Is Eph 4:1 best rendered with:
“for our Lord”
“in our Lord”
“of our Lord”
“of the Lord”
“in the Lord”?
Ephesians 4:1, Matthew Poole's Commentary
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/ephesians/4.htm
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
….
The prisoner of the Lord; in the Lord, a Hebraism: it is as much as, for the Lord: see Ephesians 3:1.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambri...ians/4.htm
https://archive.org/details/cambridgebib...2/mode/2up
the prisoner of the Lord] Lit., the prisoner in the Lord.
Ephesians 4:1
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ear-search
(Etheridge) I BESEECH of you, therefore, I, the bound one for our Lord,
[Aramaic: a-s-i-r-a: prisoner, sergeant, bound; bind, fasten
Aramaic: b’M-r-n: in/with/to our-Lord/Master]
that you walk as is worthy of the calling wherewith you are called,
(Murdock) I therefore, a prisoner in our Lord, beseech of you, that ye walk, (as it becometh the calling wherewith ye are called,)
(KJV) I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
a Dutch translation at http://dukhrana.com
Ephesians 4:1 - Als gevangene in onze Heer dring ik er bij jullie op aan dat jullie leven zoals dat past bij de roeping waarmee jullie geroepen zijn,
onze Heer - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘de Heer’.
leven - letterlijk: ‘wandelen’ of: ‘lopen’.
zoals dat past bij ... - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘waardig aan ...’.
google translate:
Ephesians 4:1 - As a prisoner in our Lord, I urge you to live your life according to the calling with which you were called,
our Lord - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: "the Lord".
life - literally: "walking" or "walking".
as befits ... - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: "worthy of ...".
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
b_ prep. in, with
LJLA TargJob 2x as an independent wordבמו replicating the biblical source; whether or not the Aramaic is sensitive to any special meaning of the Biblical form is impossible to say
1 in Com. --(a) a place Com. --(b) within a structure or other enclosing object Com. --© during a time period Com.
2 with (instrumentative) Com. --(a) using, according to Com. (a.1) w. ymˀ, etc., : to swear by Com. --(b) (as opposed to "without") having Syr.
3 among Com. --(a) adjective + b_ = superlative Com. --(b) with a number: multiplicative Syr. --© w. transitive verbs: to do some (damage, building, fixing, etc.) to something Com.
4 at Com. --(a) a certain time Com.
5 to, into Com.
6 with regard to (i.e., as a general adverbializing particle w. various verbs, nouns, and adjectives) . --(a) (w. to give
for, in exchange for Com. --(b) specialized meanings with various verbs: see s.vv. šlṭ, ḥzy, ḥwy Com. --© idiomatic usages with various nouns: see s.vv. ryš, šm, . --(d) see also under various complete collocations as adverbs and preps, e.g. bˀnpy, byd p., etc. . --(e) with many verbs supplying a negative relationship to an object Com.
mry nou
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
https://www.preteristarchive.com/1958_to...e-of-john/
Aramaic is a language remarkably easy of recognition. There is a notoriously troublesome pronoun, dī (abbreviated d’), which appears constantly in Aramaic writings in a variety of meanings. It is a particle signifying appurtenance, regularly used where Hebrew or another Semitic language would employ the “construct state”; it is the Aramaic relative pronoun. More important is its very frequent idiomatic use as a conjunction. It is so widely used and so often ambiguous that it is a frequent source of mistranslation. Wherever dī appears―and it is the characteristic feature of Aramaic writing―the nature of the language is shown with certainty.* This will be dealt with in detail in the Critical Notes.
*To be mentioned also is the very frequent use of the preposition li as a particle governing either the direct or indirect object. This same preposition appears in late Hebrew, probably borrowed from the Aramaic.
No indication of Greek translation from Aramaic is surer or more certain to occur frequently than the false rendering of the particle dī, especially when it is the relative pronoun. The examples of such mistranslation in the Four Gospels are numerous and important. As typical specimens may be mentioned Matt. 8:9, 27; Mark 4:12; 10:6; 14:68; Luke 7:47; John 1:8, 16; 5:37; 12:41. As a rule the Greek translator makes dī a conjunction (unless the context very plainly forbids) when it is followed by a verb. If the verb is perfect tense, he will render the particle by hóti; if imperfect tense, by hina. The translator of the Apocalypse is very sparing of Greek particles and monotonous in his use of Greek equivalents of Semitic words.
“into the lake of fire burning with brimstone”
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
https://www.preteristarchive.com/1958_to...e-of-john/
It is to be noted that where Greek grammar is ignored, the eye of the translator being on the gender, cases, or other syntactical features of his Aramaic original, it never results that the sense of the passage is altered or obscured. The irregularity simply means: See the original text! The shadow of the warning in 22:18 f. is over the entire Greek version, and the desire to give a quid pro quo at every point is unmistakable. Where the rendering cannot be completely verbal, compensation is provided by a device serving to indicate that a slight omission has been made.
The identification of the thing omitted is particularly interesting, for it is found to be always the same thing, namely the relative pronoun dī. It is actually a demonstrative; hence so often including-- as we should say-- both antecedent and relative. This pronoun, very widely and variously employed, frequently occurs in idioms in which its value as a substantive is not lost, while the Greek rendering, to be at all satisfactory as Greek, must leave it untranslated. Even in the Aramaic itself the original force of the pronoun is often obscured. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Biblisch-Aramäischen, p. 168, note, remarks: “Wie weit sich ein nominaler Charakter des dī bei Lebzeiten der Sprache im Sprachbewusstsein festsetzte, muss dahingestellt bleiben.” [google translate: "How far a nominal character of the dī was established in language consciousness during the lifetime of the language has to be left open."] See however Brockelmann, Vergl. Gramm. der sem. Sprachen, 2, 568 f. Our Apocalypse affords striking evidence that its Greek translator felt compelled to recognize the presence of this word in all the cases in which it is distinctly a pronoun introducing a clause. His version accordingly compensates for the loss of the word by a change in the Greek case, this indicating the construction of the original text, where no other reason appears for any such change of case in the Greek. It is interesting to see how recognition of this one fact explains―perfectly―the majority of the solecisms in Revelation.
Before illustrating these changes of case, along with some further influence of the pronoun dī, an example or two of false (Aramaic) gender in the translation may be given.
A typical instance is 19:20, mentioned above in the brief list of remarkable sins against Greek grammar. The phrase “into the lake of fire burning with brimstone” has this surprising form: eis tēn limnēn toû puròs tês kaiménēs (not toû kaioménou) en theîōi. This renders Aramaic ləyammɔʾ ḏī nūrͻʾ dī yͻqdͻʾ ḇəḡūpəriṯͻʾ, in which “lake” is masculine and “fire” feminine. “Burning” is here not a simple attributive adjective, but a participle introduced by the pronoun dī (here duly rendered by the Greek definite article). This is a new clause and the gender is feminine, and it is so rendered with perfect freedom. This is the atmosphere of the entire translation.
Ephesians 3:1, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, pg 87 of volume on Ephesians
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/3-1.htm
https://archive.org/details/cambridgebib...6/mode/2up
the prisoner of Jesus Christ] So Philemon 1:1; Philemon 1:9; 2 Timothy 1:8; and below, Ephesians 4:1, with an interesting difference….
====================================================.
How should Daniel 6:18 be rendered?
"6:18 Then the king went to his palace,
and passed the night fasting;
neither were instruments of music brought before him.
His sleep fled from him."
Daniel 6:18
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambri...niel/6.htm
Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.
18. instruments of musick] The meaning of the word thus rendered is unknown. The root in Aram. and Heb. means to thrust, overthrow (Psalm 36:12; Psalm 118:13). In Arab. it means further to spread, spread out, and is also used specially in the sense compressit feminam. The ancient translators and commentators conjectured a meaning suited to the context. Theod. (ἐδέσματα), Pesh., Jerome (cibi), render food; Rashi (12 cent.), a table (cf. A.V. marg.); Ibn Ezra, stringed instruments (supposing, improbably, to thrust to be used in the sense of to strike); Saad. (10 cent.), dancing-girls; many moderns (from the Arab. meaning of the root, mentioned above), concubines. But it is very doubtful whether it is legitimate to explain an Aram. word from a sense peculiar to Arabic, and there, moreover, only secondary and derived. By assuming a very small corruption in the text (דחון for לחנן), we should, however, obtain the ordinary Aram. word for concubines (Daniel 5:2-3; Daniel 5:23): so Marti, Prince. But whatever the true meaning, or reading, of the word may be, the general sense of the verse remains the same: the king did not indulge in his usual diversions.
Latin "compressit feminam"
https://books.google.com/books?id=4RUVAA...it+feminam
to deflower a woman, usually by force
Daniel 6:18 (Peshitta Tanakh, Lamsa translation)
http://superbook.org/LAMSA/DAN/dan6.htm
Then the king went to his palace
and passed the night fasting;
no food was brought before him,
and his sleep departed from him.
A copy of the Dead Sea scrolls material, and 2 books on Daniel, failed to yield a conclusive result on the meaning.
“for our Lord”
“in our Lord”
“of our Lord”
“of the Lord”
“in the Lord”?
Ephesians 4:1, Matthew Poole's Commentary
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/ephesians/4.htm
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
….
The prisoner of the Lord; in the Lord, a Hebraism: it is as much as, for the Lord: see Ephesians 3:1.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambri...ians/4.htm
https://archive.org/details/cambridgebib...2/mode/2up
the prisoner of the Lord] Lit., the prisoner in the Lord.
Ephesians 4:1
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ear-search
(Etheridge) I BESEECH of you, therefore, I, the bound one for our Lord,
[Aramaic: a-s-i-r-a: prisoner, sergeant, bound; bind, fasten
Aramaic: b’M-r-n: in/with/to our-Lord/Master]
that you walk as is worthy of the calling wherewith you are called,
(Murdock) I therefore, a prisoner in our Lord, beseech of you, that ye walk, (as it becometh the calling wherewith ye are called,)
(KJV) I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
a Dutch translation at http://dukhrana.com
Ephesians 4:1 - Als gevangene in onze Heer dring ik er bij jullie op aan dat jullie leven zoals dat past bij de roeping waarmee jullie geroepen zijn,
onze Heer - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘de Heer’.
leven - letterlijk: ‘wandelen’ of: ‘lopen’.
zoals dat past bij ... - dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘waardig aan ...’.
google translate:
Ephesians 4:1 - As a prisoner in our Lord, I urge you to live your life according to the calling with which you were called,
our Lord - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: "the Lord".
life - literally: "walking" or "walking".
as befits ... - this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR reads: "worthy of ...".
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
b_ prep. in, with
LJLA TargJob 2x as an independent wordבמו replicating the biblical source; whether or not the Aramaic is sensitive to any special meaning of the Biblical form is impossible to say
1 in Com. --(a) a place Com. --(b) within a structure or other enclosing object Com. --© during a time period Com.
2 with (instrumentative) Com. --(a) using, according to Com. (a.1) w. ymˀ, etc., : to swear by Com. --(b) (as opposed to "without") having Syr.
3 among Com. --(a) adjective + b_ = superlative Com. --(b) with a number: multiplicative Syr. --© w. transitive verbs: to do some (damage, building, fixing, etc.) to something Com.
4 at Com. --(a) a certain time Com.
5 to, into Com.
6 with regard to (i.e., as a general adverbializing particle w. various verbs, nouns, and adjectives) . --(a) (w. to give
for, in exchange for Com. --(b) specialized meanings with various verbs: see s.vv. šlṭ, ḥzy, ḥwy Com. --© idiomatic usages with various nouns: see s.vv. ryš, šm, . --(d) see also under various complete collocations as adverbs and preps, e.g. bˀnpy, byd p., etc. . --(e) with many verbs supplying a negative relationship to an object Com.mry nou
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
https://www.preteristarchive.com/1958_to...e-of-john/
Aramaic is a language remarkably easy of recognition. There is a notoriously troublesome pronoun, dī (abbreviated d’), which appears constantly in Aramaic writings in a variety of meanings. It is a particle signifying appurtenance, regularly used where Hebrew or another Semitic language would employ the “construct state”; it is the Aramaic relative pronoun. More important is its very frequent idiomatic use as a conjunction. It is so widely used and so often ambiguous that it is a frequent source of mistranslation. Wherever dī appears―and it is the characteristic feature of Aramaic writing―the nature of the language is shown with certainty.* This will be dealt with in detail in the Critical Notes.
*To be mentioned also is the very frequent use of the preposition li as a particle governing either the direct or indirect object. This same preposition appears in late Hebrew, probably borrowed from the Aramaic.
No indication of Greek translation from Aramaic is surer or more certain to occur frequently than the false rendering of the particle dī, especially when it is the relative pronoun. The examples of such mistranslation in the Four Gospels are numerous and important. As typical specimens may be mentioned Matt. 8:9, 27; Mark 4:12; 10:6; 14:68; Luke 7:47; John 1:8, 16; 5:37; 12:41. As a rule the Greek translator makes dī a conjunction (unless the context very plainly forbids) when it is followed by a verb. If the verb is perfect tense, he will render the particle by hóti; if imperfect tense, by hina. The translator of the Apocalypse is very sparing of Greek particles and monotonous in his use of Greek equivalents of Semitic words.
“into the lake of fire burning with brimstone”
Charles C. Torrey, _The Apocalypse of John: Introduction, Excerpts, and a New Translation_ (1958)
https://www.preteristarchive.com/1958_to...e-of-john/
It is to be noted that where Greek grammar is ignored, the eye of the translator being on the gender, cases, or other syntactical features of his Aramaic original, it never results that the sense of the passage is altered or obscured. The irregularity simply means: See the original text! The shadow of the warning in 22:18 f. is over the entire Greek version, and the desire to give a quid pro quo at every point is unmistakable. Where the rendering cannot be completely verbal, compensation is provided by a device serving to indicate that a slight omission has been made.
The identification of the thing omitted is particularly interesting, for it is found to be always the same thing, namely the relative pronoun dī. It is actually a demonstrative; hence so often including-- as we should say-- both antecedent and relative. This pronoun, very widely and variously employed, frequently occurs in idioms in which its value as a substantive is not lost, while the Greek rendering, to be at all satisfactory as Greek, must leave it untranslated. Even in the Aramaic itself the original force of the pronoun is often obscured. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Biblisch-Aramäischen, p. 168, note, remarks: “Wie weit sich ein nominaler Charakter des dī bei Lebzeiten der Sprache im Sprachbewusstsein festsetzte, muss dahingestellt bleiben.” [google translate: "How far a nominal character of the dī was established in language consciousness during the lifetime of the language has to be left open."] See however Brockelmann, Vergl. Gramm. der sem. Sprachen, 2, 568 f. Our Apocalypse affords striking evidence that its Greek translator felt compelled to recognize the presence of this word in all the cases in which it is distinctly a pronoun introducing a clause. His version accordingly compensates for the loss of the word by a change in the Greek case, this indicating the construction of the original text, where no other reason appears for any such change of case in the Greek. It is interesting to see how recognition of this one fact explains―perfectly―the majority of the solecisms in Revelation.
Before illustrating these changes of case, along with some further influence of the pronoun dī, an example or two of false (Aramaic) gender in the translation may be given.
A typical instance is 19:20, mentioned above in the brief list of remarkable sins against Greek grammar. The phrase “into the lake of fire burning with brimstone” has this surprising form: eis tēn limnēn toû puròs tês kaiménēs (not toû kaioménou) en theîōi. This renders Aramaic ləyammɔʾ ḏī nūrͻʾ dī yͻqdͻʾ ḇəḡūpəriṯͻʾ, in which “lake” is masculine and “fire” feminine. “Burning” is here not a simple attributive adjective, but a participle introduced by the pronoun dī (here duly rendered by the Greek definite article). This is a new clause and the gender is feminine, and it is so rendered with perfect freedom. This is the atmosphere of the entire translation.
Ephesians 3:1, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, pg 87 of volume on Ephesians
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/3-1.htm
https://archive.org/details/cambridgebib...6/mode/2up
the prisoner of Jesus Christ] So Philemon 1:1; Philemon 1:9; 2 Timothy 1:8; and below, Ephesians 4:1, with an interesting difference….
====================================================.
How should Daniel 6:18 be rendered?
"6:18 Then the king went to his palace,
and passed the night fasting;
neither were instruments of music brought before him.
His sleep fled from him."
Daniel 6:18
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambri...niel/6.htm
Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.
18. instruments of musick] The meaning of the word thus rendered is unknown. The root in Aram. and Heb. means to thrust, overthrow (Psalm 36:12; Psalm 118:13). In Arab. it means further to spread, spread out, and is also used specially in the sense compressit feminam. The ancient translators and commentators conjectured a meaning suited to the context. Theod. (ἐδέσματα), Pesh., Jerome (cibi), render food; Rashi (12 cent.), a table (cf. A.V. marg.); Ibn Ezra, stringed instruments (supposing, improbably, to thrust to be used in the sense of to strike); Saad. (10 cent.), dancing-girls; many moderns (from the Arab. meaning of the root, mentioned above), concubines. But it is very doubtful whether it is legitimate to explain an Aram. word from a sense peculiar to Arabic, and there, moreover, only secondary and derived. By assuming a very small corruption in the text (דחון for לחנן), we should, however, obtain the ordinary Aram. word for concubines (Daniel 5:2-3; Daniel 5:23): so Marti, Prince. But whatever the true meaning, or reading, of the word may be, the general sense of the verse remains the same: the king did not indulge in his usual diversions.
Latin "compressit feminam"
https://books.google.com/books?id=4RUVAA...it+feminam
to deflower a woman, usually by force
Daniel 6:18 (Peshitta Tanakh, Lamsa translation)
http://superbook.org/LAMSA/DAN/dan6.htm
Then the king went to his palace
and passed the night fasting;
no food was brought before him,
and his sleep departed from him.
A copy of the Dead Sea scrolls material, and 2 books on Daniel, failed to yield a conclusive result on the meaning.