Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Errors in the Paul Younan Interlinear?
#1
Hi,

The Paul Younan Interlinear is very interesting Peshitta text.

I know the interlinear was done years and years ago.

Are there any errors in the text that remain uncorrected after all these years?

Please and Thank you.

~DC
Reply
#2
Hi Paul,

In your interlinear -- John 1:18 reads only-begotten [of] God.

Is the Aramaic intending to mean only begotten OF God?

Or did you insert "[of]" because Easterners reject the belief that Mary gave birth to God?
Reply
#3
there is no genitive

it reads as 'yihidaya Alaha' which means 'only begotten God'.
by adding [of] the translator indicates that the word between is not in the text.
Reply
#4
:

Iv'e done some research on this verse and found this to be the case, as to the various ancient witnesses to the verse of John 1:18.

The Diatessaron, Tatian's Gospel Harmony produced around 170 A.D. and said by some to have been composed from copies of The Aramaic New Testament, has this reading for John 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only Son, God, which is in the bosom of his Father, he hath told of him."

But, if it were a very old Greek copy that he used...it would explain why later there were two versions of the same verse in the Greek copies...some reading "the only Son" and some "the only God". Or perhaps there were variants even at that time, and he harmonized the variants into the one verse. Or maybe his text should be translated "the only Son of God, as is seen quoted by Ireneaus below, about 10 years later"


About 180 A.D. St. Ireneaus quoted this verse of John 1:18, which had this reading in his copy of the New Testament.

"For ?no man,? he says, ?hath seen God at any time,? unless ?the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].? -Against Heresies: Book 3, Chap 11 section 6


And about 10 years later around 190 A.D. Clement of Alexandria quoted the same verse of John 1:18, which had this reading in his copy of the New Testament.

"And John the apostle says: ?No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,? -The Stromata: book 5, Chap 12


and about 40 years later about 230, Origen quoted from the same verse of John 1:18, which had this reading in his copy of the New Testament.

?No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.? -Against Celsus: book 2 Chap 71


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#5
distazo Wrote:there is no genitive

it reads as 'yihidaya Alaha' which means 'only begotten God'.
by adding [of] the translator indicates that the word between is not in the text.

Hi distazo, you're really helpful. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

And John 3:7 -- The Interlinear says ..."it is necessary for you to be born again"

Greek (example ASV) reads "Ye must be born again".

Is the Peshitta reading "you" singular or plural?
Reply
#6
Hi Chuck,
I've heard that Bar Bahlul translated the Peshitta to Aramaic and he translated only or the One because the Aramaic seems to allow that variance.

Drawcloser, it's singular.
Reply
#7
distazo Wrote:I've heard that Bar Bahlul translated the Peshitta to Aramaic and he translated only or the One because the Aramaic seems to allow that variance.


Hi distazo,

Did you mean that Bar Bahlul translated original Aramaic books into Syriac dialect?

Or was Syriac-dialect New Testament existing around before Bar Bahlul?

May someone weigh in on this?
Reply
#8
Sorry,
Not mentioned
To Arabic
Reply
#9
And for John 1:1 -- Should miltha / milta remain untranslated?

"Word" seems like an appropriate translation, even the Peshitta has miltha to mean word among the NT writings -- May someone weigh in on this?
Reply
#10
Hi,

Although Milta / Mimra have a lot of meaning, I don't think it would help your readers if they are English. 'Word' is the most common understood word. If you write it with a capital, it means more than just 'word'.
Also possible (in my opinion) would be 'logo'. It looks like the Greek word 'logos' but logo, just like avatar is for others, is exactly what Yeshu was, he was the logo of God.
Reply
#11
:

The Manifested Expression of Alaha. The Visible Image of the Invisible Alaha...no man has ever seen Alaha, but His Son has made Him known. YHWH/MarYah, revealed in the flesh, in the Person of Y'shu' M'Shikha.

Awesome!
Reply
#12
distazo Wrote:Also possible (in my opinion) would be 'logo'. It looks like the Greek word 'logos' but logo, just like avatar is for others, is exactly what Yeshu was, he was the logo of God.
That's an awesome way of putting it! Always thought of it like that, but never in those exact words.
Reply
#13
:

Do you mean an "Avatar" of God, like in the movie?

If so...Not exactly...The Son of God, as the Son of Man, has His own human Soul/Mind, being born of both God and Mankind. An Avatar is just an empty/souless body. If the Messiah dosen't have a natural Soul as all men do, then He's not the same as us really, in His humanity, which I believe He was/is, He being both God and Man at the same time.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#14
distazo Wrote:Hi,

Although Milta / Mimra have a lot of meaning, I don't think it would help your readers if they are English. 'Word' is the most common understood word. If you write it with a capital, it means more than just 'word'.
Also possible (in my opinion) would be 'logo'. It looks like the Greek word 'logos' but logo, just like avatar is for others, is exactly what Yeshu was, he was the logo of God.

Are you saying that "word" with capital W is not appropriate to translate for miltha?
Reply
#15
Hi Thirdwoe, if you think that avatar is an empty soul it is not appropriate then. I do not think that, though, I think like it as in the movie, both soul and body were 'transferred' at the end, but that is totally unimportant what 'miltha' exactly would mean. It was understood as 'logos' by the Greek and that is the nearest we can get for western culture (like in Logo/Icon or 'Word'). But let's not start a theological discussion about this <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> through the ages so many people have done this already.

@drawcloser, I did not say that 'Word' is inappropriate but it is more distinguished from 'word', so Word is better understood for English readers.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)