Posts: 783
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Most Greek based bibles, choose to render 'sect' in Chapter 24:5 and 14 of Acts.
The Aramaic however, does not mention 'the Path, that they call a teaching' but 'in this teaching they mention'
The translation is completely logical, since Paul had in mind what was said just before in verse 5. 'the teaching of the Nazarenes'.
Secondly, the todays word 'sect', cannot be set equal to the word 'teaching' in those days, but at max to the baseword for 'devision' (Galation 5:20)
But, who can explain the Greek rendering of the word 'ton hodon' (the Way) in Acts 24:14
In the Aramaic, there is no mention of 'way' (path).
Posts: 1,660
Threads: 88
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
5
...
These verses could be yet another proof for the case that neither the Aramaic, nor the Greek, were translations of each other, but independant of each other. Uless it is possible to get "Sect" or "Way" out of the Aramaic word for "Teaching" or "Doctrine" or the other way around...
...
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Shlama achai,
Any ideas here?
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
I've checked this out in further detail, and it is possible to get sect out of teaching! This is what exactly happened throughout Acts (5:17, 15:5, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22). [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nplwy[/font] [yulpana] (translated as teaching/instruction) is found in the Peshitta, whereas a?resiv [hairesis] (translated as sect) is found in Greek. In all other places a?resiv [hairesis] (translated as heresy) is found (1Corinthians 11:19, Galatians 5:20), the Aramaic word is [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nyrx[/font] [cheryana] (translated as contention). In the translation work of Peshitto 2Peter, this same word appears in 2:1 and is not translated but instead transliterated to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Sysrh[/font] [heresis].
It's quite possible then that someone translating from Aramaic considered the whole thought and, seeing sect appear where it was, figured that he needed to insert the word ?d?v [hadas] (translated as the way) to smooth out the reading. Here's an idea of how that would work:
But this I confess unto you, that after (a) ____ which they call a sect...
What word would fit in (a) to make it read more smoothly? The Greek translator chose to insert ?d?v [hadas] (translated as the way) here. The word could be dropped and it would still make sense though, perhaps with different morphology on ?v [has]; (a) would be that.
Also note the word legousin [legusin] which can mean either which they call or which they speak. Clearly, according to the Peshitta reading would be best translated which they speak, but the fact that it appears before a?resiv [hairesis] constrains the meaning to the former. It's possible that the misunderstanding between teaching and sect made the translator opt to put legousin [legusin] before a?resiv [hairesis].
Posts: 297
Threads: 33
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Possibly a little more clarity on this:
The Aramaic word-for-word reads:
that-in-it in-this teaching that-they-say
Note that the in-it in-this portion responds to the English in this very (very understood as particular).
The scribes of the Greek may have read the Aramaic as such:
that in this [very] one, that they call (or 'say is') a teaching
The main point I'm driving in showing it this way (no pun intended) is that the scribes of the Greek could have split the in-this teaching portion into 2 separate things rather than a phrase together. The word way would then be added to the mix in order to make the Greek read a little more intelligibly. This observation helps to draw a link from the Aramaic to the Greek, since the word teaching would process into hairesis ("heresy") as I explained before.
