Isaiah 53:10 and the LXX

[praise_yeshua]

Okay, let's go one at a time.

You tell me, which do think think this quotation favors:

View attachment 409

1. They do not provide the reference for their translation of the Hebrew source. They simply make a statement without evidence. This happens all the time in such "scholarly" sources.
2. The Greek source in 1 Cor 3:19 relative to "craftiness" is πανουργία. The Greek source in the LXX is φρόνησις. Both are an appeal to intellect. Craftiness can be seen in both.

BTW. There are variant manuscripts for Job. Job probably predates Abraham. It is almost assuredly the second oldest writing after the book of Enoch. (Which has not survived without error in any form today. However, Jude does appeal to the words of Enoch). Enoch is considered by many to be the earliest recorder of Scripture in human history. Not that we can know. Just giving you the evidence.

I said that to say this, I would never try to "nail down" Job to a great degree. There are too many variables. In my view, it shouldn't even be considered. In my view, the resource you're providing is being petty.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Okay, let's go one at a time.

You tell me, which do think think this quotation favors:

View attachment 409

It was interesting to see what the Peshitta I Cor 3:19 was compared with the Peshitta Job 5:13. Exactly the same sentence structure and words are used in both places. Except for the last term for "wisdom". Aramaic Job uses a word for "wisdom" that has a connotation of "cunning". The word used in I Cor is actually "cunning". Looks like evidence that the author of the New Testament quoted directly the Aramaic Old Testament.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How about this?

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,

Eph 4:8
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

And those are both English.

Septuagint Psalm 68:18
Thou art gone up on high,
thou hast led captivity captive,
thou hast received gifts for man

Seems to me the Septuagint matches more closely what Paul said in Ephesians.​

So does Acts 8:32 and Isaiah 53:7. It is one of the most unmistakable differences to be found among the MT and the LXX. The LXX perfectly represents Christ in the LXX in Isa 53:7

 

[praise_yeshua]

It was interesting to see what the Peshitta I Cor 3:19 was compared with the Peshitta Job 5:13. Exactly the same sentence structure and words are used in both places. Except for the last term for "wisdom". Aramaic Job uses a word for "wisdom" that has a connotation of "cunning". The word used in I Cor is actually "cunning". Looks like evidence that the author of the New Testament quoted directly the Aramaic Old Testament.

Post the words you claim are original to the Syriac edition. You're simply making a claim without evidence.

You never answered about the Diatessaron. I know why. It is proof that the Syriac manuscripts are based upon previous Greek manuscripts.....

 

[praise_yeshua]

How about this?

Psalm 68:18
18 You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,

Eph 4:8
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

And those are both English.

Septuagint Psalm 68:18
Thou art gone up on high,
thou hast led captivity captive,
thou hast received gifts for man

Seems to me the Septuagint matches more closely what Paul said in Ephesians.​

Also, there were so few Hebrew manuscripts available when Jerome worked on the Vulgate that the Vulgate is not based entirely upon Hebrew manuscripts.

Psalms is one of the "books" that had the least Hebrew support for.... Guess what he did.... He used the LXX.

 

[Dizerner]

1. They do not provide the reference for their translation of the Hebrew source. They simply make a statement without evidence. This happens all the time in such "scholar" sources.

Generally it's the Leningrad, but you can usually find out.

BTW. There are variant manuscripts for Job.

Well all books have some variants, no? Not just Job.

In my view, the resource you're providing is being petty.

In my view, you're being petty, lol.

And because you refused to answer my question, I think this reference clearly favors the MT.

 

[Dizerner]

It was interesting to see what the Peshitta I Cor 3:19 was compared with the Peshitta Job 5:13. Exactly the same sentence structure and words are used in both places. Except for the last term for "wisdom". Aramaic Job uses a word for "wisdom" that has a connotation of "cunning". The word used in I Cor is actually "cunning". Looks like evidence that the author of the New Testament quoted directly the Aramaic Old Testament.

I'd like to see the comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic word there for sure.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Generally it's the Leningrad, but you can usually find out.

No. You can determine it. I just pointed out the fact the reference is not there. BTW.... I was not appealing to the codex of choice. There are variant Hebrew collections and someone decided to declare a winner in the MT.

I was appealing to the English translation of the source Hebrew word. You will find that there are huge difference in word choices between "Scholars". Not that you know this. I don't believe you do.

Well all books have some variants, no? Not just Job.

Comparing Job to "all the books" is ridiculous. Which is why I added the information necessary to make a choice. They didn't do that. I did. It is very unlikely that Job was actually originally written in Hebrew. So you have a translation of a translation of a translation.

See my point?

In my view, you're being petty, lol.

And because you refused to answer my question, I think this reference clearly favors the MT.

I gave you the answer. You didn't like the answer. Claim all the winners you want.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I'd like to see the comparison with the Hebrew and Aramaic word there for sure.

Job 5 in the Peshitta

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon

I Cor 3:19 in the Peshitta

Analysis of Peshitta verse '1Corinthians 3:19'

Job 5:13

ܐܿܚܕ ܚ̈ܟܝܡܐ ܒܚܟܡܬܗܘܢ

I Cor 3:19
ܗ݈ܽܘ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܕ݁ܳܐܚܶܕ݂ ܚܰܟ݁ܺܝܡܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܳܪܥܽܘܬ݂ܗܽܘܢ

 

[praise_yeshua]

Job 5 in the Peshitta

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon

I Cor 3:19 in the Peshitta

Analysis of Peshitta verse '1Corinthians 3:19'

Job 5:13

ܐܿܚܕ ܚ̈ܟܝܡܐ ܒܚܟܡܬܗܘܢ

I Cor 3:19
ܗ݈ܽܘ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܕ݁ܳܐܚܶܕ݂ ܚܰܟ݁ܺܝܡܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܳܪܥܽܘܬ݂ܗܽܘܢ

Notice the source...

Text according to the Leiden critical edition (with some corrections based on ms. 7a1) courtesy of the Peshitta
Institute.

Logos....

The Leiden Peshitta features the entire running text of the Syriac translations of the Old and New Testament,

You're reference an edited collection of many different manuscripts wherein the editors made choices between variant texts.

Do you really expect to "sell" an original singular source for your "original" claim?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Notice the source...


Logos....


You're reference an edited collection of many different manuscripts wherein the editors made choices between variant texts.

Do you really expect to "sell" an original singular source for your "original" claim?

LOL. You keep displaying your utter ignorance about all these subjects. Come on, man. Do some research already.

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL. You keep displaying your utter ignorance about all these subjects. Come on, man. Do some research already.

I see you continue to claim that I'm ignorant without pointing to single detail of how I'm supposedly ignorant.

BTW.... the MT does contain some Syriac readings. You should stick to those without feeling the need to fabricate NT Primacy for the Syriac.

 

[Dizerner]

Job 5:13

ܐܿܚܕ ܚ̈ܟܝܡܐ ܒܚܟܡܬܗܘܢ

I Cor 3:19
ܗ݈ܽܘ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܕ݁ܳܐܚܶܕ݂ ܚܰܟ݁ܺܝܡܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܳܪܥܽܘܬ݂ܗܽܘܢ

That's quite a script.

Looks like a root from hkm, similar to Hebrew.

 

[Dizerner]

I was appealing to the English translation of the source Hebrew word. You will find that there are huge difference in word choices between "Scholars". Not that you know this. I don't believe you do.

???

We all know there are different English translations and Hebrew manuscripts, right?

I never declared one a "winner," the earliest complete manuscript is just used for reference as a standard.

Need to step back, and look at this from a higher angle, it is not a conspiracy.

 

[Complete]

delete

 

[praise_yeshua]

???

We all know there are different English translations and Hebrew manuscripts, right?

I never declared one a "winner," the earliest complete manuscript is just used for reference as a standard.

Need to step back, and look at this from a higher angle, it is not a conspiracy.

I never said it was a conspiracy. My sole argument is that the Greek OT is superior. That is " stepping back" and looking at it a "higher angle".

I made specific points about problems. I've added accurate feedback relative to context and method. There are very few times the MT of Ben Asher is superior.

The appeal to Hebrew from your source was poor. That is the truth

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's quite a script.

Looks like a root from hkm, similar to Hebrew.

So God Inspired this running collection that is still being edited today?

 

[Dizerner]

The appeal to Hebrew from your source was poor. That is the truth

I don't see a valid argument anywhere.

You could potentially argue that the NT favoring the LXX somehow theologically means it's inspired—this is a theological argument, and not a logical or textual argument.

I myself have admitted there are specific places the LXX is superior—by chance preserving closer to the Hebrew vorlage—but not in the majority where it shows evidence of translational dysfunctions.

There is nothing inherently inferior about the Hebrew, the original language of the OT; that is a bad place to camp.

 

[Dizerner]

So God Inspired this running collection that is still being edited today?

I never said God specially inspired the Aramaic.

Although I don't see anything evil about critical editions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't see a valid argument anywhere.

You could potentially argue that the NT favoring the LXX somehow theologically means it's inspired—this is a theological argument, and not a logical or textual argument.

I myself have admitted there are specific places the LXX is superior—by chance preserving closer to the Hebrew vorlage—but not in the majority where it shows evidence of translational dysfunctions.

There is nothing inherently inferior about the Hebrew, the original language of the OT; that is a bad place to camp.

I have used the word inspired once in this thread. Just now when I asked you about the late edition you're seeing as superior. It is the basically the same argument made by KJVOist relative to the Byzantine text. They argue that more copies... more similarities... prove God was in the process.

Most of the time it is only evidence of repeated errors. We know the later editions of any manuscript tend to agree more because it is more difficult to introduce a variance and for it to be accepted. That is what you have from the 10th century forward. The manuscripts align more with one another forward.

However, if you go back further, you can clearly see more and more variance. Men made choices and declared winners.... and then pretend that it has have always been that way. Men do this. It is funny how both of you want to "paint me" as wanting to win a conversation at all costs.... when you're declaring winners yourself.

Translations affect doctrine It has always been a lie that there are no significent doctrines affected by variant readings. Men have always sought to standardize their views in the Scriptures. Most people swallow those lies.