|
Translation or Paraphrase?
I have been looking at verses similar to Luke 4:17-19 along with Isaiah 61.
Some accuse the AV of not following the Hebrew here. Any thoughts? |
One thing is that the Holy Ghost is free to interpret other Scripture in His giving of Scripture. Because of this, we can see that "good tidings" equals "the gospel". There is variation within the Scripture (when a Scripture quotes another Scripture) which is entirely valid. That doesn't mean that two different translations are equally correct today.
|
Hi PeterAV,
Brian |
What Jesus calls scripture is scripture whether someone wants to believe it or not. EVERY WORD of God is pure. Period.
|
This is my opinion, could be wrong. But when you read the Old Testament, its Hebrew to English. When you read an OT quote in the New Testament, its Hebrew to Greek to English. Which could account for word ordering and word use.
When reading in a Temple, Christ would have used a Hebrew text or Aramaic depending on which book was being read. But later, such as in the Epistles, Paul might have quoted from the Greek translation for gentiles as they most likely wouldn't have spoken Hebrew. If Jesus Christ did paraphrase some, well it is His right to do so. |
Quote:
|
wonder at the gracious words
Hi Folks,
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. (last phrase omitted in mvs in a major corruption, John Hinton has article on Luke 4:4) We discussed Luke-Isaiah back in June, and I replied to Brian's article which was posted (afaik, he was not on the forum at that time). I have built on that post and added a smidgen. First and foremost, it is very helpful to see the tapestry of Scripture woven by the Lord Jesus, helping men to live by every word of God. And to Peter's question - perhaps the closest similar example in the NT, worthy of close study, is Paul in Romans 3. Interestingly, this is the basis for one of the most blatant and astounding Greek OT (socalled LXX) corruptions, where a number of verses from Romans 3 are actually inserted into Psalm 14 in the Greek OT ! The same (likely alexandrian) scribes who tampered with Psalm 14 to be closer to Romans 3 very possibly "smoothed" the Greek OT in some verses to have Isaiah closer to Luke. Once burned by the smoking cannon (Psalm 14) an analyst learns to be very shy about presuming any integrity within the Greek OT text. http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312 NT authors/Christ quoting OT? - (earlier thread) =========================================== Brian Tegart would do well to look at the scripture with faith and a heart to seek the fullness of the word of God. Jesus definitely "stood up for to read" and then read in a fashion that touched every heart listening. That is why : "all bare him witness" and "wondered at the gracious words". And it would do well for those who have no pure word of God to also: "wonder at the gracious words". ======================================== Let's first note: John Gill it being allowable for a reader in the prophets, to skip from place to place, which our Lord here did, in order to explain this passage more fully. ======================================== Luke 4:16-22 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, (Isaiah 61:1) because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, (Isaiah 58:6) and recovering of sight to the blind, (Isaiah 42:7) to set at liberty them that are bruised, (Isaiah 42:7 49:9 61:1) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Isaiah 61:2) And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? ================================================== ======= Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; Isaiah 58:6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. Isaiah 49:9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; ============================================= From Alfred Edersheim with insertion notes by Will Kinney. http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book311.htm Life And Times Of Jesus The Messiah "When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the Haphtarah. [Edersheim explains earlier that the Haphtarah is a normal range of verses employed according to Jewish custom]. According to traditional rule (Massech. Soph. 12.7), the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less than twenty-one verses, though, if the passage was to be "targumed" [Edersheim explains this means "expounded" by the preacher, also a well-known Jewish custom], or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. ...the passages quoted formed the introductory text of Christ's discourse, such quotation and combination were not only in accordance with Jewish custom, but formed part of the favourite mode of teaching - the Charaz - or stringing, like pearls, passage to passage, illustrative of each other. " Note: Edersheim himself was buffeted by the common Greek OT error and while skeptical of "the so-called LXX version" he was not emphasizing how the Greek had been smoothed and tampered to the NT. However his basic points on Luke and Isaiah are excellent. Here is a modern scholar saying similar, less elegantly, with less detail. "It was not at all uncommon as a practice in the first century to pull two or more passages out of their original literary content and read them together" Interpreting the Prophets (1987 p.81) -Isaiah in Luke - James Sanders Also helpful is to remember not to be overly one-dimensional and try to straitjacket the Lord Jesus Christ, telling the Lord Jesus to limit his own message ! "The statement is not simply a scripture quotation, therefore; it is a declaration that the time has arrived. As GB Caird expressed it, 'He has not merely read the scripture; as King's messenger he has turned it into a royal proclamation of majesty and release.' Moreover, the Spirit of the Lord has anointed him to make known this good news and to put it into effect. Jesus had been sent with the word of release, which is a word of power; he had been sent to "set free those who had been crushed. The proclamation of release is accompanied by acts of release, as elsewhere in the preaching of Jesus." Jesus and the Kingdom of God By George Raymond Beasley-Murray (1986 p. 89) As Will Kinney adds : http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...uagint_-_3.htm Luke stated that Jesus FOUND the PLACE where it was written. He did NOT say that Jesus QUOTED directly from the scroll, or that Jesus explicitly READ the scroll VERBATIM. And significantly, we can use the pretensions and confusions of the "no-pure-Bible" crew as a point from which to study the word of God more excellently, wondering at the gracious words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. =========================================== Oh, let me add a couple of points. http://www.christianmissionconnectio...l_Analysis.pdf The Septuagint - A Critical Analysis - Floyd Nolen Jones Since the language used by the Jews in their synagogues was Hebrew, we can be certain that the scroll which was delivered to Him was written in Hebrew.1 Even today the Jews read and use Hebrew in their Synagogues as it is their only "holy language"2 – the one in which their Scriptures were originally written. The Lord Jesus Christ showed great respect for the Old Testament Word and upheld it completely. (p. 41) Nobody could (scholastically and seriously) argue that Jesus was using a Greek scroll in the synagogue. As Floyd Jones properly says, about the usage of Hebrew scrolls in the synagogue in Israel, "The matter is not controvertible". Thus the LXX-pushers have to say that Jesus used the Hebrew scroll and was misquoted by Luke ! Or that the Hebrew scroll was a whole different 'vorlage' an idea that might have been offered up weakly before the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Great Isaiah Scroll. To try to come up with a theory, they then have to add more Bible errors, much like in their modern versions. Thomas Strouse covers a few of these points as follows. http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/se...pring_2006.pdf Emanuel Baptist Theological Journal p. 114 - Thomas Strouse when the Lord and the apostles did cite the OT, they gave their inspired targums (paraphrases) of the passage to which they alluded. For instance, on one occasion when the Lord Jesus Christ taught in the synagogue, He was handed a scroll and He found the passage of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:15-20). The Hebrew text was in His hand intact (“it was written”), and Luke recorded the Lord’s targum with its application. His inspired paraphrase expanded the truth of Isaiah’s text (the Greek behind “to set at liberty them that are bruised” is not coming from either the Hebrew or LXX of Isaiah 61:1, so Luke is not giving a quote but a paraphrase), and where the LXX agrees with the NT Greek text rather than the OT Hebrew, it may be the result of someone inserting the NT Greek into the LXX. Will Kinney's article is available at: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/t...uagint_-_3.htm http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXThree.html Did Jesus quote the Greek Septuagint? Luke 4:16-19 compared with Isaiah 61:1-2 And to close, a remembrance that Jesus harkened back to the gracious words, a remembrance of the Scripture and what Jesus spoke in the temple. Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. Shalom, Steven Avery |
That's a lot of words to explain why "where it was written" does not mean "where it was written". I'll believe what the text says, thanks anyway.
|
Quote:
|
I agree. Lots of words, and the more you write the more likely mistakes are to be made
Quote:
I've read Edersheim, and the above caused me to interrupt my breakfast and walk the 12 feet to my book shelf. Edersheim says of the Septuagint Quote:
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
"Note: Edersheim himself was buffeted by the common Greek OT error" he gives us tremendous and helpful insight into the reading of the Torah scroll by the Lord Jesus, described in Luke 4. You dishonor your posts when you falsely rush to accuse of a "mistake" apparently not even reading carefully. There may be some mistakes here and there in my posts, however my writing on Edersheim above was accurate. Here is Edersheim's quote about "the so-called LXX version". http://books.google.com/books?id=TudS94P8swMC&pg=PA26 In Egypt, which was then under the rule of Euergetes, he found the so-called LXX. version completed, when he set himself to a similar translation of the Hebrew work of his grandfather. Edersheim missed a lot in this section. e.g. He did not even notice that Josephus indicates the lack of the Greek OT "histories" even decades after the NT was written. Nor the gross tampering of Psalm 14, showing how what is the so-called "LXX" was NT-'smoothed'. However my purpose was not to go into those issues, but to stick more with Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 and the 'midrashic' tapestry of the Lord Jesus Christ, accurately reported by Luke. As for your concern about "lots of words", sometimes the truth is helped by carefully and properly reading a number of different perspectives, and quoting the full, related Scriptures. Seeing that you only jumped to one point to try to falsely accuse, I am not surprised that you received little from the above. The post was composed more for those with a heart for the purity and accuracy and truth of the Scriptures. Notice how Brian similarly put his foot in his mouth, since he has no idea what language or text was original and true in either the NT or the OT. Brian has no text to "believe what was written" since Brian does not know what was written ! Anything can be redacted, and who knows, other books can be included as your "personal conviction/preference/whim" canon, sections can be added or (snipped) as well. Brian has no authority base beyond his personal whims to determine if the Hebrew text is the pure word of God or maybe the Greek OT at times, or maybe something else, maybe Tobit. Nor can he ever determine if the Received Text NT is right, or maybe the alexandrian corruptions, or maybe something else. Brian does not even know whether Jesus said "but by every word of God" in Luke's account. Despite its absolutely overwhelming attestation (covered, btw, quite well by Dean John Burgon and Marty Shue, in articles that truly highlight the textual absurdities of the modern version corruptions). Shalom, Steven Avery |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
"at least substantially, completed." We saw he uses the phrase: "the so-called LXX version" Edersheim talks of: "clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste" "By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages," If that does not count as skepticism about the text, what words would qualify ? Oh, here is a bit more. Discussing: "allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas" "Difficulties - or what seemed such - are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily" "banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity." Edersheim is stuck a bit, and he talks a lot about Aquila, who was a 2nd-century translator of the Hebrew to Greek ! Edersheim is stuck in this contradiction of acknowledging the text as very corrupt yet declaring it to be used in Israel by the NT precisely because he did not realize the stronghold of the "LXX" mythology. Edersheim lived in the time when liberal theories of the Bible text were becoming popular, and instead of the type of understanding of John Owen, Edersheim turned to the contradictory mish-mosh of the modernists. Some more Edersheim comments: "spurious letter from one Aristeas" "the translation of the Book of Daniel having been so defective, that in its place another by Theodotion was afterwards substituted." (Theodotian was second century AD, way after the NT.) "absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible" (Unclear as to whether he means BC or AD.) "What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text." (Actually the improtant deviations are many, you can see that Edersheim knew the Greek OT was corrupt, but like Brian did not know if God had preserved his word in any tangible text.) Nonetheless, he gives us some excellent insights on Luke 4 ! See above :). Shalom, Steven Avery |
Quote:
Why don't you copy here the whole of what he wrote about it? I only have the book. |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
There was no "misgquote". Overall, the Edersheim view is strange and inconsistent and contradictory (even while he understands how the Torah scroll was read in the synagogue) just like the modernists today who have no pure Bible, NT or OT. I specifically said he bought into the: "common Greek OT error". In his case it is even worse, because Edersheim clearly knew of the corruption of the Greek OT. If you want me to modify: 'skeptical' to 'very aware of Greek OT corruption and errors and defects and mistranslations and gross mistakes and Hellenistic doctoring' I could do so -- however that would be harsher rather than my softer words above. Shalom, Steven |
There are plenty of places Edersheim is sloppy. For instance he said Palestinian Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew, which is wasn't, but that was probably a mistake originating in Jewish chauvinism, i.e. that God wouldn't have used a non-Jewish language to speak to Jews, and we know Christ spoke Aramaic to the masses.
|
Whether the LXX (or something akin to it, or something else) is the source of Luke's words is secondary. The bigger point is that the words Luke says were "written", the words Jesus called "scripture" (written, by definition), are different than what the Hebrew and KJV have in Isa 61.
|
Quote:
In some settings it would be funny, but in this setting it's just sad. |
Acts 21:40 - (Paul) spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue
Hi Folks,
Quote:
"clerical mistakes and misreadings ... errors of translation, ignorance, and haste" "slavish and false literalism ..great liberty, if not licence...gross mistakes... ," "most bold methods .. free handling of the text; very unsatisfactorily" " Book of Daniel having been so defective" " additions and alterations" "differs in almost innumerable instances " What is sloppy is thinking that Jesus in the synagogue and the NT writers used the corrupt text. Not understanding the history with the NT tampering and 'smoothing' by the later Greek OT manuscripts (e.g. Psalm 14 is unmentioned !) and not knowing the import of the Josephus Prologue to Antiquities. And also sloppy is Edersheim's not knowing if the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible is the pure word of God, simply because he was confused by the modernist "LXX" theories that tried to give that corrupt text 1st-century apostolic significance. (Jerome gets a lot of historical thanks for sorting that out at 400 AD, essentially saying the same as Edersheim above re: the textual condition of the Greek OT.) Quote:
Acts 21:40 - 22:2 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) The pure Bible told us this, and the scholars (who struggled over the so difficult and complex word Hebraisti) have been catching up the last few years. Start with the paper done by Ken Penner to SBL in 2004 if you want to see the modern scholars catching up to the King James Bible. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Quote:
και κρατησας της χειρος του παιδιου λεγει αυτη ταλιθα κουμι If I can get a straight answer from you, do you know any other language than English? Any Koine Greek? Hebrew? Anything? Is it exilarating for you to stand against all of orthodox scholarship? Do you feel God's blessing on you for doing this? |
Hi Folks,
I told you above about a paper at SBL. If you do not know, that is the Society of Biblical Literature. Are they up to your standards and requirements ? That is for you to decide. You can probably simply put the name "Ken Penner" (with an add-on like SBL, Hebrew, Bible, etc) into Google and find some solid information. While you are at it you might want to read Alan Millard on literacy at the time of Jesus, but that is auxiliary to our discussion. If that is not enough for you, ask respectfully and I will be happy to dig up some urls. Your hositility is getting a bit tiring and off-putting. I share some solid, significant, new information on the topics you raise and now you try to accuse me this way and that. My one fluent langauge is English, never claimed otherwise anywhere at any time. Went to Hebrew school as a child and a bit of refresher reading here and there. I try to learn to ask good questions, when necessary, which on the languages is rather rare these days. As I tried to tell you, "orthodox scholarship" has had a bit of a paradigm shift the last years on the Hebrew question. It actually began more-or-less back with the DSS discovery (Qumran) of letters in Hebrew on non-religious matters, especially Bar Kochba on mundane and military matters. Professor Lawrence Schiffman speaks on that at times. However Ken Penner brought the issue to the fore by reexamining the whole NT question of Hebrew and Aramaic and the translation and meaning and usage of Hebraisti (compared to Chaldee and Syriac) and concluding quite strongly that the New Testament usage is the Hebrew language, which really should not be too much of a surprise. You are apparently a bit out-of-date. You need to catch up. Start with the King James Bible. :) (Oh, in this case, Hebrew, the Geneva will probably be right, as well.) Shalom, Steven Avery |
And since when has "Orthodox Scholarship" been right about anything?? Jesus went against "orthodox scholarship," as did Paul, Justin Martyr, Erasmus, Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, Tyndale and more! NEVER has "orthodox scholarship" been Biblically accurate or correct: with them it's about their own importance when it comes to the Scriptures, just like the Catholic Whore. It's the SAME ARGUMENT: unless you're learned in the old languages (which only priests and monks could achieve), you can't understand the Bible.
You're no better than a Dark Age monk or priest, dolling out the "words of God" in portions for your own importance and gain! Woe unto you, scribes, pharisees, hypocrites!! |
Quote:
|
Hi bibleprotector,
Quote:
God bless, Brian |
I can tell you of many things which are written Scripture which is different to what the KJV has. This is called "Sufficiency". The Word of God in some manuscript or the Bishops' Version etc. is the Scripture. Of course, they might exhibit signs of the scattering (i.e. that no individual extant Greek or Hebrew copy is perfect), nevertheless, they are Scripture. And even if Jesus used the LXX, is the LXX not Scripture? (Especially when God uses it specifically, or when a passage of it is being written down by Luke in inspiration?)
So, just as Jesus used the LXX as well as Hebrew, does that mean that multiple English versions should be yet alright to use today? Consider: the LXX was the standard translation of the OT in Greek, the common tongue. This signifies that having an English translation today of the entire Bible in the common tongue must be good. Especially since the KJB is perfect, unlike the LXX, which God was still able to use. And if the KJB is perfect, why would God want His people to stay away from it? While He is able to use other English translations today, these are really going against Him and His perfection. This is because God is able to raise up a final standard and perfection DESPITE the existence of error, corruption and sin. A strong God can do that. A weak God would only be stuck with sufficient forms of the Scripture, and never be able to have at this time a final standard which is perfect. The King James Bible is supersuccessionary to other forms of Scripture, while modern versions pretend to be improving upon the KJB. If God is really behind having more modern versions, and varying readings and translations all the more, He would be the author of confusion, and the author of additions and subtractions. But as the changeless God, He has outworked providentially to manifest the perfect Bible, so that eventually it would be the one for all. He did this in the furnace of earth, and God is not weaker than the furnace! As for those other forms of Scripture, they are not as Scripture anymore, in the sense that they are not current, that is, because they have been laid behind in the supersuccession. Currency is not dictated by man, devils or sin. Currency is under the control of the providence of God and through the sanctuary of the Word, the Church. The Scripture is not in a state of flux, but having come to appear in its fixed form, is now final. The God of the past (who originally gave the Word perfectly) is also the God of the present (who has raised up the very pure presentation of His Word perfectly) and so for the future. The future is not getting another Bible. They are getting this one: "King James Bible". The present may yet have sufficiency in currency, but that is temporal: "I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16b). P.S. Jesus never calls Scripture or uses it and gives errors, or says that errors in manuscripts are Scripture, etc. It is clear that the quotations of Scripture within Scripture are perfect, and that in those places those words were perfect in the sources they were using. Also the Holy Ghost was there, so He would be able to ensure this. |
Quote:
Mark 5:41? |
Wow, bibleprotector, it's amazing how you can turn every discussion into a plug for your PCE theory and bury the original topic in a plethora of presumptuous side issues. It's also amazing how if I had brought up the idea of a pre-Christ LXX, I'd be facing a fire storm on this forum, but you do it and nary a peep.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
God's perfect Book - the King James Bible
Quote:
By the way, Steve, your posts about Edhersheim (sp) were quite interesting. Thanks for all the research you do. Will K |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
Quote:
Quote:
:deadhorse: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
