Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Born Again or Born From Above?
#1
In my revision of John Wesley Etheridge's Peshitta translation, I am trying to decide how to translate the phrase, "Metiled men d'rish" in John 3:3, which can be translated either as "Born again" or "Born from above". Any thoughts on how I should do this? For now I am settling for Brother Paul's literal translation of "Born from the start".
Reply
#2
What is in the Aramaic text? Go with that. Not sure if we have the same Aramaic text that Dr. Etheridge used to translate from, but if you are correcting it against what is found in the Eastern Aramaic text, as I think you said, then go with what is found there.
Reply
#3
Younan and Lamsa both translate it as "Born again", while Victor Alexander translates it as "Born from above". The Greek and Aramaic behind "Born again" can be translated either as "Born again" or "Born from above".

Here is Lamsa's translation:

"Jesus answered, saying to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If a man is not born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, How can an old man be born again? Can he enter again a second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, saying to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If a man is not born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised because I have told you that you all must be born again."- John 3:3-7

Lamsa has a footnote on verse 3 that says, "Born again in Northern Aramaic means to change one's thoughts and habits. Nicodemus spoke Southern Aramaic and hence did not understand Jesus."

Alexander's translation:

'Eashoa replied and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, if [the] human [being] is not born from above, they cannot see the kingdom of Allaha." Nicodemus said to him, "How can an old man get born, how can he enter his mother's womb a second time, to become born [again?]" Eashoa replied and said to him, "Amen, amen, I am telling you, if [the] human [being] is not born from the waters and the Spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom of Allaha. Whoever is born from flesh, is of the flesh, and whoever is born of the Spirit, is of the Spirit. Do not be surprised that [they] tell you, that it is expected of you to be born from above."'- John 3:3-7

Alexander's footnote on verse 3 is, "Lit. Ar. id.: 'From the head," or "again".'

Younan's translation (Lataster "Plain English"):

"Yeshua answered and said to him, Truly, truly I say to you, that if a man is not born again, he is not able to see the Kingdom of God. Niqodemus said to him, "How is it possible to enter the womb of his mother the second time and be born?" And Yeshua answered and said to him, Truly, truly I say to you, that if a man is not born from water and spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. The thing, which is born from flesh, is flesh, and the thing, which is born from spirit, is spirit. Do not marvel that I have said to you that it is necessary for you to be born again."- John 3:3-7

Younan's footnote on verse 3: 'Literally, ?From the start (over again).?'

I decided to use "From the start", since Paul Younan is not only a native speaker of Aramaic, but also the most reliable of the three translator-wise. I was just wondering if anyone has any good arguments for "Born from above" or not. I just want to make this as accurate as possible.
Reply
#4
I would say that looking at the Aramaic word there, 'from the start' or 'from the beginning', or even 'from the first', which carries the meaning of being born 'over again' i.e. re-born, as Shamasha Paul points out, is the most literal way to go...and maybe a short footnote for the reason of the choice would help explain the rendering, as it's not a usual translation, though it's the more accurate one.

Born from 'above', seems to be more interpretive, meaning a 'spiritual' birth, which is true...it is such, but it's just not said that way in the text, though it means it. One possible translation is 'born from the top', which may be where 'from above' comes from....We do need to be re-born spiritually, not physically, as Nic was thinkin...Born of The Water and The Spirit. The Church has always taught that this is speaking of being Baptized of The Water and The Holy Spirit.

..
Reply
#5
Some verses may help like
1Peter 1:3
1Peter 1:23
Hebrews 6:6
Ephesians 2:2
2Corinthians 3:1
Word "rish" that Jesus used looking at the above verses
means chief and beginning (start).
It is spiritual birth from spiritual seed which is Miltha d'Alaha.
So,
'from above' is wrong for word 'above' Jesus did not mention,
'again' is wrong since it means again physical birth.
I do believe that it means 'from beginning' or 'from start'.
This is my opinion after reading in Aramaic many verses with 'rish' word
in contextual research.
Reply
#6
Yeah, I've been placing footnotes at the end of the chapters (a-la Victor Alexander). That's one of the verses I've commented on. I decided I am going to do my "Anglicized Version" first because it is simply easier.
Reply
#7
I don't trust Victor Alexander's work at all. Have you read his "translation" of Genesis 1:1-2 yet?

Genesis 1
1. As the beginning, the Son of God creates the heavens and the earth.*
2. And the earth was for Him and by Him,* and the darkness was over the face of infinite space, and the Spirit of God was over the layers of the water.*

He seems to think that overtly adding into the text what is not there, (even though it may be true), or interpreting its meaning by adding his coments within the text, rather than translating the actual words that are found there, and letting the reader seek the interpretation, is the right way to go.

I say, it's extreeeeeeeeemly wrong to do such things.

.
Reply
#8
Yes, I knew about that big no-no of a translation. I like his New Testament, but sometimes he gets way too interpretive. I promise I won't put Etheridge to shame! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
Thirdwoe wrote:
Quote:I don't trust Victor Alexander's work at all. Have you read his "translation" of Genesis 1:1-2 yet?

Genesis 1
1. As the beginning, the Son of God creates the heavens and the earth.*
2. And the earth was for Him and by Him,* and the darkness was over the face of infinite space, and the Spirit of God was over the layers of the water.*

This is a paraphrasing. LOL.
Its like some believe that NT prophesies about Jesus Christ are paraphrasing from Masoretic text whereas from point of view of NT looks like Masoretic text paraphrased itself
to serve anti-christian agenda.
Reply
#10
Anyway, does anyone have another opinion on the meaning behind this Aramaic phrase that I brought up in the original post?
Reply
#11
In John chapter 3, Yahshua gives you the ananswer (born from the head), whereas the pharisee Nicademus gives you a different answer 'born again' -- In John 3:4, Niqademus says ?tub? (?is it possible again the womb of his mother a second time to enter?), whereas in John 3:3 and 3:7, Yahshua says ?ris? (?born from head/start?).

As the true head rabbi, Yahshua used this teaching technique many times (correcting his questionner by using the most correct phrase in response to his questioner's phrase that was off the path).

Consider the bigger picture and context here -- the debate in John 3 between Yahshua and Nicodemus is full of informative and exciting contrasts! Nicodemus (nyqdmus) has a name in Aramaic that is difficult to translate, but may mean ?will burn tribute? (n = will; yqd = burn; mus = tribute). During darkness, this chief priest Nicodemus (burning like a tribute fire) comes to Yahshua (the light) and praises/tributes him (yet Yahshua knows the man?s heart). Here we are seeing water and spirit (Yahshua at John 3:5) battling against fire and earth (Niqademus). Or more simply it is light versus dark (John 3:19-21), or fire (nura) meets light (nuhra). It is head priest versus head priest! It is not born again priest versus born again priest.

That is one of the reasons why it is so important in John 3:4 that Niqademus says ?tub? (?is it possible again the womb of his mother a second time to enter?), whereas in John 3:3 and 3:7, Yahshua says ?ris? (?born from head/start?) twice.

Niqademus talks of seeing signs, and Yahshua encourages him to see (John 3:11). Niqademus says teacher (3:2) and Yahshua says teacher (3:10). You get the picture -- the passage is rich with word dichotomies for us students to explore. Yahshua concludes his discussion with Niqademus by discussing the snake lifted up in the wilderness. In John 3:14, note the multiple Aramaic references after snake to 'dn' (judgment), and compare Genesis where Jacob's son Dan is represented as a snake.

There?s also an interplay between the name Niqademus and the name Moses (remember that Niqademus occupies a seat of Moses), which is interesting because Yahshua describes in this passage how Moses lifted the snake in the wilderness. So the wordplays in John emphasize greater parallels/paradigms of theological significance. Let's follow that logic and see if we can find a satisfactory conclusion -- the lifting of the snake for healing purposes changes the whole paradigm, as snakes are supposed to cause harm and be on the ground. Yahshua is offering to be a healing snake, where those who trust in the true meaning of his name are healed. Even the symbolic sin of Adam following the snake is remedied through this paradigm of trust. What is the opposite of the pursuit of undeserved knowledge that Adam sought before the appointed time? Answer: trust.

So to answer your question from the head of your post, whose words do you trust? Yahshua or Nicodemus? What a blessing it is to have such trust in our messiah that when we phrase the question like this, it becomes simple!
Reply
#12
Yeah, I just think I am going to stick with "From the start". The literal translation seems most effective in this case. Thanks, everyone!
Reply
#13
The Messiah is called "The First" and "The Beginning" --> Rev 22:13, Col 1:18...but I don't think I've seen Him called "The Start".

I would use "from the beginning".
Reply
#14
That's what Andrew Roth used. I didn't give that one much thought but I'll think about it. Hopefully Brother Paul will put his opinion on here, as it'd be much appreciated. I know he's changed some of his translation choices over time but hasn't corrected them. Would there be much difference between "start" and "beginning"?
Reply
#15
I agree with Chuck that "the beginning" is a nice translation -- i think "the beginning" sounds beautiful, and that is a key goal - to convey the literal beauty of the Peshitta to those who seek a translation of the text. Another translation of 'ris' is ruler/chief...

Remember that Yahshua is speaking with the chief temple priest who speaks not only Aramaic, but also temple Hebrew. And the Aramaic word in question here, "ris", derives its origin from the very first phrase of the bible in Genesis, "braShyTh". Most people will tell you this means, "in the beginning". Other interpretations exist, such as "at first in principle". See e.g., Hebraic Tongue Restored, by Fabre D'Olivet.

Is the goal to find one answer, or to discover what the possibilities can create?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)