Acts 2:24 Redux

[Paul Younan]

The whole problem is this, why does the syriac conform to this LXX section and not correct the problem with the greek?

It doesn't, Dave. The LXX (one specific manuscript - Codex Alexandrius) was revised to read like Romans 3:13-18. That's what the authors of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) said - not me.

Even two medieval Hebrew manuscripts were revised to read the way Romans 3:13-18 reads.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You would have me handing out kudos to you and everyone over the syriac if it had agreed with it's own OT text, but it doesn't. Again, inconsistancy.

Neither does the Greek.

(a) The Aramaic does not use any known Aramaic OT text
(b) The Greek does not use any known Greek OT text

Read my latest installment on the "Aramaic Primacy" forum here:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122

There are about 50 examples on there right now, right from your beloved Greek NT and Septuagint which prove my point.

That is all it amounts to. Who screwed up here?

Use your own lines. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Does the greek follow this syriac text or does the syriac text follow the greek?

Does the Greek follow the Peshitta OT? No, why would it? The Peshitta doesn't even follow the Peshitta OT. Why would the Greek?

Nor does the Greek follow the Septuagint. Again, see here:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122

This argument is getting really old here, Dave. And it has NOTHING to do with Acts 2:24.

It's pathetic, really. C'MON.

You guys say that the greek was translated from the syriac, so why does it agree here with this text instead of the Hebrew and Peshitta OT?

It doesn't agree with the Septuagint. If you look at the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint, they don't read this way. Only one manuscript - Codes Alexandrius, reads this way.

And, according to the editors of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, this one single manuscript was edited later to conform to Paul's Drash in Romans 3:13-18.

Are you listening here, or am I typing for nothing? Pay attention.

Was this what the apostle Paul preached or did someone add this in? It makes no sense.

It's what the Apostle Paul preached. It was later added to the LXX. Again, see the notes in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

Yes Paul, you have that following here, and I'm the judas, but what about the scholarly world and the following of God's people? Do they agree with what you and others are preaching here? You know the answer to that, need I rub it in? I've been watching for a while to see if there has been an impact with fundamental Christianity, ah,... nope.

Do I care? Ah, nope. Do you really think I'm doing this for the benefit of your "Fundamental (American) Christianity?" PA-LEEZE, Dave. I could care less what they, and you, think. We were around a lot longer than you, and we will be around a lot longer after you. Look at history.

Basically, there are the very few followers of the text who have chirped up every once and a while over the years in the scholarly world, but by and large, it has not made the inroads in that arena either that you and others would have hoped for. Lamsa tried the hardest, even conforming his text to the KJV at times and he didn't fool God's people then, nor the scholarly world.

Um, did you forget 80 million people all across the continent of Asia at its height 700 years ago? The largest Christian body at the time?

Of course you forgot about them. They weren't White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, were they? That's who you are referring to when you say "Fundamental Christianity", isn't it?

I don't have the bias here my friend.

No, not bias. Only racism. Like Babylon being evil and all, right? And that evil language, Aramaic?

I cut the greek down at times also because of it's standardization, same with the syriac. I approach it in a total neutral sense.

Na, you're just wishy-washy. You don't know what to believe in. It bothers you that Meshikha was a dark, swarthy man who spoke in that Arabic-like gutteral language of those sand-dwelling folks.....maybe that He even wore a towel on his head?

Last ditch effort, ludicrous huh? I'm not the one with the fire blazing over this in the aramaic primacy arena at the moment Paul. I noticed you doing the damage control efforts over this. If it was not an issue, you would have not proceeded to raise the dust at such a fury in an attempt to dismiss this at any cost to these folks.

Damage control? Dave, seriously!

Ask anyone here who it is, you or I, who can't even answer a simple question. Who's doing the damage control?

First, I make you look like a fool because you jumped the gun calling the Holy Spirit a broad, then I confront you with this Acts 2:24 thingie - and you bring up ROMANS 3:13 !!!!

Who's doing damage control? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Does the emperor have no clothes? Did I catch you with your pants down in this area Paul?

Keep your dreams out of this. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

It is a totally sound and logical approach by me to the mess of this issue. Many have looked at it over the years and seen it the same way quite a few years prior to me, many men who were of a much higher caliber than me in the scholarly arena, and they seen through it.

Western men, right? Who didn't understand, or speak, Aramaic...right? Otherwise, what need would they have had to make a Greek, Latin, German or English translation?

What if I told you that many (eastern) men who were of a much higher caliber than you in the scholarly arena seen through it? And they happened to understand Meshikha's language?

Would that hold the same weight with you, even though they had a little more melatonin than those other men you spoke of?

If the syriac text had it's merit, folks would not be trying to do everything that there is possible here to persuade, convince, and sell this to people. You and others would not need to, God would be witnessing it for you and people would be flocking to it in droves.

God has always witnessed to it, Dave. That's why the Church of the East has been called the Greatest Missionary Church that has ever existed. And a white man (John Stewart) said that.

Ooo, I think I scored a point with you this time. If I had said that "Mar Nimrod" said that the Church of the East was the greatest missionary church that has ever existed, you would have brushed that off as cultural pride - wouldn't you?

I will say it again, 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.

You have absolutely no proof of that ever happening. If you had early Aramaic fragments that read differently from the Peshitta, then you would be able to reasonably postulate that a revision occured here.

As such, your theory is bunk.

Besides, that still doesn't answer the main question. I already told you, forget about the Aramaic text.....imagine the Greek NT is the only thing that ever existed and that there's no such thing as an Aramaic NT.

Go it? OK, now....answer this simple multiple-choice question:

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because.... (circle one)

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?

No matter if the "western" greek folks went back into the LXX and interpolated it, like you proposed,

I DIDN'T PROPOSE IT, DAVE. I AM MERELY REPEATING WHAT THE GOOD FOLKS WHO WROTE THE BHS SAID.

I DIDN'T PROPOSE IT, DAVE.

I would not be able to even say what I say here if the syriac text would have followed the Hebrew and it's own Peshitta OT text in this area.

Dave, why would the Peshitta NT (written by Palestinian Jews) follow the Peshitta OT (a version created by Mesopotamian Jews) ????

The Peshitta OT wasn't used in Palestine at the time, Dave. And neither was the Septuagint. And the MSS Hebrew text did not exist at the time (as the Masoretes hadn't done their standardization work yet for a few more centuries.)

That's why the quotes in the NT oftentimes don't match up to anything at all.....and the other reason is because they were, more often than not, paraphrases rather than direct quotes.

Do you think Meshikha was like one of your American ministers on a podium, wearing a suit and tie and with a leather-bound bible in his hand preaching and telling the people to look up a specific verse?

Do you think he actually was carrying around that big-ass scroll around from the synagogue wherever he went?

Dave, quit watching televangelists, ok?

Why did it not correct the greek OT in this area also if it was so original and inspired?

The Greek OT (like the Greek NT) had plenty of "correcting" done to it over the centuries, dude.

Why should I concede when your proposing that it was this conglomeration of texts the apostles used instead of an actual text of some sorts? Is that really your answer here Paul, a drash? I'm not reaching here at all costs, you are. My conclusion of it is sound.

Of course it's a drash. Do you realize how often Paul does that in his writing? If not, read some of Andrew's posts here or in his book. It was like, totally his style man.

Dave, I've had fun in this little exchange - I really have. But I need you to ask the Spirit one thing for me, please, because I know She talks to you - and let me know what the answer is as soon as She gives it, please:

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because.... (circle one)

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?