Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Job
#1
Noticed a massive difference in job 32-1, lamsa has' so these three men who wanted to condemn job ceased answering him, because he was found righteous in their eyes'.
The king james has' so these three men ceased to answer job, because he was righteous in his own eyes'. I don't know what else to say..
Reply
#2
sean Wrote:Noticed a massive difference in job 32-1, lamsa has' so these three men who wanted to condemn job ceased answering him, because he was found righteous in their eyes'.
The king james has' so these three men ceased to answer job, because he was righteous in his own eyes'. I don't know what else to say..

Shlama Akhi Sean:
Lamsa has translated the Peshitta, both the Old and New Testaments from Aramaic into English. The Peshitta AN"K, which was originally translated from the Hebrew TN"K reads somewhat differently than the Hebrew Massoretic text from which the KJV is translated into English.

Ambrosiano Aramaic AN"K
S.P.Silver English Interlinear:
And they finished...their condemnation...of Job...and they ceased...these...three...men...by their petition...of speaking to Job."
"....washalmo............patag'mohi.........d'Yov.......washaliyo.......halin...talita..gavrin....dabayin..hoo.....l'makhibutah...l'Yob."

Masoretic Hebrew TN"K
S.P.Silver English Interlinear:
"and they rested...three(pl)..the men(pl)...these....from answering....Job"
"vayish'bato.......sh'loshet....haanashim...haayleh.....mayanot.......et-Yov"

Of course we must defer to the Hebrew Scriptures and take the Peshitta AN"K with a grain of salt, so to speak.
<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
Shlama All,

Ambrosiano Aramaic AN"K
S.P.Silver English InterlinearSadrevised)
And they finished.........the answer...........of Job...and they ceased...these...three...men...who sought.......to condemn Job."
"....wshalemo............pethga'mawhi.........d'Yov.......washaliyo.......halin...talita..gavrin....d'bayin..hoo.....lamkhayavuthah...l'Yob."
for he was righteous in their eyes
metuul d'hu wah zdyq b'aynayhuun

Just a few corrections and finishing of the verse.

Dave
Reply
#4
gbausc Wrote:Shlama All,

Ambrosiano Aramaic AN"K
S.P.Silver English InterlinearSadrevised)
And they finished.........the answer...........of Job...and they ceased...these...three...men...who sought.......to condemn Job."
"....wshalemo............pethga'mawhi.........d'Yov.......washaliyo.......halin...talita..gavrin....d'bayin..hoo.....lamkhayavuthah...l'Yob."
for he was righteous in their eyes
metuul d'hu wah zdyq b'aynayhuun

Just a few corrections and finishing of the verse.

Dave

Shlama Akhi David:
I find it curious that the form of "b'aynayhuun" is "third person (pl)", rather than "second person (singular)" don't you? After all the Hebrew Massoretic text can be read either way with the "VAV at the end of the word. The only difference between the two is the use of either "kholam" to make the word mean "his" and a "Vav with a dagesh to the left" to make the word mean "their". The traditional use of the Hebrew is "his". Thanks for pointing out the difference in the Aramaic ending of the verse. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#5
Shlama Stephen,

The Aramaic "huun" ending is the 3rd plural ending -"theirs"; The Hebrew ending for "their,theirs" is "hem"- He,Mem. "Eynayhem" is the Hebrew for "their eyes".
As it reads in Hebrew, "eynayu" is "his eyes" (3rd singular). I don't see where you get 2nd singular, which in Hebrew would have a final Kaph: "eynayka"-"your eyes"

The Aramaic reading is quite different, yet it actually makes more sense to me than the Hebrew reading. "They ceased arguing because he was rightous in his own eyes?"
That's no reason to cease arguing. That's when the real arguing begins! Job had started out defending himself in chapter 3; this is chapter 32. If his self justification was their reason for not arguing, they would have given up long before that, it seems to me. However, if Job had convinced them that he was not wicked, but indeed, a righteous man, then it stands to reason they would have quit attacking him. Notice too that Elihu becomes angry with Job's friends for backing off of Job's case after this.

Just my opinion. Maybe the Hebrew is correct.

Dave
Reply
#6
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Stephen,

The Aramaic "huun" ending is the 3rd plural ending -"theirs"; The Hebrew ending for "their,theirs" is "hem"- He,Mem. "Eynayhem" is the Hebrew for "their eyes".
As it reads in Hebrew, "eynayu" is "his eyes" (3rd singular). I don't see where you get 2nd singular, which in Hebrew would have a final Kaph: "eynayka"-"your eyes"

The Aramaic reading is quite different, yet it actually makes more sense to me than the Hebrew reading. "They ceased arguing because he was rightous in his own eyes?"
That's no reason to cease arguing. That's when the real arguing begins! Job had started out defending himself in chapter 3; this is chapter 32. If his self justification was their reason for not arguing, they would have given up long before that, it seems to me. However, if Job had convinced them that he was not wicked, but indeed, a righteous man, then it stands to reason they would have quit attacking him. Notice too that Elihu becomes angry with Job's friends for backing off of Job's case after this.

Just my opinion. Maybe the Hebrew is correct.

Dave

Shlama Akhi David:
No, arguing with one that appears to be "righteous in his own eyes", is like beating your head against a brick wall. Perhaps you have misunderstood the phrase. The phrases "one that appears to be righteous" vis-a-vis "one who is righteous in his own eyes" are opposites. There is an equivalence of the phrase "righteous in his own eyes" with "he is deluded/misled by his own opinion of himself". Since his friends could not persuade Job they quit trying. Now, they were wrong, but their delusion was reinforced by their number while Job sat alone in ashes, very close to repentance. Nevertheless it can be read either way, can't it. Indeed, I erred in the grammatical parsing. Thanks for the correction. :o)

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)