Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 24:21 "three days have passed"
#1
Shlama All,

I realized this question could be related to an existing thread but that one is quite old and I don't want it to get buried or overlooked. I noticed that Etheridge and Murdock render the second half of the verse in question as "three days [have passed] since these things occurred." Lamsa appears to disagree, stating "it is three days since..." Akhi Younan agrees with the former.

Regardless, all disagree with the Greek which states emphatically "today (semeron) is the third (tritos) day"

I don't know of any existing debate or dispute that the exchange happened on a Sunday, so let me explain my question. The greek translation certainly allows for the traditional interpretation of a Friday crucifixion; that is "today" (Sunday) is the third day, Saturday was the second and Friday was the first, that is, the day that it occurred.

Peshitta seems to point to Wednesday or possible Thursday depending if Lamsa has a more accurate interpretation or Murdock et al. When you say "three days have passed", that seems like it should include Saturday, Friday and Thursday, as the current day (Sunday) has not passed yet as we are speaking, and the day that the events occurred couldn't grammatically be considered to have passed "since" itself. Of course if Lamsa is rendering the text properly "it is" or has been "three days since", most grammatically similar to english "three days ago" you can just count backwards to three from Sunday -- Saturday, Friday, Thursday -- and determine that the events in question happened on Thursday.

All that to get to my question: can someone walk me through the grammar of the phrase? (Transliterated) Telata yawmin ha men dehalen kulhen heway

Especially Akhi Paul, if you could walk me through why you chose to render it the way you did.

I don't want any other parts of the "what day of the week was Yeshua crucified" debate to creep in here, I'm just interested in the grammar. And moderators, if this would fit better in a different forum you won't hurt my feelings if you move it. I can see it being classified as a mistranslation from aramaic to greek, or a contradiction in the greek cleared up by aramaic. But not 100 percent sure it exactly fits either of those. Hence, general.

Shlama,
Brian
Reply
#2
Hi Brian,

I am no no Syriac translator, but I use dukhrana and the lexicon often.

If you read what Payne Smith writes about the word 'men' which not just means 'from', but also 'out of', at, or 'on' just considering the context.
But I understand this word is not inclusive, it is not an ordinal as in 'third' where you would mean, 2 wholes plus some extra, is 'third' (2.9999 still between the range 2.0 and 3.0)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/page.php?p=280">http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSm ... .php?p=280</a><!-- m -->

So when I would translate using the lexicon:
wha (see!)
tlata (three)
yawmiyn (days)
wha (see!)
men (out)
d'haleyn (from this)

Note d'haleyn. It is genitive because it is prefixed with 'di'.

As I understand it, the 'this' is outside the three days. It is not INside the three days.

The 'third day' would be this in Syriac: (Matthew 16:21)
alyawma (day)
di atlata (from the third)
Reply
#3
Thanks for your input, I use dukhrana as well. I know of no other online reference as valuable for studying the Peshitta.

Your translation is very word-for-word and literal, which is not a bad thing but can make it hard for someone not familiar with the ORIGINAL language to grasp the sense of exactly what is being said. I think you would agree with me that the greek tritos (third) is a mistranslation. So we're getting somewhere. Would you interpret "three days out from this [the crucifixion]" as meaning that BETWEEN the day of the occurrence, and the day of the recounting, three days had ELAPSED, or that the events described happened three days AGO?

This question might be better suited for a native speaker. I already know Akhi Paul's answer (from his interlinear, of course) but am interested in knowing WHY he interprets it that way.
Reply
#4
Indeed, the literal does not seem to present itself well in this verse, and of course, three different people will likely have three different opinons of what the "literal" is.
Reply
#5
I once read a very interesting commentary from Mar Ishodad of Merv, who worked the miraculous darkening/subsequent reappearance of the sun after the crucifixion into the equation as a full day.

Not that I think it is needed, but I found it to be a very interesting and original viewpoint.

+Shamasha
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Paul,

Interesting and original it is indeed. Is there a precedent for counting solar eclipses as days separate from the day in which they occur? It sounds kind of out there to me.

Brian
Reply
#7
bknight Wrote:Shlama Akhi Paul,

Interesting and original it is indeed. Is there a precedent for counting solar eclipses as days separate from the day in which they occur? It sounds kind of out there to me.

Brian

Hi Akhi Brian,

A 3-hour solar eclipse ? Solar eclipses only last a few minutes maximum.

Quote:And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.


(Mark 15:33)

Additionally, a solar eclipse could not have occurred on or near Passover ... solar eclipses only occur during the new moon phase, and Passover always corresponds to a full moon.

This was a one-time miracle. So I don't think there was a precedent.

+Shamasha
Reply
#8
God made the Sun stand still all day one day, as recorded in the Book of Joshua...maybe he just made the Moon stand still for three hours in front of the Sun... It's possible. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
Thirdwoe Wrote:God made the Sun stand still all day one day, as recorded in the Book of Joshua...maybe he just made the Moon stand still for three hours in front of the Sun... It's possible. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

True, but the ancients were very familiar with solar eclipses, right? The Gospels only mention that a darkness was over the land for 3 hours. We have no indication if that was truly an eclipse by the moon (which would have been in the wrong phase, anyway.)

In any case, I'm not attached emotionally to this theory - I just found it really original, as I don't think any other patristic source (in any tradition) mentions it.

+Shamasha
Reply
#10
Yea...I just checked...it is not possible to have a Solar Eclipse on Passover...its a new moon phase during that time...not a full moon. But, in the past, I've pondered the possibility of it being a reason it went dark for so long...not an eclipse, but something supernatural to fulfill the prophecy...it might be so.
Reply
#11
Thirdwoe Wrote:Yea...I just checked...it is not possible to have a Solar Eclipse on Passover...its a new moon phase during that time...not a full moon. But, in the past, I've pondered the possibility of it being a reason it went dark for so long...not an eclipse, but something supernatural to fulfill the prophecy...it might be so.

Ever notice how modern scholarship tends to explain away miracles by trying to find a natural cause?

History channel is notorious for doing just that. A comet must've been the reason sodom was destroyed. A wind must've kicked up the sea of reeds. Etc.

What ever happened to miracles?

+Shamasha
Reply
#12
If you believe God is in control of nature, natural explanations don't negate miracles. I remember as a kid someone said to my mother that Jericho was destroyed by an earthquake.

"Ok?" Was her response, "But you can't beat the timing."

In regards to the sky being dark on the day Yeshua was crucified, it could have just as easily been just REALLY CLOUDY but that doesn't mean its not a sign from heaven.
Reply
#13
bknight Wrote:If you believe God is in control of nature, natural explanations don't negate miracles. I remember as a kid someone said to my mother that Jericho was destroyed by an earthquake.

"Ok?" Was her response, "But you can't beat the timing."

In regards to the sky being dark on the day Yeshua was crucified, it could have just as easily been just REALLY CLOUDY but that doesn't mean its not a sign from heaven.

Natural explanations can possibly fit some scenarios, but not others (like raising the dead, or turning water into wine.) I really feel that sometimes the reach to find a scientific explanation for everything dilutes the meaning of a miracle.

+Shamasha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)