01-16-2005, 05:52 PM
January 16, 2005
I the Greek text near the end of John 1:38 it says "Rabbi (which means teacher)". The Aramaic text has only the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]nbr[/font] without the parenthetical explanation. Paul translates [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]nbr[/font] as "our Master".
It seems clear that the Greek translator felt it was necessary to explain the meaning of Rabbi. The Aramic is complete in itself.
On the other hand, the Greek primacist would argue that the Aramaic translator dropped the explaination as superfluous.
Your thoughts please...
Sincerely,
Otto
I the Greek text near the end of John 1:38 it says "Rabbi (which means teacher)". The Aramaic text has only the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]nbr[/font] without the parenthetical explanation. Paul translates [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]nbr[/font] as "our Master".
It seems clear that the Greek translator felt it was necessary to explain the meaning of Rabbi. The Aramic is complete in itself.
On the other hand, the Greek primacist would argue that the Aramaic translator dropped the explaination as superfluous.
Your thoughts please...
Sincerely,
Otto