Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Early Believers Understanding of John 1:3,4
#16
You're supposed to be able to put Estrangela, Greek, Ashuri, and other scripts into your posts, but I think that function is pretty much broken. You could always use Dukhrana's "code" system for keyboard.
Reply
#17
Ronen, no trouble at all here...lets keep looking at this.

How would you translate John 1:46? Can you give me your most accurate rendering please? I'll show you why after.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#18
Thirdwoe Wrote:Ronen, no trouble at all here...lets keep looking at this.

How would you translate John 1:46? Can you give me your most accurate rendering please? I'll show you why after.

Shlama,
Chuck
As with my other rendering, I am trying to do so as accurate and literal as possible, so hopefully this is understandable, as Nathaniel is basically asking if anything good can be found that comes from Nazareth.

Nathaniel said to him, Shall that of [what is] good be found from Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and behold.

When looking over the text from the [url]Khaboris <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files/Khabouris%20John.pdf">http://www.dukhrana.com/khabouris/files ... 20John.pdf</a><!-- m -->[/url], I understand where you are coming from and agree that in this manuscript there is punctuation that ends the sentence in vs. 3 as is done today. Since punctuation in the Aramaic and Hebrew did not exist (as far as I know) in the time the texts would have been originally written, this would mean that the punctuation was added later by someone, and if that someone had an understanding of the text different from the original author, then he would have punctuated the text differently than what the original author would have, had they had punctuation back when the original was written.

In other words, if the only manuscripts we had today were ones that had punctuation and chapter and verse in them, we would know that the punctuation and chapter and verse divisions were not part of the inspired original text and therefore subject to change if the original text indicated it, which I believe it does in this case. At any rate, I await your response to my translation of John 1:46, which I think may have something to do with the word medem?

Ronen
Reply
#19
Ronen,

Thanks for that, but I need to ask you...what Aramaic word/words, are you translating in this part? "Shall that of [what is]..."
Reply
#20
Thirdwoe Wrote:Ronen,

Thanks for that, but I need to ask you...what Aramaic word/words, are you translating in this part? "Shall that of [what is]..."

From this:

mem>shin>kaph>chet
mem>dalet>mem
dalet>tet>bet

Most literally "Shall [based on imperfect form of nun>hey>waw>aleph] find (mem>shin>kaph>chet) that [as in something] (mem>dalet>mem) of>good (dalet>tet>bet)

I smoothed out my translation a bit while still keeping it literal.

I could also translate it "Nathaniel said to him, Shall anything of good be found from Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and behold."


I will try to figure out how to imput Aramaic character here, hopefully soon.
Reply
#21
Quote:I could also translate it "Nathaniel said to him, Shall anything of good be found from Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and behold."

That was better, thanks.

Here is how I would render it keeping the word order close to the same way it's given in the text. I say "something" or "anything" is the best word in English to go with.

"Nathaniel says to him, from Nazareth is something of good found? Philip says to him, Come and see."

I'll comment more later, as I'm off to work.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)