|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 24, 2019 10:26:57 GMT -8
The Testament of Asher is one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which is apparently a 1st to 2nd century Christian or Nazarene composition based on pre-Christian Jewish texts.
Question: How would you translate Chapter 4, verse 3?
Ruslana Khazarzar's Library gives the Greek text for Chapter IV as: R.H. Charles' 1908 book, The Greek versions of the Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, has the Greek text of the Testament of Asher, which can be found on page 176 here: archive.org/details/greekversionste00chargoog/page/n248
There, verse 3 looks something like: Charles' text looks practically the same as Khazarzar's version, except that as I underlined above, Charles' version says nisteuonta instead of listeuonta, it is missing "estin"/"estiv" where I put the blank, and it ends in kalou instead of kakou.
I am posting page 138 for your convenience here:
DeJonge's version agrees with Charles' text for verse 3, except that on page 139 at the end it says "kakou" like Khazarzar's text does, instead of "kalou".
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 24, 2019 10:57:58 GMT -8
In general, people have noted problems with Roberts' and Donaldson's translations. Here is Roberts and Donaldson's 1886 translation of Chapter IV, with verse 3 underlined. It does not really make sense how a man who hates someone who shows mercy, as well as doing wrong to an adulterer is double faced yet good as a whole work. This is because it doesn't make much sense how hating someone who shows mercy is good. Showing mercy does not just "seem good". Plus, doing wrong to an adulterer, like stealing the adulterer's money, could still be wrong. But I guess the author could be pitiless and hate the merciful and wish wrongdoing upon adulterers.
Roberts' translation above cites Matthew 5:45, in which God gives the same treatment to the righteous and to sinners. There, Yeshua says:
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
By comparison, R.H. Charles' 1908 translation makes more sense, and it feels more reliable because he also published the Greel text. In Charles' translation, the good man whom Asher is describing in Chapter IV hates the "merciful and unjust" man, and hates the adulterer and thief. This sounds better than hating the merciful and doing wrong to sinners. Plus, Charles' translation makes more sense because Chapter IV is preceded by Chapter II, in which the Testament of Asher actually did criticize a merciful yet unjust man, as well as an adulterer. So based on the context, it sounds like Chapter IV would be talking about hating merciful unjust people and adulterers.
Here is R. H. Charles' translation, with the relevant parts underlined:
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 24, 2019 11:27:24 GMT -8
As far as translation goes I can't help you. I know even less about Greek than I do Hebrew.
As to the book of Asher, I find either translation difficult to read, mostly because the author is himself double minded. A good thing does not make an evil thing good. And a Robin Hood complex is still just a complex. Doing evil to bad people is still evil on your part. It sets you up as judge, jury, and executioner.
Not sure what he was talking about in hating one who shows mercy. If that one was in authority, and he turned say a rapist or a murderer back into the community as many of our judges do today, then yes I get a might perturbed at them. But stealing property from that judge still just makes you a thief.
I don't think I can help you much with this one. Just a bit too convoluted, weird, and Greek!
But let me ask you, how much stock does the EO church place in this writing?
Dan C
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 24, 2019 11:31:38 GMT -8
The Russian translation of verse 3 that I found on the Azbuka Very website runs:
In English, this means: "One who hates one whom is together merciful and unjust, and one whom together adulterizes and fasts, also acts doublefacedly, but all his work is good; for he is like the Lord, not taking for the truth the good that only seems good." This Russian translation agrees with R.H. Charles' translation.
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 24, 2019 11:59:10 GMT -8
The Russian translation of verse 3 that I found on the Azbuka Very website runs: In English, this means: "One who hates one whom is together merciful and unjust, and one whom together adulterizes and fasts, also acts doublefacedly, but all his work is good; for he is like the Lord, not taking for the truth the good that only seems good." This Russian translation agrees with R.H. Charles' translation. Then go with Charles' work. My question is why? What is it you are looking for in this? Does the EO Church use these works to back up any of their theologies or traditions? Are any of those based on this work? Dan C
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 24, 2019 12:20:29 GMT -8
As to the book of Asher, I find either translation difficult to read, mostly because the author is himself double minded. A good thing does not make an evil thing good. And a Robin Hood complex is still just a complex. Doing evil to bad people is still evil on your part. It sets you up as judge, jury, and executioner. Not sure what he was talking about in hating one who shows mercy. If that one was in authority, and he turned say a rapist or a murderer back into the community as many of our judges do today, then yes I get a might perturbed at them. But stealing property from that judge still just makes you a thief. I don't think I can help you much with this one. Just a bit too convoluted, weird, and Greek! But let me ask you, how much stock does the EO church place in this writing? Dan C Dan, I think that Charles' translation makes sense and is confirmed by the Russian translation that I found. In that case, Verse 3 talks about hating people who are both merciful and unjust. That is, there are people who have complex personalities with lots of sinful characteristics, like someone who "steals, acts unjustly, plunders, defrauds, and withal pities the poor." It looks like the author is saying that it's good to hate someone who does all those bad things even though this bad, unjust person is still merciful because he pities the poor.
To answer your question, the Anglican theologian John Deane writes about the "Testament of the Twelve Patriarch's" status in the 3rd to 9th centuries:
Tertullian was writing in the late 2nd to early 3rd century AD. So it shows up briefly in some important Church writers' literature as apocryphal, but worth mentioning. It also shows up in a 17th century Armenian "Oriental Orthodox" Bible.
As for other works:
The Lives of the Prophets, which I asked about on another thread, must have been once in widespread use in the mainstream Church community, because there have been enough copies of it in different languages. 4 Baruch, which I asked about on another thread, is part of the Ethiopian "Oriental Orthodox" Church's Bible.
2 Esdras (KJV) /4 Esdras (Vulgate) is part of the Eastern Orthodox Biblical "Apocrypha"/"Deuterocanon".
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 24, 2019 13:55:17 GMT -8
Well, I will quote you the last post I did in the thread on the Gospel of the Nazarenes:
Just because a fraudulent copy made it into someone's canon does not make it any less a lie. But these do not make anyone's list (which is all a canon is) unless there is something in them that particular church wants to back up their own theology or traditions. That is what I'm asking about. What is it the EO church wants from these writings? What do they want to justify?
As an example, The RC Church uses II Maccabees 12:39-46 as justification for Purgatory and purchasing a loved one's soul therefrom. Not sure what the EO Church thinks of this, but the point is this is one of the reasons for the books of the Maccabees inclusion in their Apocrypha. They say (in their extreme ignorance) that "The Jews of Jesus time thought like this, so Jesus thought like this, so it is true." No, SOME Jews of that time, not even close to the majority, thought like that. There were many sects in the time of Jesus, and many groups which can only be described as "other forms of Judaism." You could justify the idols found in every RC, and most Christian churches today by looking at some of these groups. There are frescos from late 2nd through 4th cen synagogues wit depictions of God on His throne. Any depiction of God is forbidden in Judaism, yet there they are! And one synagogue had a raised relief of Solus Invictus over the entrance. There were 3 other Temples in Israel besides the ones in Jerusalem and the infamous Mt Gerazim of the Samaritans where sacrifices were made- another thing strictly forbidden. So to point to any work, written or otherwise and say it is proof the Jews were that way is either extremely ignorant, mightily foolish, or a monstrous lie; or all three!
But when you want to prove some deviation from the Word, there is always a writing somewhere to prove your point. My problem is most of these works are proven pseudepigrapha. They are lies from the start, so why use them? I'm not sure if the TESTAMENT OF ASHER is considered pseudepigraphic by most scholars, but I would place it in that category. Regardless, it goes against scripture and uses a very twisted logic. I guess I just don't see the point in studying it unless your church uses it. If that is the case, I'd take questions to your priest/pastor as they'd be much more likely to know about it than I or anyone here would.
Sorry I can't help unless you want to discuss specific doctrines based on this book and where they are (or aren't) in the 66 book Bible we consider authoritative.
Dan C
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 24, 2019 16:29:08 GMT -8
Sorry I can't help unless you want to discuss specific doctrines based on this book and where they are (or aren't) in the 66 book Bible we consider authoritative. Dan C Sure, you have been doing a good job with this kind of thing actually in this thread and in the other threads, comparing and contrasting Nazarene/Messianic beliefs with ideas in the texts.
So for example in this thread, the basic message of the Testament of Asher is against duplicity. And you did a good job helping me to discard an idea that shows up in Roberts' translation about hating the merciful. The idea does not make sense, and the failure to make sense is one reason why Roberts' translation is probably wrong. R.H. Charles' translation is about hating people who are wicked in numerous ways even if they are merciful to the poor. So you helped me make sense of this text by discussing the doctrine that showed up.
Also, to get back to what you were asking about, the main authoritative sources in the EO Church are: 1. The Bible. 2. Less important than the Bible are the 7 Ecumenical Councils. 3. Less important than the 7 Councils are things like the Church Fathers. Sometimes the Church Fathers teach things that the Church doesn't necessarily agree with. A good example of that might be the way that Augustine theorized about the Guilt of Original Sin being passed down biologically from parent to child over many generations. This idea by Augustine is not accepted very much in either Jewish or EO theology. 4. I suppose that Biblical apocrypha is comparable to, or a bit lower than, the Church Fathers' writings in terms of authority. But for the EO Church, the only real "Biblical Apocrypha"/"Deuterocanon" that we discussed is 2/4 Esdras.
My own interest in the first century Nazarene writings is to get closer to the early period of the believers. Our discussion on the history of the Nazarenes' relationship to the gentile Christian community was a good example of that. It wasn't an issue that I had worked out very well, so the discussion was helpful and brought new information to my mind.
|
|