12-10-2013, 04:00 PM
PY-
I cannot directly answer your request for an example of a mistake that a supposed Aramaic translator made in translating from Greek to Aramaic. I can, however, give an intermediate position on why there were intentional mis-translations. The question is, "In what direction were the mistranslations and why?"
1. You are correct in EXPECTING Loan Words to occur.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.icr.org/article/92/">http://www.icr.org/article/92/</a><!-- m -->
The Scribes at Ebla, 1000 years before the Biblical OT times, were concerned - without intentional Guile and Misdirection - in providing understandings for various languages that were in use at the time of their use of what Pettinato calls Paleo-Canaanite. From his book - as I dimly recall - there were several pictographs of Sumerian words that did make it into the script. Among them a word for "Ruler" or "KIng" that I can only print here as "w". The nurses here at the home tell me that I do remember some things OK and that this might be one of those times.
2. I quoted the Mark 5:20 verse above to make a small point that Jesus is sending the Lunatic into The Decapolis. The Decapolis is a ten city league of Greek settlements and there was a Culture War going on between the Greeks and the surrounding Cultures - especially the "Jewish Culture". I assume that Greek was spoken in a group of Greek cities and that Aramaic/Hebrew was spoken as well. We should be surprised if there would NOT be a melding of languages or at least phrases here. I recently finished a book by Stavans, Resurrecting Hebrew, that gives a somewhat modern day look at the idea of "The Holy Language" and its reconstruction as the Official Language of Israel. You think there are some stiff necks arguing about Greek Primacy? Woof!
3. Which brings us to what we see today. I want to bring in Bauscher's point about "Gabbatha" again:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9MRZqY0C&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=bauscher+gabbatha&source=bl&ots=c_Fp0nqxsA&sig=EeW5TqPmnZV957WzOIZN1T2l64U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CyqnUoiCIYaNkAfv7oDIDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bauscher%20gabbatha&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9M ... ha&f=false</a><!-- m -->
Gabbatha is a "one way transliteration" according to Bauscher: "The Greek [Gabbatha] would not be mistaken for the Aramaic [Gpiptha]". Why is this important?
4. Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):
[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...
The English word "lamb" has been translated, supposedly, from the Greek word "amnos" - or a variant, see the literature.
"So, what's the problem?!??"
In one of the listings of the Greek, there is this: "The Aramaic immerin refers to lambs as sacrificial victims ( Ezra 6:9 )."Immerin"?
The Aramaic for lamb, transliterated, is "Immar"
"So, what's the problem?"
1 Chronicles 24: 6 and 14 (RSV):
[6] And the scribe Shemai'ah the son of Nethan'el, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahim'elech the son of Abi'athar, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the priests and of the Levites; one father's house being chosen for Elea'zar and one chosen for Ith'amar.
...
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,
If you look up "lamb" and "Immer" in Strong's Hebrew and other places, you get similar looking words, different only in the Hebrew diacritical markings ("Niqqud") - which only came into use centuries after the OT and NT times. Without the diacriticals, the words appear identical.
Thus, there is an automatic word-play on "Lamb" and the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer".
5. This leads to my "Intermediate Position": "Were the Gospels written in Greek?" Yes. "Were the Gospels written in Aramaic/Hebrew/ ?" Yes.
How can that be?
It is assumed that there was a "finished" NT that provided a completed set and that this set was then translated into, say, Greek. With the examples given above and others, there is another alternative and it goes to heart of intentionality. Above, it was asserted that the Eblaite Scribes wrote their dictionaries without Guile or Indirection. I believe that to be true but a dilittante may believe many things that are not true. Be that as it may, the Eblaites may be contrasted with what we find here.
We are taught that Jesus was a "Second Moses" and the parallels between, say, what is written in Matthew and the OT descriptions of Moses are of a Type. The Type is given for a reason.
There is another "TYPE" given here but it has been hidden. "Gabbatha" is a one way transliteration. "Immer" - I'm sorry, "Immar" - is the lamb of God, at least in Revelation 5. This leads to a conclusion that, IF the completed set of NT Documents were written in Greek 'First" - or, "Almost First", or "Somewhat First" - they were written that way to hide the Type that WAS written in Aramaic.
The Lunatic goes to The Decapolis. Why? "Whose face is on the coin?", this from someone who knows that faces are NOT to be placed on coins. Why?
I know it drives people crazy when I Post here at times and for that I apologize. It's just that there is something here - HERE, on this site - that is very important and I keep wanting to explore it. This "something" runs through the Mishmarot courses, from Immer maybe even back to Jannaeus and beyond. I used to write "It's there, it really is there!" I still believe it.
Thank you,
Charles
I cannot directly answer your request for an example of a mistake that a supposed Aramaic translator made in translating from Greek to Aramaic. I can, however, give an intermediate position on why there were intentional mis-translations. The question is, "In what direction were the mistranslations and why?"
1. You are correct in EXPECTING Loan Words to occur.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.icr.org/article/92/">http://www.icr.org/article/92/</a><!-- m -->
The Scribes at Ebla, 1000 years before the Biblical OT times, were concerned - without intentional Guile and Misdirection - in providing understandings for various languages that were in use at the time of their use of what Pettinato calls Paleo-Canaanite. From his book - as I dimly recall - there were several pictographs of Sumerian words that did make it into the script. Among them a word for "Ruler" or "KIng" that I can only print here as "w". The nurses here at the home tell me that I do remember some things OK and that this might be one of those times.
2. I quoted the Mark 5:20 verse above to make a small point that Jesus is sending the Lunatic into The Decapolis. The Decapolis is a ten city league of Greek settlements and there was a Culture War going on between the Greeks and the surrounding Cultures - especially the "Jewish Culture". I assume that Greek was spoken in a group of Greek cities and that Aramaic/Hebrew was spoken as well. We should be surprised if there would NOT be a melding of languages or at least phrases here. I recently finished a book by Stavans, Resurrecting Hebrew, that gives a somewhat modern day look at the idea of "The Holy Language" and its reconstruction as the Official Language of Israel. You think there are some stiff necks arguing about Greek Primacy? Woof!
3. Which brings us to what we see today. I want to bring in Bauscher's point about "Gabbatha" again:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9MRZqY0C&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=bauscher+gabbatha&source=bl&ots=c_Fp0nqxsA&sig=EeW5TqPmnZV957WzOIZN1T2l64U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CyqnUoiCIYaNkAfv7oDIDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bauscher%20gabbatha&f=false">http://books.google.com/books?id=EGEW9M ... ha&f=false</a><!-- m -->
Gabbatha is a "one way transliteration" according to Bauscher: "The Greek [Gabbatha] would not be mistaken for the Aramaic [Gpiptha]". Why is this important?
4. Revelation 5: 6 (RSV, in part):
[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...
The English word "lamb" has been translated, supposedly, from the Greek word "amnos" - or a variant, see the literature.
"So, what's the problem?!??"
In one of the listings of the Greek, there is this: "The Aramaic immerin refers to lambs as sacrificial victims ( Ezra 6:9 )."Immerin"?
The Aramaic for lamb, transliterated, is "Immar"
"So, what's the problem?"
1 Chronicles 24: 6 and 14 (RSV):
[6] And the scribe Shemai'ah the son of Nethan'el, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahim'elech the son of Abi'athar, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the priests and of the Levites; one father's house being chosen for Elea'zar and one chosen for Ith'amar.
...
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer,
If you look up "lamb" and "Immer" in Strong's Hebrew and other places, you get similar looking words, different only in the Hebrew diacritical markings ("Niqqud") - which only came into use centuries after the OT and NT times. Without the diacriticals, the words appear identical.
Thus, there is an automatic word-play on "Lamb" and the Mishmarot Service Group "Immer".
5. This leads to my "Intermediate Position": "Were the Gospels written in Greek?" Yes. "Were the Gospels written in Aramaic/Hebrew/ ?" Yes.
How can that be?
It is assumed that there was a "finished" NT that provided a completed set and that this set was then translated into, say, Greek. With the examples given above and others, there is another alternative and it goes to heart of intentionality. Above, it was asserted that the Eblaite Scribes wrote their dictionaries without Guile or Indirection. I believe that to be true but a dilittante may believe many things that are not true. Be that as it may, the Eblaites may be contrasted with what we find here.
We are taught that Jesus was a "Second Moses" and the parallels between, say, what is written in Matthew and the OT descriptions of Moses are of a Type. The Type is given for a reason.
There is another "TYPE" given here but it has been hidden. "Gabbatha" is a one way transliteration. "Immer" - I'm sorry, "Immar" - is the lamb of God, at least in Revelation 5. This leads to a conclusion that, IF the completed set of NT Documents were written in Greek 'First" - or, "Almost First", or "Somewhat First" - they were written that way to hide the Type that WAS written in Aramaic.
The Lunatic goes to The Decapolis. Why? "Whose face is on the coin?", this from someone who knows that faces are NOT to be placed on coins. Why?
I know it drives people crazy when I Post here at times and for that I apologize. It's just that there is something here - HERE, on this site - that is very important and I keep wanting to explore it. This "something" runs through the Mishmarot courses, from Immer maybe even back to Jannaeus and beyond. I used to write "It's there, it really is there!" I still believe it.
Thank you,
Charles