02-11-2005, 01:05 PM
Let's help Paul learn what text this syriac version comes from. Here is a copy of my online bible program, at Psalms 14:3;
Notice anything?
See the texts that followed the Hebrew text and the one that followed the LXX?
Now let's look at the syriac text. Here is Romans 3 11-12 from Lamsa and Murdocks translation;
Now, watch what happens here, this is the Apostle Paul preaching;
Notice how it follows the LXX? Interesting, huh?!!
The Apostle Paul preached this message from the LXX here. There is no dought since the greek text also follows this. Does this mean that Paul spoke greek? Well, obviously this does give weight to that possibility since this particular section is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew OT text.
But now we come to some big questions for us to look at;
Why would the syriac text follow a greek OT text?
Why does the syriac text witness against the Hebrew OT text by following this greek OT text?
The only source for this quotation is the LXX, it is in none of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, the Allepo, the Leningrad, etc. None.
The greek NT text is well documented as following the LXX, there are no inconsistancies in that regard. If the LXX made a mistake in it's wording from that Hebrew OT text it was translated from, well the greek NT text would tend to follow the same mistake and grammar depending on how closely the author quoted or followed the LXX.
We do see that in Acts 2:24 in the greek NT.
But let's not forget something here, look at the peshitta OT text of that passage in Psalms;
Why does the peshitta OT text witness to the Hebrew OT text, yet the peshitta NT text witness's against the Hebrew OT and it's own syriac OT text???
Big, big, big inconsistancy.
A text that witness's against another text of itself in the same language is a big no-no, and should throw up a flag immediately. That is not suppose to be happening here if anyone desires to claim originality.
What about the greek, does it have the same problem? Well, it follows the LXX, and the LXX follows an old Hebrew original, it is well documented of the translation that followed prior to the advent of Jesus, so it does not have this type of inconsistancy.
Is anything available of that Hebrew original that the LXX was translated from? No. The DSS scrolls do tend to agree with it though, but nothing is available in the passage of the Psalms.
Was the syriac NT quoting from the Hebrew version of that LXX, and the greek is a copy of that syriac version? That is quite the long shot here I can safely say, and so would many.
So, what can we summerize about the syriac NT text?
1) it disagrees with the greek text.
2) it disagrees with the syriac OT text.
3) it witness's to the LXX.
4) it witness's against the Hebrew and it's own syriac OT text.
It's pretty safe, at this point, to say that Paul was not preaching those sections of Romans in Hebrew, for if he was, why do we not have Hebrew portions of this NT text instead of a late dialect of aramaic from around the 3rd century, or even the greek language!?
So,....after all this, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it. The only problem is they did not follow the Hebrew text in the process, they continued to follow the greek NT version not knowing that they would create a problem in this area later on.
Hence, what has been said all along by well-known scholars throughout the ages: a nice translation from the greek text.
That easily answers the questions instead than trying to accept that this particular syriac version of the NT is the complete original from the apostles, all the while producing more questions in the process than it is worth.
So there you go.
Quote:3 (AV) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {filthy: Heb. stinking}
3 (Douay) (13-3) They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good: no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they acted deceitfully: the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.3 (IGNT)
3 (JPS) They are all corrupt, they are together become impure; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
3 (LAMSA) They are all gone astray and have been rejected all together; there is none that does good; no, not one.
3 (MURDOCH)
3 (NKJV) They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
3 (Philips)
3 (Rotherham) The whole, have turned aside, Together have they become tainted, ???There is none that doeth good, not so much as, one!
3 (RSV) They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
3 (RWebstr) They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {filthy: Heb. stinking}
3 (WEY)
3 (YLT) The whole have turned aside, Together they have been filthy: There is not a doer of good, not even one.
3 (ASV) They are all gone aside; They are together become filthy; There is none that doeth good, no, not one.
3 (LXXE) (13:3) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.
Notice anything?
See the texts that followed the Hebrew text and the one that followed the LXX?
Now let's look at the syriac text. Here is Romans 3 11-12 from Lamsa and Murdocks translation;
Quote:11 (LAMSA) There is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God.
11 (MURDOCH) and none that understandeth; nor that seeketh after God.
12 (LAMSA) They are all gone astray and they have been rejected; there is none who does good, no, not one.
12 (MURDOCK) They have all turned aside, together; and become reprobates. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.
Now, watch what happens here, this is the Apostle Paul preaching;
Quote:13 (LAMSA) Their throats are like open sepulchres; their tongues are deceitful; the venom of asps is under their lips.
13 (MURDOCH) Their throats are open sepulchres, and their tongues treacherous; and the venom of the asp is under their lips.
14 (LAMSA) Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
14 (MURDOCH) Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
15 (LAMSA) They are overquick to shed blood.
15 (MURDOCH) and their feet are swift to shed blood.
16 (LAMSA) Destruction and misery are in their ways.
16 (MURDOCH) Destruction and anguish are in their paths:
17 (LAMSA) They have not known the path of peace.
17 (MURDOCH) and the path of peacefulness they have not known:
18 (LAMSA) There is no fear of God before their eyes.
18 (MURDOCH) and the fear of God is not before their eyes.???
Notice how it follows the LXX? Interesting, huh?!!
The Apostle Paul preached this message from the LXX here. There is no dought since the greek text also follows this. Does this mean that Paul spoke greek? Well, obviously this does give weight to that possibility since this particular section is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew OT text.
But now we come to some big questions for us to look at;
Why would the syriac text follow a greek OT text?
Why does the syriac text witness against the Hebrew OT text by following this greek OT text?
The only source for this quotation is the LXX, it is in none of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, the Allepo, the Leningrad, etc. None.
The greek NT text is well documented as following the LXX, there are no inconsistancies in that regard. If the LXX made a mistake in it's wording from that Hebrew OT text it was translated from, well the greek NT text would tend to follow the same mistake and grammar depending on how closely the author quoted or followed the LXX.
We do see that in Acts 2:24 in the greek NT.
But let's not forget something here, look at the peshitta OT text of that passage in Psalms;
Quote:3 (LAMSA) They are all gone astray and have been rejected all together; there is none that does good; no, not one.
Why does the peshitta OT text witness to the Hebrew OT text, yet the peshitta NT text witness's against the Hebrew OT and it's own syriac OT text???
Big, big, big inconsistancy.
A text that witness's against another text of itself in the same language is a big no-no, and should throw up a flag immediately. That is not suppose to be happening here if anyone desires to claim originality.
What about the greek, does it have the same problem? Well, it follows the LXX, and the LXX follows an old Hebrew original, it is well documented of the translation that followed prior to the advent of Jesus, so it does not have this type of inconsistancy.
Is anything available of that Hebrew original that the LXX was translated from? No. The DSS scrolls do tend to agree with it though, but nothing is available in the passage of the Psalms.
Was the syriac NT quoting from the Hebrew version of that LXX, and the greek is a copy of that syriac version? That is quite the long shot here I can safely say, and so would many.
So, what can we summerize about the syriac NT text?
1) it disagrees with the greek text.
2) it disagrees with the syriac OT text.
3) it witness's to the LXX.
4) it witness's against the Hebrew and it's own syriac OT text.
It's pretty safe, at this point, to say that Paul was not preaching those sections of Romans in Hebrew, for if he was, why do we not have Hebrew portions of this NT text instead of a late dialect of aramaic from around the 3rd century, or even the greek language!?
So,....after all this, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it. The only problem is they did not follow the Hebrew text in the process, they continued to follow the greek NT version not knowing that they would create a problem in this area later on.
Hence, what has been said all along by well-known scholars throughout the ages: a nice translation from the greek text.
That easily answers the questions instead than trying to accept that this particular syriac version of the NT is the complete original from the apostles, all the while producing more questions in the process than it is worth.
So there you go.