Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: State of my Conlangs

From:Christian Köttl <christian.koettl@...>
Date:Monday, March 6, 2006, 10:47
>Hebrew for the OT, I think I can agree with. I'm nervous about other >Semitic languages being involved at early stages, but I don't have >any specific examples in mind. AFAICT, I think some of the very >earliest NT books (or fragments) involve Aramaic, and I have a gut >feeling that the letters of Paul may have originally been in Latin.
Most books of the Old Testament are Hebrew, although some portions are only known in Greek, as the Book Tobit, which does not rule out a Hebrew original, or the books of Maccabeans, which were written in Greek right away. Portions of the Books of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic. If I remember correctly, many of the later formed post-Reformation denominations do not consider these originally Greek or Aramaic books a part of the Bible and call them "apocryphs", while many older churches (eg. Catholics, Orthodoxy, Ethiopians) include them. There are slight differences among them as well, so if you want to translate even more books, just switch to another canon. The difference stems mostly from in- or exclusion of certain allegorical narrations or historical accounts. The books of the New Testament are all written in Greek, though there are some small quotes in Aramaic in there - often rendered in a Greek version right after being cited, as most of its readers would not understand Aramaic anyway. All letters of the Apostle Paul still known were written in Greek. As he was a Roman citizen, as is mentioned in Acts, it is likely he spoke Latin as well, but the only Latin works connected with his name are of a highly dubious nature and not considered canonical by anyone, as far as I know. Beware, when you search for Bible information on the internet, that many dubious groups offer very dubious information. -- Christian