Several sections of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic. With the Old Testament, we will often examine translations like the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Targumim, and the Syriac Peshitta in order to see how Rabbis and historic scholarship have translated and interpreted texts. This provides a historic snapshot of hermeneutics in some cases.

To this end, are there any historic translations of Aramaic sections of the Tanakh into Hebrew?

  • 2
    What makes your question challenging is that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the early common era. The Rabbis would seem to have had little motivation for translating Biblical Aramaic to Hebrew, as they spoke the former language amongst themselves. – Tim Biegeleisen Jan 25 '16 at 5:27
  • OP didn't specify when the translation(s) of interest may have occurred, but I suppose, @TimBiegeleisen, that caveat depends in part on how one dates Daniel. (It probably relates also to how one feels about the Hebrew sections that are there). – Susan Jan 25 '16 at 20:43
  • @Susan Also Ezra has a chapter in imperial Aramaic. – Tim Biegeleisen Jan 25 '16 at 23:19
  • Isn't the Masoretic Text version of the books that were in Aramaic not essentially a Hebrew translation of the Aramaic? – user33515 Feb 13 '20 at 18:00
  • @user33515 pretty sure the Aramaic sections of the OT are still Aramaic in the MT – James Shewey Feb 13 '20 at 23:33

Most likely thru the miscaratic texts. Is important to note that these were translations from 8th century AD. They were flawed due to the adding of dots and commas under the words to emphasize vowels. Ultimately this changed scripture and was revised in the 11th century AD. The OT was not written in modern square lettered hebrew, which is actually a mix of Assiryan and BabylonIan. Paleo Hebrew was the original text and it is much like Phoenician. Aramaic is a Hebrew like language that was the product of the BabylonIan captivity. Most Judean Isrealites returning from captivity could not read or write the original hebrew. Therefore the targamum was produced which is as accurate as a NLT. It's just a paraphrasing of the original hebrew

  • 1
    Aramaic is a Hebrew like language that was the product of the BabylonIan captivity. -- um, no. (Also, what is "miscaratic"?) (commas? nikkud, maybe?) – Susan Jan 24 '16 at 5:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.