11-18-2011, 04:41 AM
:
The other day I had spoken to Jeremy (The Burning One) a bit about this subject, and this was what he said. I'll cut and paste what he said here.
"the Aramaic text is not really an idiom like "from the calm" = "immediately," or "son of an hour" = "a little time," etc.. rather, it is more of a method of emphasizing something, and is used also in Hebrew, like in Genesis 14:10, where it speaks of "pits pits" = BE'EROTH BE'EROTH, like saying "There were MAJOR PITS there," or Deuteronomy 16:20, which says "righteous, righteous" TZEDEQ TZEDEQ, like saying "extreme righteousness." a translator could use different terms to make the reading make sense where applicable.
an English example would be like saying to your child: "You had BETTER clean your room," ...but say instead... "Cleaning clean your room." it sounds kind of odd to repeat it in English, simply because we don't normally use such a construction for emphasis in this language. but in Hebrew and Aramaic such a form is fine. now there are instances in the Aramaic when you could repeat it and it sound somewhat okay, but then there are other places where it just sounds weird to repeat it in a translation, and so you have to go for something else unless you're giving an ultra-literal rendering.
at first in my translating i went with the literal and doubled them, but it sounded a bid odd and wasn't necessary, so in those instances i've opted for appropriate renderings contextually. i had actually gone back and changed the few that i had done after reading them aloud and hearing how odd they sounded, and from the suggestion of another proof-reader -- i think i got them all but if you find any remnants feel free to point them out... that would be one of the VERY few instances where i would go that route, and since it isn't an idiom being translated literally, i don't give any notes there.
personally, i don't see it as much of a primacy evidence, but i could be wrong. just looking at a few examples from the Gospels in the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old Syriac, it is a hit and miss situation. we know that the OS are not Peshitta texts, but augmented from the Greek, and so, like in John 13:29, we find it in the OS Sinaitic, but it is not the case with the one from Luke. to me it would not fit well for a primacy evidence on this alone, but i am not familiar with much other Aramaic texts that we know are translated from Greek sources, so i would need further study to come to a staunch conclusion. i suppose a look at the Western 5 books could be helpful in this area to see if any such constructions are present.
anyhow i hope that helps sort it out a bit. there are examples of Semitic grammar that DO point to Aramaic primacy, and while they are evidences, i haven't put any in my notes because they are so profuse that i think i'd spend most of my time on the notes! they come in the form of predicate/verb clauses, conjugations, etcetera.. Paul has given a few concise examples of these online if you're interested to see what i am referring to."
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
The other day I had spoken to Jeremy (The Burning One) a bit about this subject, and this was what he said. I'll cut and paste what he said here.
"the Aramaic text is not really an idiom like "from the calm" = "immediately," or "son of an hour" = "a little time," etc.. rather, it is more of a method of emphasizing something, and is used also in Hebrew, like in Genesis 14:10, where it speaks of "pits pits" = BE'EROTH BE'EROTH, like saying "There were MAJOR PITS there," or Deuteronomy 16:20, which says "righteous, righteous" TZEDEQ TZEDEQ, like saying "extreme righteousness." a translator could use different terms to make the reading make sense where applicable.
an English example would be like saying to your child: "You had BETTER clean your room," ...but say instead... "Cleaning clean your room." it sounds kind of odd to repeat it in English, simply because we don't normally use such a construction for emphasis in this language. but in Hebrew and Aramaic such a form is fine. now there are instances in the Aramaic when you could repeat it and it sound somewhat okay, but then there are other places where it just sounds weird to repeat it in a translation, and so you have to go for something else unless you're giving an ultra-literal rendering.
at first in my translating i went with the literal and doubled them, but it sounded a bid odd and wasn't necessary, so in those instances i've opted for appropriate renderings contextually. i had actually gone back and changed the few that i had done after reading them aloud and hearing how odd they sounded, and from the suggestion of another proof-reader -- i think i got them all but if you find any remnants feel free to point them out... that would be one of the VERY few instances where i would go that route, and since it isn't an idiom being translated literally, i don't give any notes there.
personally, i don't see it as much of a primacy evidence, but i could be wrong. just looking at a few examples from the Gospels in the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old Syriac, it is a hit and miss situation. we know that the OS are not Peshitta texts, but augmented from the Greek, and so, like in John 13:29, we find it in the OS Sinaitic, but it is not the case with the one from Luke. to me it would not fit well for a primacy evidence on this alone, but i am not familiar with much other Aramaic texts that we know are translated from Greek sources, so i would need further study to come to a staunch conclusion. i suppose a look at the Western 5 books could be helpful in this area to see if any such constructions are present.
anyhow i hope that helps sort it out a bit. there are examples of Semitic grammar that DO point to Aramaic primacy, and while they are evidences, i haven't put any in my notes because they are so profuse that i think i'd spend most of my time on the notes! they come in the form of predicate/verb clauses, conjugations, etcetera.. Paul has given a few concise examples of these online if you're interested to see what i am referring to."
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy