Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Riverwind · 06-19-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Ephesians 4:8

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."

Psalm 68:18

When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious - that you, O Lord God, might dwell there.

To add a little more confusion to the mix, it appears that some manuscripts read, in Eph. 4:8, "This is why God says:..."

Possible theories...

(1) Paul originally quoted the verse with receive? Even though the text before the quote talks of "grace given", the following verse talks about the ascension. Was it later changed to read "given" by some scribe unfamiliar with the Psalm quoted?

(2) Paul wasn't really quoting the OT psalm but a contemporary hymn that changed this word to go along with their beliefs. He originally wrote "This is why it says..." and a scribe, realizing that the quote came from the OT, modified it to "God says..."?

(3) Did Paul have an OT text in front of him that we don't have today?

(4) Were elaben and edoken somehow confused in a manuscript?

What's your take on this issue? Have any links to good information about this?

Riverwind · 06-19-2007, 09:34 PM

I have to say that the following article is very interesting. I didn't even think to check the Aramaic targum.

http://www.wordinlife.com/pdfs/Eph4_8_33639.pdf

What do you think? Convincing?

Riverwind · 06-19-2007, 09:57 PM

Ok, here's another brain twister to throw into the mix. I was buyin' the Aramaic targum explanation until I pulled up the same targumic verse in my Bibleworks 7.0. They're pretty different. I don't know too much about targumic manuscripts, so I don't know what the source is for the two different transcriptions. Anyone knowledgeable in targumic studies who can explain the differences (or is the Bibleworks database possibly corrupt here?)?

Riverwind · 06-21-2007, 06:21 AM

Anyone? Anyone?

So the two most plausible explanations seem to me to be:

(1) An group of ancient Greek manuscripts that read edwken in the Psalm instead of elaben. These two words could easily be miscopied, IMHO. A faded lambda could definitely be misread as a delta (I've done that and the converse before). Not so sure about the omega and alpha and the beta and kappa, but if a manuscript is poor enough, it could be possible.

(2) Paul was using an Aramaic Targum or was aware of current Pharisaical interpretation of the Psalm (although I still haven't yet reconciled the difference between transliterations and translations of this Psalm in the Aramaic Targum - any ideas anyone?).

Doesn't this stuff beat Jesus mythicism and "Top Ten" stuff? I'll take more of these kinds of questions any day.

gregor · 06-21-2007, 06:43 AM

Riverwind,
I appreciate the welcome invitation to higher-order discussions. But maybe the particular text conflict seems too esoteric for debate. (This seems right up spin's alley, though).

However, two queries related to the resolution of the question: First, is there a definitive way to answer whether the problem is (i) error by Paul, (ii) mistranscription post 300 CE, (iii) other version of OT, (iv) intentional re-write by Paul? Apparently there is nothing available. A DSS version of Psalms 68 with "gave" over "receive" would seem to answer the question.

Second, though, what broader impacts would any particular answer have? Is this a material impact on some theological foundation? It impacts inerrancy claims, but who wants to argue for inerrancy?

Riverwind · 06-21-2007, 07:00 AM

It is an obvious discrepancy and problem for Paul's theology (at this particular point). According to texts I've read, it is the single biggest discrepancy in the book of Ephesians. Why would one not want to try and address such a major issue if they are interested in the various books of the Bible? Well, laziness comes to mind and lack of interest in subjects of any depth, I suppose...

There is some speculation involved, but then there is much more speculation in dealing with a supposedly mythical Jesus. I'd rather see others' time and abilities applied to more interesting and difficult issues like this one or some other similar issues. If people don't have the education to do so, then they should get it. My learning is purely as an autodidact, so I know they can do it to if they so wish. My feeling, however, is that many merely want to condemn something they don't fully understand because some Christian or group of Christians ticked them off in the past.

But none of that is really here nor there. What I would really like an answer to, and it may be possible to find the answer online, is why the discprepancy between transcriptions and translations of Psalm 68 in the Aramaic Targum?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2007, 09:34 PM	#2
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	I have to say that the following article is very interesting. I didn't even think to check the Aramaic targum. http://www.wordinlife.com/pdfs/Eph4_8_33639.pdf What do you think? Convincing?

06-19-2007, 09:57 PM	#3
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Ok, here's another brain twister to throw into the mix. I was buyin' the Aramaic targum explanation until I pulled up the same targumic verse in my Bibleworks 7.0. They're pretty different. I don't know too much about targumic manuscripts, so I don't know what the source is for the two different transcriptions. Anyone knowledgeable in targumic studies who can explain the differences (or is the Bibleworks database possibly corrupt here?)?

06-21-2007, 06:21 AM	#4
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Anyone? Anyone? So the two most plausible explanations seem to me to be: (1) An group of ancient Greek manuscripts that read edwken in the Psalm instead of elaben. These two words could easily be miscopied, IMHO. A faded lambda could definitely be misread as a delta (I've done that and the converse before). Not so sure about the omega and alpha and the beta and kappa, but if a manuscript is poor enough, it could be possible. (2) Paul was using an Aramaic Targum or was aware of current Pharisaical interpretation of the Psalm (although I still haven't yet reconciled the difference between transliterations and translations of this Psalm in the Aramaic Targum - any ideas anyone?). Doesn't this stuff beat Jesus mythicism and "Top Ten" stuff? I'll take more of these kinds of questions any day.

06-21-2007, 06:43 AM	#5
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Riverwind, I appreciate the welcome invitation to higher-order discussions. But maybe the particular text conflict seems too esoteric for debate. (This seems right up spin's alley, though). However, two queries related to the resolution of the question: First, is there a definitive way to answer whether the problem is (i) error by Paul, (ii) mistranscription post 300 CE, (iii) other version of OT, (iv) intentional re-write by Paul? Apparently there is nothing available. A DSS version of Psalms 68 with "gave" over "receive" would seem to answer the question. Second, though, what broader impacts would any particular answer have? Is this a material impact on some theological foundation? It impacts inerrancy claims, but who wants to argue for inerrancy?

06-21-2007, 07:00 AM	#6
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	It is an obvious discrepancy and problem for Paul's theology (at this particular point). According to texts I've read, it is the single biggest discrepancy in the book of Ephesians. Why would one not want to try and address such a major issue if they are interested in the various books of the Bible? Well, laziness comes to mind and lack of interest in subjects of any depth, I suppose... There is some speculation involved, but then there is much more speculation in dealing with a supposedly mythical Jesus. I'd rather see others' time and abilities applied to more interesting and difficult issues like this one or some other similar issues. If people don't have the education to do so, then they should get it. My learning is purely as an autodidact, so I know they can do it to if they so wish. My feeling, however, is that many merely want to condemn something they don't fully understand because some Christian or group of Christians ticked them off in the past. But none of that is really here nor there. What I would really like an answer to, and it may be possible to find the answer online, is why the discprepancy between transcriptions and translations of Psalm 68 in the Aramaic Targum?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.