Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What about Christ Jesus vs Jesus Christ
#1
Hi All,

What can we say about the occurance of Msheeka Yeshu?
in these places (in the Peshitta)
1 Tim 1:1,2
1 Kor 16:24
2 Kor 4:5
Gal 5:6

Instead of Yeshu? Msheeka.
Because, in Greek and in English, we would say: "King John", not "John King". In Semitic syntax, we would say Yeshu? Msheeka.

In the Greek NT, we find a lot more ocurrances of 'flipped around' Greek order, like xrestos Iesous, about 56 times (checked by using the KJV).
Reply
#2
distazo Wrote:Hi All,

What can we say about the occurance of Msheeka Yeshu?
in these places (in the Peshitta)
1 Tim 1:1,2
1 Kor 16:24
2 Kor 4:5
Gal 5:6

Instead of Yeshu? Msheeka.
Because, in Greek and in English, we would say: "King John", not "John King". In Semitic syntax, we would say Yeshu? Msheeka.

In the Greek NT, we find a lot more ocurrances of 'flipped around' Greek order, like xrestos Iesous, about 56 times (checked by using the KJV).


Shlama akhi,


isn't this a bit different than the "king" example you've given, since M'sheekha can be understood more literally in the emphatic, so that THE MESSIAH, is a closer translation than just MESSIAH?

this would make it no problem at all:

The Messiah Eshu'

OR

Eshu' the Messiah

personally, whenever i'm translating it, if i come across M'sheekha by itself, i translate the emphatic, to render "the M'sheekha," but if it appears included with the Name of Messiah in either form, i simply leave it "M'sheekha," i just like the uninterrupted flow of the Aramaic together with our Saviour's Name.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#3
One thing to remember is that "Messiah"/"Christ" are words that mean "The Anointed". So Paul is basically saying "The Anointed Jesus" or "The Anointed Yeshua".
Reply
#4
Hi,

Are there verses of NT where "m'shikha" should instead be transliterated?

Like Acts 4:26 (TRANSLATED): "The kings of the earth take a stand, and the rulers take council together against the Lord and his Annointed"

Or should it be TRANSLITERATED ..."take council together against the Lord and his M'shikha?"

How about John 1:41? ..."we have found the M'shikha!"? Or ..."we have found the Annointed!"?

Side note: Zorba only transliterated twice (see the "Messiah" readings in John's gospel).
Reply
#5
The use of transliteration in a translation is a matter of personal preference. If there is an equivalent word in the target language it makes more sense grammatically to use it, as the reader will better understand. A good example is the greek "aggelos" which is often transliterated "angel" but sometimes correctly translated "messenger." (I'm not fluent enough in aramaic to give a good Peshitta example.) The translator has to guess every time the word appears whether in his opinion the text is speaking of "an angel," like a spirit being from the heavenly realm. Sometimes the context seems very clear that it isn't, but in the end it boils down to the best guess (or preference) of the translator.

I don't believe you can ever get 100% the true sense of any text by reading a translation. That's what makes Peshitta such a significant document.
Reply
#6
Hi All,

Thanks!
It looks like I'm asking about adding THE or even transliterion vs translation. It's not about that.

The question is:
Why does the Greek have so many times, ok, in English, Christ Jesus, but the PEshitta has it 5 times?

What made the translators do this?
Why does the Peshitt(a)/(o) make the flip 5 times?
Reply
#7
distazo Wrote:Hi All,

Thanks!
It looks like I'm asking about adding THE or even transliterion vs translation. It's not about that.

The question is:
Why does the Greek have so many times, ok, in English, Christ Jesus, but the PEshitta has it 5 times?

What made the translators do this?
Why does the Peshitt(a)/(o) make the flip 5 times?

Shlama akhi,

oh okay i see what you mean now. well, the best explanation i could give is what is known in the textual criticism realm as "expansion of peity," where a title is added to show respect for Deity by copyists along the way. i don't know if that is the actual reason, but amongst Greek copies of the NT, you will find that there are MANY variances where the Name is alone or accompanied with the title of CHRISTOS / KURIOS. this is within the corpus of the Greek manuscripts themselves, so it seems to have been something that went on quite a bit with the copyists. i am not aware of any of these "expansion" variations amongst Peshitta/Peshitto manuscripts. but i haven't done a study specific to that possibility, so it would bear further investigation for a hard answer, unless someone else can give an educated witness to this detail.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Hi Jeremy,

It's not the adding of the title, but the swapping like:

"King John"
vs
"John King."

and
"Christ Jesus"
vs
"Jesus Christ"

It seems to me that a scribe wanted to use the Greek order, 'Christ Jesus' but not at all places. But if that's true, why does the 'Greek' order also occur in the Peshitt(o)/(a)
Reply
#9
Shlama akhi,



okay, NOW i see your question, and the answer is simple: i have no idea. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> perhaps someone else can take a stab at it, as i'm with you on this one now.



Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
King David vs David the king. King John vs John the King. M'Shikha Yeshu' vs Yeshu' the M'Shikha...seems fine either way to me.

But, I like to check the qoutations of the early Church Father's to see what they show their Bible's read like, way back then.

Here is Galatians 5:6 as it appeared in the NT of two of the more prolific Christian teachers of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, one a Greek and the other a Latin man, who most likely used an ancient form to the Greek and Latin NT....Notice what's missing?

vs 5b-6 ?wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.? Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D. - The Stromata

vs 6a...why does he say that ?in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision?? Tertullian of Carthage 210 A.D. - Against Marcion

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#11
So, probably, the adding of Yeshu, later on, eg. in Gal 5:6 might be an inserted footnote by a later scribe?
Reply
#12
:

Perhaps, If these two men gave an accurate qoute of their text, and their text was the mainstream text of the day (200-210) in both the Greek and Latin form. Or they both thought it sounded funny too and left it out of their qoute of the verse...it's too hard to tell.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)