GALATIANS 1:1 --- Does "THE" = "HIS+ " ?

THE APOSTLE PAUL
Writer of the Letter to the Galatians
49 to 55 AD
Rembrandt ( 1606-1669)
Courtesy of  commons.wikimedia.org

A CLOSE LOOK at the Aramaic Text of 

GALATIANS CHAPTER 1, VERSE 1, 

comparing the literal Aramaic

to the Netzarim Version. 

Galatians 1:1 - ܦ݁ܰܘܠܳܘܣ ܫܠܺܝܚܳܐ ܠܳܐ ܡܶܢ ܒ݁ܢܰܝܢܳܫܳܐ ܘܠܳܐ ܒ݁ܝܰܕ݂ ܒ݁ܰܪܢܳܫܳܐ ܐܶܠܳܐ ܒ݁ܝܰܕ݂ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܰܒ݂ܽܘܗ݈ܝ 

ܗܰܘ ܕ݁ܰܐܩܺܝܡܶܗ ܡܶܢ ܒ݁ܶܝܬ݂ ܡܺܝܬ݂ܶܐ ܀

> > > This  Aramaic Text is courtesy of Dukhrana.com, a free, on-line resource for the analytical study of the Peshitta, with links to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon from the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Several translations and versions of the Peshitta are also available, verse by verse, on this most excellent and scholarly site, as well as references to at least three lexicons in addition to CAL's scholarly resources... verse by verse, word by word.

The Apostle Paul's  Letter to the Galatians in the New Covenant was translated by the Netzarim Publishing House by a rather popular modern writer in what some Amazon reviewers called a " golden, best, and historic" English version of the Peshitta.  

Now please note, throughout this Netzarim version, the author freely uses other translators' works and he states that fact in the introduction, in a fashion. Most often, the Netzarim writer uses Dr. James Murdock's work; however, at times he openly copies Paul Younan's translation, mostly for the Gospels, and frequently quoting Mr. Younan's language notes in his own footnotes, which he faithfully attributes.  

However, throughout this "golden, best, and historic" ( GB& H) version of the New Covenant, many errors occur. Some by over-sight, no doubt, which we can all forgive.

But SOME errors are purposeful CHANGES and truly unsustainable WHEN THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC TEXT is consulted. ( See this blog's  articles on Camel vs Rope and Paraqlita, for instance.)  

In the up-coming articles we will look at a number of verses in the important Letter to the GALATIANS, written by the Apostle Paul, to discover under a close scrutiny, exactly how the Netzarim version veers from the TRUTH as stated in the excellent Aramaic Text. 

Correcting comments are welcome, as always. 

Thus, starting at Galatians 1, verse 1 , we literally parse:  

Paulus  the apostle not from men and not by (the) hand of man, but rather by (the) hand of YESHUA THE M'SHICHA and ALAHA HIS+ FATHER Who has raised HIM+ from the House of the Dead. 

The Netzarim version states, pg. 560, mis-pag. edition: 

 Paul, a shaliach not from men and not appointed by men, but by Y'shua the Mashiyach and Elohim, the Father who raised him from the house of the dead,

 ܫܠܺܝܚܳܐ 

masculine, singular, EMPHATIC 

=  the apostle

ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ

   , masculine, SINGULAR, emphatic 

  

=  ALAHA ( transliterated Aramaic)

 or EL or ELOAH ( Hebrew) 

= GOD in English

ܐܰܒ݂ܽܘܗ݈ܝ 

  masculine, singular, emphatic = FATHER ( the ) 

SUFFIX: third person, masculine, singular = HIS

and because the context reference is 

to YESHUA HA M'SHICHA, we would write it : 

HIS+ 

Thus, the Netzarim translation has some errors, the first being rather minor and possibly assimilated from the Greek translations into English because those Greek-to-English translations ALSO state:  "Paul, an apostle... "   

There is no "an / a " in the Greek Text so it was added by translators to the English rendition of this verse. There is ALSO no "the" in the Greek near or around the word "apostle." 

The Aramaic Text here is actually stronger, in the sense that the EMPHATIC state is determinate, meaning "the."  

But alas, the Netzarim's "golden, best, and historic" version agrees with the Greek, it seems.

The second error is a consistent one running throughout the Netzarim volume. The author, editors, and over-seeing committees allowed that the Aramaic ALAHA , singular, should not be transliterated as such, but changed and transliterated into the more familiar  ( within the Jewish schools of thought )  the Unified Plural HEBREW ( not English ) word for GOD, ELOHIM. 

The author states clearly that this change is for clarification, both in his introduction and in his foot-note #1, pg. 560, mis-pg. edition of Galatians chapter 1, verse 1. He states: 

   Alaha is the singular form, here translated as "Elohim" for clarity. Technically, the closest cognate in Hebrew ( and English ) is Eloah. 

The fact is, however, that speakers of English do not have ELOHIM in the normal school vocabulary, any more than ALAHA or ELOAH. Only those familiar with Jewish thought or who have attended Jewish schools, synagogues, or perhaps Jewish community activities would comprehend that the Netzarim are speaking of the English word for "GOD" here. 

This version of the New Covenant translates the Aramaic into English... and transliterated HEBREW !  Words like "shaliach" and "ELOHIM" make this version very confusing to the reader unless one is familiar with transliterated Hebrew words. 

In addition, "ELOHIM" used for ALAHA is not even accurate, as the writer himself acknowledged in his footnote cited above.

The third error is grievous. It is difficult to be generous of thought when dealing with this error because the translation SHOULD NOT be arbitrary here.

The Netzarim volume states "the Father," ignoring the 3rd person singular ending ( a very common grammatical ending on a noun ) that is attached to "Father." 

It is to be translated, "... HIS+ FATHER."

What possibly could be the problem that such a mistake, such a blatant error, could have slipped through the watchful eyes of the writer's editor, the Netzarim committee, and bevy of proof-readers lauded and thanked in the introduction of the book ?

There is a difference, correct, between "the" and "His+?"   

[ This is all for verse one. ]