Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Original - translation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Shlama,
Original is the original, translation is a translation.
Let us look at an interesting example.
The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew translation:
1 Peter 2: 3
Aramaic text : Mar???ya
Hebrew text : Jehova
1 Cor. 12 : 3
Aramaic text : Mar???ya
Hebrew text : Haadon


The <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- w --> Peshitta text:
1 Peter 2 : 3
Mar???ya
1 Cor. 12 : 3
Mar???ya


Ivan.
Shlama,
Yesterday I talked with my friend, he has been engaged in Hebrew Scriptures for a very long time. He reads Hebrew and Aramaic.
He told me that if to translate it as Jehova, it would hit the eyes of the Jews. I said to Him, Nick, it hits my eyes too. But, I try to face the truth. It is hard to say for Christians that Jesus is Jehova, at least for some.
During the ages the Jews were afraid to pronounce the name of God aloud. As a result we are not sure now in the right pronunciation of it. Some call it Jehova, others - Yahwe.
Aramaic language calls it Mar'ya. Although I think that a name should not be translated, but I do respect and agree with the original.
Well, brothers, share Your thoughts, please.
Here, I simply expressed my opinion on the subject that I accidentally met.
Ivan.
Shlama Akhi Ivan,

Personally, I feel it's a tragedy that the translator chose to translate Marya in 1Cor. 12:3 as "lord." It totally takes away the significance of the mystery of the incarnation of Alaha that Paul wrote about and that he revealed to us.

Linguistically speaking, there is no justification for doing so ... especially since the translator seems to know the significance of that particular title (as shown in all the other places he properly translated it as YHWH)

There is no question this person let his theology affect his scholarly work.

Very disappointed. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Paul, do not be disappointed,
They are just translations, and it makes us treasure more and more the Aramaic NT Peshitta original.
Well, let me discuss one more point. The Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages. What is the percentage of exactness of translation transmission of the text?
I was born in Ukraine, and am fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian. They are sister languages too. The both languages have words with close pronunciations and with completely different pronunciations but their meanings are 100% same. As much as I can imagine now, it is possible to translate one language into the other with 100% exactness.
What about Hebrew and Aramaic? What is their translation transmission exactness percentage? For example, the Aramaic singular and plural words are written alike but pronounced differently. How did the Greek versions deal with this? At least this point makes the Aramaic original to be irreplaceable!!!
Many Hebrew language lovers will not like this expression. So, what is Your point of view?
Ivan.
Shlama Akhi Ivan,

Ivan Pavlovich Ostapyuk Wrote:Paul, do not be disappointed,
They are just translations, and it makes us treasure more and more the Aramaic NT Peshitta original.
Well, let me discuss one more point. The Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages. What is the percentage of exactness of translation transmission of the text?
I was born in Ukraine, and am fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian. They are sister languages too. The both languages have words with close pronunciations and with completely different pronunciations but their meanings are 100% same. As much as I can imagine now, it is possible to translate one language into the other with 100% exactness.
What about Hebrew and Aramaic? What is their translation transmission exactness percentage? For example, the Aramaic singular and plural words are written alike but pronounced differently. How did the Greek versions deal with this? At least this point makes the Aramaic original to be irreplaceable!!!
Many Hebrew language lovers will not like this expression. So, what is Your point of view?
Ivan.

Aramaic and Hebrew are very close. The most striking similiarity is the shared roots, even when the words are conjugated with different prefixes or different suffixes. For instance, in Hebrew to say "peoples" you would say "Amim" and in Aramaic "Ame". You see, the root is the same but the suffix for the plural is different. If you know what differences to look for, you can be fluent in both if you already know one.

For translation purposes, it is impossible to be exact 100% because even languages as close as Hebrew and Aramaic are tend to have shades of meaning that are unique. This is even true of different dialects of Aramaic, where walking to the next village 5 miles away they have different shades of meaning and different expressions. But I would say between Hebrew and Aramaic you can achive 90-95% exactness in translation if you are well-versed in both, whereas from either language to Greek (for instance) you can only get about 70-80% exactness (at best.)

Yes, the Greek versions of the NT struggled with the singular/plural of the Aramaic. At least Hebrew has a marker "-im" for the plural, whereas written Aramaic does not. You see many examples on our forum where one Greek version has singular and the other Greek manuscript has plural for the same word. This is a dead give-way that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic (not Hebrew) New Testament.