Biga
    Member: Posts: 193 Member Feedback |
Sep-21-2001 at 12:10 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Hello dear All, if I'm not wrong, you suggest the "eunuch" is wrongly translated and the correct meaning is faithful, beliver. I tried write a few questions about it in my below mentioned topic. I found in the Holmann Bible Dictionary that altough the eunuch were excluded from membership in congregation of Israel (Lev 21.20, Deut. 23.1), but here are some another interesting things. "By extension, the Hebrew word translated eunuch could be used of any court official (Gen. 37.36, 39.1 the reference is to a married man). Part of Isaiah's vision of the messianic era was a picture of the eunuch no longer complaining of being "a dry tree", one without hope of descendants, because God would reward the faithful eunuch with a lasting moment and mane in the Temple would be far better than sons or daugthers. Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8.27 was reading from Isaiah's scroll.
corresponding to this viewpoint, it is understandable why some national translators uses another word in Acts 8.27 instead of eunuch. In german and in my hungarian translations I found here "chamberlain, court official". Isa. 56.4-5 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. if you have a little time, please write me a few lines into "Notes to James about aramaic..." topic, or if you remember so that my questions also can be found in another topic, please let me know. cheers, Gabor
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Sep-24-2001 at 05:18 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama Gabor, I guess the question really should be whether or not, when looking only at the verse in Acts, there is any indication to translate this word as "Eunuch." The word in Aramaic can mean either "Believer" or "Eunuch." If we look at the verse in Acts without consulting anything else, and knowing it can mean either "Believer" or "Eunuch", why would we translate it "Eunuch?" I think this points to an Aramaic original. The reason is because I can see a Greek translator coming across this word and having to choose one of the meanings, with no other hints as to what he should choose. He chose "Eunuch", but why? What would make Luke describe an Ethiopian travelling to Jerusalem to worship as a "Eunuch?" Why would the readers of Acts care if he was "fixed?"  The meaning of "believer" makes far more sense to me. It would explain why Luke went to the trouble of calling him a "believer from Ethiopia" - there were many of them there since the Queen Sheba/Solomon thing. The majority, however, weren't "believers." So Luke is making a point that a "believer" from Ethiopia was coming to worship at the Temple. I think that meaning makes the most sense - but looking at the context and the Aramaic text alone, why would we choose "Eunuch?" Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Biga
    Member: Posts: 193 Member Feedback |
Sep-24-2001 at 07:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Paul, thank you the answer. "I think that meaning makes the most sense - but looking at the context and the Aramaic text alone, why would we choose "Eunuch?" " Ok, you right but it is an argue only in the case when I'm not against the aramaic primacy. I'm "aramist" and I just noticed this... In this case Lamsa did make also the mistake what you mentioned because he translated also to "eunuch". I must notice that our first Bible translator, Karoli, know Hebrew well and maybe he could use hebrew texts instead of greek, because he translated to the another meaning of the hebrew word, and used "court official". (see Gen 37.36, 39.1). My last question is that how you read the whole verse: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Do you think it must translate all three word to "believer" or only the last occurence ? In first case the first part will be senseless, maybe the second too. (For me at least ) In second case I feel the unity of the verse will be broken. P.S. I bought recently the Holmann Dictionary and I never saw so nice book. More than 1400 pages, 600 pictures, a lot of time lines. It has also nice weight  cheers, Gabor
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Sep-26-2001 at 11:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhi Gabor, My last question is that how you read the whole verse: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Here, I have translated it "eunuch" in all three phrases in my own translation, because that's the meaning that makes the most sense given the context. I'll try and get to your other post (about Satan) tomorrow.  Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Sep-24-2001 at 07:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Akhi Paul: Devarim 23:1: No one who has been injured by cutting or crushing his testicles may enter the KAHAL of the LORD. KAHAL applies to ANY kind of assembly, from a gaterhing in the wilderness, to the synagogues, to the Temple itself. Even 10 man minyans can be KAHALS. This main, if a EUNUCH could not have worshipped anywhere in Israel. Isaiah 56 makes a provision that eunuchs who otherwise keep Torah but are prevented from entering the Temple because of their condition will not be blamed, because a memorial in all their names stands in the place of their physical presence. The Ethiopian Jews have indeed been around for at least 2800 years, and possibly all the way back to Solomon's time. It is certain that they got their training from Judean priests, as they have ORAL TRADiTIONS about how to slaughter animals near the Ark of the Covenant. Now I believe the Ark is in Ethiopia, but that is not critical to my main point. These Ethiopians, erroneously called FALASHAS by the West (another pergorative foisted on an ancient people by ignorant scholars), refer to themselves as BEYT YISRAEL (house of Israel) and they are CIRCUMCISED. Someone who is from BEYT YISRAEL would definitely be called a "faithful one", the truthful intent of the verse. Shlama w'burkate Andrew Gabriel Roth
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|