Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Acts 2:24 Redux
#16
Dave Wrote:Here is a translation of the peshitta OT section of the same book, look how it follows the greek wording:

5 (LAMSA) The travail of Sheol has taken hold of me: the snares of death preceded me.

Dave,

Are you honestly with a straight face telling me that you think the Peshitta reads this way because Lamsa translated it this way?

Lamsa jacked up Acts 2:24.

The word in red above in the Peshitta reading of Psalms 18:5 is, guess what? That's right - Khawla. The same word as in the Hebrew original.

Peshitta Psalms 18:5 reads "The cords of Sheol", Dave.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#17
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;

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.
Reply
#18
Paul could be quoting a First Century Hebrew OT text that no longer exists. That lost text may have been the basis of LXX. The destruction of the temple and destruction of all Hebrew scolls might explain this observation.

Otto
Reply
#19
Dave,

Paul isn't quoting from a single Psalm here. It is a Drash, a compilation of different OT books he is referring to.

3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE (Psalms 5:9), WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS" (Psalms 140:3);

3:14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; (Psalms 10:7)

3:15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, (Isaiah 59:7)
3:16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
3:17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
3:18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES. (Psalms 36:1)

There are only a couple of LXX manuscripts, late manuscripts at that, which add the material found in Romans 3:13-18.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book...version=77

The Greek Christians obviously went back, as was their habit, and revised the LXX reading with this gloss from the NT.

From: http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/psalm_14.htm

Quote:[BHS notes a long insertion here in LXX, which began in Romans 3:13-18, was then added to LXX, and even found its way into two medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Translation below].

This is your answer to Acts 2:24 ???

Dave, quit playing and explain how Acts 2:24 in the Greek got the word "pains" from "cords" unless they were translating an Aramaic word that means both "pain" and "cord".

Quit playing. This is pathetic. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#20
From:

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/OTCrit.html

Quote:We cannot detain ourselves here with the various recensions of the LXX. A statement by Jerome has led many scholars to believe that there were recensions by Hesychius (associated with Egypt) and Lucian (associated with Constantinople). These recensions cannot, however, be identified. (There are manuscripts which contain the "Lucianic" text -- but there is good evidence that this type of text, or at least the majority of its characteristic readings, predate Lucian.) In Christian times, there was the "Hexaplar" recension of Origen, who placed in six columns the Hebrew text, a Greek transliteration, and the translations of Aquila (a woodenly literal Jewish translation said by Epiphanius to have dated from the second century though there are hints that portions of it are older; the translation of Ecclesiasticus, for instance, is Aquila-like), Symmachus (a late translator who provided a clear rendering), LXX, and Theodotian (also thought to be older than its historical second century date; it seems a revision of LXX which is freer in style but closer to the MT in text). Origin is known to have revised his LXX text to more nearly match the MT (while incorporating critical symbols to show what he had done), but later copyists simply took the text without copying the symbols. This seems to have been the last great revision of the Septuagint.

The question then arises, why did the LXX undergo such extreme revision? Why did later scholars see the need to revise, and even offer different translations? Why was this version different from all the other versions?

The answer: While there may have been many reasons, such as an uneven Greek style, or perhaps multiple translations of certain books which had to be reconciled, there seems to be only one basic one: Unlike the other versions, the early LXX does not agree entirely with the MT.

The bottom line:

If you think, for one fleeting moment, that the Apostles of Meshikha would have used a corrupt translation in a language foreign to both the OT and the Gospel in creating the New Testament - you might as well throw your Bible, and your Faith, away because both would be junk.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#21
More on the LXX junk:

Quote:???The profusion of variant readings in the extant MSS of the Septuagint, and the proper method of accounting for them, is our next concern. The text of the Greek OT was never static; it was constantly being copied and subjected to revision in the interests of increased fidelity to the original Hebrew, or of an improved Greek style, or of a particular theory of translation.??? (Bruce, FF, The International Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1986, p16)

Quote:??????Origen tended to obliterate the most original and distinctive features of the Version. The policy of aligning the Greek to the Hebrew text with which Origen was familiar took no account of the changing, or at least changed, condition of the Hebrew since the time that the Septuagint had first been translated. Not only did the physical features of the earliest Septuagint become more blurred; the possibility of reconstructing Hebrew readings??? became more remote.??? (Bruce, FF, op cit, p16)

Again, Bruce states:

Quote:???Properly the term ???Septuagint??? applies only to the translation of the Pentateuch, but its use to denote the whole of the Greek OT can be traced back as far as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century A.D.???


This A.D. completion would explain the similarity in NT quotations of the OT Hebrew that ???appear??? to be LXX readings. These quotations were written with the NT in hand.

Acts 2:24, Dave.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#22
Paul Younan Wrote:More on the LXX junk:

I disagree with that statement above. It is true that many arguments raised by Dave in this forum are junks, but we should not disparage or speak in disrespectful way towards the translators or "zorbas" of the LXX / Greek NT for the sake of refuting Dave. Show some respect to the "zorbas" because some of these people were the early Christians whose names are in the book of life i.e people like Clement of Rome, etc. To quote Papias "each translated them as best they could."

How do you feel if sometime in the future someone like Dave who is ignorant of the original text disparage the English interlinear of the Peshitta as "junk" just because of a few mistakes found? The truth is no translation could be perfect as we human make mistakes.

Ancient versions provide important information on how the early Jews or Christians understood the meaning of certain words or idioms of the original text not understood today.

Many today believe that the LXX was translated because the Jews were in need of such a translation. This is contrary to the facts recorded by the letter of Aristeas, Josephus, and Philo of Alexandria.

The translation of the OT in Greek was made in Alexandria around 281 BC by seventy scholars, invited especially from Judaea by Ptolemy II. Ptolemy II wanted the translation to be made to increase his famous library in Alexandria, to attract scholars to Alexandria and to start his reign with an impressive event.
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#23
Dan,

How would I feel if someone in the future calls a new religious movement
"junk" that claims to be sent by God, and this new religion has apostles that write a "Ultra-New Testament" with quotes from my personal (horrendously imperfect) Interlinear as the basis of their NT quotes?

I'd agree with them wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd call that new religion "junk."
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#24
And, Dan, the reason why I called it junk is because of the massive revisionary activity surrounding it.

You may think of something like that as something "holy" - I don't. Neither do Jews, nor do Muslims.

Christians are the only idiots who take pride in having such a mess for a scriptural tradition. Bon Appetit! I will have none of it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#25
Paul Younan Wrote:Christians are the only idiots who take pride in having such a mess for a scriptural tradition. Bon Appetit! I will have none of it.


You are not a Christian? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#26
No, I'm a Meshikhaya. I have no connection whatsoever with that mess. That's someone else's mess, and that someone else (if they want to) should defend it.....and I will help in the attack as I have been doing for years now.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#27
Paul Younan Wrote:No, I'm a Meshikhaya. I have no connection whatsoever with that mess. That's someone else's mess, and that someone else (if they want to) should defend it.....and I will help in the attack as I have been doing for years now.


So are you just another extreme of "Dave" here? If the English word "Christian" for "Meshikaya" is not acceptable to you then might as well transliterate the whole Peshitta into English instead of translating it.

I noticed that you have made some hurtful comments about Western Christianity in the past. If that is your attitude then you are no different from Dave. Dave's reason for rejecting Peshitta and Eastern Christianity could be due to unknown subtle reasons like pride of being a Westerner, nationality, patriotism, sectarian, etc. I don't know because I am not Dave. I can only judge by what he said in this forum. While yours could be due to animosity towards Westerners, pride of belonging to the group speaking same language as the Meshika, etc. I don't know. But that is what I can see from your remarks. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Off to bed now. Peace.
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#28
Dan,

I am not hateful of anyone. Nor am I prideful of being a part of any nationalistic or linguistic group. If I were either, I wouldn't have married outside of my ethnic and linguistic group.

What I do strongly defend is the integrity of the teachings of an Asian Man in their original context, both culturally and linguistically. Because His teachings are the basis of my faith.

The teachings of this Asian Man have been hijacked, both culturally and linguistically for the last 2,000 years. He has been remade, and His words have been recast into a foreign tongue. And it is this very foreign tongue that is esteemed today as the basis of Christianity.

Meanwhile, His people have been marginalized and baked in ovens. And his cousins who speak His language have been marginalized in Councils in another empire other than their own.

I'm tired of this propoganda. I'm tired of being told that we are just another sect of Christianity, which we are not. We don't use that name. How would you like if I called you something that you don't use?

When the Western Church stops placing labels on me that I reject, as did those who came before me, then I will return the favor.

I'm not a "Nestorian" - I never met the man and neither did anyone in the 2,000 year history of our Persian Church. Is that hard to understand? Nestorius was a Greek - I'm not a Greek.

I'm not an "East-Syrian." Syria is not in Beth-Nahrin. I'm an Assyrian. Is that hard to understand?

I'm not a speaker of "Syriac." That's a Greek term. I'm a speaker of Aramaic. My ancestors, the Assyrians, spoke Aramaic. They made Aramaic the lingua-franca of its day. In other words, I tell you what I speak - not the other way around. I don't tell you what you speak, you tell me what you speak and I'll accept it. If you tell me your language is called "Aasdfkbhsdfjb" by you, then I will refer to your language as "Aasdfkbhsdfjb."

In other words, Dan (and I'm not talking to you directly), stop reshaping and remaking me into an image based on your specifications. That's what they did 2,000 years ago, and that's why your scriptural tradition is in the shape that it is in today - the laughing stock of all scriptural traditions.

I don't know why you think I'm upset, or I'm here to make friends. I'm not upset, and I'm not here to make friends. I have plenty of friends. I'm not a priest, preacher, counselor, therapist, role model or even a terribly nice person.

I'm not doing this so that I can paint a facade and run for a popularity contest. I'm not anyone's spokesperson. I don't care to be the poster-child of the Aramaic Primacy movement.

I'm here to fulfill a promise I made to my God. In the process, I'm here to debate with anyone who wishes to debate against my perspective. Dave is one of those people who's willing, if not able, to debate the other side of the issue. He will stand or fall based on the strength of his argument, or his ability to present it.

In my perspective, there has been no greater damage done to the teachings of my Lord than the following, in order of importance:

(1) The remaking of His message into a foreign language
(2) The making of a Religion named after Him into a state-sponsored faith

The way to really earn my anger, which has only happened rarely and which Dave hasn't done, is to somehow implicate me or my history into the above two travesties.

I have nothing to do with Nestorius. Not the LXX, not the GNT. I have nothing to do with Ephesus or Nicaea. I have nothing to do with Constantine the mass-murderer. Nothing to do with the Crusades, with the Spanish Inquisition or with the Pilgrims. Nothing to do with the Reformation or Auschwitz. I have nothing to do with the slave ships which brought bar-Khela's ancestors here and stuffed the GNT down their throat. I have nothing to do with Western Christianity, good or bad.

My history is different than this.

So, don't call me a Christian. First of all, it's a Greek term that I don't accept. Second of all, it was used by Greek believers in Antioch. I'm not from Antioch.

In Mesopotamia, we called ourselves Meshikhaye after Meshikha. "Christian" denotes a history that I'm not a part of. Neither is Andrew. Have you noticed that Jews who believe their Meshikha do not call themselves "Christians", either?

You respect their wishes. right?

Respect mine.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#29
Quote:Paul could be quoting a First Century Hebrew OT text that no longer exists. That lost text may have been the basis of LXX. The destruction of the temple and destruction of all Hebrew scolls might explain this observation.

Otto

If that had been the case, why do we have this text in languages such as greek and a late dialect of aramaic, why not Hebrew? Shouldn't the Hebrew had been the original?

Quote:Paul isn't quoting from a single Psalm here. It is a Drash, a compilation of different OT books he is referring to.

Heh, ok, the apostle Paul is doing this same thing of quoting from compilations and whatnots rather than a pure text of sorts? Ok, I'm sure that this is believable Paul, yes we are just robots master, what do you wish for us to believe now?

Paul, we make "logical" conclusions on the data available, not far reaching conclusions based on extreme circumstances, or bias, which that seems to be what you would rather us choose from.

Quote:The Greek Christians obviously went back, as was their habit, and revised the LXX reading with this gloss from the NT.

Hmmm, this is interesting here, first Paul and his friends say on this board that the greek NT is a copy from the syriac, but now the greek Christians were heretics that added that gloss in this section and revised the LXX to say the same thing,.....but the same exact text in the syriac is a true quote from a compilation of whatnots that is in the tried and true language of Jesus??!?

Ok, again Paul, what do you want us to believe here? That is outwardly illogical to anyone here and it does not fare well with your objective.

Quote:Dave, quit playing and explain how Acts 2:24 in the Greek got the word "pains" from "cords" unless they were translating an Aramaic word that means both "pain" and "cord".

Well I already did. Let's look at what I said:

Quote: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.

It's the only logical reasoning there is for it Paul. If your beloved text witnessed to the Hebrew text instead of the LXX, then you would garner major attention. Elsewise, the text points more towards revision rather than originality.

And I won't get into the culturistic tantrum you are exibiting at the moment, although we are to test the spirits and it appears that The Lord is pointing something out to us here at this moment.
Reply
#30
I will point one thing out here though;

This syriac text is a dialect of aramaic, the sister language of Hebrew, wouldn't you think that the text would have wanted to follow the Hebrew text more closely than it has?

Why didn't it? This has the resemblence to the original print aramaic, so why didn't it closely resemble the Hebrew text?

What text is it following? It's quite obvious that it follows something other than the Hebrew text. Do we believe Paul's assesment that it is a compliation of whatnot texts? Would the Apostle Paul had access to the Hebrew texts? There is a possibility in that.

Again, why did it not follow the Hebrew text? Does this syriac text witness to the greek NT? Yes it does.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)