09-06-2014, 06:33 PM
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhay,
Why would Paul state the obvious like that ? What sort of sense does that make ? It would be like me telling you:
"Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. Not sons, as in many. But, as in one. Your son. That is, Isaac."
Firstly, what would be the purpose of that? And why would anyone not see that this is a translation?
Secondly, the Greek translator showed us what the plural form was. If there were any question, Paul would not have started out with the singular in the Greek. The two forms are readily distinguishable.
Hi Paul,
As a newbie, forgive me if I am not quite understanding this passage in the same way as you. The example above regarding 'sacrificing Isaac' is plain enough, and I have no problem with your reasoning here, but the verse in question is not so straight forward. One can imagine the normal interpretation of the promise as being understood in those days as relating to the nation - to the 'many'. Paul can be seen as explaining the promise in a way that would be a revelation to his readers - applying the promise in the singular, to Christ. He emphasizes the distinction. So, this argument, as far as I understand, is not in itself to me convincing. (Perhaps there are other illustrations that might cause me to reconsider.)
The second concern I have with your suggestion is with the needs of the target audience for the epistle. Galatia is far from the Aramaic speaking East. As we know, by the time of the Apostles, the LXX was commonly known and used across the Greek speaking Mediterranean world. Greek was the language of commerce and classical learning. Hebrew was read in the synagogues, but readers also gave translation and used the LXX. It seems doubtful to me that the epistles of Paul would have been addressed to Aramaic speakers, with the exception of Hebrews. He was the apostle to the Gentiles. He came from Tarsus and knew Greek perfectly well. It seems fairly logical, therefore, to assume that he would want to write mainly in Greek. Regarding the Gospels, that is another issue. Matthew would appear to have written in Aramaic (or Hebrew - as reported by later Church fathers). Mark and Luke, making use of this, could have translated and adapted their versions into the common Greek. So, for me, the original writings of the N.T. were both Aramaic and Greek, as far as I know. However, it seems clear that Paul made use of a Tanakh/ LXX version that was extant before Masoretic changes were made (in opposition to the Christian application of its Messianic passages). It is the Peshitta, I believe, that could preserve this original text.
I earnestly wish to learn more about the O.T. Peshitta for this reason. Nevertheless, I am also open to discovering more about the N.T. Peshitta - just not so convinced by the present post.
Blessings!