+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Mistranslations (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Poll on Acts 12:20 (/showthread.php?tid=573)
Poll on Acts 12:20 - Paul Younan - 11-03-2003
Akhay,
I'm starting to question my decision on Acts 12:20. I'm convinced we've got a gem in Yaqub 3:18, where "Shayna" obviously means "cultivated land."
I'm not so sure anymore that "Shayna" should be translated that way in Acts 12:20. I think there, it could go either way....I'm sort of leaning towards the "peace~tranquility" rendering there.
What thinkest thou? Please make your opinion known above. Thanks!
. - drmlanc - 11-03-2003
Both ways make sense. the first for subservience, the second for independance
- Dave - 11-03-2003
Paul, think you could cut and paste the chapters? that way the overall translation speaks to us so we can tell the difference.
- Keith - 11-03-2003
I don't know Paul, I think "cultivated land" flows better here than "peace". My vote is for "cultivated land".
Keith
A third possibility !?!? - Larry Kelsey - 11-03-2003
Shlama Akhi Paul & the rest of the Peshitta family <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ,The only thing that's stopping me from voting in the poll is a third (and very possible) choice for [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ny4[/font]
It's found in Smith's Compendious--
(b)-a treaty of peace, truce, capitulation.
What think ye?
Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
- Dave - 11-03-2003
I got off my lazy butt and looked at your translation Paul and read the a few lines to get some idea of what the passage was talking about.
I think Larry has it, a "treaty of peace."
- metal1633 - 11-01-2004
I like cultivated land because it seems to make more sense. And isnt its use in James 3:18 a word play? "Sown in Peace" a referance to both cultivation AND peace?
Re: Poll on Acts 12:20 - nashama - 11-01-2004
Hi Paul:
The literal translation of shayna, as you are aware, is peace/tranquility. The result of peace is the ability to cultivate land unmolested and therefore be self sustaining. A foot-note would be appropriate in this case, to explain this connection. As well, and as I understand that you have already pointed out, I agree that James 3:18 alludes to the preferred scenario, and if I may add, that we as believers in Christ should sow peace amongst ourselves and in this present world may freely sow the seed of the Gospel of peace as in a cultivated land.
Personally, I prefer a literal, concise translation. When the literal translation points strongly to an allusion, thus clarifying to the Word of God, a foot-note is in order.
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhay,
I'm starting to question my decision on Acts 12:20. I'm convinced we've got a gem in Yaqub 3:18, where "Shayna" obviously means "cultivated land."
I'm not so sure anymore that "Shayna" should be translated that way in Acts 12:20. I think there, it could go either way....I'm sort of leaning towards the "peace~tranquility" rendering there.
What thinkest thou? Please make your opinion known above. Thanks!
Warm Regards,
Stephen
- Paul Younan - 11-01-2004
The beauty here, of course, is that this in no way shape or form works in the Greek. But then you guys already know that and I'm preaching to the choir....
- ograabe - 11-02-2004
Lamsa has :"...peace because their country was dependent upon the kingdom of Herod for food supplies." Doesn't this imply they "cultivated land" is more appropriate than "peace". Was it war that they wanted to avoid or food dependence?
Otto
- Paul Younan - 11-02-2004
ograabe Wrote:Lamsa has :"...peace because their country was dependent upon the kingdom of Herod for food supplies." Doesn't this imply they "cultivated land" is more appropriate than "peace". Was it war that they wanted to avoid or food dependence?
Otto
I think so. I voted "yes", but apparently the majority of people disagree with us.
Peace or Cultivated Land - gbausc - 11-02-2004
This matter is determined by Psychology and not by Linguistics.
Ac 12:20 ?? (MUR) And because he was angry against the Tyrians and Sidonians, they assembled and came to him in a body; and having persuaded Blastus, the king???s chamberlain, they begged of him that they might have peace; because the supplies of their country were derived from the kingdom of Herod.
You don't ask an already angry king for free cultivated land !
Since when did a king like Herod give away free land to people , anyway ?
Romans 1:31 in the Byzantine Greek has a reading :
aspondous which relates to [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ny$ 0l [/font] ; aspondous
means "without a treaty", or "against a treaty" , probably a better Greek rendering than asunyetous, which all Greek texts have (including Byz. ,which is redundant).
Dave B
Re: Poll on Acts 12:20 - oozeaddai - 11-04-2004
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhay,
I'm starting to question my decision on Acts 12:20. I'm convinced we've got a gem in Yaqub 3:18, where "Shayna" obviously means "cultivated land."
I'm not so sure anymore that "Shayna" should be translated that way in Acts 12:20. I think there, it could go either way....I'm sort of leaning towards the "peace~tranquility" rendering there.
What thinkest thou? Please make your opinion known above. Thanks!
I don't know I think "cultivated land" might sound too narrow and concrete. I think or imagine there can be a link between the two. Kind of like what I recall about the meaning of Bethlehem meaning not only "house of bread", possibly meaning or coming from "bloodshed" or some other similar term. Possibly showing how food, or the lack of it prompted war etc.
Anyway one thing I noticed in some LAmsa translations. There can be a temptation I think to translate the verse differently. Just to show a different nuance of meaning in syriac. OR possibly to even emphasize the Aramaic vs. Greek difference. (lamsas rendering of the word, "attack" regarding Legion and the demoniac and the herd of swine, I would site as an example of that. You and the Greek rendering it more metaphorically as "entered" "went inside" etc. and that is simply easier to imagine or at least explain).
Personally I think in many occasions, Aramaic and Hebrew often is more indefite. I actually would use "have peace". And then I would footnote, some of the nice linguistic implications as a good secondary meaning or nuance.
PEACE!!!! - Vsanzcm - 11-05-2004
Shlama Akhi Paul.
I'm joining the Choir...
Considering the INMEDIATE CONTEXT...
MRD: And because he was angry against the Tyrians and Sidonians, they assembled and came to him in a body; and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they begged of him that they might have peace; because the supplies of their country were derived from the kingdom of Herod.
I think the meaning is clearly PEACE:
1. Herodes was angry...
2. The country supplies were derived from the kingdom... ??What about a cultivated land?
Obvious...
Ab. Valentin
- peshitta_enthusiast - 11-06-2004
Sorry Bro, the mistake wasn't in the interlinear, just the original post on James 3:18.