Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gal 4:6. A trap for the NT ???Aramaic translator???
Gal 4:6. A trap for the NT ???Aramaic translator???.
You know? I???m getting a new (good, I guess) habit. Each time I have to speak or preach (or just meditate) on any Text of the NT I can???t help to consult the Peshitta (if somebody don???t find this peculiar, please check my profile). I always find something new, which deeply illuminates what I would think or say. Of course, I skip all the philological stuff for not burring my audience, but I???m sure that they notice the difference... (I blame this Forum for having made me become a ???Peshitta-holic??? :-)).
So, I was dealing with Gal 4:4-8 and I found something remarkable (from the point of view of this Forum). Let???s play with our imagination for a moment:

The ???Aramaic Translator??? of the St Paul???s Letter to the Galatians ???Original Greek Manuscript??? suddenly stumbled on the verse 6 in the chapter 4, finding himself in a ???big trouble???:

Oti de este uioi exapesteilen o qeov to pneuma tou uiou autou eiv tav kardiav jmwn krazon Abba o patjr

--Oops! He reflected. What should I do here? Should I repeat the word ???Abba???: 0b0 0b0 [/font]? No, that redundance doesn???t sound fine. Well, he thought, let???s make a slight variance, for the sake of literary perfection... So, he rather put: [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwb0 0b0 [/font][/font]. That genial ???Aboun??? will obviously remember my translation of the ???OUR Father???!
And he saw it was good... And smiled ironically.
-------EOF (End of Fiction).

What we really have here, in my poor opinion, in the ORIGINAL expression "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Jwb0 0b0 [/font]??? (besides the Theological deepness enclosed in it and in the whole verse as well, which I skip, considering it a matter beyond the goal of this particular Forum and so avoiding perhaps to hurt somebody???s sensitivity) is a further evidence of the Peshitta???s originality. However, allow me to grant Zorba at least one point for having preserved the first Aramaic [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0b0 [/font] (maybe because of some kind of respect for this ???Ipsissimum Verbum Domini???), although rendering inmediately the following as o patjr (The Father) for his Greek readers.
Cf. Rom 8:15 (Identical Aramaic and it???s Greek translation); Mk 14:36 [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Yb0 0b0 [/font]translated as the previous).
With my respect,
Ab. Valentin
Shlama Akhi Valentin,

Nice post and I congratulate you on becoming an official 'Peshitta-holic'! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
I think you're right. This is damaging to the false claim that the Greeks make, namely, "We were here first and this is the REAL original"..... NOT!!!

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey[/b]
I can't see it. What is the point of it? I spent a lot of work on this, prettying it up and filling in the gaps, for Miscellaneous part 1, but after all that, I realised I didn't get it...

What does this mean? How does this make evidence of Peshitta originality over the Greek?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)