The Scriptures were written by the Jews in the Ancient Aramaic language. They were not written for the Jews only. The Lord wished that His Words be read by nations and cultures from all over the world. The Ancient Aramaic language itself is no longer spoken by any nation exclusively. In other words, it is not a national language. Paul said that the Lord silenced the language. The Scriptures were not silenced; the language was silenced -- so that the Scriptures would be interpreted one way and one way only.
What is a literal translation then? A literal translation means that the words are translated exactly as they are in the original language without regard to what they mean according to the expressions or idioms of that language. The meaning of each word is locked in the original language. Therefore, in order to do a proper translation, the Scriptures have to be translated idiomatically, in the idiom of the new language they are translated into. So the Scriptures cannot be interpreted literally if the interpretation is from the original Scriptures and the interpreter does not know the Ancient Aramaic.
So the English translation cannot be interpreted literally, because it is not the original. Only a true translation can be relied on to represent what the original Scriptures recorded accurately.
Likewise, the Greek Original and the Latin Vulgate cannot be interpreted literally, because they are translations.
Western theologians and scholars claim that Paul wrote in Greek and that the New Testament was originated in Greek, and, therefore, they proceeded to interpret the Greek Original literally. This is wrong.
Greek is not the language Eashoa (Jesus) spoke. Therefore, by definition, the words of the Lord cannot be taken literally in Greek or in any language translated from the Greek.
Eashoa (Jesus) spoke in the Ancient Aramaic language, in the Galilean dialect. His words are literally true only in the language that He spoke.
Not even the Jews can interpret the Scriptures literally in Modern Hebrew, because the Scriptures were not originated in Modern Hebrew. The implications are interesting, as how can the Jewish people today interpret the Old Testament Books regarding the Laws issued before the time of Eashoa (Jesus)? It would be like interpreting the Tales of Canterbury, for example, by someone who does not know Old English or Middle English.
Moreover, Eashoa (Jesus) redefined the Scriptures and brought them into fruition. Modern Judaism is abortive; it cannot grow anymore, without re-grafting itself to the main branch of Judaism, the branch that produced the Messiah. Everything in the Jewish Faith is tied into the Coming of the Messiah.
The Old Testament was written in the Ancient Aramaic, which may also be called Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament was recorded in the Ancient Aramaic of the time of Eashoa (Jesus). The scribes at the time knew the Ancient Aramaic language. There were Greek scribes who knew how to read the Ancient Aramaic, otherwise how could they have translated the Greek Septuagint Old Testament two hundred years before Eashoa (Jesus)?
Therefore, only the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures can be interpreted literally; all the other translations of the Scriptures must be interpreted idiomatically. There is nothing wrong with idiomatic translations, as long as they are good translations. From the beginning of my translation project, I provided the literal wordings of all significant passages and words. This way my readers could learn and compare the languages and the wordings involved. This way my readers could come as close as possible to a literal understanding of what the Scriptures said.
With blessings of our Lord.
Aug. 28, 2011
Postmortem Essays Index | Aramaic Bible Supporters Page | Aramaic Bible Password Protected Directory | Aramaic Bible Index