02-09-2005, 04:04 PM
Paul,
I'm not sure why you are bent on using linguistic theory against me here. That is one-sided and easily manipulated by the technician against the layman wrongly. You know this and so do I, that I would automatically be placing you in the chair of advantage if I was to do so.
But I will do just this one though. I'll give my observations and state some facts on this one particular text only, that is it, no more. I'm not one of the usuals that provide the entertainment for the masses on here, although I get the distinct feeling how Jesus felt when the scribes and pharisee's would attempt to trip Him up at times.
I'll try not to tip my observations in a bias'd sort of way and let the living word here talk to all of us. I'll italicize any extra words that are not in the texts that I can find. I will view this as a product and I'm observing and reaching conclusions over it as the end-user or consumer.
Acts 2:24 translations:
Different Syriac translations:
24 (YOUNAN) But God raised Him and loosed the cords of Sheol because it was not possible that He be held in Sheol in it.
24 (LAMSA) Whom God has raised up, having destroyed the pains of death, because it was not possible for Sheol to hold him.
24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.
The note in Murdoch's is actually his, that is not made up by me, it is in the Online Bible program, which this translation came from.
A few well known Greek to English translations:
24 (AV) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (ASV) whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (RSV) But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
24 (YLT) whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
24 (NKJV) "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
An interlinear of the GNT:
24 (IGNT) on o {WHOM} yeov {GOD} anesthsen {RAISED UP,} lusav {HAVING LOOSED} tav {THE} wdinav tou {THROES} yanatou {OF DEATH,} kayoti {INASMUCH AS} ouk {IT WAS} hn {NOT} dunaton {POSSIBLE} krateisyai {FOR TO BE HELD} auton {HIM} up {BY} autou {IT;}
A translation of the Bezae Western text:
24 (WILSON) Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Abstract translation, Greek to Hebrew to English:
24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Initial observations:
Does one text or the other have an advantage in comparison? Greek can point towards the neutral, but otherwise, No.
Does the western text offer a better text in this area? Not with the available translation.
Does the syriac text offer a better text over the greek? Not with the available translation.
Does one text or the other come into better agreement with the context? No, not at this particular time.
Does any of the texts agree within themselves? Yes.
Example from the greek:
24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Example from the syriac:
24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.
Rough translation in english by Murdoch, lacks poetic prose considerably.
Does the particular section of the text cross-reference the OT? No.
Does the section of the text affect doctrine? Not from the inital onsight. Neither language tends to enlighten any doctrinal issues that may have been overlooked.
Improvement section:
Can the product be improved? Yes. The various translations can be compared to provide the end-user a better product to utilize.
Example of a better greek translation into english:
Whom God raised up, having freed from the agony of death, inasmuch as it was impossible that He could be held by it.
Example of a better syriac translation into english:
But God hath raised Him, having loosed the cords of death, because it was impossible that He be held in the grave.
Can the texts be combined to provide a better insight into english? Not really. There would be no additional improvements.
Conclusions on this particular section of text:
The greek offers better poetic prose while the syriac is rougher in nature. The particular syriac text of Acts 2:4 offers no additional improvments or theological insight at this juncture. The translations though, can be improved considerably in either language to promote a better "flow" or majestic appeal in the english language.
I'm not sure why you are bent on using linguistic theory against me here. That is one-sided and easily manipulated by the technician against the layman wrongly. You know this and so do I, that I would automatically be placing you in the chair of advantage if I was to do so.
But I will do just this one though. I'll give my observations and state some facts on this one particular text only, that is it, no more. I'm not one of the usuals that provide the entertainment for the masses on here, although I get the distinct feeling how Jesus felt when the scribes and pharisee's would attempt to trip Him up at times.
I'll try not to tip my observations in a bias'd sort of way and let the living word here talk to all of us. I'll italicize any extra words that are not in the texts that I can find. I will view this as a product and I'm observing and reaching conclusions over it as the end-user or consumer.
Acts 2:24 translations:
Different Syriac translations:
24 (YOUNAN) But God raised Him and loosed the cords of Sheol because it was not possible that He be held in Sheol in it.
24 (LAMSA) Whom God has raised up, having destroyed the pains of death, because it was not possible for Sheol to hold him.
24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.
The note in Murdoch's is actually his, that is not made up by me, it is in the Online Bible program, which this translation came from.
A few well known Greek to English translations:
24 (AV) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (ASV) whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (RSV) But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
24 (YLT) whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
24 (NKJV) "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
An interlinear of the GNT:
24 (IGNT) on o {WHOM} yeov {GOD} anesthsen {RAISED UP,} lusav {HAVING LOOSED} tav {THE} wdinav tou {THROES} yanatou {OF DEATH,} kayoti {INASMUCH AS} ouk {IT WAS} hn {NOT} dunaton {POSSIBLE} krateisyai {FOR TO BE HELD} auton {HIM} up {BY} autou {IT;}
A translation of the Bezae Western text:
24 (WILSON) Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Abstract translation, Greek to Hebrew to English:
24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Initial observations:
Does one text or the other have an advantage in comparison? Greek can point towards the neutral, but otherwise, No.
Does the western text offer a better text in this area? Not with the available translation.
Does the syriac text offer a better text over the greek? Not with the available translation.
Does one text or the other come into better agreement with the context? No, not at this particular time.
Does any of the texts agree within themselves? Yes.
Example from the greek:
24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Example from the syriac:
24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.
Rough translation in english by Murdoch, lacks poetic prose considerably.
Does the particular section of the text cross-reference the OT? No.
Does the section of the text affect doctrine? Not from the inital onsight. Neither language tends to enlighten any doctrinal issues that may have been overlooked.
Improvement section:
Can the product be improved? Yes. The various translations can be compared to provide the end-user a better product to utilize.
Example of a better greek translation into english:
Whom God raised up, having freed from the agony of death, inasmuch as it was impossible that He could be held by it.
Example of a better syriac translation into english:
But God hath raised Him, having loosed the cords of death, because it was impossible that He be held in the grave.
Can the texts be combined to provide a better insight into english? Not really. There would be no additional improvements.
Conclusions on this particular section of text:
The greek offers better poetic prose while the syriac is rougher in nature. The particular syriac text of Acts 2:4 offers no additional improvments or theological insight at this juncture. The translations though, can be improved considerably in either language to promote a better "flow" or majestic appeal in the english language.