The Transmission of the New Testament - An Analogy

Cool. So what?
"aetos" means eagle. Only eagle. Not vulture. And that's the entire point. I've got a word for you - "closed mind".

That's just not strictly true if there is some overlap in the usage, plus the LXX authors chose it to mirror nesher which factors in.

Here's an interesting lexical entry, I don't entirely agree with it's conclusions but it's interesting, it's usually my first go-to lexicon.

104. ἀετός aetos noun

Eagle, vulture.

Septuagint:

נֶשֶׁר nesher (5585), Vulture, eagle (Ex 19:4; Ezek 1:10).
נְשַׁר neshar (A5586), Vulture, eagle (Dn 4:31; 7:4—Aramaic).

Grammatical Forms:

1. ἀετοῦ aetou gen sing masc
2. ἀετῷ aetō dat sing masc
3. ἀετοί aetoi nom pl masc

Concordance:

3 there will the eagles be gathered together. Matt 24:28
3 thither will the eagles be gathered together. Luke 17:37
2 and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. Rev 4:7
1 and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, (NASB) Rev 8:13
1 the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, Rev 12:14

Word Studies:

Classical Greek

Despite the fact that aetos is simply “eagle” for the most part, it is extremely diverse in classical Greek. As many as seven different definitions are given, including being a “military standard” for both the Romans and Persians, an architectural term (“gable”), and an astrological constellation (Liddell-Scott).

Septuagint Usage

In the Septuagint, aetos most often translates the Hebrew word nesher. Commonly it functions in a figurative capacity to capture the speed of an event or the strength and protection of someone (e.g., of God, Exodus 19:4–6; Deuteronomy 32:11–13). Jeremiah foresaw the speedy approach of a conquering foe (Jeremiah 4:13; cf. Habakkuk 1:8). The eagle was perhaps the fastest observable creature in the ancient world. Speeds of up to 120 miles per hour have been observed (Parmelee, All the Birds of the Bible, p.200, cited by Fisher, “nesher,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). Aetos usually denotes eagle, but because Semitic languages tended to include all large soaring birds into one family, some overlap occurred (see also Pliny, Natural History, 10.3). Such may be the case in Leviticus 11:13, and it is almost certainly so in Proverbs 30:17 and Micah 1:16 since the less noble features of the bird are being recalled (eating of carrion and being bald). Frequently in the Old Testament the eagle relates the swiftness of judgment (Deuteronomy 28:49; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8) and it may even suggest judgment itself (Hosea 8:1). Important is Ezekiel 1:4–10, which tells that the living creatures or cherubs which carried the throne of God all had the face of an eagle, as well as that of a lion, ox, and man.

New Testament Usage

The New Testament usage is as in classical Greek; it also ordinarily follows the typical figurative use found in the Old Testament. Most clear is the connection to the Old Testament in the description of the living creatures in Revelation 4:6ff., which corresponds with Ezekiel’s vision of the throne of God. Both tell that one of the living creatures has the face of an eagle. Representative here with man (the highest of all creatures) are the lion (from among the wild animals), the ox (from among the cattle), and the eagle (from among the birds).
Further, the woman in Revelation 12:14, which symbolizes the persecuted people of God (most likely Israel), escapes swiftly on the wings of the great eagle. This alludes to the Old Testament saying that God carried Israel on the wings of the eagle during their wandering through the desert (Exodus 19:4). In connection with God’s judgment, the eagle appears in Revelation 8:13, reading aetos instead of auretos (Textus Receptus).
All this taken in consideration, one should not be too hasty to interpret hoi aetoi as “vultures” in Matthew 24:28, and in Luke 17:37. The gathering of aetoi around the carcass of a dead body (Luke, to sōma; Matthew, to ptōma) may suggest that Jesus had vultures in mind; however, this viewpoint cannot be insisted upon.
In fact, there are things within these texts that point in another direction. The words, “Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together,” is quite a cryptic saying. When Jesus told about enemies gathering around Jerusalem it was in clear accordance with Old Testament prophecies of the time. It should also be taken into consideration that Jesus, in His eschatological discourse, warned of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, in this cryptic address the eagles could well be a hint of the Roman eagle-banner which was raised at the siege of the city in the year A.D. 70.

Thoralf Gilbrant, “Ἀετός,” The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary, The Complete Biblical Library (WORDsearch, 1991).
 
Okay. I will try again. You're too fixated upon your "poor method" to recognize what I'm saying.....

It doesn't matter what the Greek word is. You drew a contrast against the actions of modern Vultures and Eagles. When these cultures existed, they were overlaps in reference between similar birds.

The simplest explanation is often the best explanation.
Wrong. The contrast is in the very supposed words of Jesus Himself in the text.
[Mat 24:28 BBE] 28 Wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles come together

The whole point. I can't make it any clearer. And that's fine. I know you'll never admit it. You can't. Otherwise your whole precious Greek primacy falls to ashes.
 
Wrong. The contrast is in the very supposed words of Jesus Himself in the text.
[Mat 24:28 BBE] 28 Wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles come together

The whole point. I can't make it any clearer.
A fact of nature eagles only eat what they kill they do not feed on dead carcasses, thats what vultures do not birds of prey. Many of my friends are expert falconers. So any source that says an eagle feeds on dead carcasses is not a reliable one.
 
Using this as a (legitimate) argument for Aramaic primacy is just like... the saying everything is a nail to a hammer; it really does feel forced.

Just the LXX alone, written far before the NT, knocks that "only eagle" theory out of the park, even if maybe it was a poor translation choice.

For the record I think Christ was referring to vultures there, and the Greek was just mirroring LXX usage, as it becomes kind of institution.

Here is pretty much what we've already covered in a nice study complete with one wacky RCC interpretation:

 
Using this as a (legitimate) argument for Aramaic primacy is just like... the saying everything is a nail to a hammer; it really does feel forced.

Just the LXX alone, written far before the NT, knocks that "only eagle" theory out of the park, even if maybe it was a poor translation choice.

For the record I think Christ was referring to vultures there, and the Greek was just mirroring LXX usage, as it becomes kind of institution.

Here is pretty much what we've already covered in a nice study complete with one wacky RCC interpretation:

100 % vultures as Jesus would contradict how He made birds of prey ( eagles who kill what they eat) and vultures that do not kill what they eat but feed only upon road kill, the dead carcasses. It’s a night and day difference between them and it would be a lie to say eagles eat dead animals.
 
100 % vultures as Jesus would contradict how He made birds of prey ( eagles who kill what they eat) and vultures that do not kill what they eat but feed only upon road kill, the dead carcasses. It’s a night and day difference between them and it would be a lie to say eagles eat dead animals.

For the ancients there was not quite as strict classifications as we have in modern day, and we must consider that.
 
Using this as a (legitimate) argument for Aramaic primacy is just like... the saying everything is a nail to a hammer; it really does feel forced.

Just the LXX alone, written far before the NT, knocks that "only eagle" theory out of the park, even if maybe it was a poor translation choice.

For the record I think Christ was referring to vultures there, and the Greek was just mirroring LXX usage, as it becomes kind of institution.

Here is pretty much what we've already covered in a nice study complete with one wacky RCC interpretation:

Many examples of these kind have been identified over the past couple of centuries. Multiple books have been written examining these in detail. I've only posted several in different threads of the ones that are easy to explain without getting into the weeds of tenses, gender and the like. Those people who ARE interested can look these up for themselves. I just point the way. I'm not here to prove anything.
 
Wrong. The contrast is in the very supposed words of Jesus Himself in the text.
[Mat 24:28 BBE] 28 Wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles come together

The whole point. I can't make it any clearer. And that's fine. I know you'll never admit it. You can't. Otherwise your whole precious Greek primacy falls to ashes.

Did you not claim that Eagles do not feed on dead carcasses to establish your position?
 
100 % vultures as Jesus would contradict how He made birds of prey ( eagles who kill what they eat) and vultures that do not kill what they eat but feed only upon road kill, the dead carcasses. It’s a night and day difference between them and it would be a lie to say eagles eat dead animals.

I'm saying there is overlap in the use of the word. Old World Vultures are part of the same family as eagles.

Old World vultures are not closely related to modern vultures.
 
One thing to consider.

If there was an Aramaic original being translated into Greek, it would seem pointless to keep an original Aramaic word here and there.

As literally everything was being said in Aramaic, it would be more consistent that everything become translated.

These times when a word is preserved to show the authenticity of a verbatim quote, would not really make sense in a translation.
 
I'm saying there is overlap in the use of the word. Old World Vultures are part of the same family as eagles.

Old World vultures are not closely related to modern vultures.
Yet Jesus says in Matthew 24 and in Revelation that the vultures will be feeding on the dead carcasses after His 2nd Coming. Those are not eagles. The Eagle is a positive bird in Scripture and one that represents God in might/ power and handiwork.

Throughout Scripture, eagles represent God’s handiwork, such as in Proverbs 30:19, which says that “the way of an eagle in the sky” is an example of God’s wondrous creation. Job 39:27 is another example. But eagles also symbolize power. God often used the imagery of an eagle in issuing warnings to Israel and other nations who did evil (e.g., Obadiah 1:4; Jeremiah 49:22). He chose the bird they considered powerful and unstoppable to demonstrate His sovereign control over everything.

Isaiah 40:31 is the most familiar biblical reference to eagles: “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint” (KJV). This verse is the conclusion of a chapter detailing the greatness of God. It reminds the reader that the strongest of men may stumble and fall, but those who trust in the Lord have a strength that this world cannot offer. When we see an eagle in flight, soaring on invisible air currents, we can be reminded that the Creator who supplies the eagle’s strength will also strengthen those who call upon His name (Psalm 50:15; Isaiah 55:6–7).got?

hope this helps !!!
 
And that is where this discussion ends. For if you no longer care what the word is in the Greek text, then the entire Bible doesn't matter either.

I think it matters, just for the record, lol.

I have another problem with your theory.

If the Aramaic can mean both, are we to suppose our translator is just so stupid as not to think vultures fit better?

This seems to me, no better a solution at all; we mustn't let our bias or what we prefer get in the way.

I'd love some Aramaic manuscript to come to light, I really would.
 
Yet Jesus says in Matthew 24 and in Revelation that the vultures will be feeding on the dead carcasses after His 2nd Coming. Those are not eagles. The Eagle is a positive bird in Scripture and one that represents God in might/ power and handiwork.

Throughout Scripture, eagles represent God’s handiwork, such as in Proverbs 30:19, which says that “the way of an eagle in the sky” is an example of God’s wondrous creation. Job 39:27 is another example. But eagles also symbolize power. God often used the imagery of an eagle in issuing warnings to Israel and other nations who did evil (e.g., Obadiah 1:4; Jeremiah 49:22). He chose the bird they considered powerful and unstoppable to demonstrate His sovereign control over everything.

Isaiah 40:31 is the most familiar biblical reference to eagles: “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint” (KJV). This verse is the conclusion of a chapter detailing the greatness of God. It reminds the reader that the strongest of men may stumble and fall, but those who trust in the Lord have a strength that this world cannot offer. When we see an eagle in flight, soaring on invisible air currents, we can be reminded that the Creator who supplies the eagle’s strength will also strengthen those who call upon His name (Psalm 50:15; Isaiah 55:6–7).got?

hope this helps !!!

Contrary to popular belief, there are reasons to believe that the Old World Vultures were more than scavengers. Even modern Vultures will kill the wounded. They are still very similar to birds of prey. In the "Old World", there is no reason to not believe that there is overlap in the meaning of the word.

It is not only an issue with Matthew. Luke says the same thing. Luke is much more of an exacting manuscript than Matthew.

There is also the possibility that "eagles" is not a reference to the dead.

Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

The saints will be there as well.
 
And that is where this discussion ends. For if you no longer care what the word is in the Greek text, then the entire Bible doesn't matter either.

There is context to why I said that. It is because it is irrelevant if there is overlap in the usage of the word. Of course I know the word. You're misrepresent it and my argument was not about the word itself but about its usage. Sometimes human beings don't use words properly.

You will find this throughout the entire NT. The authors were not experts in Koine.
 
I think it matters, just for the record, lol.

I have another problem with your theory.

If the Aramaic can mean both, are we to suppose our translator is just so stupid as not to think vultures fit better?

This seems to me, no better a solution at all; we mustn't let our bias or what we prefer get in the way.

I'd love some Aramaic manuscript to come to light, I really would.
"For the record" this is not just my theory. It is the considered opinion of several linguistic experts who have/had a lot more knowledge in these matters than either you or I (or anyone else on this forum) have.
As to scribal decisions, who can know what was in the mind of anyone? It's a question that can't be answered and in no way makes the theory "false" because of it. The whole field of textual criticism of the Greek manuscripts is about why scribes made different readings. Do you throw out all the Greek manuscripts because no one can determine for sure why the differences exist?

And what does this mean exactly: "I'd love some Aramaic manuscript to come to light, I really would." There are hundreds of Aramaic manuscripts. Hundreds.
 
Back
Top Bottom