Peshitta Forum
POT's translation of 2 Samuel 8:17-18 - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (
+-- Forum: New Testament (
+--- Forum: General (
+--- Thread: POT's translation of 2 Samuel 8:17-18 (/showthread.php?tid=1173)

POT's translation of 2 Samuel 8:17-18 - Keith - 01-16-2005


Can you give me a translation of the POT of 2 Samuel 8:17-18 specifically the part of the verse dealing with David's sons. The Masoretic Text says they were "priests". The LXX says they were "chiefs of the palace".

Is there an English translation of the POT?

Your friend,

Re: POT's translation of 2 Samuel 8:17-18 - oozeaddai - 01-17-2005

Keith Wrote:Paul,

Is there an English translation of the POT?

Your friend,


the "Holy Bible : From the Ancient Eastern Text"
by George M. Lamsa, has an english translation of the Peshitta Old Testament

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 8?v=glance</a><!-- m -->

check the link out. This book is curently on sale at Amazon, plus you can also get used copies of the book too for 1/3 of the retail cost, and 1/2 of the current sale price.

- ograabe - 01-17-2005

January 17, 2008

Lamsa has in 2 Samuel 8:18 "...and David's sons were the princes."

That seems to make perfect sense in the context of 2 Samuel 8:17.


- Keith - 01-18-2005

Ograabe & Oozeaddai,

Thanks for you input. I do own Lamsa's translation but I didn't know how far to trust it. I know in some cases he deviates from standard translation and waxes poetic with "Lamsaisms". In Hebrew the word in the Masoretic Text of 2 Samuel 8 is "kohen" which means priests which is clearly out of place since only a Levite was allowed to be a priest. After a visit with Paul last spring I was convinced that the MT was a defective text at times. The Septuagint has another word.

Do either of you guys know the Aramaic word in the POT?

BTW, oozeaddai--great name. Is it a take off of the phrase "who's your Daddy"?


- Paul Younan - 01-18-2005

Shlama Akhi Keith,

The Peshitta OT version has "princes~chiefs~VIPs" ("Rowbein") in this verse. The word is derived from the same root as "Rabbi" - "master", the root itself being "Rab" which means "great."

- Keith - 01-18-2005


I think this verse may show the superiority of POT to the MT. Really, if one thinks about the way it is written in the MT it is an impossibility if one believes in the inerrancy of scripture.

If one rejects the Documentary Hypothesis then this verse makes perfect sense in the POT and the LXX. If one accepts the Documentary Hypothesis then the MT makes sense.

The "higher critics" believe that the entirety of the Pentateuch was written several hundred years after Moses died and the "Levitcal Priesthood" was not practiced until about the time of Josiah. This means that it would be perfectly acceptable for David's children, who were not of a Levite line, to function as priests at that time.

However, previous to David the OT absolutely condemns the ordination of the non-Levites to the priesthood. Jereboam was punished for doing this; for ordaining non-Levites to be priests.

If one rejects the Documentary Hypothesis and believes that Moses did write the vast majority of the Pentateuch then the Levitical Priesthood was established several decades before David's time and thereby excluding his children from functioning as priests; a fact confirmed by the POT and the LXX.

Is there a reliable English translation of the POT? Can we trust Lamsa's translation of the POT? I do not trust his translation of the PNT.

Good to hear from you again my friend,

- gbausc - 01-18-2005

Shlama akhi Keith,

If I may:
To argue that The POT is superior to The Hebrew Tanakh would be the same as saying the Greek NT, (which I believe is a translation of The Peshitta NT) , is superior to The Peshitta NT.
There are some errors in the Massoretic text for which The POT has the correct reading;that does not make The POT superior. There are also errors in The POT translation.
We must adhere to the original language, or we shall find ourselves adrift on a sea without a paddle.

Burkhtha w'shlama,


- Keith - 01-18-2005

Hi Dave,

I agree that the Tanakh is superior to the POT but I do not equate the Tanakh with the MT. The MT is obviously a translation of a translation of a trans...etc.

Do you think that the Hebrew text from which the POT was translated was superior to the MT? I don't really know but at least in this one case in 2 Samuel the POT is certainly superior to the MT.

Do you know of a good POT English translation? I'll tell what I'd like to have is a side-by-side translation of the POT/LXX/MT/DSS. Why don't you put one together for me :-)?

Thanks for your input,

- Paul Younan - 01-19-2005

Keith Wrote:Do you know of a good POT English translation?

Hi Akhi Keith,

The only one I'm aware of is Lamsa's - but as you know his translation is sometimes wanting. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

While the POT and LXX are translations, whenever they both agree against the MSS.....that's pretty good evidence that the pre-MSS Hebrew original text read that way.

Both the POT and LXX were made by Jews. The former by Aramaic-speaking Jews of Mesopotamia (remnants who remained there after their captivity in Assyria/Babylon) and the latter by a royal decree in Alexandria, Egypt.

In both cases the POT, Aramaic Targums and even the Greek LXX are valuable JEWISH witnesses to the original pre-MSS text of the Tanakh. In both cases, these versions were adopted by those same Jews who later completed their faith in the Messiah.

Aramaic-speaking Jews in Mesopotamia ("Iraq") who accepted Meshikha obviously continued to use the POT, and this version became the official version of the Church of the East which they founded. Others who spoke Aramaic adopted is as well.

Greek-speaking Jews in the Western Empire (Egypt, Greece, etc.) who accepted Meshikha obviously continued to use the LXX, and this version became the official version of the Church of the West which they founded. Others who spoke Greek adopted is as well.

Then the Masoretes came along centuries later and revised~standardized a whole slew of differing Hebrew texts into one text.

Are the LXX and POT superior to the MSS? Obviously not, since they are translations whereas the MSS at least is the same language as the original text - but certainly when they agree against the MSS we have to take note and wonder how two completely independent translations (POT and LXX) in completely different languages from completely different empires wound up having the same reading against the MSS - which hadn't existed at the time.

Take care brother.

- gbausc - 01-19-2005

Shlama akhi Keith,

I don't know why 2 Sam. 8:18 reads "Kohenim";
I do know that the parallel verse in 1 Chronicles 18:17 has "Ha Rashnim" ("Chiefs", "Leaders").



- oozeaddai - 01-19-2005

Keith Wrote:Ograabe & Oozeaddai,

BTW, oozeaddai--great name. Is it a take off of the phrase "who's your Daddy"?



actually I go by just Addai (which inSyriac/Araamic and Hebrew is basically the same name as Thadeus in Greek, meaning "man of God")on most other sites. But you know when I came here, I expected this place to be crawling with Assyrians the way other Orthodox boards tend to have both ethnics, as well as converts that tend to take traditional names. I also thought if I had the traditional name, people would assume I'm Assyrian and fluent with the language and hit me up with all kinds of questions and requests to translate things kind of like what Paul gets all the time. So I took addai and added ooze since I'm very active on a "postmodern christian web site" "".

lol but If I had it all to do again I guess I would just take sweet old Addai like I usually do.