Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Addendum
#7
Aaron S Wrote:This is hardly a translational choice...it completely changes the sentence's semantics. The pdf is correct and the AENT needs correction here: the second edition retains the error. The 'good' follows 'your works' as an adjective... AENT reads as though 'good' modifies 'and they glorify'

Shlama Ken,

Paul Younan is the one you would need to contact for possible emendations in the PDF. they are his personal literal offerings to the Body, so none else here have that authority.

as it is, remember that it is a literal presentation of the text. literal presentations of any work are going to be subject to space constrictions - if you have an interlinear of the Hebrew or Greek texts, you know what i mean. in this case, the PDF is exactly the way it should read because it is a literal work, meaning word-for-word. wanshabkhuwn, meaning "and they glorify" takes up alot of space, and so that is the only reason it looks like one complete phrase instead of two different parts of the grammatical structure of the sentence.

Concerning the AENT, Andrew is a competent translator, but every translator is subject to mistakes and transposition of words - even a brief foray into Greek textual criticism will show you just how easy such transposition can take place, and how prevalent it is in the Greek texts. it is an honor higher than any other to be in a position to translate the Word into any language, and it is also a huge responsibility. but even Aramaic scribes themselves know the responsibility and grace that has been afforded them in translation, and offer a prayer for forgiveness of error in their own works. i can personally attest to his readiness to clarify and correct any obvious mistakes in his work. i highly doubt that he intended the reading to come out the way it did in the AENT. in fact, i submitted my own proofreading findings to him after his first edition came out, and i even missed this reading in his translation. all this to say it is VERY easy for transposition and overlooking of erroneous readings when you're dealing with massive text-translations.

but as it is, for those not well acquainted with Aramaic, yes the interlinear on this site could make one think the reading is wrong, but if you understand the grammar then you would be okay. perhaps Paul could move "good" to the right a few spaces, for the benefit of those not yet accustomed to Aramaic grammar, to make a clear distinction between them, but even still, you have to be mindful of how the grammatical structure works, you might still think it is "backwards." as it is, though, there is no error in the wording of the Aramaic of the Peshitta.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Addendum - by Ozfire - 01-19-2010, 09:33 PM
Re: Addendum - by Ozfire - 01-19-2010, 10:34 PM
Re: Addendum - by Burning one - 01-19-2010, 10:51 PM
Re: Addendum - by Aaron S - 01-20-2010, 03:24 AM
Re: Addendum (Matt 5:16) - by Ozfire - 01-24-2010, 07:28 PM
Re: Addendum - by Aaron S - 01-24-2010, 11:50 PM
Re: Addendum - by Burning one - 01-25-2010, 01:54 AM
Re: Addendum - by distazo - 01-26-2010, 03:34 AM
Re: Addendum - by Burning one - 01-26-2010, 05:40 AM
Re: Addendum - by Aaron S - 02-04-2010, 10:26 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)