Re: State of my Conlangs

>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