Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 1:3 According to Bauscher
"He appeared also to me because I had approached all things carefully, that I would write everything in order to you, excellent Theophila."- Luke 1:3 from The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English.

"I had___approached___because___to me___also___He appeared
in its order__thing__that every__all of them___carefully
Theophila___excellent__to you___I should write"- Luke 1:3 from The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament

"I also see, because of being near, to diligently scribe all---all in order to you, most excellent Teoauphile, that you know the truth of the words discipled to you."- Luke 1:3 from The Aramaic New Covenant

"And since these were seen by me also because I was near and considered them all very carefully; I will therefore write to you everything in its order, most honorable Theophilus..."- Luke 1:3 from The Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text

Bauscher is the only person that I've seen to translate it as "He appeared to me," which seems to me like he was delving into interpretation and translating "in his own image". This is one of three places where I've seen him do this to a degree where it perverts the text (the others being Matthew 5:3 and Matthew 13:42). His translation of "Ena-na" is interpretive, but acceptable and correct (though he should have left it as I AM), but in these other places he incorrectly translates the text. Matthew 5:3 is rendered accurately in his Interlinear, which I finally got a hold of tonight. I love Bauscher's translation, but he, like Lamsa, Alexander, and to a lesser degree Roth, needs to leave his interpretations out of his translation in places where it is avoidable.

I believe this is Semitic syntax. And he also explains this grammatically. ?Ethkhazay?

Quote: ?of the Word ?. Luke is saying that The Lord Yeshua The Messiah had appeared to him and had authorized and directed his writing of this Gospel. Why would it be received otherwise? If Luke merely ?thought it good to write ?, why would the churches have put it on a par with the inspired Gospels, Matthew,Mark and Luke? He would have been merely rehashing second hand The New Testament. . That is no recommendation worthy of an inspired Gospel of information and serving warmed up leftovers ?Theophila ?, to whom Luke wrote, would have thrown it in the trash if that were Luke?s meaning.Verse 2 says the other gospels were written by ?eyewitnesses?. Verse three says Luke was also an eyewitness of The Messiah . If he were not, then he would be disqualified to write a gospel. It would seem that Western churches, in their misunderstanding of Luke?s introduction, have allowed scholarship to supplant Divine inspiration as its authority. This has subtly and slowly supplanted the Spirit ual with the intellectual , which Luke the Physician has come to represent. He was not writing a literary composition Which things we also :13 ?Co 2: 1, just as every other God inspired writer of scripture wrotehere; he was writing from God we compare spirituals ; ands wisdom, but in the teaching of The Spirit?not in the teaching of the words of manspeak;
What should he have translated in the Interlinear instead of "He appeared"? What is the literal meaning of the Aramaic word here?
The Texas RAT Wrote:What should he have translated in the Interlinear instead of "He appeared"? What is the literal meaning of the Aramaic word here?

"It appeared [to me]"
So it is valid, but how do you all think it should be translated?

It's a difficult passage to translate into English, as you can see from the others which try to tackle it...but, I don't think David's rendering is proper here. Too interpretive for my taste, and gives a totaly different meaning than all the other translations and language versions, which seem to say the same thing in other words, and none has seen it the way Dave has it there.

That's how I usually determine mistranslations is by examining how other translations do it. No other person has reached this interpretation, including two native speakers of Syriac!
Thinking outside of the box could help us to correct incorrect renderings which sometimes, as WE know, have been incorrectly rendered into Greek from the beginning.

Now, he has really a good point.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ng-To-Luke</a><!-- m -->
Quote:The Targum of Jonathan has

21 occurrences of the passive verb ?
? and ?

? in former and latter Prophets ; none has the meaning ?

seemed ?, or ?it was fit, proper ?. It would ?appear? or ?seem?

( pun intended )

that the latter meaning is a rare one. In Luke 1:3, it also contradictsthe intention of Luke to employ that meaning. If I am right about Luke 1:3, Luke?s Gospel was probably written after John?s Gospel, since Luke refers to

The Word
as ?He? , a Person of Whomthe Apostles are ?eyewitnesses and servants?. He also ?appeared? to Luke.This refers plainly to John 1:1& 14. Luke would probably be the last of the four Gospels written, not John.
Muy interesante! I agree it's a viable reading of the Aramaic text, but maybe Brother Paul could give us his input...
The Moffatt Translation is interesting here.

Of course, Moffatt is suspect for 2 reasons concerning Luke 1:3.

1. "The authors of the New Testament all wrote in Hellenistic Greek..."
2. "The first stage was the oral circulation and collection of sayings and stories of Jesus, mainly in the Aramaic, for the purpose of proving that he was the real messiah of God's people."

The second objection is important since the introduction of Luke would, to Moffatt, have been in Greek since there is no "Oral History" of Jesus being given here.
Why then would this be of interest?

Luke 1: 1 - 4 (Moffatt):

1 Inasmuch as a number of writers have essayed to draw up a narrative of the established facts in out religion,
2. exactly as these have been handed down to us by the original eye-witnesses who were in the service of the Gospel Message,
3. and inasmuch as I have gone carefully over them all myself from the beginning, I have decided, O Theophilus, to write them out in order for your excellency,
4. to let you know the solid truth of what you have been taught.

The purpose here, as in presenting a legal document, is to show an Official of some Court that what is presented is written, written without ambiguity and has been reviewed as such. For Moffatt, this is seen in his assertion that "Theophilus" is to be called "Excellency", as a Scribe would respect various superiorities of Court Dynamics, as when reporting a review of material to a member of royalty.

I know there are a lot of theories that Theophilus (Tawpeela) was either referring to the general Christian believer or to a public official. The fact that the receiver of Luke's Gospel and Acts is referred to as "most excellent Theophilus" is telling, and seems to point to the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles as being sent to an individual. The fact that it could be translated as "lover of God" makes one wonder if this is the receiver's name, or if it is referring to anybody who reads it. I think it is both. Those who read and understand the Word of God are lovers of God as long as they keep the commandments of Christ. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through the apostles, prophets, and other authors in order to give us instruction and show us the way to salvation. The Word of God is a gift from God to the believer!
Thank you , ScorpioSniper2 and thanx to others for pointing out this verse to me.
It is deeper on a number of levels.

Verse 2 states that the "established facts" were given "...exactly as these have been handed down to us by the original eye-witnesses...".
In Greek or Aramaic?
I know your answer.

That makes "Theophilus" a translation of something from the Aramaic.
However, there is a very complicating feature here.

Herod at a point in his rule established his Court on the Greek Model:
1. "Friends"
2. "Honored Friends"
3. "Guards of the Realm"
4. "Kinsmen"

"Theophilus" may be "Friend of God". It may reference someone in the fragmented structure of whatever governing body remained in Judaea. That is,though others see this as proof positive that the origin was Greek, it may be a letter to someone of the "Friend" Rank. It sounds Greek because in a way it was - by way of Herod. The name's origin, however, may have been Aramaicized from the Court of Herod and then later given in Greek as "Theophilus".

Following up on "Theophilus" in Luke 1: 3 as a cryptic Aramaic formulation:

From A H M Jones, _The Herods of Judaea_, Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W.1,
c:1938,1967, p. 83.

"As he replaced the sacerdotal Sanhedrin by a secular council, so Herod built up to replace the old
hereditary aristocracy a new aristocracy of ?service whose members should owe their rank and their
wealth to him and to him alone. ?They were graded according to regular Hellenistic practice in
progressive ranks of dignity, "the friends" being the lowest, then "the most honoured friends", then
"the guards of the body", and finally "the kinsmen"; the last title, it may be noted,was like others
purely honorific and ?implied no real relationship"

Josephus, _Wars..._, 1, 23, 5 (Thackeray Trans.):

"Those, therefore, whom Caesar has united and their father now nominates, do you uphold; let the honours you award them be neither undeserved nor unequal, but proportioned to the rank of each:...I myself shall select the advisers and attendants [[Note]] who are to consort with each of my sons..."

[[Note]]: "[[Greek words given]] are, as Reinach points out, technical terms in the hierarchy of a Hellenistic court."

There is more to explore here but this is enough to think about for now.


Or the Person's name could have really been "Tawpeela" or "Theophilus"... But that wouldn't be any fun...or intriguing.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)