Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Acts 2:24 Redux
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4

It seems from your answer that one of two things is happening: either (a) you don't understand the actual example and its significance, or (b) you are suffering from a severe case of Cognitive Dissonance. Either way, I'm going to try once again to help you along here by explaining, in layman's terms, the example. I'll even use pictures.

In Aramaic we have this funky word - Khawla (it's in Hebrew, too, spelled the same way, pronounced Khevel.) Are you paying attention here? Good.

You see, this word is funky in that it can mean either "pain~sorrow" or "cord~rope".

Here is a picture of cords:

[Image: cords.jpg]

The word can also mean "pain." Here is a picture of pain (poor little fella):

[Image: pain.gif]

Got it? OK. Now, in the Aramaic original of Acts 2:24 (written by Luke, the Assyrian who spoke Aramaic just like the other disciples did), we read:

Luke, the Assyrian Wrote:Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the Khawle (plural) of death: because it was not possible that he should be held by it.

See what happened my man? You don't have to be an Aramaic or Greek expert to understand this. The Greek translator saw "Khawle", and said "Aha! I know what that means! It means "pains!" So the poor guy went ahead and made a monstrosity of a translation:

Zorba, The Greek Wrote:Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be held by it.

Instead of the original meaning:

Luke, The Assyrian Wrote:Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the cords of death: because it was not possible that he should be held by it.

You see how much more sense that makes? Cords...being held...being loosed???

More importantly, do you SEE how this can only have happened because Zorba was translating from Aramaic - the same reading that is in the Peshitta?

Have you read Psalms 18:5 in the original Hebrew? In case you haven't, here it is:

David Wrote:The Khevele (plural) of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me

Have you seen how the KJV translators translated it?

King James Translators Wrote:The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.

Have you seen how the ASV translators translated it?

American Standard Version Translators Wrote:The cords of Sheol were round about me; The snares of death came upon me.

They (the KJV translators) made the same mistake as Zorba did, didn't they? Didn't they? Only they went from Hebrew->English, whereas Zorba went from Aramaic->Greek, right?

Do you see now how Zorba mistranslated Acts 2:24 from an Aramaic original? Do you see how this is a common idiom in Semitic languages....this "cords of sheol" thingie?

Are you not convinced from Psalms 18:5? Did you check out the same errors in translation in Psalms 116:3? In Joshua 2:15 ?? In 2Samuel 17:13 ?? In 2Samuel 22:6 ??

Do you need any further explanation? What's the "spirit" telling you now?
C'MON, Dave. I'm dying to know:

(a) How, exactly the Greek versions, if the originals, could possibly have been written with the word pain ???

(b) How exactly the Aramaic version, if not the original, could possibly have gotten cord from the Greek word for pain ??? (the two words look nothing alike in Greek)

How, Dave? What do those encyclopedias say about this? What is the "spirit" telling you that we should all know about?

Finally, correct me if I'm wrong here because I could be wrong, but I could swear that Luke recorded this speech as given by Shimon Aramaic-speaking Jew, to a crowd of Jews who also....guess what....happened to be Aramaic-speakers....correct? Am I wrong?

Who messed this up? Luke himself while translating Shimon Keepa's speech into Greek, or Zorba while translating Luke's Aramaic into Greek?

The Greek is wrong. Was it Luke, or Zorba, who made this error ???

The "Spirit" wanted me to ask you if this particular syriac version of the NT uses the Hebrew OT as the reference for it's OT quotes?
Dave Wrote:The "Spirit" wanted me to ask you if this particular syriac version of the NT uses the Hebrew OT as the reference for it's OT quotes?


Tell your "spirit" that if she were the real deal, she would have realized (having been there at the time) that the Hebrew OT wasn't even used in synagogues, let alone in churches.

Tell her that I said I'm onto her.
It's a simple question Paul, you know the answer to it, enlighten us.
Dave Wrote:It's a simple question Paul, you know the answer to it, enlighten us.

Let the Jewish Encylopedia enlighten you Dave, for you are a fan of encyclopedias:

The Jewish Encylopedia Wrote:The professional translator of the text of the Bible in the synagogue was called "targeman" ("torgeman," "metorgeman" ; the common pronunciation being Meturgeman; see Meg. iv. 4). His duties naturally formed part of the functions of the communal official ("sofer") who bad charge of Biblical instruction (see Yer. Meg. 74d). Early in the fourth century Samuel ben Isaac, upon entering asynagogue, once saw a teacher ("sofer") read the Targum from a book, and bade him desist. This anecdote shows that there was a written Targum which was used for public worship in that century in Palestine, although there was no definitely determined and generally recognized Targum, such as existed in Babylonia.

These researches into its history show that the Targum which was made the official one was received by the Babylonian authorities from Palestine, whence they had taken the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the halakic midrashim on the Pentateuch. The content of the Targum shows, moreover, that it was composed in Palestine in the second century; for both in its halakic and in its haggadic portions it may be traced in great part to the school of Akiba, and especially to the tannaim of that period (see F. Rosenthal in "Bet Talmud," vols. ii.-iii.; Berliner, l.c. p. 107).
Now come on Paul, your able to speak for yourself, what text does this syriac NT follow?
I'll throw this out for good measure, no pressure involved, no particular reason:

---------------------Point----> LXX <----Point----------------------
It follows no OT text. Not the Hebrew, not the Syriac and definitely not the Greek. It follows the various texts they were translated from. It's a combination of things, especially the Aramaic Targums and even some paraphrasing (in Targumic tradition.)

Remember, the LXX came from a Hebrew text. Some of the OT quotes in the NT came from that same source to the LXX.

You acts as if the LXX didn't come from a Hebrew source which contained its particular readings. This has been covered many times.

Nice attempt, though, to change subject just because you couldn't come up with an answer for Acts 2:24 Remember the subject of this thread is Acts 2:24

You're dancing again. Stay still long enough so that I can aim at you. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Here you go man.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ersion=kjv</a><!-- m -->

More for your to chew on. C'MON, already. Explain how this happened. Did Luke mess up?

Places in the Peshitta NT where it means "pain": Mattai 24:8, Mark 13:8, 1Thess. 5:3

Places in the Peshitta NT where it means "rope": Acts 2:24, Acts 27:32

Places in the Peshitta OT where it means "pain": Isaiah 13:8, Isaiah 26:17, Isaiah 66:7

Places in the Peshitta OT where it means "rope": Isaiah 33:23, Psalm 18:5

There are literally dozens of examples I can show. Here, again, is the same usage of it in Hebrew:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ersion=kjv</a><!-- m -->

Strong's Definition:

Quote:(1) a cord, rope, territory, band, company
a rope, cord
a measuring-cord or line
a measured portion, lot, part, region
a band or company

(2) pain, sorrow, travail, pang
pains of travail
pains, pangs, sorrows

Whassa matter? Are we done yet?

Go to the nearest University (when you get off that ship) and find a professor to come here on this forum to debate me in front of this world-wide audience. I want an answer to Acts 2:24. Something solid - not this dancing around you do.

Someone, somewhere has got to have an explanation which will preserve the Greek Primacist myth. At least they can try.

This is painful to watch. I'm basically talking to myself because you have no possible answer for this. So I'm going to end it for you and save you some face.

Next time before you shoot your mouth off (about the Aramaic NT being a translation of the Greek NT) without knowing anything about the languages in question, sit back and think about Acts 2:24 before you hit the "Submit" button. It's for your own good that I'm saying this. I was nice this time.
Quote:Nice attempt, though, to change subject just because you couldn't come up with an answer

We never changed subject.

The greek NT makes no bones about it, the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, which is a copy from a Hebrew text. It is well documented. With the greek NT following the LXX, it is not wrong in that regards, so yes, legitimately, the current greek translation of Acts 2:24 is correct, in that sense.

Here's an english translation of Psalms 18:5 from the LXX:

5 (LXXE) (17:5) The pangs of hell came round about me: the snares of death prevented me.

Here is a translation of the peshitta OT section of the same book, look how it follows the greek wording:

5 (LAMSA) The travail of Sheol has taken hold of me: the snares of death preceded me.

According to you, since it doesn't follow the Hebrew text or any of the known translations of the Hebrew text, it supposedly follows this mysterious or unknown text, or combination of texts that no one knows about or has discovered?!?

Hmmm, quite suspect.

Your also saying that the section of Acts 2:24 in the syriac text follows the Hebrew text so the syriac NT must be original and the greek was a copy of it, yet the whole of the syriac text does not follow the Hebrew OT text of any known translation?!?

Quite an assumption here, to say the least. Would people on here begin to think that this claim is presented to protect certain interests? I would think so.

One has to wonder just how the syriac NT text got this particular section correct here yet it shares no affinity with the Hebrew, Samaritan, or the LXX texts, at least according to Paul.

Since you claim that this syriac text follows a mixed batch of undescribed impure texts, and even stated that at times it adhered to the paraphrased aramaic targums, there is no other way for anyone of sound mind to view it except as an anomoly, with the hand of revision is peaking right at us.

The Hebrew text we have is from the original, everyone is aware of it, yet the syriac NT text does not follow it.

I'm sorry Paul, you can't claim originality in one small section while denying the whole of the text has any affinity with anything original, that's deceptive and confusing.

While the section of the syriac in Acts 2:24 does clear up the greek word, again the greek follows the LXX, but the LXX is wrong in comparison with the current Hebrew text. This would be a fact.

This particular section of the syriac NT can be deduced as simply a revision to bring it in line with the Hebrew text and correct the mistakes the greek had in this section. There is no other neutral way to view this text and remain unbiased to the masses, with it's currect lack of undocumented history.

Acts 2:24 is not an OT quote.

This discussion is over unless you can explain how the Greek got "pain" here, unless they were translating from the Aramaic NT which reads "Khawla."

Again, stick this in your head - there is no OT quote here in Acts 2:24. There is no Septuagint to follow.

Even if there were, then your best explanation would be that Luke wasn't inspired of the Holy Spirit and that we should throw all of his handiwork in the trash, since as you claim he was a fraud who was copying from the LXX and not quoting Keepa's speech correctly. If your Bible is this full of mistakes, then so is your faith and we have nothing to trust in at all except the voices you hear in your head.

Quit playing games and explain how the Greek got "pain" in there without reference to a written Aramaic original.

Otherwise, be a man and admit that the Greek is a translation from Aramaic. There are no other options open to you at this point. It's black-and-white.

Either the Aramaic is the original, or the Greek is.

Which one is it? A corrupt text with a stoopid reading, written by a fraud who made mistakes......or a clean text in the language of the Gospel and the Messiah, which reads perfectly and explains the error in the Greek.

It's your choice what you want to believe in. Nobody else is coming to the defense of the Greek here. It's pretty obvious to everyone what happened here, except of course to someone like you who is in denial.
Pages: 1 2 3 4