Twenty Mistranslations!!

[Larry Kelsey]

I hope this post and akhan Paul's reply will challenge Greek Primacists.

Larry_Kelsey "Twenty Times!?!?!?!?"
Jul-19-2002 at 05:48 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhay,

I remember reading something which startled me in George Lamsa's book 'New Testament Origin.'
Dr. Lamsa stated that he believed the reason for the Greeks never translating 'Armaya' as
'Aramaeans' was because of anti-Semitism. The only exception I have found is Luke 4:27 where Naaman the Syrian is mentioned. The Greeks called Arameans 'Syrians.' I have no problem with that.
Technically, it's somewhat of a misnomer because Arameans are basically Mesopotamians, even though several areas are under consideration when you consider Aram-naharaim, Aram-tsobah, etc., etc.
Akhi Paul can jump in here any time to correct or enhance that statement. What I find so curious is the fact that while the Greeks translated 'Aram' correctly in Matt. 1:3,4 and Luke 3:33 and translated 'Naaman the Aramean' as 'Naaman the Syrian,' why didn't they at least
translate every instance of 'Armaya' as 'Suros'
(Syrians)? Instead they chose 20 mistranslations
to avoid their mention. They don't look very much alike in either language. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ymr0[/font] =Arameans and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ynwy[/font] =Greeks. ellhn =Greeks and suroV =Syrians/Arameans. The places that are mistranslated are as follows:

Acts 16:1,3 --- 19:10,17 --- 20:21 --- 21:28
Romans 1:16 --- 2:9,10 --- 3:9 --- 10:12
1 Cor. 1:22,23,24 --- 10:32 --- 12:13
Gal. 2:3,14 --- 3:28
Col. 3:11

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

Paul Younan 1. "RE: Twenty Times!?!?!?!?"
Jul-19-2002 at 06:22 AM (GMT3)

Shlama Akhi Larry,

Wanna know my personal opinion - although it can't be proven?

One of the two sides changed the original - there's no way around that, this is obvious. What isn't so obvious is this:

There's no way in hell that an Aramean who was translating Paul's words (or later revising a translation of Paul's words) would have thought he could get away with using "Arameans" while addressing people in Corinth, Galatia or even Rome. No way in hell - if he thought he could get away with it he'd be high on somethin'.

"Greeks" is a much more natural reading - makes a lot more sense. That's exactly why I believe that the "Greeks" reading is a later revision.

So why not Arameans?

I'll tell you why not, as far as Zorba's concerned - the reason is exactly what Lamsa charged - Anti-Semitism.

When the Churches began in these places, they started with Jews who came out of Synagogues. Not a single doubt about that. They were the leaders. Next would have naturally come their co-linguists and fellow Semites, even in the Diaspora.

Jews were not the only Semites who lived in Galatia, Rome or even Corinth. To suggest so would be ludicrous! Why should Arameans not live there as well? In fact, we have record of Assyrians, even, living in Rome!

They may have had Roman and Greek names and lived outside their homeland (like yours truly) - but, regardless, they were Semites - and the international language of Semites for centuries was Aramaic.

When the churches in Galatia, Rome and even Corinth eventually became mostly ethnically Greek - they felt the reading had to change. "How could Paul have written to us yet have mentioned those barbarians instead? We are not Arameans!"

Although admittedly biased - it's much easier for me to imagine Zorba changing "Arameans" to "Greeks" than to imagine Penuel changing "Greeks" to "Arameans" (unless he wanted to be laughed at.)

As for Naaman the "Syrian" - there's no way that Zorba could have hoped to get away with calling him a "Greek."

A rule of textual criticism is that the harder reading is usually the original. And the "Arameans" reading fits that description.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope I made sense. (wordplay intentional)

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fk^rwbw 0ml4[/font]