Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translation of KYRIOS in Syriac, article
Shlama Akhay:

I have just found this article in the "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0bw[/font] ??? (Hey, Paul: how do you think about this transliteration of ???web??? in Aramaic? <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> ):
???La traduction de KYRIOS en syriaque???, by Alain-Georges Martin in this link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
It???s the recent digital version of the article published (in French) some time ago in the journal Filolog??a Neotestamentaria 12 (1999) 25-54.
There???s an English summary at the end:
???One particularity of the Syriac versions of the New Testament is the translation of the Greek word KYRIOS by various words. Is the criterion (a) for selecting these various theological translations to show the godhead of Christ? It should be possible to argue so: KYRIOS designating Jesus is expressed by morio which translates YHWH in the Old Testament, but more frequently, the word moran is found, and in another few instances ???God??? or ???Jesus???. Prudence is required when discerning between a theological intent, a cultural sensibility peculiar to Syriac language or the line of least resistance in the general rules and in their exceptions???.
As you can see, it???s written as from the Zorbans perspective. I encourage any of you who knows French to study it and try to reverse the argument (argumentum ???ad hominem???)... I???ll certainly do in the next days, with the promise of sharing my conclusions with you, but it would be nice to have several opinions. The lists of occurrences of the different words that ???translate???- according Monsieur Martin- the word KYRIOS (mory, morio, moran, etc.) in the Syriac NT are easily comprehensible even in French, I guess. I wonder if this is the kind of matter where the ???Codes??? method of Rev. Bausch should be quite useful...
WARNING: The article ails from an ???original sin???: the Author explains from the beginning that he has studied the ???Vetus Syra??? mss (???Old Scratch???), both Curetonian and Sinaitic palimpsest, but I think it worth to discuss it anyway. He also mentions that ???the Harklean, a later version, extremely dependent from Greek (sic), has generalized the use of MORIO to designate Jesus, consequently eliminating the nuances furnished by the former versions??? (the translation is mine, and also the ???sic???).
The basic question would be: Which one is the original, the Aramaic diversity or the simplicity (not necessarily equal to poverty) of the Greek Kyrios?
Somebody joining? Bon courage!

Ab. Valentin
Too much Akh, it is too much and too hardcore is the French <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->


Alain-George Martin Filolog??a Neotestamentaria 12 (1999) 25-54 Translation of KURIOS into syriaque

The goal of this article is to determine how the syriac versions translated in the New Testament the Greek word kurioj. In the Greek of the LXX, this word saya Hebrew YHWH which is the unpronouncable tetragammon. In the NT, kurioj is very often employed in reference to Jesus-Christ; in some case, it keeps its significance first of "Master" in the general direction. In others still, it refers to the YHWH of Old Testament. The question which arises for the exegesis is to know if Paul, by employing kurioj in his letters, wants to call Jesus, YHWH.

In the LXX, kurioj when it returns YHWH, is employed generally like the Hebrew word. Father Abel in his Grammar of the Biblical Greek, thinks ??? semitism (pages 124-125). On the other hand, in the New Testament one almost always finds kurioj preceded by an article. The rare exceptions can seem an influence of the LXX (II Corinthiens 3:16 and 17), or in the formula in kurios with limitation of Christ (II Corinthiens 2:12).

The syriaques versions of the NT employ different words, which not always the case in ancient languages.


But is an interesting read in the whole and the summary is helpful. At least it gives a bigger awareness to the Aramaic tradition. Just today I found that a famous Celtic battle occurred in, wait for it:

gbbhra aka GOWRA (0rbg - Paul's article...)

<!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> Those travelling Israelites sure went all over Europe leaving them Aramaic treasures behind <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
But yes this raises the age old issue. Multiple inheritance is almost the opposite of split words. Zorba could claim our multiple inheritance as split words... and vice versa. In our favour is that much of the Aramaic versions is so similar, we have consistency.

As for this topic you raised specifically, I think it is more likely to have many names for Jesus/God in the NT rather than just kurios, as the OT also had many names!!!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)