Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Matthew 4:2 But he fasted...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I hope it is OK to bring in quotes from a particular translation. I was reading Bauscher's NT and my attention was arrested by the "But" at the start of Matthew 4:2. At first I wondered if this was a typo, as English translations have an "and" and no "but" in the sentence whatsoever.

Quote:Matthew 4
1: Then Yeshua was led of The Spirit of Holiness to the wilderness to be tempted by The Devil
2: But he fasted forty days and forty nights and afterward he was hungry
3: And The Tempter approached him...

Then I realized that what the text is saying could be either:

1. that he fasted forty days and nights, _but_ then he needed to break the fast because he was hungry
2. or that Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit of Holiness to be tempted by the Devil, _but_ because he was fasting the Devil couldn't tempt Him. Then Jesus was hungry and about to break the fast and the Tempter approached him...

We see in Matthew 17:21 that Jesus says fasting has an effect when dealing with the demonic, so this is very interesting. I'm interested whether the "but" goes at the end of the sentence, or at the beginning, or if both are equally valid interpretations.

Background - the text
English translations and Murdoch's translation have something along the lines of KJV (no "but" in the sentence)
2: And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Etheridge has:
2: And he fasted forty days and forty nights; but afterward he hungered.

Lamsa has:
2: So he fasted forty days and forty nights; but at last he was hungry.

So Etheridge and Lamsa have linked the "but" to being hungry, however Bauscher has linked the "but" to the whole sentence.

I checked in the Aramaic, and there is a "but" there but it is towards the end of the sentence. It seems to me that Bauscher seems to have interpreted the "but" in the same way that one might have a logical expression in computer programming or algebra; any expression can have brackets around it and then a negation or NOT operator will apply to the whole of the expression within brackets. It doesn't matter if the negation or NOT operator is before the expression in brackets or after it, it has the same effect.

To further my understanding of Aramaic and this verse, I'm interested to know what others think of linking the "but" to the whole sentence as Bauscher has done.

Thanks
Stephen

Hmmm. Food for thought (excuse the pun)
I don't think the word "but" belongs there, neither at the beginning or near the end.

"and-fasts" "forty" "days" "and-forty" "nights"
"the-last" "of-that" "hungered"

It is a bit of a choppy verse, but it appears that the intent was to show that Yeshua was at the end of the fast, likely the fortieth day (the-last of-that), and was "hungered". At that point, (verse 3) he was approached by Satan and tempted. When the tempting was completed, the angels came and attended to Yeshua.

If I were to free-form the verse some, it would probably best be understood as:

"And he fasts forty days and forty nights; at the last of that, was hungered." Similar to Lamsa.
Hi thanks for your reply, although it doesn't quite match with three out of four Aramaic translations I reference in my post, including Lamsa, which do have the word "but"

The second to last word in the verse dyn has meaning of "but, yet" according to
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:4405&font=Estrangelo+Edessa">http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.ph ... elo+Edessa</a><!-- m -->

Thanks again
True indeed, the lexicon lists (DeYN) as "but" or "yet". But if its meaning were "but" or "yet", then it would be so in its first usage, in Matthew 1:12.

"From after the captivity (DeYN) of Bobel, Yukanyah begets to Shelathil ..."

and again in 1:18 "His birth, (DeYN) of Yeshua the Anointed ..."
and again in 1:21 "She to bear (DeYN) a son, and to call his name Yeshua ..."

But the reality is that "but" or "yet" don't work in those usages, and in most other useages as well; whereas "of-that" does. Aramaic uses (DeYN) in a similar fashion to how we use "then" in English. In fact, "then" works pretty well in most cases, but I suspect that "of-that" is closer to the root intent of the word (DeYN).

1:12 - "From after the captivity of-that of Bobel, Yukanyah begets to Shelathil ..."
1:18 - "His birth, of-that of Yeshua the Anointed ..."
1:21 - "She to bear of-that a son, and to call his name Yeshua ..."

4: 2 - "And he fasts forty days and forty nights, the last of-that hungered."

Admittedly, I have vacillated often on using "then" instead "of-that" for (DeYN), but I don't see how one could make "but, yet" work on a consistent basis.
Jerry Wrote:4: 2 - "And he fasts forty days and forty nights, the last of-that hungered."

Admittedly, I have vacillated often on using "then" instead "of-that" for (DeYN), but I don't see how one could make "but, yet" work on a consistent basis.

I would understand that as: "Finally" one word for two aramaic ones.
Thanks Jerry for taking the time to show via other verses the different usage of (DeYN).

Your translation makes good sense now and I'll run with it.