James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-12-2001 at 11:23 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Shlama, Before I post this it is only fair to say that this post is the result of Paul and myself brainstorming on the phone tonight. Having examined all of the facts I believe that the best explaination of Acts 1:4 is that the Peshitta reading here is original: 0mxl Nwhm9 lk0 dkw And he ate bread with them The word for bread is 0mxl Now the Greek seems to be based on a misreading of 0mxl "bread" as0xlm "salt" This scribal error may explain Ephraim's xlmt0 Thus producing the problematic Greek reading: kai sunalizomenos "and he ate salt..." Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-19-2001 at 00:04 AM, (1)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-20-2001 at 10:49 AM, (2)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-20-2001 at 00:04 AM, (3)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
discipledaniel, Mar-21-2001 at 08:57 AM, (4)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-21-2001 at 10:31 AM, (5)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-21-2001 at 02:38 PM, (8)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-21-2001 at 03:06 PM, (9)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
judge, Mar-21-2001 at 04:35 PM, (11)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Dean Dana, Mar-21-2001 at 08:39 PM, (15)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-21-2001 at 07:08 AM, (16)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-22-2001 at 09:19 AM, (18)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Dean Dana, Mar-23-2001 at 00:17 AM, (20)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-23-2001 at 08:15 AM, (21)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
James_Trimm, Mar-23-2001 at 08:22 AM, (22)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-23-2001 at 03:20 PM, (24)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Dean Dana, Mar-23-2001 at 01:37 PM, (23)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-23-2001 at 07:50 PM, (25)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
James_Trimm, Mar-23-2001 at 08:03 PM, (26)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-23-2001 at 09:13 PM, (27)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Iakov, Mar-23-2001 at 11:17 PM, (28)
- RE: New Take on Acts 1:4,
Paul Younan
, Mar-24-2001 at 06:57 AM, (29)
- Source MSS,
Iakov, Mar-24-2001 at 06:55 PM, (30)
- RE: Source MSS,
James_Trimm, Mar-24-2001 at 07:15 PM, (31)
- RE: Source MSS,
Iakov, Mar-25-2001 at 02:45 AM, (32)
- RE: Source MSS,
James_Trimm, Mar-25-2001 at 03:50 AM, (33)
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2001 at 00:04 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Dr. Trimm, I think according to the BAD NT Lexicon the more appropriate rendering of "sunalidzomenos" would be "...ate with salt..." since the preposition "sun" is prefixed. Regards Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2001 at 10:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-2001 AT 11:04 AM (CST) Shlama Akhi Iakov, That's worse. Ate what with salt? The Peshitta contains the reading which makes the most sense. He ate bread - 0mxl, which probably because of a scribal or spelling error, they confused with salt - 0xlm. This mistake could have only happened by the Greeks translating from the Aramaic. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2001 at 00:04 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
It does make sense when one considers it as Greek idiom used by Herodotus with reference to "collecting" or "bringing together". Also the same idiom is used in the Xenophon to mean "eat together with". So it is not with "what" did he eat "salt", it is with "whom" he ate. The passive voice in the afore mentioned works is taken to mean "come together" or in the middle voice "assemble". (Reference: Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol 3 pp. 443-449-"Sunalidzo".) Hence the NAS translation "...gathering them together..." Perhaps the translator of the GNT to the Peshita text misunderstood the Greek idiom. Or, he understood it perfectly ergo eating with salt is to the Greek what the breaking of bread is to the Semite. Neither make good English. MaSalaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
discipledaniel
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 08:57 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Greetings Iakov, I thought that you should know, in case you didn't, that most of us on this board believe in aramaic primacy, ie, the greek came from the peshitta, not the other way around. That's not to say that you have to believe in aramaic primacy to be active on this board, we will respect your opinions. I'm just letting you know what to expect... God Bless, Dan
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 01:43 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Akhi Daniel, Thank you. I did not mean to offend. Sorry. I was just stating what I understand. I know there is also a group of scholars from the Jerusalem School including Hebrew University that opt for a Hebraic primacy. So if I offended "ana mitasif"(sorry). Iakov.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 02:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Shlama Akhi Iakov, Wow - you know Arabic too?  Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
discipledaniel
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 03:51 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Akhi Iakov, There was no offense taken. It wasn't even a warning against sharing your ideas about Greek, just some information that I thought you would like to know if you are going to be active on this board. God Bless, Dan
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 10:31 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Shlama Akhi Iakov, Greek idioms in the speech of Herodotus aside, the NT is a Semitic document with a Semitic background, with the main characters being Semites. Herodotus' idiom, while it may be applicable to Acts 1:4, does nothing to override the general (very Semitic) idiom of "getting together to eat bread" found in, but not limited to:
- Mattay 15:2, 16:5-12, 26:26
- Marqus 6:37, 7:2-5, 8:4, 8:14, 14:22
- Luqa 14:15, 22:19, 24:35
- John 6:23, 6:48, 13:18
- Acts 2:42, 2:46, 20:7, 20:11
- 1Cor 10:16-17, 11:26
Using Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best. This was a mistranslation or spelling error in the Aramaic text the Greeks translated from, where they read 0xlm instead of 0mxl Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 02:38 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Akhi Paul, I do not suggest that the fabric of the NT is Greek. In fact I contend just the opposite. Unless understood from a semitic world view the GNT cannot be comprehended. To go a step further, the NT must also be studied from the perspective of its Jewish roots. Hebrew & Aramaic are essential in understanding the NT. This truth is becoming more clear as light is shed on the DSS. However to disregard the GNT when Greek idiom does appear, especially when written by a Gentile believer, is to commit the same error as did we in the west. We know there was a local church established in Corinth before Paul's imprisonment in Rome. Why would it be reasonable to excpect he wrote this very Greek congregation in Aramaic? In fact 1 & 2Corinthians has many Greek idioms and word plays. We also know Luke spent considerable time with Paul there. Are we to expect that Luke, a gentile, wrote to gentile Christians in Aramaic? Is it plausible to consider there is Semitic thought underlying all the NT writings though some may have been penned in Greek originally. For Paul's congregations I would think Greek would be as essential as Aramaic was for Yakub's. Shlaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 03:06 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #8
Shlama Akhi Iakov, I am an Aramaic-speaking Gentile. You're making a bad assumption when implying that only Greek-speakers were non-Jews, or that only Jews spoke Aramaic, or that the early believers were only Aramaic-speaking Jews or Greek-speaking everyone-else. Take a look to the East of Jerusalem - at the time it was a sea of Aramaic-speaking Gentiles, including Antioch in Syria (Aram), where "Luke" was from. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 04:35 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #8
Hi from down under Iakov....can you tell me about some of the greek idioms and wordplays in 1 and 2 corinthians....thanks in advance.............. michael(judge)
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 07:16 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Absolutely Akhi Judge. I will be more detailed later as I do not have my GNT in front of me presently. For now though you will notice the word "wisdom" repeatedly in Corinthians. Also before I go any further refer to G. Fee NICNT commentary on 1Corinthians for a detailed explanation on the culture there. Wisdom is "sophia" in Greek and a jab against the Sophists Cult rampant in Corinth. They worshiped wisdom and found the cross to be foolishness,(...a stumbling block to the Jews & foolishness to the Greeks...) the very antithesis of what they held in high honor. "Sophia" occurrs frequently in Corinthians as these Greek speaking Christians used the term in their past life before they were "new creations" to refer to themselves as people of high mindedness.(I don't know if that is appropriate English) The sister term to "sophia" is "gnosis" (knowledge). These two in fact occur side by side on occasion. In fact Corinth is an epicenter of gnosticism. These people have the higher knowledge, an insight which must be obtained by out of body experiences so as not to soil the spirit with the flesh ("sarx"= flesh- another favorite term frequent in Corinthians). Paul uses words like "foolishness", "child(ish)", "spirit(ual)" to be the antithesis of these favorite pagan terms of the Corinthians. I will be more specific when I get the Nestle-Aland Text in front of me. Also Akhi Paul, I hope you will be patient with me in referring to the Gentile Christians as Greek speaking Christians. I meant to say Greek speaking Christians, such as those in Macedonia, Asia Minor(due to the heavy Greek influence here), & Rome needed instruction from Paul & Luke(from Macedonia) in Greek. Shlaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-22-2001 at 07:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Akhi Michael, Here is a sampling of heavy Greek influence in Corinthians to support my previous statements. "Sophia"(widsom) is the goal which the Greeks hope to obtain. 1Cor 1:22. Consider the number of times "wisdom" appears in 1Corinthians. 17 Times in the first 2 chapters alone. The use fades after this as he turns to "pneumatikoi" (spirituals). Paul uses the much maligned antithetical term to wisdom, namely "foolishness" . "Foolishness" appears 5 times in Paul's rhetoric in 1Cor. 1 & 2. In fact Paul uses this term to shame the idolistic minded Greeks in his summation; 1Cor 1:27 "...for God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise...".Consider it is the Greeks who coined the phrase "love of wisdom" (philosophy- where phil(e)=like or love and sophia=wisdom). Next Paul turns to the discussion of "pneumatikoi" in Chap 3. This is a very heavily influenced Greek term as well. If you like I will discuss this word tommorrow. This information comes from G Fee NICNT 1Corinthians and The NIDNTT. Dr. Fee gives considerable documentation on the people & history of Corinth delving into customs & the influence of philosophy. Shlaama Iakov.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean Dana
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 08:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #8
Shlonak Iakov, What makes you think Luke was Gentile??? Dean Dana
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2001 at 07:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #15
Akhi Dean, The famous "they-we" passage in Acts 16:8-10 shows from where Luke hails. also his audience as well as his audience- "Theophilus". Also Col 4:10-14 shows Luke as being numbered with those not "from the circumcision". His use of Greek idiom is matched only in Paul's writings and his use of terms for those who were not Greek raised its head in Acts 28:2,4. Shlaama Iakov of
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-22-2001 at 09:19 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #16
Shlama Akhi Iakov, The Roman Catholic Church, in it's "New American Translation" of the NT, in the introduction to the Gospel of Luke, states: "Church tradition states that Luke was a Syrian from Antioch...." A Syrian (Greek for "Aramean", Aram = "Syria") from Antioch, the "center" of the Aramaic-speaking world. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-22-2001 at 01:27 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #18
Akhi Paul, In fact the most prominent Lucan scholar is Catholic; Joseph Fitzmeyer. In the introduction to his commentary on Luke he details all arguments for Luke's identity. The basis for the quote you cited comes from 2nd century tradition written in Latin & Greek. It is a prologue to the Gospel which reads "...estin ho Loukas Antiocheus Suros" (Luke is (an) Antiochan, (a) Syrian). This tradition from Eusebius is dismissed by other scholars explaining the "Luke was with those from the Church At Syrian Antioch (as opposed to Pisidian Antioch)".I Howard Marshall. Prominant Prostestant scholars hold to the view that Luke was a Macedonian born in Syrian Antioch educated at the University of Tarsus (perhaps with Paul)and was living in Troas when Paul came. But Akhi Paul the Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer, who espouses the view that Luke was a Syrian from Anticoh, also considers Luke's Greek to be among the finest. Fitzmeyer states that Luke avoids semitisms with his excellent Greek style. It doesn't matter where he is from or his heritage although I think the "they...we" passage is evidence enough. What all scholars to agree upon is Luke's use of Greek. It is highly techincal using accounting terms, medical terms, idioms, legal terms, and the like. So yes the Catholics who say Luke is a Sryian from Antioch also say he is an outstang Greek literary. I can agree to that. Shlaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean Dana
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 00:17 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #16
Kefak Iakov, >The famous "they-we" passage in Acts >16:8-10 shows from where Luke >hails.
This only reveals where he happened to be at that time, not necessarily his ethno-religious background. >also his audience as well as his audience-> "Theophilus". Its a far stretch to conclude with any certainty that simply because Theophilus' NAME is Greek, therefore he IS Greek and Luke IS Greek by association. My name is British/welsh in origin yet my ethnic background is middle-eastern/Jewish! >Also Col 4:10-14 shows Luke as >being numbered with those not >"from the circumcision". The passage you mentioned above, if taken literally implies ONLY that those named in v10 & 11 are "from the circumcision" (i.e. Jews or converts to Judaism) If this is true (and you are taking Paul's word extremely literally) then EVERY other "fellow worker" MUST be a non-Jew. This must include every apostle and disciple and we know thats NOT true. On the other hand, one may conclude that the apostle Pauls comment was NOT meant to be taken extremely literally as you are interpreting it. Therefore Luke may then be considered non-Jewish. Under this scenario there still remains the high probability that Luke being non-Jewish is nevertheless a non-Jewish Semite. Remember the world doesnt divided neatly between Jews (Semites) and Greeks (non-Semites). There were multitudes of non-Jewish, non-Greek, Semites in the first century. In fact, there is (at present) and has always been more non-Jewish Semites then Jewish Semites. >His use of Greek idiom is matched only in Paul's >writings and his use of terms for those who were >not Greek raised its head in Acts 28:2,4. I defer to Paul (Younan) for your point above since his expertise on this subject (and many other) far surpasses my level of understanding! Shukran w'Alahmak, Dean Dana
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 08:15 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #20
Salam Alekum Dean, Ana mniH Hamdu l'ilah. Shukran. Kiif Sa'a. You asked me why I think Luke was Greek. I would not think Luke would suddenly burst in on the scene wihtout mention after having travelled from the very church who sent these missionaries forth (Antioch). Hence I think he was sakin b'Troas. Also I do not have to conclude everyone on his missionary team was "of the Circumcision" as he expressly stated in Gal. that only Timothy was circumcised. I was refering to the immediate text of Col 4:10-14. Those were some of the reasons I hold my position. Perhaps Luke is a non-Jew Semite who knows Septuagint Greek and Classical Greek well. He was an educated man and perhaps it is not unthinkable his command of the highly technical Greek he uses stems from such an education. Ma Salaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 08:22 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #21
Clearly "of the circumcision" is a term Paul uses to describe a group of his oponants, perhaps those that taught circ. as a requirement for salvation (as in Acts 15) and NOT just persons who were circumcised. Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 03:20 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #22
Strange he would call an opponent by name, Col 4:11 "and Jesus that is called Justus, these only are of the circumcision: my fellow workers unto the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort to unto me." You are confusing this person with one from the "party" of the circumcision. Shlaama Iakov
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean Dana
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 01:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #21
>Those were some of the reasons >I hold my position. >Perhaps Luke is a non-Jew Semite >who knows Septuagint Greek and >Classical Greek well. He was >an educated man and perhaps >it is not unthinkable his >command of the highly technical >Greek he uses stems from >such an education. > >Ma Salaama >Iakov You're not suggesting that only Greeks were "educated men"?? Or that being educated meant that one learned only Greek culture and language?? You're making it seem like since Luke was educated, "he must have been Greek" Com'on Iakov! Sounds abit racist .. may I even dare say ... Anti-Semitic!!!!! Thats like saying "so-and-so is very bright, he must be Asian" or "so-and-so is highly intellectual, he must be white" Dean Dana
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 07:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #23
Akhi Dean, You are right I am not suggesting Greeks were the only educated men. To read & write Greek as well as Luqa one must be well educated. Shufak Ba'adein Iakov.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 08:03 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #25
>Akhi Dean, > >You are right I am not >suggesting Greeks were the only >educated men. To read & >write Greek as well as >Luqa one must be well >educated. > >Shufak Ba'adein >Iakov. No more aducated than one who could read and write Hebrew or Aramaic. Also the Greek of the Greek book of Luke only testifies to the skill of the Greek translator.
Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 09:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #26
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, > >No more aducated than one who >could read and write Hebrew >or Aramaic. Also the >Greek of the >Greek book of Luke only testifies >to the skill of the >Greek translator. > >Trimm Well said. The Aramaic of Luke is fantastic, by the way. Perhaps we should demonstrate with his (Aramaic) poetry and parallelism?  Something that can't be attributed to "imitating the LXX"? Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-23-2001 at 11:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #26
Akhi Yakub, You're right Luqa is an excellent translator using technical Greek well. Yet Luke stayes true to his Aramaic source, refer to the Lucan prologue.
Shlama Iakov.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-24-2001 at 06:57 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #28
Shlama Akhi Khabiba w'Yqira Iakov, This is a statement that is nearly impossible to argue against, and that is precisely the reason why the "scholars" and "dr's" use it. Let me understand what you're saying - you're saying the material that Luke himself was translating from was Aramaic, but that Luke himself penned the Greek version of that Aramaic source, right? Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-24-2001 at 06:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #29
Shlama Akhi Paul, Yes Akhi Paul I am saying that Luqa's sources were Aramaic & Hebrew. I have said so in many ways & times. However, you say the Aramisms, (others says Hebraisms, some say both) in the running narrative, are proof the entire text was written in Aramaic as penned by Luqa. I said they are not proof as per Dr. I. Howard Marshall who states "Luke's purpose for witing to Theophilus (Greek name: Lover of God)is first historical to reassure him of the truth about the things he was taught." That is to say Luqa is first and foremost true to his source so that he is accurate and objective so he may be genuinely perceive as a soteriological historian in the handling of Holy matters. Dr. Fitzmeyer stresses that all occurances of semitisms are septuagintisms, except for a few, as every appearance of an Aramaism has a LXX assimilation. He states that Hebraic influence is also from LXX flavouring although it IS Hebrew when a few authentic semitisms appear. I DO NOT HOLD TO A POSITION THAT EXTEME. I beleive the gospel when it states that there are many accounts already. The language of the Greek in the prologue implies Luke has not only read them but investigated the facts & spoken to eye witnesses. Western Synoptic commentators hold to a view of the "Q" sourse you are familiar with. I hold to a view of the "Q" souceS. If Luqa's gospel was a pure Greek translation the LXX translations would not appear word for word as Koine Greek is divergent in many cases from Septuagint Greek (See Conybeare & Stock-Grammar of Sept. Greek). The NT "translations" would simply translate the Aramaic OT quotations word for word if the GNT WAS simply a translation. I hope this helps shed more light on my position. Shlama, Iakov. However
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-24-2001 at 07:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #30
> >If Luqa's gospel was a pure >Greek translation the LXX translations >would not appear word for >word as Koine Greek is >divergent in many cases from >Septuagint Greek (See Conybeare & >Stock-Grammar of Sept. Greek). The >NT "translations" would simply translate >the Aramaic OT quotations word >for word if the GNT >WAS simply a translation. > 1. The same thing could be said in reverse about the Tanak quotes in the Aramaic Peshitta. 2. Actually I have a book that was translated from German to ENglish but all of the scripture quotse were lifted from the KJV. The Greek translator cpould have done the same thing, inserting familiar LXX readings as he went. >I hope this helps shed more >light on my position. > >Shlama, >Iakov. > > > >However
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2001 at 02:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #31
>> >>If Luqa's gospel was a pure >>Greek translation the LXX translations >>would not appear word for >>word as Koine Greek is >>divergent in many cases from >>Septuagint Greek (See Conybeare & >>Stock-Grammar of Sept. Greek). The >>NT "translations" would simply translate >>the Aramaic OT quotations word >>for word if the GNT >>WAS simply a translation. >> > >1. The same thing could >be said in reverse about >the Tanak quotes in the >Aramaic Peshitta. I'm sorry but I guess I don't follow you. Could you explain? > >2. Actually I have a >book that was translated from >German to ENglish but all >of the scripture quotse were >lifted from the KJV. >The Greek translator cpould have >done the same thing, inserting >familiar LXX readings as he >went. > I considered this possibility but then you have an instance such as Luke 4:10,11. "gegraptai gar hoti tois angelois autou enteleitai peri sou diaphulaxi se kai hoti epi kheiron arousin se, mepote proskopses pros lithon ton poda sou". Also verbatim in Matt. 4:6 except for the phrase 'to guard you' and the prep. 'hoti' after the conjuction 'kai'. It is a quote from LXX Psalm 91:11,12. Only Luke records the idea of 'guarding' or 'keeping' from v.11. This idea would seem foreign to a semitic audience, since the original Hebraic context shows that HE will 'keep you in all your ways'. Yet Luke takes it out of that context and applies it to personal safety'. The LXX translates the Heb. 'kaphiym' in Ps. 91:11 with 'kheiron'. 'kaph' in Heb describes the palm of the hand or the sole of the foot as context dictates.'kaph' itself refers to the flat or hollow side of the part in question. Peshita uses 'yad' in Matt. & 'dara' in Luke. Both of which have synonyms in Heb. 'yad' & 'zara'. 'kaph' also has an Aram. equivalent according to the BDB Lexicon 'kapha' meaning 'palm'. It appears the Peshita abandons the MT in favour of the LXX then as in Greek there is no word for 'palm' and 'kheir' is used to translate 'kaph', 'yad', & 'zara' in the LXX. The Peshita does not use the equivalent Aram. to the MT but appears to have translated the LXX term 'kheir' which can mean hand, palm, or forearm. Shlama, Iakov.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
James_Trimm
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2001 at 03:50 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #32
I am not sure I follow your argument here. The Peshitta Tanak which was CERTAINLY taken from Hebrew has "dara" for "hand" here. In fact the citation of Ps. 91:11-12 in the Aramaic Peshitta of Luke 4:10-11 agrees almost word for word with the Peshitta Tanak. It does differ in only three ways: The Peshitta Tanak opens the phrase with METUL for "because" rather than the DALET prefix. The Peshitta Tanak has the additional phrase "in all your ways" but then so does the LXX, the MT and the Qumran scrolls so this is not an LXX or even a Greek issue. The Peshitta Tanak lacks the phrase "against a stone" which DOES appear in Luke however the phrase also appears in the Masoretic Text. Overall there is NOTHING LXX-like or in any way Greek dependant in the quote as it appears in the Aramaic Peshitta of Luke. In fact it is almost word for word quotedfrom the Peshitta Tanak, and wher it differs, it still does not agree with the LXX against the Peshitta Tanak or even the MT. As for Matthew in the Aramaic the Peshitta may have YOD but the Old Syriac has DARA the very word used in the Peshitta Tanak. And the Hebrew (DuTillet, Munster and Shem Tob)of Matthew 4:6 agrees with the MT exactly even including the phrase "in all your ways". Trimm
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|