04-13-2025, 01:49 AM
What's the best way to translate the Aramaic John 1:8?
C.F. Burney (1868-1925), _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922), 176pp., on 75
amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Fourth-Classic-Reprint/dp/1331633184/
https://archive.org/details/aramaicorigi...slation%22
Now, however, we have to notice a usage of ἵνα in Jn. which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis of actual _mistranslation_ of an original Aramaic document.
There are several passages in which ἵνα seems clearly to represent a mistranslation of דָּ [i.e. dalet] employed in a relative sense.
Translate them into Aramaic in the only possible way, representing ἵνα by דָּ, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to that דָּ the sense ‘who’ or ‘which’.
1^8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ' ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.
This passage has already been discussed in our notes on the Prologue (p. 32).
The accepted interpretation of ἵνα with a telic force involves the assumption of an ellipse--
‘but (he came) that he might bear witness, &c.’
If ἵνα is a mistranslation of דָּ relative no such ellipse is required, the passage meaning,
‘He was not the light, but _one who_ was to bear witness of the light’.
John 1:8 (modified Younan)
https://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=4&id=377
Not
he
was
the light,
rather
d'n-s-h-d [he who might bear witness concerning]
the light.
John 1:8 (based on Greek interlinear)
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-8.htm
Not
was
He
the
Light,
but
2443 hina ἵνα that
3140 martyrēsē μαρτυρήσῃ he might witness
concerning
the
Light.
John 1:8 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/john/1-8.htm
He was not the Light,
but _came_ that he might witness concerning the Light.
John 1:8 (Disciples’ Literal NT)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=DLNT
That _one_ was not the Light,
but _came_ in order that he might testify concerning the Light—
C.F. Burney (1868-1925), _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922), 176pp., on 75
amazon.com/Aramaic-Origin-Fourth-Classic-Reprint/dp/1331633184/
https://archive.org/details/aramaicorigi...slation%22
Now, however, we have to notice a usage of ἵνα in Jn. which can hardly be explained except by the hypothesis of actual _mistranslation_ of an original Aramaic document.
There are several passages in which ἵνα seems clearly to represent a mistranslation of דָּ [i.e. dalet] employed in a relative sense.
Translate them into Aramaic in the only possible way, representing ἵνα by דָּ, and an Aramaic scholar would, without question, give to that דָּ the sense ‘who’ or ‘which’.
1^8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ' ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.
This passage has already been discussed in our notes on the Prologue (p. 32).
The accepted interpretation of ἵνα with a telic force involves the assumption of an ellipse--
‘but (he came) that he might bear witness, &c.’
If ἵνα is a mistranslation of דָּ relative no such ellipse is required, the passage meaning,
‘He was not the light, but _one who_ was to bear witness of the light’.
John 1:8 (modified Younan)
https://dukhrana.com/peshitta/msviewer.php?ms=4&id=377
Not
he
was
the light,
rather
d'n-s-h-d [he who might bear witness concerning]
the light.
John 1:8 (based on Greek interlinear)
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-8.htm
Not
was
He
the
Light,
but
2443 hina ἵνα that
3140 martyrēsē μαρτυρήσῃ he might witness
concerning
the
Light.
John 1:8 (Berean Literal)
https://biblehub.com/john/1-8.htm
He was not the Light,
but _came_ that he might witness concerning the Light.
John 1:8 (Disciples’ Literal NT)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=DLNT
That _one_ was not the Light,
but _came_ in order that he might testify concerning the Light—