Language Studies

Aramaic Thoughts

Resources available for the study of the Aramaic - Part 8

As anyone knows who has read more than one English version of the Bible, there is often more than one way to translate a particular passage from one language into another. This is obviously the case where the translations have differing philosophies of translation, such as the formal equivalence philosophy of the ASV (American Standard Version 1901), the dynamic equivalence philosophy of the NLT (New Living Translation), or the in-between philosophy of the NIV. But it is even the case when the translations have essentially the same philosophy of translation, such as the NKJV, NASB, and ESV. For example, in Psalm 1:4, the NASB translates, "The wicked are not so," while the NKJV translates, "The ungodly are not so." The same Hebrew word is translated by two different English words, both of which are faithful to the original Hebrew.

This all serves to introduce Carmignac’s ninth Semitism, which he calls the "Semitisms of Translation." As an example, he points to the passage in the synoptic gospels where a man with a demon-possessed son approaches Jesus after the Mount of Transfiguration episode. The relevant verses are Matthew 17:14, Mark 9:17, and Luke 9:38. Matthew says, "a man (Gk: anthropos) came up to him." Mark 9:17 says, "and one (Gk: eis, literally the number one) of the crowd." Luke 9:38 says, "a man (Gk: aner, literally "male") from the crowd." Carmignac points out that all three words are possible translations of the Hebrew word ish (a human male, the word sometimes being used in the sense "someone"). For Carmignac, this sort of thing is proof positive that the gospels were translated from a Hebrew original. Setting aside for the moment the fact that Carmignac has stated elsewhere that Luke was composed in Greek, such observations prove no such thing. It is certainly a possibility that all three were translated from a Hebrew original. But it is at least equally likely that all three are simply telling the same story, using their own words for the accounts. The number of words that refer to a human male (which the boy’s father was) in both Hebrew and Greek is limited, so naturally the gospel writers, whether working from a Hebrew original or composing in Greek, are likely to use these words. In fact, while Mark’s eis and Luke’s aner both would be normal translations for Hebrew ish, Matthew’s anthropos would more commonly represent Hebrew adam.

An even more interesting example, which Carmignac does not consider, is that found in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, citing Jesus’ cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" As regular readers of this column know, both citations are given in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. If the gospels were originally written in Hebrew, why wasn’t the Hebrew form of the verse from Psalm 22 used? The citations offered by both gospel writers suggest that, rather than translating from a Hebrew original, they are both citing Jesus’ actual statement from the cross. As Aramaic was more commonly spoken in first century Palestine than was Hebrew (Hebrew having become something of a specialty language for priests and scribes), Jesus would have naturally cried out in Aramaic.

These observations lead us into our concluding considerations over the next couple of weeks regarding the significance of Carmignac’s observations (and of those who take positions similar to his).

Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html  2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.