08-08-2010, 10:34 PM
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.
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)
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)