01-30-2008, 07:19 PM
Christina Wrote:I was of aware that the COE is reluctant to translate the Peshitta into other languages but I don't know the reason why. I haven't found an explanation in their own words, can you enlighten me on this matter? I always want to hear an explanation first to avoid jumping to conclusions.
I think the answer is probably two-fold. Firstly being Semites they are deathly afraid of altering anything that wasn't delivered exactly as it were, or adding or subtracting from the word of God. I can attest to you first hand that my translation keeps me up at night sometimes, it's full of errors I'm constantly catching. But at least the underlying interlinear will remain the same.
Secondly, the general feeling among the clergy and laity is that the only reason Aramaic has survived even in modern forms is because people were forced to keep the language going since it is the language of the scriptures. We would have switched over to Arabic or Persian or whatever a long time ago had versions of scripture been allowed in these tongues, the people would no longer be speaking any type of Aramaic. Examples of this abound, you can kind of see it with groups like the Maronites or the Chaldeans who had a much more liberal approach to translation of the scriptures. Almost everything is in Arabic now, especially as an everyday tongue.
You can see a perfect example of this approach working in India today, where the local language is Malayalam and the service/readings are "targummed" into the local language. But the priests and bishops over there are considered among the world experts in Aramaic. In fact, the only printing press we had for a long time for the entire church was based in India. All of our service books and bibles came from there. Imagine that.
Even today, in services in America or the middle east, portions are targummed into modern Aramaic, but it's never going to replace the original old language. So the same way in India they targum into Malayalam, we targum into neo-Aramaic. In my particular parish, we targum into English because we are a missionary parish.
I know that's not a satisfactory explanation from an evangelical standpoint, to be hard-headed about translating the scriptures - but it is what it is and it's served its limited purpose. Unfortunately it has had the unintended consequences you mentioned.
An interlinear solves parts of the overall situation, imperfect as it is.
Something, some part of the soul of a work, is always lost in translation. Even if it were possible to make a perfect translation (which it isn't), something is always lost. Always. No two languages, not even Hebrew and Aramaic, have the same "psyche". It's much better to allow the English (or Arabic, whatever) to guide you into the Aramaic rather than replace it. I don't want to turn into the next Lamsa.