10-31-2012, 05:30 AM
Very good questions. :-)
The dialect that I am using for retrotranslation is an effort in reconstruction, but not by as much as you'd think. I first start with early Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (found in the early portions of the Palestinian Talmud and other works like Bereshit Rabba and even graffiti and ossuary inscriptions) and comparing it alongside other contemporary Western dialects (Samaritan, and the later Melkite, or Christian Palestinian Aramaic), the Peshitta and the actual Greek of the New Testament, I then piece together a translation that would, in my assessment, best reflect what could have originally been said and from there transmitted.
The style of writing is based off of contemporary writing styles to the 1st Century in Jerusalem and Galilee which is predominantly a Herodian hand with some occasional Hasmonean holdovers. This is close to what you see in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in mosaics and other artwork in contemporary synagogues that have been excavated.
Galilean is a Western dialect, where all Syriac Aramaic dialects (even "Western" Syriac) are Eastern and since this distinction is one of "trunk" forks in the language family there are a number of differences in:
- Grammar - Word order and the function of different tenses and forms. Galilean, like other Western dialects, retains the Absolute-Emphatic distinction. Subjects often come before the verb (SVO) -- especially in the participle -- than after (VSO) like in Syriac, etc.
- Vocabulary - Some words exist in Eastern dialects like /som/ [to place, to put] that simply do not appear at all in Western dialects, and vice versa
- Orthography - Which in Galilean is very plene and phonetic compared to Syriac with many pronunciation cues including doubled matres lectionis to indicate diphthongs and consonantal yod and waw; and
- Pronunciation - There are a bunch of examples of how Galileans reduced or changed vowels and "confused" some letters due to rabbinic critiques that survive in Talmud Bavli and other sources.
These would make Galilean and Classical Syriac mutually unintelligible in some circumstances, but for the most part understandable albeit very distinct. Using this methodology -- although imperfect by nature -- has already revealed some wordplay that appears to have been "missed" by the Peshitta, which itself retains a lot of wordplay simply due to the nature that it's written in some form of Aramaic to begin with. That said, I am curious to see what the rest of my translation efforts will reveal as I progress through the Gospels vis a vis the Peshitta.
Peace,
-Steve
The dialect that I am using for retrotranslation is an effort in reconstruction, but not by as much as you'd think. I first start with early Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (found in the early portions of the Palestinian Talmud and other works like Bereshit Rabba and even graffiti and ossuary inscriptions) and comparing it alongside other contemporary Western dialects (Samaritan, and the later Melkite, or Christian Palestinian Aramaic), the Peshitta and the actual Greek of the New Testament, I then piece together a translation that would, in my assessment, best reflect what could have originally been said and from there transmitted.
The style of writing is based off of contemporary writing styles to the 1st Century in Jerusalem and Galilee which is predominantly a Herodian hand with some occasional Hasmonean holdovers. This is close to what you see in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in mosaics and other artwork in contemporary synagogues that have been excavated.
Galilean is a Western dialect, where all Syriac Aramaic dialects (even "Western" Syriac) are Eastern and since this distinction is one of "trunk" forks in the language family there are a number of differences in:
- Grammar - Word order and the function of different tenses and forms. Galilean, like other Western dialects, retains the Absolute-Emphatic distinction. Subjects often come before the verb (SVO) -- especially in the participle -- than after (VSO) like in Syriac, etc.
- Vocabulary - Some words exist in Eastern dialects like /som/ [to place, to put] that simply do not appear at all in Western dialects, and vice versa
- Orthography - Which in Galilean is very plene and phonetic compared to Syriac with many pronunciation cues including doubled matres lectionis to indicate diphthongs and consonantal yod and waw; and
- Pronunciation - There are a bunch of examples of how Galileans reduced or changed vowels and "confused" some letters due to rabbinic critiques that survive in Talmud Bavli and other sources.
These would make Galilean and Classical Syriac mutually unintelligible in some circumstances, but for the most part understandable albeit very distinct. Using this methodology -- although imperfect by nature -- has already revealed some wordplay that appears to have been "missed" by the Peshitta, which itself retains a lot of wordplay simply due to the nature that it's written in some form of Aramaic to begin with. That said, I am curious to see what the rest of my translation efforts will reveal as I progress through the Gospels vis a vis the Peshitta.
Peace,
-Steve