Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christ's OT quotes and Pshitta primacy
Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 (Zechariah 9.9)

[Image: matt215d.jpg]

Both read nothing like the LXX.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46 (Isaiah 56.7)

[Image: matt2113.jpg]

None of the three are quotes from the LXX. (more paraphrasing)
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Luke 20:37, Acts 3:13 and Acts 7:32 (Exodus 3.6)

[Image: matt2232.jpg]
[Image: matt2232b.jpg]

FIVE chances the GNT had to be a quote from the LXX, but not a single one made it!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Good points that are well made. I myself have no doubt about the primacy of not just the Pshitta NT but also of the much-neglected OT, as I discussed when I was a 'Gentile'.

What I wanted was an explanation of this great claim by Greek Primacists, and the response Pshitta Primacy would have, and you have supplied that.

Many thanks to you! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Hi Lector,

Thanks. We need to put this particular GP myth to rest. I'm just starting, look for a lot more examples in the coming days. This is going to be the thread we point people to who ask the same question.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Thanks for the great material on The OT quotes.
Have you noticed that The Peshitta' OT quotes in Hebrews seem to agree with The OT Peshitta against The Hebrew OT and the LXX ? There are quite a few long quotes in Hebrews from The Psalms and the Prophets.
This is a fascinating area of study. I hope we can compile all the NT quotations from the OT for The Peshitta and GNT, comparing them to the LXX, Massoretic and OT Peshitta.
T'would be invaluable.

Burktha w'shlama,

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Thanks brother.

I would *not* expect that the Peshitta NT quotes the Peshitta OT in any manner.

Reason being, despite the fact that they share a common name, the two texts are totally unrelated. I think the common name confuses people.

If you carefully study the nuances of the Aramaic of the POT, it is a very rigid translation of the Hebrew in a very Mesopotamian-style dialect (in particular, it contains many "Chaldeanisms" in addition to its "Hebraicisms".) This is exactly what we would expect of an Aramaic translation made by Jews in Babylonian Captivity. However, this version was not used outside of Mesopotamia.

If you carefully study the nuances of the Aramaic of the PNT, it is a very natural Aramaic of Palestinian origin. The reason why I say that is, it contains many Hellenisms. This is exactly what we would expect of an Aramaic work made by Jews who lived under Graeco-Roman domination. The fact that it contains these Hellenisms is important to our Aramaic Primacy cause.....because if it didn't, then it couldn't have been written in 1st-century Palestine.

An important observation of any linguistic study is that dialects form and are influenced by regional and governmental factors. For instance, if you study the Arabic used in Lebanon (my parents were born in Beirut), you will notice that they have many French loan-words in their Arabic dialect. Why? Well, the French ruled Lebanon for a long time. French became a second language there. My mother worked as a maid for a French family in Beirut. The French language was taught in schools, right alongside Arabic.

If the Peshitta NT did not contain loan-words of Greek origin, then we would rightly dismiss it as a later translation made by Mesopotamians. Why Mesopotamians? Because Greek was unknown in Mesopotamia, unlike the Levant where it was almost a second language much like French is today in Lebanon. A translation made by Mesopotamians would not contain any Hellenisms or Greek loan-words, simply because Mesopotamians didn't live under the rule of Greeks - they lived under the rule of Persians.

If the Peshitta NT was a translation made in Mesopotamia, you would find that it would contain Persian loan-words, instead of Greek. You would find that the translators would've gone to great lengths to translate key terms for currency, ranks of soldiers and names of Roman admnistrative roles.

But you don't. Why? It's simply because it was written by Jews who called Roman coins by their names, because they lived by trading with these coins. They transliterated these into their local Aramaic vernacular....along with many other words of everyday importance.

The presence of Greek (and, Latin) loan-words is not a weakness for Aramaic Primacy - it's a strength. And likewise, the fact that the Peshitta NT is completely unrelated to the Peshitta OT is also a strength.

If the Peshitta NT contained quotes from the Peshitta OT, then it would immediately be suspect. Why would it do so if the Peshitta OT wasn't used outside of Mesopotamia? Do you see the trouble that would present? It would immediately place the Peshitta NT in Mesopotamia, and therefore give weight against our Aramaic Primacy arguments.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but think about it. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:33 and Luke 10:27 (Deuteronomy 6.5)

[Image: matt2237.jpg]
[Image: matt2237b.jpg]

Here is a breakdown of the differences between the LXX and the three Greek Gospel accounts here:

(1) First of all, the GNT in all three Gospel accounts includes the phrase "with all thy heart", which is totally absent from the LXX

(2) The Marcan account replaces "mind" with "understanding"

(3) The GNT replaces the word for "strength" dunamewv used by the LXX with iscuov

(4) Notice that the GNT agrees with the MSS against the LXX in speaking of the "heart"

(5) The word-order is completely off

So much for the GNT quoting from the LXX, eh?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:27 (Zechariah 13.7)

[Image: matt2631.jpg]

(1) The GNT reading differs significantly from the LXX, especially in the verb diaskorpisqjsontai "scatter abroad" versus the LXX's ekspasate "draw out."

(2) Matthew includes the phrase "of the flock", which is completely absent in the LXX

(3) The tenses are different.

(4) The word order is completely off.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Thanks for your detailed covering of this Paul.

I will use the info in my next encounter, and may infact, necro my 3rd debate thread where this came up from a hardline Baptist Zorban, who said.....

"Looking at the Greek constructions of the NT there is nothing there at suggests anything but Greek foundation in creation. There is no thread of evidence textually to suggest that Aramaic was ever present in the NT manuscripts. One of the primary reasons for this is the matter that the OT quotations used in several of the Gospels and other NT books are translated into Greek from the Hebrew. To translate from Hebrew into Aramaic then into Greek is not a viable process to undertake. In the creation of the NT documents, particularly the epistolary literature, it was the work of a secretary and the particular apostle done in Greek which is how the text was formed."

And feel free to throw down other thread links with similar evidence....

I have already cited the Targums to take care of some of his argument. But he and others I know believe the LXX was used in the translation of the OT quotes in the NT. So things like this help me in my future debates.
Hi Akhi Addai,

I've only just begun. There's about 5 times more examples coming....except that I'm going off to vacation for the next 3 days in the Wisconsin Dells.

See you then with more examples. We have to squash this thing right here and right now because I'm tired of this lie.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Matthew 24:30 & 26:64, Mark 13:26 & 14:62, Luke 21:27 (Daniel 7.13)

[Image: matt2430.jpg]
[Image: matt2430b.jpg]

Need I say anything on this example?

(1) Completely different words used - LXX jrceto vs. the GNT's ercomenov, LXX's epi vs. the GNT's meta ... etc.

(2) Word order completely different.

None of these FIVE instances are in any way, shape or form a quote (or even influenced, for that matter) by the LXX.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
There also is this claim.

"One of the primary reasons for this is the matter that the OT quotations used in several of the Gospels and other NT books are translated into Greek from the Hebrew."

"To translate from Hebrew into Aramaic then into Greek is not a viable process to undertake."

Are there any Messianics who can cite the targums on these verses? I know 2 verses of the NT were directly taken from the Targums. Is the Targumaic structure demonstratably more similar?

If this could be demonstrated it would really serious hurt the case of the Grecophiles.
Shlama akhi Paul,

Where did you get this LXX ? The two I have, one Online Bible edition and one hard bound Leather 1873 edition have a different reading in Daniel 7:13 :
(LXX) eyewroun en oramati thv nuktov kai idou meta twn nefelwn tou ouranou wv uiov anyrwpou ercomenov hn.

I don't think it is fair to characterize these NT verses as quotations; they are allusions to the Daniel prophecy.
There are different versions of the LXX:Clementine and Alexandrian. I know this may throw a monkey wrench into some of these comparisons.

"Meta" - "With" , in Daniel LXX, agrees with the Aramaic [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]M9[/font] of that verse (Daniel 2:4-7:28 was written in Aramaic). The NT Greek and Aramaic seems to disagree with that preposition, using "upon", (epi in Greek;[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]l9[/font] in Aramaic).
ercomenov" -"Coming" is the participle form of "ercomai"- "to come". All the Greek NT texts use this verb in the references to Daniel 7:13. Even your LXX version has it: "hrceto" is the past tense of "ercomai"- "to come".


Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Shlama Akhi Dave,

That's the problem we deal with when we examine the LXX.

We have two extant witnesses, both date to well after Christianity and they have both the LXX and the GNT in them.

The older one, Codex Vaticanus, dates from the 4th century and contains the reading above from Daniel 7:13. The later one, Codex Alexandrius, dates from the 5th century and contains your reading which is closer to the GNT.

Remember, it is Codex Alexandrius which was later edited to conform to the reading of Romans 3:13-18 (according to the authors of the BHS and others.)

This is just another example of the editing work Zorba did to try and bring his GNT more in line with the LXX, and vice-versa.

I choose the older, pre-revised Codex Vaticanus as the basis for these comparisons since we can't trust the Codex Alexandrius knowing that it contains later revisions to bring some readings in line with the GNT.

Not to mention the fact that these codices also contain the GNT. Right there that tells you that we have no pre-Christian LXX texts to compare with.

See what I mean when I say "the Greek mess?"
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)