Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ARAMAIC CLARIFICATION STATEMENTS IN NT
#1
Hi there, I am fairly new to this forum. I have been studying the Aramaic primacy position with great interest and am leaning favourably towards this position.

I have been a Sabbath keeping Christian (Seventh-day Adventist) my whole life and all of my Biblical study is done from English translations and language software tools.

I have stumbled across what I am finding a difficult question to resolve.

The Greek text of the New Testament along with the AENT have a number of places where Aramaic words are embedded within the text. What I struggle to understand is why the authors needed to provide clarification statements for these words if the Aramaic readers already new the words? I will give examples.

Matt 27:33 "Golgotha, that is to say the place of a skull." AENT says "which is interpreted the Skull"
Mark 5:41 "Talitha cumi which is translated little girl I say to you arise" AENT says "Talitha cumi (young girl, arise)
Mark 7:34 "Ephphatha that is be opened" AENT "Ephphatha (be opened)"
Acts 1:19 "Akel dama that is field of blood" AENT "Khagel-Dema that is interpreted the field of blood"

What I am struggling to understand is the clarification statements for these particular words in the text. If the NT was authored in Aramaic then why is it only these words which are clarified and not many more?

Furthermore, why is there a need to clarify the meaning of these words if the reading audience speaks Aramaic? Is seems a bit redundant. It kind of seems like me saying in English "I am going to the bakery, that is, the place they bake things"

On the other hand if this text were written in Greek, it could be argued that Aramaic words were used to give the text a bit of 'flavour'. In which case it would be necessary to define the unknown words for the audience.

I want to resolve my conflicting understanding and have the Aramaic text standing as the prime language. Any assistance to clarify would be most welcomed.

YHWH's Blessings
brendon
Reply
#2
Here is the link.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/NewTestament.pdf">http://ellhn.e-e-e.gr/books/assets/NewTestament.pdf</a><!-- m -->

And Check Page 121.
Reply
#3
carvston Wrote:Matt 27:33 "Golgotha, that is to say the place of a skull." AENT says "which is interpreted the Skull"
Mark 5:41 "Talitha cumi which is translated little girl I say to you arise" AENT says "Talitha cumi (young girl, arise)
Mark 7:34 "Ephphatha that is be opened" AENT "Ephphatha (be opened)"
Acts 1:19 "Akel dama that is field of blood" AENT "Khagel-Dema that is interpreted the field of blood"

Hi Brendon, welcome to the forum.

The Aramaic NT does not contain the glosses in Mark 5:41 (Talitha Qumi), or in Mark 7:34 (Ephphathakh). It does contain explanatory notes in Matt 27:33 and Acts 1:19, both referring to regional places where the Aramaic is not standardized (it's a local dialect that may not be understood by the broader Aramaic-speaking world.)

carvston Wrote:Furthermore, why is there a need to clarify the meaning of these words if the reading audience speaks Aramaic? Is seems a bit redundant. It kind of seems like me saying in English "I am going to the bakery, that is, the place they bake things"

Sometimes when something is written down in a specific dialect, it may differ from the broader ("koine") dialect, even in English. For instance, you may hear a Cockney say "I don't Adam and Eve it!", which would translate into the proper English "I don't believe it!" You may run into such a gloss in an English book, with the gloss explaining the localism to the broader English-speaking audience. Place-names, like "Khaql-Dama" and "Golgotha" are more susceptible to localisms in dialect.

+Shamasha
Reply
#4
So far as I have seen...here are all the places (Yes) in the Eastern Aramaic Scriptures (Peshitta) which have these clarifications, like the Greek and all other language versions, which translated from the Greek version...AND here are all the verses (No) which the Greek and all other language versions have, but which the Aramaic Scriptures do not have, being alone in this respect, since it is not a translation of the Greek text, like all other language versions are: To compare the texts, I have added the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest and the Western Peshitto readings as well.

Matthew:
27:33 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto has it.
27:46 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.

Mark:
3:17 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto has it
5:41 No (text is missing in Old Scratch) Western Peshitto does not have it
7:34 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.
7:11 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.
14:36 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it. And It reads only "My Father" (Western Peshitto does not have it.
15:22 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" has it) Western Peshitto has it.
15:34 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto has it.

John:
1:38 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.
1:41 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.
9:7 No (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto does not have it.
11:16 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto has it.
19:13 Yes (text is missing in Old Scratch) Western Peshitto has it.
20:16 Yes (The Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest "Old Scratch" does not have it) Western Peshitto has it.

Acts:
1:19 Yes (Western Peshitto has it)
4:36 Yes (Western Peshitto has it)
9:36 No (Western Peshitto does not have it)
13:8 Yes (Western Peshitto has it) -Note: Here, an Arabic name is translated into an Aramaic name for the sorcerer.

Hebrew:
7:2 Yes (Western Peshitto has it) -Note: Here, a Hebrew name is translated into an Aramaic name for the Priest.

Galatians:
4:6 No (Western Peshitto does not have it)


No = 10 times Yes = 11 times


Ten (10) times there is no clarifications given in the Eastern Peshitta & Western Peshitto Aramaic Scriptures, where the Greek and all other Language versions have them.

Eleven (11) times there are clarifications given in the Eastern Peshitta and Western Peshitto Aramaic Scriptures, as also in the Greek and all other Language versions.

Therefore the Greek and all other Language versions, which translated from the Greek text...have all the 21 occurances...whereas the Peshitta Eastern Aramaic Scriptures only have 11 of these 21 occurances...and in this it is unique to all others, which have translated from the Greek their source text.

To me this is more proof that The Peshitta is NOT a translation of the Greek...if it were...it would show, it seems to me all of these 21 occurances I have found, like all the Latin and all the Coptic versions do for instance.... and all the other Langauge translations of the Greek text version. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Blessings.
Reply
#5
Hi Brother,

Thank you for this list.

I also have made such a list where I got the result that 6 times, no clarification is given.

In addition, I would like to add to this list:

John 11:16 (Didymus / Tuma)
John 9:7 Hebrew-Syriac
John 19:13

Mark 7:11 Korban/Qurbany (Here the Greek shows a hebrew word, not an Aramaic one)


Acts 13:8 (Here there is an Arabic translation. G.d. Bauscher says
that Alumas is Arabic for sorcerer)

Hebrew 7:2 (Hebrew- Aramaic)
Galatians 4:6 Aba ho pater - Abba Abun
Reply
#6
Thanks for those additions Brother...

This brings the totals to 20 clarifications/interpretatons in the Greek and its translations. And adds 3 more as I judge, to the 6 verses in the Aramaic Scriptures where no clarifications/interpretations are given...for a total of 9 verses/places where they do not appear.

New Clarification Total in Eastern Aramaic Peshitta (Khabouris Codex):

11 Yes
9 No

As far as I know...this does not occur in any translation of the Greek NT.

Is it not more probable that the Greek version is translating the Aramaic Scriptures in all these 20 places...and needs to clarify or interpret the Aramaic terms for its readers...than it would be that the Aramaic Scriptures would not need to clarify or interpret the terms in the 9 places that it leaves be as worded?

If there is a good study on all this, I would love to read through it...if not, I think it would be an interesting investigation...as to which is more likley and why, from a language vantage point.

Certainly it seems not likey a case of scribal error, where the Aramaic Scribe of the Eastern Peshitta would have missed these 9 places out of the 20 found in the Greek text (if it is to be believed that the Peshitta is a translation of the Greek text)....but more likely, it is that the Greek Scribe has made all the clarifications that seemed best to make the meaning clear to the Greek readers...in all the 20 places where this need arises in the Aramaic NT Scriptures.

If the Aramaic is translating the Greek...then the Aramaic Scribe is deleting parts of what he would know to be the inspried Word of God...something that I don't think he would do, or his employers would tolerate....But the Greek Scribe...in adding clarifications or translations in brakets or otherwise indicating what he is doing in bringing the meaning of the source text (Aramaic)...is not destroying the reading at all, but retains all of it...yet enhancing it.. when bringing the meaning of the Language through into the Greek Language...

I say this is great proof of Aramaic Primacy.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#7
WHAT is up with Mr. Lamsa's Peshitta Translation?

In all these 9 places in the Eastern Khabouris Codex Peshitta text, where it does NOT contain the clarifications...it seems that Mr. Lamsa goes to the Greek text and ADDS them into the Aramaic Text???...he does this 8 out of the 9 times...John 1:41 being the exeption.

Can someone tell me why he does this? Or is there another Aramaic Peshitta Text which have these 8 additional clarifications... other than the Khabouris Codex and the 1905, which I have checked... where I do not find these 9 clarifications present.

Now...either Mr. Lamsa has a different Peshitta he has translated from...or his translation is a Aramaic/Greek hybrid translation...

..
Reply
#8
I checked the Diatessoran of Tatian for the 7 places in the Aramaic Peshitta Gospels, which do not have the Greek clarifications for these verses:

Matthew 27:46
Mark 5:41
Mark 7:11
Mark 7:34
John 1:38
John 1:41
John 9:7

AND...the Diatessaron DOES NOT HAVE THEM EITHER!.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

This proves that Tatian did not use the Greek text...but the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text...which is the only NT text that does not have these 7 clarifications.

What this means is, that The Diatessaron's readings proves that The Peshitta we have today was certainly around at the time Tatian used it to weave the Four Gospels into One book. This was about the year 160 A.D.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#9
Perhaps Mark 14:36 should be added to the list? If so, the count is 21 times...with 10 of the total 21 times not being clarified in the Peshitta...and Lamsa again goes with the Greek reading...and even adds to its text, words not present in either the Greek nor the Aramaic.

I knew it had its problems...but I am sorry, I have now lost all confidence in Mr. Lamsa's translation. It is in dire need of a new improved edition, to bring it into conformity to the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta Text of which it claims to translate.

But maybe he is simply using some Aramaic text that I don't know about yet?..and is a faithful representation of that text he used? One would hope that is the case, and not that he just added things into his translation, as if it were really there.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#10
Shlama,


i too am far less than pleased with Lamsa's version. i credit him with introducing the West to the Peshitta text and primacy idea to the greatest extent, but beyond that, i also don't have faith in his translation. so many out there are not what they "profess" to be. i was thumbing through a translation just last night that was giving the "Aramaic Peshitta" readings from the Western 5 as the "translator" thought necessary in the Greek translation, and just had to shake my head..."PeshittA" and "Western 5" just don't jive....


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#11
Hi Jeremy,

How do you account for the fact that the Eastern Peshitta Text (Khabouris Codex) lacks these 10 clarifications among the 21 found in the Greek text?

How would the Aramaic be a translation of the Greek, and not translate these 10 clarifications given in the Greek text? It seems to me that would be very wrong for a translator to do, if he believed that he was translating the Word of God.

On the other hand, if the Greek is a translation of the Aramaic (which seems to be the case) then the Greek scribe in these 10 instances is adding clarifications to his translation which were not supplied in the Aramaic text in these 10 places as they were given in the other 11 places in the same Aramaic text.... Maybe thinking he was giving the reader a better understanding of what was said in the Aramaic text, but that lacked the clarifications as the other places showed?

Or if not...is there any Eastern Peshitta texts other than the Khabouris, that may have these other 10 clarifications present in them?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#12
Shlama akhi,


your logic is sound to me, so keep up the good work! in the realm of textual criticism of Biblical texts, a general rule is that the harder readings is normally considered the genuine reading. expanded readings, especially what are known as "expansions of piety," are considered later additions for clarification or to remove all doubt about a particular aspect. in this case, i think the Peshitta pretty much displays an older, untainted text than the Greek manuscripts that have all these "translations." it has been shown on this site and elsewhere that in such instances where the "translations" are present in the Peshitta, that a VERY good reason is held for them that could be accounted for as being part of the original text, and not a later addition, as would have been necessary for the Greek texts.

i don't know of any Peshitta texts with all the "translations" contained in them. of interest would be to see how the Old Syriac chooses to render these particular passages from the Gospels, as they have been shown to side with the Greek time after time and butcher the Aramaic.
Reply
#13
Thirdwoe Wrote:Now...either Mr. Lamsa has a different Peshitta he has translated from...or his translation is a Aramaic/Greek hybrid translation...

Shlama Akhi,

From my perspective, it's the latter. As soon as Lamsa decided to include books that were previously not found in the Peshitta (including the Pericope Adulterae), he pretty much made up his mind to present the hybrid to the Western world. Which is OK, I suppose, but it's not accurate to call it the Peshitta...it's based mostly on the Peshitta, but not the Peshitta.

+Shamasha
Reply
#14
Paul, I got to meet and talk with Qasha Genard when he conducted the English service at Mar Yosip Parish in San Jose on the 14th of this month...and told him there was a need to have you produce or help to produce an official Church of the East Peshitta in English. I hope this can become a reality one day. What is keeping the rest of the NT from being completed for your Interlinear here?...I know we all would love to see that completed.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#15
Shlama Chuck,

I'm glad to hear you met up with Qasha Genard. I love that Qasha, he's great isn't he?

Thirdwoe Wrote:What is keeping the rest of the NT from being completed for your Interlinear here?...I know we all would love to see that completed

I don't know if the explanation will make a whole lot of sense, but I haven't felt "it" in quite a while. What that "it" is, I can't put into words. It's not what I consider to be any sort of inspiration, for lack of a better term. I find myself not able to concentrate on the task at hand, rather my mind wanders and mistakes creep in. I wind up frustrated at the end of the tenth iteration of the same passage, and rather than risk error, I walk away.

Those are the results, but the symptoms are a bit deeper. Something is just not there in my mind and I don't want to translate this way...mechanically without my heart into it. The task at hand deserves much more than that level of dedication.

I suppose I'm waiting and praying "it" returns, as much of a lazy excuse as that sounds.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)