There is hardly any activity on this forum. Was this only a trend and now things have changed?

Has Paul moved onto other pursuits?

1. The Forum is back up!  Hooray!
I don't know if anyone else couldn't get back onto the Forum.  I even E-Mailed MyBB.
So nice to see the Forum again.

2. On to Bidness:

I don't think I  Posted on this here but I had reason to re-visit this recently and it might be worth bouncing it off of those more knowledgeable than yours truly:

John 18: 19 - 23 (RSV):

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.
[21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"

This Passage reads a little awkward and a little strange to me and I wonder if it reads that way to others.
Some time ago, I began looking at variations on this to see if the awkwardness could be moderated.

A. Verse 19 appears to be a Summary of sorts.  Of course, it could be expanded - "What about this particular Teaching of yours...?" and so on.  The verse is short.  If the verse had been expanded, verse 20 would be fine.

B. Verse 20 reads as an answer to the question, if only it occurred in a better position.

Let's swap verses:

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 
[21] "Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."

[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 

This reads a little better if a little more volatile.  The answer in verse 21 is more edgy and the response of the "Officer" becomes more in line with someone who would defend the High Priest against someone who may be perceived as being "Seditious".

C. This leaves 2 verses that begin with "Jesus answered..."  In fact, it reads very "smooth" if the 2 verses are combined.

[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" 
[Add Verse 20 here:] "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.

Does the Passage read "Smoother" now?:

[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 
[21] "Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said."
[22] When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?"
[23] Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?  
[20] I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly."

This aligns quite nicely.  Jesus answers the "Officer" who interrupted Jesus and then finishes his answer to the High Priest.
***
There is even a reason for possibly rearranging this Passage: *IF* it were to be read in this manner, then Jesus has taught openly and the Jews understood his Meaning.  However, "I have said nothing secretly" contradicts the Synoptics as to the Hiding of Jesus' Teaching, "...lest they understand".

*IF* this rearranging had been done, it would have been done VERY early, before it was translated to...ummm...other languages.  I may yet edit this to include PY's Translation - it goes to Intentionality again, of John over and against Mark.

Does this make sense to anyone?
Is there any evidence that something like this was attempted here?

Thanx, ALL!!!

CW

Hi everyone,

I have been pondering this for a while. Why would Jesus and the Apostles mainly quote from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew family of Old Testament scriptures. The MT Hebrew or Aramaic? Tanakh? 

For example in Luke 4:18 from the Interlinear NT it says;

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, and because of this he has anointed me to declare hope to the poor and he has sent me to heal the broken hearted and to preach to the captives release and to the blind sight and to free those (who are) oppressed with forgiveness and to preach the year acceptable of the LORD"...


The quote was from Isaiah 61:1-2 and when we compare this to  the LXX with the MT- Hebrew scriptures we get as follows;

Quote:LXX (Lancelot C. L. Brenton English translation of the LXX):

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord"

Quote:The KJV uses the MT family of old testament text: Luke 4:18 reads;

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD"

The quote from Luke 4:18 agrees more with the LXX than the Hebrew-MT text.  The clause, "recovering of sight to the blind" in Luke 4:18 matches the clause, "recovery of sight to the blind" in Isaiah 61:1 of the LXX.  And the Aramaic Interlinear NT of "to the blind sight".

The scripture "scroll" containing the text above was handed to Jesus. A venerated scroll that was
held in the Capernaum synagogue, represented the Tanakh of the day? It appears that the scripture was referenced more to the LXX rather than the MT Hebrew family of scriptures? The MT- Hebrew text does not explicitly mention the "blind" at all.

Hi all,

A request to whoever is translating for the Interlinear. I would love to see Acts 18 translated

The Reason being is that in Acts 18:26 for the Alexandrian MMS it says Priscilla and Aquila. But in the Textus Receptus MMS it says Aquila and Priscilla . My point is "Why" in the Greek would one have a reversal of these names?? The Feminists run with this in the Alexandrian text to forward their agenda. She is mentioned first!!

What name order is in the Peshitta?

Thanks David

Q: If one were to transliterate  ܐܢܬܬܐ  Woman, from Aramaic into English, should it be  Anttha, or Atta?

There are lots of web forums about variants of Christianity, languages and holy scriptures with dwindling numbers of active users. They contain treasures of knowledge and were set up by an enthusiast when the Internet was young. After that important initiator has been carried away by circumstances of life (or death), one gets concerned that one day the geekostolic succession will get broken and there will be no laying on of admin privileges or domain name credentials which can ensure a continued operation of sites and software.

A friend who tried to register has contacted me. We both tried to contact admins but have received no answer yet.

Hitherto, the site and forum have been quite well maintained. If, however, continued service would start to appear challenging, I am sure some of us users could be solicited to make it survive in one form or another.

Hello everyone --

I keep following Trails.  Sestir was of great help with "'Eleazar' or 'Lazarus'?"  (still more to come on that one).
Hand in hand with this is "Jairus/Yoarash/Joazar":

Mark 5: 22 (RSV):

[22] Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet

Our highly esteemed Paul Younan has, in part:

"and came - a certain [man] - whose name [was] - Yoarash..."

For those who do not know, I am very big on the transition from Herod to Archelaus, seeing all sorts of things, even before my meds are stabilized .

Sooo, I find in Josephus:

Antiquities..., 17, 6, 4 and 17, 13, 1:

"But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead..."

AND:

"WHEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place..."

Now there is some interesting tension here.  Archelaus accuses Joazar of aiding those who took part in the Coup attempt of 4 BCE and removes him from the Position of High Priest.  This would make Joazar a perfect candidate for "Jairus" - in deed and in name.  There is a minor problem of when exactly this would have taken place - 4 BCE or 9 CE - but that's deep into an Analysis we don't have to go into right now.

Problem:

A..., 17, 9, 1:

"The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity


YIKES!  I have an idea that the Crowd is demanding a return to the Priesthood of, especially, the Hasmoneans and the rest of the Houses of Eleazar and Ithamar from the Temple, instead of the Appointed HP from the families of the Jerusalem Elite (The Hellenistic Court Ordering may play a part in this).

Do we have enough Political Evidence here to give support to "Yoarash" => "Joazar"  through "Jairus" in Early Mark?

I tend to think so but I believe I need more linguistic support and here, as elsewhere, the Greekies cannot help.

Help?

Thank you,

CW

In looking at GJohn 11 the other day, I came across an interesting Puzzle:

The Greekies have "Lazarus" which supposedly came to us from "Eleazar", as in 1 Chronicles 24:

[1] The divisions of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
[2] But Nadab and Abi'hu died before their father, and had no children, so Elea'zar and Ith'amar became the priests.


Now, in looking at our esteemed Younan's Interlinear, we find:

John 11: 11 (Younan, in part):

These things | said Yeshua | and afterward | said | to them | *Lazar* | our friend...

Any direction here as to word development?  If it should read "Eleazar" why not change it?  Perhaps it doesn't need changing...

CW

Greetings , I am a very unlearned member. Maybe someone can clarify for me this area of scripture. In Acts 10: 28 The interlinear says "It is unlawful for a man Yehudean to associate with a man foreign who is not a son of his tribe".
My questions are these.
Does "Yehudean" mean Jews (a general term as I understand it for "son's" of Israel... Jews). If so, what is the "son of his tribe" that is referred to in the Interlinear. There are twelve "tribes" of Israel, Surely separation from the other 11 tribes is not meant here?.

I have a NT English translation (Janet Magiera version of the Peshitta). In this verse she uses the word "race". Not a good choice of word  in my opinion. Cornelius,  the Centurion and his associates are Gentiles and Simon Peter and his friends are Jews. All one race, are they not?. Is "race" being used as a modern idiom. Wrongly! Is there somewhere in the Tanakh that says Jews should not associate with anyone else other that the sons of Israel? And, What is the "understanding" of Aramaic to English for this verse??

Thanks David Welford

Great day Peshitta enthusiasts.  The Peshitta has a totally rare (and awkward) reading (or mistranslation?) in Acts 23:10, Acts 23:23, and Acts 23:31.  The Peshitta literally reads "Romans" in those verses, while all known Greek and Latin copies read "soldiers."

Isn't it awkward and redundant to read "Romans" in those passages, since everybody knows that the soldiers involved were Romans ?!?  Brooke Foss Westcott also uses this point to suggest that the Peshitta was "translated," stating the following.

"The Acts are more loosely translated (Wichelhaus, p. 86); but it is to be remembered that the text of the Acts presents more variations than any part of the New Testament. The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably the work  of a separate translator. (Wichelhaus, pp. 86 ff.)  4 That it was made at some place out of the Roman Empire is shewn in the translation of "stratiotai" by "Romans" in Acts xxiii. 23, 31. [Cf. Acts xxviii. 15: Appim Form.] But this is not the case in the Gospels, which, as I have conjectured, were translated earlier, and in Palestine. Cfi Wichelhaus, pp. 78 ff." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 242).