Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 04-04-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

In Epesians 4:8 paul quotes a reading of psalm 68 that is only in the Aramaic targum and the peshitta.

See Here page 45.

It seems at times he quotes something that agrees with the LXX but I don't think we can necessarily conclude he is quoting it.

Oh yes, judge. Wonderful logic you have here. Paul at one point quotes from an Aramaic targum, and that's evidence that Paul wrote in Aramaic. But all the quotes of the LXX isn't actually evidence of writing in Greek at all. :banghead:

judge · 04-04-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Oh yes, judge. Wonderful logic you have here. Paul at one point quotes from an Aramaic targum, and that's evidence that Paul wrote in Aramaic. But all the quotes of the LXX isn't actually evidence of writing in Greek at all. :banghead:

Umm...I didn't say this was evidence of anything actually. All I wrote was that we cannot necessarily conclude he quotes the LXX.
We know from the DSS that there was more than one version of the HB bible.
Some variants may have not survived.
He could be quoting a targum we no longer have as well.

Here are my words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It seems at times he quotes something that agrees with the LXX but I don't think we can necessarily conclude he is quoting it.

judge · 04-04-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What language did Paul write in? Was it Greek?

The idea that Paul may have written in hebrew/aramaic is not a new one.

Quote:

To Timothy two, To Titus one, To Philemon one. The epistle which is called the Epistle to the Hebrews is not considered his, on account of its difference from the others in style and language, but it is reckoned, either according to Tertullian to be the work of Barnabas, or according to others, to be by Luke the Evangelist or Clement afterwards bishop of the church at Rome, who, they say, arranged and adorned the ideas of Paul in his own language, though to be sure, since Paul was writing to Hebrews and was in disrepute among them he may have omitted his name from the salvation on this account. He being a Hebrew wrote Hebrew, that is his own tongue and most fluently while the things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek..

from here

fta · 04-04-2005, 09:11 PM

It doesn't help matters that the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles (Timothy/Titus) and Ephesians is disputed...

Sheshbazzar · 04-04-2005, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

... Paul at one point quotes from an Aramaic targum, and that's evidence that Paul wrote in Aramaic. But all the quotes of the LXX isn't actually evidence of writing in Greek at all.

This reminds me of a situation that I myself have encountered as a Yahwhist, in having written an extensive treatise with my own hand, with carefully chosen word choices and quotations, following the Scriptural text of my choice, that in a very short time a "copy" of my careful composition was returned to me, with every deviation from a "standard" Christian rendering "corrected" to conform with my revisers religious predilections. Where I had been careful to follow the actual words and peculiarities of the Hebrew text, my "reviser" took it upon himself to replace my "peculiar renderings" with the more popular and well known LXX-KJV renderings, creating a new "version" of my manuscript.
His "audience"- no doubt embraced it and multiplied it as though it were the production of one of their own.
Thus I find it no extraordinary thing that a similar thing might well have taken place with the NT writings, not necessarily out of any willful attempt to corrupt or alter their contents, but with a view of making them "more palatable" and appealing to a larger audience.
The old "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" proverb in action. (to which no "Yahwhist" can subscribe)

Chris Weimer · 04-04-2005, 10:03 PM

Well Shesbazzar, that would be plausible, but the Aramaic Peshitta also reduplicates the LXX wording, if I'm not mistaken. However, judge does have a point that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible in circulation at that time and Paul may have well used them.

But the major factor is that the Pauline letters do not show, unlike the LXX, Hebrew vorlage at all, excepting the Apocalypse, which if it were written in Greek would be very, VERY bad Greek. A simple comparison of the Septuagintal Greek usage (which contains semiticisms of grammar, the most important in identifying linguistic origin) and besides the aforementioned Apocalypse there is a possibility that Mark may have been written in Aramaic although not necessarily so. He could have just let his semiticism get in the way of Greek. Luke-Acts was definitely written in Greek, as well as James (which betrays the author), Hebrews and IIRC 2 Peter.

judge · 04-04-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Well Shesbazzar, that would be plausible, but the Aramaic Peshitta also reduplicates the LXX wording, if I'm not mistaken. .

I think it pretty much does but IIRC there are a couple of interesting exceptions (at least).
Hebrews 10:7 is one IIRC where the peshitta NT follows a reading found in the peshitta OT (or perhaps is close to it). Whilst the Greek may be more like the LXX(?)

I think that the quote of psalm 40 in the peshitta NT may seem to follow the POT but also have a similarity with a reading of this psalm found in the Zohar as well!

Perhaps they are just really paraphrasing at times, it not like they had ebible online.

Added in edit: woops just remebered hebrews may not be Pauline anyway.

Sheshbazzar · 04-04-2005, 10:22 PM

It is not my position that the NT was composed either in Aramic, or the Hebrew, indeed I accept that the majority was originally penned in Greek, only that significant 'alterations' were immediately applied by others to bring it into line with the LXX.
Today, whether I write in Hebrew, or in English, there are those who think it is their 'god' given duty to revise my writings.

judge · 04-04-2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Well Shesbazzar, that would be plausible, but the Aramaic Peshitta also reduplicates the LXX wording, if I'm not mistaken. However, judge does have a point that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible in circulation at that time and Paul may have well used them.

.

Yes who knows what they really referred to. It seems that one could have them quoting just about anything at times.

Quote:

"On the other hand, the Sopherim, called by Ginsburg "the authorized revisers of the text," some time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity altered the script from its angular paleo-Hebrew form to the square Aramaic form, aided the division of words--a practice carefully observed in the Hebrew inscriptions from the first half of the first millennium--by distinguishing five final letter forms and aided the reading of a text by continually inserting consonantal vowels called mattes lectionis.

"More significantly, some liberal-minded scribes altered the text for both philological and theological reasons. Thus, they modernized the text by replacing archaic Hebrew forms and constructions with forms and constructions of a later Hebrew linguistic tradition. They also smoothed out the text by replacing rare constructions with more frequently occurring constructions and they supplemented and clarified the text by the insertion of additions and the interpolation of glosses from parallel passages. In addition, they substituted euphemisms for vulgarities, altered the names of false gods, removed the harsh phrase "curse God," and safe-guarded the sacred divine name by failing to pronounce the tetragrammaton (YHWH ) and occasionally by substituting other forms in the consonantal text.

"As a result of this liberal tendency, three distinct recensions and one mixed text type emerged during this period (c. 400 B.C. to c. A.D. 70). The three text types already known from the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the text preserved by the Masoretes--the textus receptus--were corroborated by the finds at Qumran. Here the Hebrew text lying behind the Greek translation, the Jewish text type adopted and adapted by the Samaritans for their sectarian purposes, and the textus receptus (Masoretic) are all represented.

"The confusion of text types in Palestine at this time is reflected in the citations from the OT in the NT, the Apocrypha, and the rabbinic traditions. The NT shares readings with the received text (Masoretic), Samar., LXX, Targ. Onkelos, Sirach, Testimonia, Florilegium, and Theod.

(The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol 1, "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament", pp. 214-215)

Agemegos · 04-04-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I was wondering, if Paul really was one of the original disciples

Someone is confusing the Twelve Apostles with the Twelve Disciples. Judas was a Disciple but not an Apostle. Paul was an Apostle but not a Disciple.

You can read about this in 'Acts of the Apostles'. Paul's conversion to Chritianity is described in chapter 9.

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

04-04-2005, 09:11 PM	#14
fta Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oceania Posts: 334	It doesn't help matters that the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles (Timothy/Titus) and Ephesians is disputed...

04-04-2005, 10:03 PM	#16
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Well Shesbazzar, that would be plausible, but the Aramaic Peshitta also reduplicates the LXX wording, if I'm not mistaken. However, judge does have a point that there were multiple versions of the Hebrew Bible in circulation at that time and Paul may have well used them. But the major factor is that the Pauline letters do not show, unlike the LXX, Hebrew vorlage at all, excepting the Apocalypse, which if it were written in Greek would be very, VERY bad Greek. A simple comparison of the Septuagintal Greek usage (which contains semiticisms of grammar, the most important in identifying linguistic origin) and besides the aforementioned Apocalypse there is a possibility that Mark may have been written in Aramaic although not necessarily so. He could have just let his semiticism get in the way of Greek. Luke-Acts was definitely written in Greek, as well as James (which betrays the author), Hebrews and IIRC 2 Peter.

04-04-2005, 10:22 PM	#18
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	It is not my position that the NT was composed either in Aramic, or the Hebrew, indeed I accept that the majority was originally penned in Greek, only that significant 'alterations' were immediately applied by others to bring it into line with the LXX. Today, whether I write in Hebrew, or in English, there are those who think it is their 'god' given duty to revise my writings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.