+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? (/showthread.php?tid=1655)
Pages:
1
2
Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-22-2008
The writer Luke used 'stauros' in Lk 9:23, Lk 14:27 and Lk 23:26 but in the book of Acts Luke uses the word 'xulon' for the same thing, Acts 5:30, 10:39 and 13:29.
Can anyone tell me whether the Greek writers/translators were translating from the Aramaic? Perhaps the Aramaic can clear up the confusion over the 'shape issue?' And why Luke used two different words (having the same effect) in two different books?
Thanks for your input.
Shalom,
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - ograabe - 06-22-2008
It appears to me that in Luke the word is "cross" but in Acts a different word meaning "tree" is used in both Greek and Aramaic.
Otto
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - enarxe - 06-23-2008
Otto, true except Acts 13:29 where there is "cross" in the Peshitta and "tree" in the Greek.
Also, two different Aramaic words in the Gospel verses correspond to a Greek "stauros".
Mark - you can look it up yourself on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->, great resource.
Shlama,
Jerzy
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - gbausc - 06-23-2008
Shlama all,
It is true; the Greek "stauros" is matched with both "Tslayba" and "Zqaypha". Mark 8:34 and 10:21 in Greek have "stauros" , but in Aramaic we find "Zqaypha" and "Tslayba", respectively. In Luke 9:23 and 14:27 we find "stauros" in Greek, but "Zqaypha" & then "Tslayba" in Aramaic.The next occurrence of stauros is in Luke 23:26 where the Aramaic has "Zqaypha".
The same applies to the verb "crucify"; Greek "staurow" is matched both with Aramaic "Tslab" and with "Zqaph", sometimes in close proximity by the same writer.Luke 23:23 and 24:7 both have "staurow" in Greek, but Aramaic has "Zqaph" in 23:23 and "Tslab" in 24:7. John 19:15 has Greek "staurow" twice; in Aramaic, the first one is paralleled by "Tslab", "Tslab" (two of them together) , and the second "staurow" is matched with "Zqaph" (Pilate uses the word)!
What rhyme or reason can account for an Aramaean translating the same Greek root by alternating two Aramaic root words for it, sometimes in the same verse?!
The Greek "Xulos" ("wood") is even more interesting. It is paired up with four different Aramaic words in the NT!
xulov(wood) - abylu (cross), aoyq(wood,tree), ado(stocks), arjwx (staff)
Here are two verses from Luke:
Lu 22:52 eipen de o ihsouv prov touv paragenomenouv ep auton arciereiv kai strathgouv tou ierou kai presbuterouv wv epi lhsthn exelhluyate meta macairwn kai xulwn
Lu 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be you come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
ynnwdxatd arjwxbw apyob yle Nwtqpn ayjol led Kya alkyhd alyx ybrw asysqw anhk ybr yhwle wtad Nwnhl ewsy rmawLu 22:52 Peshitta
Lu 23:31 oti ei en tw ugrw xulw tauta poiousin en tw xhrw ti genhtai
Lu 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
awhn anm asybyb Nydbe Nylh abyjr aoyqb NadLu 23:31 Peshitta
Greek does have a word specifically for "tree"; it is "dendron", yet it is not used here. Aramaic has also "Eylana", which is more specific for "tree".
How does a Greek primacist know the soldiers did not bring crosses to Gethsemane? How about fire wood? Stocks? Trees? Xulos does not really make sense there, for it is too generic. Aramaic has "arjwx"(staves",clubs").
In Luke 23:31, the same question arises.
The Greek "Xulos" just does not cut the mustard in the various contexts in which it is used in the NT. It also does not commend itself as original. This is simply one of many such examples in the NT where Greek uses a generic term or monolithic simplification of two or more Aramaic words: "Demon" has one Greek word; Aramaic has 3; The Greek NT has one word for "peace"; The Peshitta has two.
The Greek primacist has some rather difficult explaining to do, I think. If the Greek were the original, then the same Greek word is used 22 times in the NT and is translated with four different Aramaic words, which occur 31 times in the NT!
I have extensive analysis of this kind of parallel word comparison in my book, Divine Contact, which is a free download from Lulu.com. The Hebrew OT and LXX provide a model for how an original text compares with its translation in the matching up of cognate words in the two languages involved and the ratios of total numbers of those words. The Peshitta compares to the Greek NT in the same way the Hebrew OT does to The LXX (Greek Septuagint translation of The OT). I compared 20 different cognate word groups in computer searches for words totals in each language in all verses where they occur, displayed in parallel fashion.
Without exception, The Peshitta fits the Hebrew OT model of the original text; The Greek matches the model of The LXX as a translation of the original Semitic text.
The whole analysis data table includes over 15,000 words in all versions tested, including control texts, Latin Vulgate, Greek NT, Peshitta NT,Hebrew OT and LXX.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m -->
Blessings,
Dave
Blessings
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - ograabe - 06-24-2008
Thanks, Dave, for the detailed explanation.
I still wonder whether the Aramaic word for cross means a shape like the typical cross found in a Cnristian Church. Is there is there a simple answer for those who think it was actually a post? When we see the NT phase "take up your cross", I wonder why First Century Jews would use this expression if it refers to something Roman?
Otto
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - enarxe - 06-25-2008
ograabe Wrote:[..]
When we see the NT phase "take up your cross", I wonder why First Century Jews would use this expression if it refers to something Roman?
Otto,
I have just found this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://practicaljesus.blogspot.com/2007/03/take-up-you-cross-daily-luke-9-23-25.html">http://practicaljesus.blogspot.com/2007 ... 23-25.html</a><!-- m -->, someone blogging on the topic and using CAL.
What "taking up your cross" meant for the listeners of these words has been bugging me for years. I had a suspicion that I do not understand it as it was meant to be understood. Most of the words of our Teacher have some background in TaNaKh, or explain the Torah and the Prophets, this phrase was somehow out of the blue. One way to approach it is to treat it as a prophecy about the type of death He had to suffer (please see Luke 9:23 with context). And in every place in Gospels these words are together with words about life and death, and so for me the meaning is "you must be ready to die". Shall we start another thread on "What does taking up your cross really mean" ?
But .. reading Josephus, we can find this in the Antiquities of the Jews, book 12, chapter 5 :
".. but Onias was called Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after him, the multitude were divided between them [..] they also hid the circumcision [..] they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their country, and imitated the practices of the other nations. [..] King Antiochus [..] pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery [..] he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar, and table, and did not abstain from even the veils [..] left nothing at all remaining. [..] And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's Altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods, and made them build temples, and raise idol altars, in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded.[..] but the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him [..] they were whipped with rods and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified while they were still alive and breathed : they also strangled those women and their sons [..] hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed; and those with whom they were found miserably perished too."
The listeners of the words of Yeshu' must have remembered very well those events (well, stories about them of course) and "taking the cross" could have a meaning of readiness to die for what you believe in.
Shlama,
Jerzy
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - gbausc - 06-25-2008
Shlama all,
There is no evidence that the Jews ever crucified anyone, so any cross or instrument of crucifixion would necessarily be Roman in Yeshua's time in Israel.
"Tsalyb" has both noun and verb form- "instrument of crucifixion" and "to crucify"; so does "Zqap", which is also translated "cross"- "crucify".
Josephus makes clear that "stauros" was "two perpendicular beams" as I quoted from his writings recently. There is also no art work of any crucifixion on stakes until the 20th century. Back as far as the 4th century there is art work with crosses. The "sign of the cross" is mentioned in the 2nd century , by which men "crossed themselves".
Blessings,
Dave
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-25-2008
Hi Otto, yes those two different words words used by Luke in 2 different books was the premise of my question as in the opening topic. What I am endeavouring to find out is firstly, why Luke used these words when stauros would do? Secondly, to persue the Aramaic contemporary root of what stauros was taken from so as to explain then 'it's shape'.
Blessings.
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-25-2008
Hi Dave, because Yeshua was hung along with two other 'malefactors' it would be fair to assume that it was a Roman execution. Dave, you raise an interesting statement about the Romans 'bringing firewood'. What is the Aramaic for firewood in the context of Genesis where Isaac carried with him 'firewood?' Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my question and I hope that you can see that I am not questioning or making 'aspertions' but merely raising the topic of the traditionally accepted symbol of Yeshua's death instrument. Looking forward to reading 'Divine Order'.
Shalom.
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-25-2008
Greetings Jerzy, yes Josephus is a great back up to many issues historically. Unfortunately, we have to rely upon the translators again to give us what he said. We do know that translators have failed in many respects to translate accurately Josephus's works and so 'paraphrase' when they wish to. Is the rendering 'crosses' paraphrased? Just my thoughts...
Thanks for the web address and for your time in explanation.
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - enarxe - 06-26-2008
markt Wrote:Greetings Jerzy, yes Josephus is a great back up to many issues historically. Unfortunately, we have to rely upon the translators again to give us what he said. We do know that translators have failed in many respects to translate accurately Josephus's works and so 'paraphrase' when they wish to. Is the rendering 'crosses' paraphrased? Just my thoughts...Greetings Marc,
Mark
Do you mean English or Greek translators? I do not know if crosses is a paraphrase and I have not looked up any sources on this, just English translation. But I think these were really wooden crosses. I was just trying to give some context to the words from the Gospel, and could relate to Otto's question.
Jerzy
P.S. Are you the same person as Marc Thomas ?
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-27-2008
enarxe Wrote:markt Wrote:Greetings Jerzy, yes Josephus is a great back up to many issues historically. Unfortunately, we have to rely upon the translators again to give us what he said. We do know that translators have failed in many respects to translate accurately Josephus's works and so 'paraphrase' when they wish to. Is the rendering 'crosses' paraphrased? Just my thoughts...Greetings Marc,
Mark
Do you mean English or Greek translators? I do not know if crosses is a paraphrase and I have not looked up any sources on this, just English translation. But I think these were really wooden crosses. I was just trying to give some context to the words from the Gospel, and could relate to Otto's question.
Jerzy
P.S. Are you the same person as Marc Thomas ?
Shalom again Jerzy.
No I am not the Marc Thomas you might think? I remember being advised on this forum somewhere to look at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.practicaljesus.blogspot">http://www.practicaljesus.blogspot</a><!-- m --> and found him to be the author?
Anyway, my 'suggestion' that William Whiston used the English 'crosses' was a general 'aspertion' that many of us are infected (unwittingly) with 'traditional opinion' . For instance, Josephus was not spelled with a J - if you get my drift?
I would like to know why you think he meant crosses though.
Blessings in Messiah,
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - gbausc - 06-27-2008
Hello Marc,
I repost part of my former post on the cross:
Quote:The following verse which Keith earlier asked about supports the "cross" position over a "stake":As to the passage in Genesis 22 about Abraham offering Isaac, the Aramaic word in The Peshitta for "wood" is "Qysa", which is the usual word for "wood". It occurs several times in the passage. The Greek NT is far too vague and general in using the word "Xulos" for "a cross,tree,stick,wood,stocks" where the Peshitta distinguishes between "Zqaypha" (cross) , "Tslyba" (cross), "Qysa" (wood) , "Seda"(stocks) , "Khutra" (staff,club) or "Eylana" (tree)
The Nature of the cross
(the disciples) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0dymlt[/font] (to him) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hl[/font] (& were saying) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nyrm0[/font]
(to them) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nwhl[/font] (said) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]rm0[/font] (but) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nyd[/font] (he) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]wh[/font] (our Lord) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nrml[/font] (we have seen) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nyzx[/font]
(in His hands) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]yhwdyab[/font] (I) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0n0[/font] (see) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0zx[/font] (unless) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0l0[/font]
(I) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0n0[/font] (& shall put) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0mrw[/font] (of the nails) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ccd[/font] (the places) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0tykwd[/font]
(my hand) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]ydy0[/font] (I) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0n0[/font] (& reach) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]+$wmw[/font] (my fingers) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]yt9bc[/font] (in them) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nyhb[/font]
( I ) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0n0[/font] (shall believe) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nmyhm[/font] (not) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0l[/font] (in His side) [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hnpdb[/font]
The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament
And the disciples were saying to him,
"We have seen Our Lord???, but he said to them,
???Unless I see in his hands the places of the
nails and I shall put my fingers in them, and
reach my hand into his side, I will not
believe."John 20:25 The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (in Estrangela font)
The above verse shows that Yeshua was not nailed to a stake, as Jehovah???s Witnesses claim. How so? If a man were nailed to a stake, two nails would be used- one for the hands and one for the feet. Think about it. Why use more than that, from a Roman point of view? In order to use more, the hands would either be placed one above the other (which would put all the upper body weight on one hand), or they would be placed on either side of the beam, but what sense is there in that?
Josephus-Wars of The Jews
???When, therefore, Vespasian looked upon himself as in a manner besieged by these sallies of the Jews, and when his banks were now not far from the walls, he determined to make use of his battering ram. This battering ram is a vast beam of wood like the mast of a ship, its forepart is armed with a thick piece of iron at the head of it, which is so carved as to be like the head of a ram, whence its name is taken. This ram is slung in the air by ropes passing over its middle, and is hung like the balance in a pair of scales from another beam, and braced by strong beams that pass on both sides of it, in the nature of a cross. When this ram is pulled backward by a great number of men with united force, and then thrust forward by the same men, with a mighty noise, it batters the walls with that iron part which is prominent. Nor is there any tower so strong, or walls so broad, that can resist any more than its first batteries, but all are forced to yield to it at last.???
Josephus-Antiquities (Notice Josephus' description of a battering ram with 3 pieces of wood, 2 on either side of the main large beam, as being like a cross.)
8. On the next day, when the Philistines came to strip their enemies that were slain, they got the bodies of Saul and of his sons, and stripped them, and cut off their heads; and they sent messengers all about their country, to acquaint them that their enemies were fallen; and they dedicated their armor in the temple of Astarte, but hung their bodies on crosses at the walls of the city Bethshun, which is now called Scythepolls.
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
(According to Josephus' 1st century Jewish account from Israel, Jesus was condemned to the cross. His previous description leaves little doubt the nature of a cross (Greek - "Stauros".)
Wikipedia-
The earliest artistic representations of the Crucifixion show Christ on a cross. If they also show the two thieves, these too are on crosses. Not until the second millennium are the two thieves shown as executed on stakes or trees. Not until the twentieth century is Jesus himself shown (in a Jehovah's Witnesses publication) as dying on a stake.
The first form of that which is called the Christian Cross, found on Christian monuments there, is the unequivocal Pagan Tau, or Egyptian 'Sign of life'. Let the reader peruse the following statement of Sir G. Wilkinson: 'A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it in lieu of the cross, which was afterwards substituted for it, prefixing it to inscriptions in the same manner as the cross in later times. For, though Dr. Young had some scruples in believing the statement of Sir A. Edmonstone, that it holds that position in the sepulchres of the great Oasis, I can attest that such is the case, and that numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments.' The drift of this statement is evidently this, that in Egypt the earliest form of that which has since been called the cross, was no other than the 'Crux Ansata', or 'Sign of life', borne by Osiris and all the Egyptian gods; that the ansa or 'handle' was afterwards dispensed with, and that it became the simple Tau, or ordinary cross, as it appears at this day, and that the design of its first employment on the sepulchres, therefore, could have no reference to the crucifixion of the Nazarene, but was simply the result of the attachment to old and long cherished Pagan symbols, which is always strong in those who, with the adoption of the Christian name and profession, are still, to a large extent, Pagan in heart and feeling. This, and this only, is the origin of the worship of the 'cross'. This, no doubt, will appear all very strange and very incredible to those who have read Church history, as most have done to a large extent, even amongst Protestants, through Romish spectacles; and especially to those who call to mind the famous story told of the miraculous appearance of the cross to Constantine on the day before the decisive victory at the Milvian bridge, that decided the fortunes of avowed Paganism and nominal Christianity.
The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, "Apologia," i. 55-60; "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona," iii.; Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21-22; Lactantius, "Divin?? Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross (see Apocalypse of Mary, viii., in James, "Texts and Studies," iii. 118).[8]
What is the second century "sign of the cross" or "marking of a cross on the forehead and chest"? Shall we say it was a sign of a stake? A stake has no symbol or symbolic value.
What nonsense!
Josephus' writings are preserved in his Greek translation of the original Aramaic in which he composed his works. "Stauros" is the word he used in the 1st century to describe the structure he described as I quoted above :
This battering ram is a vast beam of wood like the mast of a ship, its forepart is armed with a thick piece of iron at the head of it, which is so carved as to be like the head of a ram, whence its name is taken. This ram is slung in the air by ropes passing over its middle, and is hung like the balance in a pair of scales from another beam, and braced by strong beams that pass on both sides of it, in the nature of a cross.
Dave
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - markt - 06-29-2008
Hi Dave, thanks for all that! As you can possibly see, I came at this subject with a filter on! i.e. I have always been taught about the 'torture stake', the pole, in the contexts of wood standing up or up-stand as in 'stauros'. Having learned 'to prove all things' I found the book on Ruach Qadim to absolutely magnify and make clearer the scriptures I was having difficulty understanding! A little more probing and here we are (or here I am). While the above contributions have made my search (research) clearer they have not in a complete and infallible proof sense, if you get my drift? When I read from the Greek stauros as impale, I find it difficult to imagine how? Also, when all those poor souls were impaled on trees (6000) (on the Appian Way) did they use cross pieces?
Shalom,
Mark
Re: Did the Greeks translate 'stauros and xulon' from Aramaic? - Stephen Silver - 06-29-2008
markt Wrote:Hi Dave, thanks for all that! As you can possibly see, I came at this subject with a filter on! i.e. I have always been taught about the 'torture stake', the pole, in the contexts of wood standing up or up-stand as in 'stauros'. Having learned 'to prove all things' I found the book on Ruach Qadim to absolutely magnify and make clearer the scriptures I was having difficulty understanding! A little more probing and here we are (or here I am). While the above contributions have made my search (research) clearer they have not in a complete and infallible proof sense, if you get my drift? When I read from the Greek stauros as impale, I find it difficult to imagine how? Also, when all those poor souls were impaled on trees (6000) (on the Appian Way) did they use cross pieces?
Shalom,
Mark
Hi Mark:
The first thing that comes to me when I think of being impaled on a stake is the ignonimous position of "butt first". This excruciating position would not require nails. The sharpened stake needs nothing but to be fixed in a vertical position. Gravity does the rest. The internal organs would become infected by the released contents of the punctured bowel. The heart and lungs would not be affected till much later, but each drawn breath would only intensify the agony. Crying out would bring no relief from the excruciating pain. The body would eventually go into shock and death would follow in it's own time. The effect? A strong deterrent to would be malefactors. The Romans were probably very conservative in their use of torture implements. Why use nails if you can use the butt end of a stick, so to speak. Our LORD and Saviour was crucified with nails driven through both of his horizontally outstretched hands while conservatively, only one nail was needed for his feet. Why nails? They were needed because there was a horizontal cross-piece with a hole in the centre which sat on a narrowed end of the virtical member. Why was a nail needed for his feet? It was so he would not suddenly asphyxiate if he could not raise his body to release the crushing pressure on his diaphram. Our Saviour died prematurely while the other two needed their legs broken so they could die quickly.
The crucifixion of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ was done in haste. A stake, if it was an option, would not have allowed for a quick death. The stake, in my opinion was used when death was to be prolonged.
Kindly,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->