Chris Weimer

Hey spin and judge,

I also have been working with the names found in Matthew, and declared the same thing. For example, verse two of chapter one in the Peshitta has Isaac as the father of Jacob, the same in the Greek. But if you look at the Hebrew 1st Chronicles, Isaac is the father of Israel. The Septuagint (written in Greek) differs with the Hebrew in that Isaac is the father of Jacob (even though later it has "the sons of Israel" and not Jacob). Why would Matthew not use Israel but instead of Jacob? Obviously because that is what the LXX has.

The other examples are more convincing, with the Peshitta agreeing with the Greek against Hebrew on Aram (should be Ram in Hebrew), Salmon (Salma), and that Salathiel was the father of Zorobabel (a mistake made in the LXX; the real father of Zorobabel was Padaiah.

Chris Weimer

Hey Judge, while comparing apples and oranges, you're logic is strangly off. Let me explain: if I write a story about Greece, I'm expected to use Greek at least certain Greek words, am I not? No one thinks that Cicero wrote in Greek because he uses Greek words since they are appropriately used. However, if someone came across a Greek translation of Cicero (is there such a thing?) and saw Latin words that were merely transliterated but could have been properly translated, would they still think that Cicero wrote in Greek? Of course not! The same is the exact parallel to the New Testament - written in Greek containing purposefully Aramaic words (such as small phrases of Christ) but when translated into Aramaic took on its own many more Greek words as well as certain peculiarities to the Greek text (such as explaining Aramaic terms).

Now, about the confusion of variants due to Aramaic - please provide, if you are capable, the manuscripts and their dates of the variants in question. The dates are especially important, since there would have been a lot of back-translations. Take for example the Septuagint. The LXX was written in Greek translated from the Egyptian textual tradition of the Hebrew. However, years later certain people decided to revise the LXX to give it a more "literal translation" of the Hebrew, unaware that they were using the Babylonian Hebrew texts to revise the originally Egyptian-based text. The result is a loss of original Septuagintal readings replaced with Babylonian ones. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls have yielded fragments of Hebrew of the Egyptian tradition containing Septuagintal readings against the current Masoretic text.

Chris Weimer

Hey Judge, here's another one! Mt Gk - Ozias; LXX - Ochozias; Hebrew - )KhZY)HW; Syriac - (WZY). Let's see if you can figure out who borrowed from whom on this one

judge

If matthew used the LXX then he would quote the LXX. But Matthew does not quote the LXX.
On occaisions he quotes a version that agrees with the LXX and on other occaisions he quotes a version that does not agree.

judge

But here is the problem with your analysis here. You assume that the hebrew you quote contains the reading used in the first century.

As we know there were multiple variants of texts avaliable in the first century you cannot be sure which reading is the "best".

So, in view of the uncertainty, do you have any idea how acts 2:24 could have agreek original?

Chris Weimer

I'm sorry, but if Matthew read a Greek translation, which he did, then he read the LXX. You forget that the LXX was more varied than the Hebrew ever was and went through countless revisions by many different translators.

Chris Weimer

I don't need too. The Peshitta Old Testament agrees with the Hebrew versions

1st Chronicles 1.34 has Israel, not Jacob. 1st Chronicles 2.9-10 has Ram, not Aram. 2.11 has Salma, not Salmon. 3.11 goes into a debate so long we haven't the time here, however I will mention that the Peshitta OT does not agree with the Peshitta NT, unless they are different people, but then that assumes a major error on Matthew's part (which is conceivable). It is something to be debated elsewhere. And finally, believe it or not, 3.19 has Padaiah and not Salathiel as the father of Zerubbabel. If not anything else, you must concede that Matthew's genealogy was written in Greek.

judge

So?
The Peshitta OT comes for the same textual tradition in this instance as the henrew you quote.
This does not change the fact that there was more than one textual tradition.


No this is not sound reasoning. All we can safely conclude is that that the PNT and the LXX come from the same textual tradition as far as this geneology is concerned, not that the Matthews geneology comes from the LXX.

I notice you are still silent on acts 2:24 though.

S.C.Carlson

It is my understanding that they are written in the Palmyrene cursive.

I must have joined the conversation late. I've only seen one example and it didn't hold up. That didn't exactly give me warm fuzzy feelings about the examples I haven't seen.

Since you admit that the Aramaic word can mean either "pain" or "cord," what makes chosing "pain" a mistranslation? I'm not sure I follow the logic. (The logic of the Estrangelo example was clearer, once the anachronism is put aside.)

The LXX for this verse agrees with the Greek of Luke, so, even if it was a mistranslation (which has yet to be shown), it does not make it a mistranslation of the Peshitta rather than some other Semitic source.

Better evidence would be a mistranslation specific to the eastern Syriac dialect the Peshitta was written in.

Stephen

judge

We have common Hebraism which occurs on numerous occaisions in the HB.

We have an Aramaic copy of Acts which could read either pain or cords.

The greek translator either thinks the word can only mean pain, or he decides to follow the error in the LXX.

Either way by looking to the HB we can see it should be cords.

But Stephen, think about it.
What are the chances of the greek original reading "pain"....which is not a hebraism.

And then by sheer co-incidence the Aramaic word can mean either pain or cords?

What are the chances?


BTW this sort of thing happens again and again. We have an Aramaic word that is ambiguos or has more than one meaning and the greek translators at times got it wrong.

But the peshitta has the correct hebraism!
The peshitta is not the mistranslation. The figure of speech is "cords" of death.