty bible fan-fiction written 300 years after the Bible is the original Bible.

Sure, makes about as much sense as the rest of the Quran.

>> No.16790947

>>16788491
>Wants to be spoonfed source in Aramaic
>Too stupid to use a library
Christcuck LARPers are truly pathetic

>> No.16791137

>>16790947
And what, anon, do (You) believe?

>> No.16791449

>>16790374
>Translation doesn't obliterate meaning, so it doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Look at the quote about the camel and the needle and compare it to the aramaic original.

>> No.16791473

>>16791449
lol no it doesn't.

>> No.16791499

>>16791473
Yes it does. It should have been 'thick rope', not camel. You don't know what you are talking about.

>> No.16791512

>>16791499
lol

>> No.16791518

>>16791512
when christ says 'I am' in aramaic it was actually meaning 'the i inside i'. the also said 'alaha abaru which translates to 'become passers-by''. it's clear there's a hidden gospel when read in aramaic.

>> No.16791564

>>16788491
God I want her to spit right in my mouth and on my face then slap me around and punch and kick me. I want her to force me to lick the bottom of her shoes and walk around with her socks in my mouth
I would LITERALLY do anything for her holy fuck

>> No.16791622

>>16791518
Go read the a translation from the Peshitta version of the gospels. Other Syriac versions should also be relevant but translations of them don't appear to be available or prevalent.
https://studybible.info/Murdock/Matthew

>> No.16791636

>>16791518
>hidden gospel

Yikes.

>> No.16791661

>>16791636
>>16791622
No argument therefore i win. Keep reading fake church propaganda.

>> No.16792230

>>16791661
Schizo tranny

>> No.16793097

>>16792230
not an argument

>> No.16793567

>>16791518
>when christ says 'I am' in aramaic it was actually meaning 'the i inside i'. the also said 'alaha abaru which translates to 'become passers-by''. it's clear there's a hidden gospel when read in aramaic.

source: a fucking gnostic rite

you will to hell, demon

>> No.16794721

>>16793567
cringe

>> No.16794845

>>16788491
NRSV is a solid scholarly translation, which renders the text faithfully - the committee was small so this is a bonus.
NETS is a project of another small committee of scholars that took the NRSV base ( Hebrew translation ) and corrected it with Septuagint (250-150 BC Greek translation of lost Hebrew variant, also the traditioned scripture of Christians, the one which Paul used and the NT writers ) - resulting in a refined literary product.

As for new testament your equivalent option is David Bentley Hart translation and beyond that:
NRSV > KJV

>> No.16794901

>>16788491
If you want something close to Aramaic then I can suggest the Qur'an which has some of Jesus's sayings.
It's also the book that has been historically consistent IE a Qur'an in 2020 is the same as the first written one.

>> No.16796095
File: 170 KB, 661x716, 1431ca4a8d0c6e28d88d7ae5eff33dd763a3d1d69eec1951f88ae8b398126764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16796095

Hijacking this thread

Is there a publisher who prints the KJV but like the modern translations puts in the critical text reading and puts the alternative readings in footnotes or brackets?

I'm on board with the critical text argument but the KJV 1769 translation is so far superior for memorization and just for history's sake

>> No.16796116

>>16788491
The original Bible was an oral tradition between Jews.

>> No.16796173

>>16796116
You're thinking of the Talmud