Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The AENT Translation Question

I was wondering if I could get you all's thoughts on how Acts 15:19 should be translated properly into English, so as to give the truest meaning of the Aramaic Text...I have supplied a number of English translations for comparison of the verse.

Younan: Acts 15:19 Because of this (I) say I you should not be oppressors to those who from the Gentiles are turning to God.

Roth: Acts 15:19 Because of this (I) say that you should not be those oppressors who from the Gentiles are turning to Elohim.

Etheridge: Acts 15:19 On this account I say, that we should not molest those who from the Gentiles have been converted unto Aloha;

Murdock: Acts 15:19 Therefore I say to you, let them not crush those who from among the Gentiles have turned unto God.

Lamsa: Acts 15: 19 Because of this I say, Do not trouble those who turn to God from among the Gentiles.

Bauscher: 19. ???Therefore I say, let us not trouble those who are being turned to God from the Gentiles."

Alexander: Acts 15:19 Because of this I say, do not be suspicious of those from the nations who return back to God.

Shlama Thirdwoe,

The Aramaic phrase "to those" is "l-aylen" ("to them", lit.) The Lamed proclitic which precedes "those" makes it clear that the previous word, "oppressors" are referring to the Jewish Believers actions towards the Gentile Believers, so therefore the phrase in easy English is:

"Don't be oppressive to they of the Gentiles who are turning back to God"

Andrew's reading is not possible, in addition to the presence of the Lamed Proclitic, since it makes the second person the actual Gentiles, and not the Jews.....and therefore clashes with the state of the verbs in the previous, current and subsequent verses.

Thanks for your insight Paul...

Brother Andrew, is this typed up wrong on your Launch site or is that the way you feel it should be translated and if so, could you explain your reasons why please?

Thank you.
Shlama all--

That is odd and not how I recall my final reading. Something may have happened after the digital print as I agree with Paul that l'aylin is "to them" and usually if I feel there should be another reading I will footnote why. The "those" appears to have been transposed somehow in the wrong part of the sentence.

It was meant to read as Paul's did:

mitil hada ana amar (because of this I say)
ana d'ela nehwon (I that not you should be)
shaqin l'aylin demin aimma (oppressors to them who from the Gentiles)
metpeneyn lwat Alaha (are turning to Elohim)

This will go in an errata file that we will also be putting up on the website hopefully soon. It has been our plan to do this all along precisely for scenarios that can happen like this one. People will be free to email me or post there any and all such issues. I thought I had it in English as:

Because of this I say that you should not be oppressors to them from the Gentiles who are turning to Elohim.

Nolt sure why that got turned around but I will find out. Sorry for any confusion, but again, Mari will be under constant review between editions online even if it is to correct spelling problems or syntax on occasion. I know I found a few minor things right towards the end but this one could have gotten by me, Baruch or Shali--but I suspect it had more to do with how the final digital editors may have moved some tiny things. Still I regret the error.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Thanks Bros for the clarity on that one...

Also, is the term 'oppressor' the best way to translate it?

I notice you both had used that, while the others used various terms like - do not 'molest', 'crush', 'trouble', and even 'do not be suspicious of.... the Gentiles...

I wonder if this is just nuance or maybe a variance in the Texts used by the translators?
And then we have these two:

Magiera: Acts 15:19 Because of this, I say, 'They should not harass those have turned to God from the Gentiles.'
Aramaic English Standard Version: Acts 15:19 Therefore I say to you, do not allow them to crush those from among the goyim who have turned to God,

As for the differences of "oppressors", "crush", ect:

Peshitta Entry for Act 15:19
Lemma: Qxv
Form: !yqxv
Dict No: 2494
Gloss: "harass"
Morphology Tag: %vNPmp-+Sxxx
Part of Speech: Verb
Stem: Peal
Tense: Active participle
Parsing: masculine,plural
Pronunciation (Western): shekhaq
Pronunciation (Eastern): shekh-aq
Strong's (Hebrew): H7833

(1) break, break up
(2) tear, crush, bruise
(3) harass, vex

Don't why Alexander choose "suspicious", I'm no Aramaic expert but from a lexical point "shekhaq" can't be rendered like that, plus it doesn't make much sense contextually. Murdock & AESV "crush" sounds extreme while Lamsa & Bauscher's "trouble" sounds too light (the passage is talking about believers from among the Pharisees). So Paul & Andrew's "oppress" and Magiera's "harass" is the most accurate IMO. Etheridge's "molest" is too archaic and sounds weird for the modern reader.
Thanks for that Christina, I think the AESV is a revised Murdock translation and not a fresh translation if Im not mistaken.

And I am trying to find an online version of Janet Magiera's, Raphael Christopher Lataster's, Joseph P. Elias's and Joseph Pashka's translations if you or anyone else knows if they exist online...

Thanks again.
Shlama all--

Thirdwoe, Baruch also sends his thanks to you BTW. We want to be as open and honest as possible about how decisions were made and understand that in some ways translations are never finished. I do think the Aramaic side is "finished" but because of how it got fixed anciently and what principles were used, etc. And again, just so it is clear, I accept total responsibility for the bad reading there. Doesn't matter how it happened--it may be more "low tech" such as typing too late at night or whatever--but we are very hopeful that this is an extreme rarity.

In terms of "oppressors" it is more a matter of style and personal choice. "molestors" implies certain things now that it didn't necessarily 150 years ago. Our culture has changed to the degree that words used by Murdock and Etheridge in some cases are either little understood or have acquired extra meanings since that create ideas past their original intentions.

Then if we go down that list of what is easiest to understand in English, I just felt "oppressors" was better than say "harassers". Just because a dictionary puts meanings in a list also doesn't mean that choice #1 is always more likely than meaning choice #4, so it has more to do with individual context than a kind of lexical popularity contest, but I am sure you know that well.

As for Victor Alexander, I have known of his translation and had printouts of it going back to like 1997. I think you will find that, love it or not, that Victor's style is just a lot more expansive and less literal than the others, including me. I have always loved his footnotes more than his base text and his tendency to targum a bit more than straight translate has advantages and disadvantages. I pass no judgment on the man at all, but just to say that you should not be surprised if Victor's readings always seem "the odd man out". Doesn't mean that "odd man" can't be right or even brilllaint. But the differences will be stark compared to the rest of the pack.

Hope this helps and again, thank you for your help today.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Thirdwoe Wrote:Thanks for that Christina, I think the AESV is a revised Murdock translation and not a fresh translation if Im not mistaken.

And I am trying to find an online version of Janet Magiera's, Raphael Christopher Lataster's, Joseph P. Elias's and Joseph Pashka's translations if you or anyone else knows if they exist online...

Thanks again.

R. C. Lancastor as far as I know hasn't actually translated the Peshitta himself, he's an Aramaic primacist but not a translator. As for the others, there's no online versions for them, I have Magiera's translation in my BibleWorks program, and it's usually the one I quote cause it's more accessible than Bauscher's which I have in pdf format. And yes the AESV is revised from Murdock's translation.

Yes brother Andrew I too believe that oppressors is the best choice there and is reinforced by what is being talked about there in context. Good job, and I fully understand about how a sentence can get mixed up, as I have done loads of typing up information on my website pages and no matter how many times I look something over before I publish the pages...I still find the occasional slip up....

I am certain that you have done a quality work overall and I am looking forward to getting my copy soon. I???m glad to be of some help along the way.

Thanks for the answer back Christina, there are a few others out there as well I see on Amazon who have the Gospels done. I just like to have as many translations around for comparisons and depth ya know...I'm funny that way.

Blessings in Y'shua.

Shlama Akhi Thirdwoe,

That means a lot to me, so thank you from the bottom of my heart. I sincerely hope Mari will be helpful to all...

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)