Hi Everyone.

I am new here, but I have been lurking around looking at various threads. I think that I am gonna have a blast here, you all seem very knowledgeable and sincere. That is great!!!!!

During my lurking, I have noticed that everyone seems to put Greek and Hebrew on somewhat of a pedestal. While I understand that those are two very important languages in biblical studies, it seems that we often forget Latin and Aramaic.

What were the three churches that Peter established before all others?

1. Jerusalem
2. Antioch
3. Rome

Now, while the earliest manuscripts that we have are in Greek, that is most probably not the first language the Letters of the New Testament were written. It can be argued that the language that was used was Latin. It was the language of the Empire and the language that was used by the academics. It was truly the vernacular. So looking at the NT in Latin is also a very viable way of looking at Scriptures.

Also Aramaic was the language of the people. As the people moved about from Antioch to Jerusalem, etc. The writing would not have been in Hebrew, that is a sacred language, but rather in the vernacular of the region.

With all that being said, using Latin can be a very valuable tool, for one major reason. It is a static language, not dead, but static. Insofar as that is the case, and it is the language of the earliest compiled bibles, as Canon, not separates....the language does not change. The various understandings of English can be interpreted to be different things, but Latin doesn't have interpretive thought any longer. The language has remained the same, making it easier to interpret.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Hebrew and Greek are important languages, and I have studied them, but I do think that understanding and using Latin and Aramaic is equally important as well.


Μάιος ο Λόρδος Ιησούς Χριστός μας ευλογεί όλοι.

Cam42

I wasn't aware that he established any.

Sure....Jerusalem was the first. Acts 2:13 and following. Peter was obviously the leader of this new church of about 120. He was the one to stand and address from an authoratitve position. This was when Matthias was chosen as Judas' successor.

From there the church in Jerusalem grew and Peter was clearly the leader from the scriptures following. #1.

The next church that was established was Antioch. Acts 11:19 and following. They, the church leaders sent Barnabas to investigate Antioch. Peter clearly had the church at Antioch established. #2.

Paul and Barnabas then set out on various evangelical missions. During this time abroad Paul received word of the condition of the Christians in Rome. So he wrote the Letter to the Romans. Who established the Church in Rome? Reason would dictate that the leaders in Jerusalem headed by Peter, did this establishment. So, Peter formed the Church in Rome. #3.

St. Peter's First Letter was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (1 Pt. 5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature.

That is how we can infer that Peter, who is the recognized leader, established the first three churches. Now, this is not to say that he didn't establish more, because it is safe to say that he did. Look to the various churches he mentions in 1 and 2 Peter. I would daresay that these were also established by him in Jesus' name....as were the previous three.

Cam42

Not that it would matter even if you could prove it. Who cares who established which church?

Interestingly though that you agree that Babylon = Rome because this is taken up in Revelation and those in the Roman church are commanded to come out of it.

I don't really need to prove any of it, it is supported by scripture. And scripture is right.

Cam42

OK, but so what?

All I was doing was showing Fortigun that Peter did establish the first three churches in Christendom. He said that he wasn't aware of it, so I showed him where it was the case, supported by scripture.

That's all....it is really kinda a side note to my original thought. But it does support the fact that as well as Greek and Hebrew, we should know Latin and Aramaic so that we can be able to fully discuss source texts. I just think that Latin and Aramaic get forgotten, or perhaps ignored. My studies have shown that those languages are just as important as Greek and Hebrew.

Cam42

Aramaic, yes. But Latin, no. The Bible wasn't originally written in Latin - none of it.

How do you know? Who was in temporal control of the world when the bible was formulated? The Roman Empire. What was the academic language of the Roman Empire? Latin. What is Scripture from a temporal POV? Academic. Why would parts of it not be in Latin?

Also, if the Letter to the Romans wasn't written in Latin, what would it be written in? It was addressed to the Christians in Rome. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. The Romans spoke Latin.

Also, you are missing the point. I am simply saying that ancient texts were in Latin, unless you think that 367AD is too contemporary. Is that what you are saying? The earliest KNOWN texts are not in Latin, but that doesn't mean that the language isn't important to know, in order to understand scripture.

I am not interested in arguing over languages. I am more interested in discussing scripture.

BTW, don't judge me based on my sig. Look at what is said, and you may get the irony in all of it. "Namo dat non quod habet." I cannot give what I have not got (loosely translated)....it isn't like I am saying ave Maria gratia plena.....although I could say, Pater noster qui es in coelis and feel pretty safe here. Actually saying ave Maria gratia plena is Scriptural too, but that is not the point.

Cam42

Welcome, I like your inquiries; perhaps you are talking about some of these ancient versions?

Peshitta, Old Latin, Vulgate, and Targums.
Other versions include the Peshitta, or Syriac, begun perhaps as early as the 1st century ad; the Old Latin, translated not from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint in the 2d century; and the VULGATE (q.v.), translated from the Hebrew into Latin by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century ad.

Anyway, I have included some bible history for you enjoyment.
The Jewish Bible is the Hebrew Scriptures, 39 books originally written in Hebrew, except for a few sections in Aramaic[/b

The Christian Bible is in two parts, the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament. The Old Testament is structured in two slightly different forms by the two principal divisions of Christendom.

The version of the Old Testament used by Roman Catholics is the Bible of Judaism plus 7 other books and additions to books; some of the additional books were originally [b]written in Greek, as was the New Testament. The version of the Old Testament used by Protestants is limited to the 39 books of the Jewish Bible. The other books and additions to books are called the APOCRYPHA (q.v.) by Protestants; they are generally referred to as DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS, (q.v.) by Roman Catholics.

The term Bible is derived through Latin from the Greek biblia, or "books," the diminutive form of byblos, the word for "papyrus" or "paper," which was exported from the ancient Phoenician port city of Biblos. By the time of the Middle Ages the books of the Bible were considered a unified entity.

The Hebrew Bible became Holy Scripture in three stages. The sequence corresponds to the three parts of the Hebrew canon: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. On the basis of external evidence it seems clear that the TORAH (q.v.), or Law, became Scripture between the end of the Babylonian exile (538 bc) and the separation of the Samaritans from Judaism, probably by 300 bc.

For all practical purposes the second part of the Hebrew canon was closed by the end of the 3d century, not long before 200 bc.

The second canon—what is now the Roman Catholic version of the Old Testament—arose first as a translation of the earlier Hebrew books into Greek.

By the end of the 1st century ad, when the earliest Christian writings were being collected and disseminated, two versions of Scripture from Judaism were already in existence: the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Old Testament (known as the SEPTUAGINT,; q.v.). The Hebrew Bible, however, was the official standard of belief and practice; no evidence indicates that an official list of Greek Scriptures ever existed in Judaism.

Many of the Greek manuscripts are much older than the manuscripts of the full Hebrew Bible; they were included in copies of the entire Christian Bible that date from the 4th and 5th centuries. The major manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus (in the Vatican Library), Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus (both in the British Museum).
An article from Funk & Wagnalls® New Encyclopedia. © 2005 World Almanac Education Group, A WRC Media Company

Sure, include all of them. But I am not necessarily saying that the original languages were Latin, but rather that Latin is a viable langugage to study scripture.

I agree with everything that you say about the Apocryphal books, et al.

All I was getting at, at least in the beginning is that while Greek and Hebrew are important, there are other "source languages" that are important as well and should be studied by all who endeavour to study scripture.

Get my point?

Cam42

A knowledge of Latin might be useful if you want to study Christian thought but it won’t tell you anything more about what Scripture says. You can say the same thing about 17th century English – the KJV was written in that language so a knowledge of it will help you understand the translation a bit better. But there is no substitute for studying the Scriptures with the helps that are available to enable understanding of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Latin won’t help you with that.

The scriptures may be considered an academic study these days :-( but when they were written academia was neither targeted nor interested. Read 1 Cor 1vv17-29.

Evidence for Latin originals is non-existent.

T

I'm sorry, I didn't see any passages of Scripture which stated that Peter founded any of those churches.

Could you give me chapter and verse please?

I think I have to agree with Cam. The Targums or the pshitta can be quite useful for understanding the Hebrew scriptures because they give us insight into how ancient translators understood the text. By analyzing why the translators used one particular Aramiac word rather than another, we can make inferences about the meaning of the original text.
Similarly, a good knowledge of latin can allow one to understand how the NT was understood in its formative period. Not only what Jerome thought. Though his was the first complete translation to Latin, verses and passages and even books had been translated to latin for quite some time. Some passages of scripture are obscure and some words occur very infrequently. I think that latin can be a very useful language for translation of scripture (also, many ancient commentaries are written in Latin).

Yes, that is useful. But Aramaic is unnecessary to understand the Bible.



Why wouldn't we just use the text itself?



Yes I agree with this. I studied Latin at university myself. But I have never needed it to study the Bible, because the Bible was not originally written in Latin.

I'll try again.
Yes, the bible wasn't written in Latin. However, when creating a proper lexicon, which is necessary to translate and understand scripture, knowledge of early translations (into Syriac, Coptic, Latin, etc) are very, very helpful.
How do we know what any word means in scripture? First, we know because we see how the word is used in other passages of scripture. Second, we see how it is used in other literary works. But there is a difficulty here because the number of contemporary Greek works written by Jews is relatively small.
One of the best ways to understand the meaning of a word is to see how that word is translated into a languguage with which we are familiar. This is even more important when dealing with a set of texts written two millennia ago. Languages change and evolve. An early translation is extremely helpful because it gives us insight into how someone 1700 years ago understood the words of the text. That is why it is always best to use parallel translations. The more sources we have, the more translations at different places and diffferent times, the better we can understand the meaning of the text.

Now, this all takes place at the margins of our understanding. 99.9% of the time we won't need any Latin. But don't we want as much help as possible? I have studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew (aramaic) because at the time of Christ Latin was the language of politics and law, Greek the language of commerce and culture and Hebrew (Aramaic) was the language of the Jews. All three were important in the Empire within which Jesus lived and the early apostles worked.

Oh, and I strongly disagree with the statement that Aramaic is unnecessary or not useful to study the Bible. Remember, that Jesus would have preached in Aramaic, for the most part and would have talked to his disciples in Aramaic. Some of his wordplay doesn't work in Greek. When reading the Greek (or English) we should always keep in mind that most of the original incidents would have occured in Aramiac and that the speech patterns of Aramaic stronly influenced the writing styles of most of the NT writers. I would say for NT study that Greek is first, then Aramaic, then Latin, then French, then German.

I think you have missed the most important language, Hebrew??

Now I'm confused. If I understand you correctly, Hebrew IS Aramaic, so why do I have a footnote in Daniel saying that Dan2:4 --> Dan 7 was probably written in Aramaic? It wouldnt be necessary if it already was

Nope, Hebrew isnt aramaic

Why does 'Hebrew (aramaic)' keep cropping up?

Easy, it was the language spoken by Yeshua himself, Yeshua was a Jew/Hebrew, and the common language spoken by Jews in that day was Hebrew, not greek, latin or aramaic

Thats what most Rabbis say and believe

Hebrew was the "sacred language." It was the language used at the Temple and in Synagoge, but Aramaic was the commonly spoken language.

That is why there is a difference as is said in Daniel's footnotes. However, Aramaic and Hebrew are of the same root. The languages are so similar that if one is fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic, then he would have a working knowledge of the other. It is much like if one knows Spanish, almost immediately one will be able to comprehend Italian.

I presume that is what paladin is getting at with the Hebrew (Aramaic).



This is my point.

I also agree with paladin when he says:


Cam

Hebrew was the common language of Jews in the day of Yeshua, where do you get the idea that aramaic was their language? This was not the true language of any Hebrew.

In the new testament, generally when it says the Hebrew tongue it means aramaic. (e.g. eli eli lama sabachthani is aramaic)

There is no point in studying latin to help your bible study. For what little value you can get from it, your much better of learning greek or hebrew. Why study the translation when you can study the original?

There could be some use for latin if your a historian and you want to read the writings of church fathers in their original language, or you want to read the works of Newton, who purposely wrote in Latin so only the academics could understand him.

A lot of academics during the bible times was in Greek despite the fact the Romans spoke latin. In the church, greek was more common until around the third century.

Sorry to disagree with you, but when it says Hebrew, it means Hebrew, todays interpertations of what the language was is whats wrong. The LANGUAGE was Hebrew, bottom line, and that comes from hebrew Rabbis, who know what it was. Your source is where the error is.

It is very interesting when we get these discussions going. The other day I was translating from the Greek manuscripts 'Novum Testamentum Vaticanum' available on line from the Theological University of Conn. at http://alpha.reltech.org:8080.

They are original manuscripts without chapters or verses; a page might be marked as such:
MATTH. 28, 10- MARC. 1,9.

Which we take to mean Matthew 28: 1-10 and Mark 1:1-9.

The task of coversion is not easy as many words are given different meanings by what preceeds or follows the actual word.
ArCh tou euaggeliou
Begining of the glad tiding
iu Cu uiou qu caqws ge
Jesus Christ a son of God
graptai en tw hoaia tw
written in the Esaia the
profhth iVou apostel
prophet lo send
lw tou aggelou mou
I the messenger of me
pro proswpou os
before face of thee
catasxeuasei thn oVo
will prepare the way
sou fwnh Bowntos
of thee voice crying
en th eohmw etoimasa
in the desert make you
As these examples from Mark show youthe actual word for word translations.

The thing I am getting at is realizing what we a humans write every day. We can print the word 'the' or write it in cursive. It can be with a Capital T or if printed the cross of the t may be anywhere within the actual letter.
Some more examples are:
ajgavph agapeµ, ag-ah´-pay = love
movno" moánoás, mon´-os = only (sole or single; by impl. mere:— alone, only, by themselves
para, par-ah´= from or near; i.e. (with gen.) from beside (lit. or fig.)
autoás, au\ au = her [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with]
eágoµ, eg-o´= I, me

If you print you may one time use N like Caps the next time like n or even like nay. Gate can be like it is or like gait, which has nothing to do with a door like structure that can be open and closed.

The idea here is to be a little more understanding of what you are actually getting as the true words in the Bible.

I would ask that you read on section in particular:
Matt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

The actual rendition is "through the needles eye" which should be translated as the gate or small opening in the walls that surrounded the city that camels were required to use and had to stoop or be un-packed to get through the opening. The City gate that people entered through was large enough to walk through and no animals were allowed to use the Main gate. People did not want to step in DUNG.
:king:

For a good quick look at the difference between aramaic and hebrew, see here. The Gemara, an important section of the Talmud, was written in Aramaic, by the rabbis. It is clear that the common people only understood Aramaic, not Hebrew because of the use of targums, that is, Aramaic paraphrases of the Torah, usually read after the Hebrew reading of the Torah. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are targums, which date to the first century.
However, the strongest evidence is in the New Testament itself. Here is an exhaustive list of Aramaic words in the NT. Note that most of them are names, but it still is interesting that some phrases were left untranslated into Greek.
There are many Aramaic words preserved in the Greek of the N.T., and most of the commentators call attention to a few of them; but, from the books cited below, we are able to present a more or less complete list of the examples to which attention is called in the notes of The Companion Bible (*2).

1. Abba (*3). Mark 14:36. Rom. 8:15. Gal. 4:6.

2. Ainias. Acts 9:33, 34.

3. Akeldama. Acts 1:19. Akeldamach (LA). Acheldamach (T Tr.). Hacheldamach (WH). See Ap. 161. I. Aram. Hakal dema', or Hakal demah.

4. Alphaios. Matt. 10:3. Mark 2:14; 3:18. Luke 6:15. Acts 1:13.

5. Annas. Luke 3:2. John 18:13, 24. Acts 4:6.

6. Bar-abbas. Matt. 27:16, 17, 20, 21, 26. Mark 15:7, 11, 15. Luke 23:18. John 18:40, 40.

7. Bartholomaios. Matt. 10:3. Mark 3:18. Luke 6:14. Acts 1:13.

8. Bar-iesous. Acts 13:6.

9. Bar-iona. Matt. 16:17. See No. 27, below.

10. Bar-nabas. Acts 4:36, &c. 1Cor. 9:6. Gal. 2:1, 9, 13. Col. 4:10.

11. Bar-sabas. Acts 1:23; 15:22 (Barsabbas all the texts).

12. Bar-timaios. Mark 10:46.

13. Beel-zeboul. Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27. Mark 3:22. Luke 11:15, 18, 19.

14. Bethesda. John 5:2. (Bethzatha, T WH; Bethsaida, or Bethzather, L EH Rm.)

15. Bethsaida. Matt. 11:21. Mark 6:45; 8:22. Luke 9:10; 10:13. John 1:44; 12:21.

16. Bethphage. Matt. 21:1. Mark 11:1. Luke 19:29.

17. Boanerges. Mark 3:17. (Boanerges, L T Tr. A WH.)

18. Gethsemanei. Matt. 26:36. Mark 14:32.

19. Golgotha. Matt. 27:33. Mark 15:22. John 19:17.

20. Eloi. Mark 15:34.

21. Ephphatha. Mark 7:34.

22. Zakchaios. Luke 19:2, 5, 8.

23. Zebedaios. Matt. 4:21, 21; 10:2; 20:20; 26:37; 27:56. Mark 1:19, 10; 3:17; 10:35. Luke 5:10. John 21:2.

24. Eli. Matt. 27:46. (Elei (voc.), T WH m.; Eloi WH.)

25. Thaddaios. Matt. 10:3. Mark 3:18.

26. Thomas. Matt. 10:3. Mark 3:18. Luke 6:15. John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 21:2. Acts 1:13.

27. Ioannes. John 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17. (Ioanes, Tr. WH.) See Bar-iona. (Iona being a contraction of Ioana.)

28. Kephas. John 1:42. 1Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5. Gal. 2:9.

29. Kleopas. Luke 24:18.

30. Klopas. John 19:25.

31. Lama. Matt. 27:46. Mark 15:34. (Lema, L. Lema, T Tr. A WH).

32. Mammonas. Matt. 6:24. Luke 16:9, 11, 13. (Mamonas, L T Tr. A WH.)

33. Maran-atha. 1Cor. 16:22 ( = Our Lord, come!). Aram. Marana' tha'.

34. Martha. Luke 10:38, 40, 41. John 11:1, &c.

35. Mattaios. Matt. 9:9; 10:3. Mark 3:18. Luke 6:15. Acts 1:13, 26. (All the critics spell it Maththaios.)

36. Nazareth (-et). Matt. 2:23; 4:13 (Nazara, T Tr. A WH); 21:11. Mark 1:9. Luke 1:26; 2:4, 39, 51; 4:16 (Nazara. Omit the Art. L T Tr. A WH and R.) John 1:45, 46. Acs 10:38.

37. Pascha. Matt. 26:2, 17, 18, 19. Mark 14:1, 12, 12, 14, 16. Luke 2:41; 22:1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15. John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55, 55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14. Acts 12:4. 1Cor. 5:7. Heb. 11:28. The Hebrew is pesak.

38. Rabboni, Rabbouni (Rabbonei, WH). Mark 10:51. John 20:16.

39. Raka. Matt. 5:22. (Reyka' is an abbreviation of Reykan.)

40. Sabachthani. Matt. 27:46. Mark 15:34. (Sabachthanei, T Tr. WH.)

41. Sabbata (Aram. sabbata'). Heb. shabbath. Matt. 12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12, &c.

42. Tabitha. Acts 9:36, 40.

43. Talitha kumi. Mark 5:41. (In galilaean Aramaic it was talitha' kumi.)

44. Hosanna (in Aram. = Save us; in Heb. = Help us). Matt. 21:9, 9, 15. Mark 11:9, 10. John 12:13.
source: http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append94.html

Indeed, a plausible theory is that the earliest versions of Matthew was written in Aramaic, not greek. This is based on word-play, semitisms, poetry, etc. See http://www.aramaicnt.org/NEW/index.php? for a bit of an extreme take.

A more plausible theory is that the gospel was written in Greek but recorded oral material that was originally spoken in Aramaic.

T

It is still being debated on whether aramaic was the correct language and thats even in the link you provided Paladin. But if one asks those who should know, you find that the Rabbis believe it was Hebrew, not aramaic as most christians believe. Trouble with christianity is- They have changed so much, and away from what the Bible actually says, how does one believe they even have a good clue? We can argue about which language was spoken all we wish, but only those who have a good history about it actually know, thats why I believe the Rabbis and not linguests who are only guessing/speculating. Many things we as christians have adopted are wrong and not Biblical, Like christmas for instance, not to mention other things adopted.