>>787208
Ok couple things here.
>I know it's great to have such an awesome rendering of "Son" there,
All that matters is it's correct translation and accurately reflecting the original language source.
>They come from David's era especially…and the first temple era in general (i.e. before the Exile.. before Jews actually adopted Aramaic).
Couple things here. First off, you are probably confusing "Aramaic" with Mishnaic Hebrew, as most modern scholars do. They think they can get a fuller understanding of this script through the corpus of the Targums. Yet this is nothing more than the built-in modern day recognition of Talmudic Judaism, as "Mishnaic Hebrew" of the later centuries was used to write the Mishna, the core of what became the Talmud. This adds confusion. So this is the first mistake.
Secondly, the existence of the (authentic) syriac-aramaic script in the actual Bible is well accounted for in multiple places. But even more striking is the fact that all translations correctly render the same word as "son" in Proverbs 31:2. Furthermore, those translations that fail to correctly translation Psalm 2:12 will add a footnote denoting that "the Hebrew is uncertain" which amounts to an admission that they do not understand the grammar. Similar to how all footnotes detailing "alternate readings" are admissions that they do not understand, raising the question of why they published something that they knew could be a corruption and not true!
>I'm the anon who pointed out the wrongness of "like a lion" in Psalm 22 early in this thread. I'm pretty much pointing out the same problem here as I did with Psalm 22.
Ok well in both cases you see the wrong problem because you accept modern, "Judeo-christian" scholarship which accepts modern Judaism and their translations as legitimate. Therefore you misunderstand what the original language actually says in both Psalm 22:16 and Psalm 2:12.
>Same goes for "Bar" here. Why would the Psalmist use an out of place/out of era Aramaic word for "Son"
Same reason God used it in Proverbs 31:2. Also same reason God switched between language in Genesis 31:47, in Jeremiah 10:11, in six chapters in Daniel, etc.
>Additionally, what motivation would the Septuagint have anyways?
The original Septuagint which was the first five books of Moses would have had their motivations, and Origen's cadre with his Hexaplar Septuagint would have had his own motivations, namely to back-translate parts of the New Testament into his translation to legitimize it. It's similar to how someone have produced a "book of Enoch" and cannibalized the real prophecy out of Jude v. 14-15.
>They were neutral Jews who somehow chose a complete different rendering.
You may be confusing the original translation which was of the five books of Moses with the later translation which we now have from Origen. He had motivations.
>Lastly, if it was so wrong, that makes 1500 years of our church almost entirely wrong.
Not if you remember that baptists were never successfully removed from the earth.
>So you have the entire Eastern and Western church for 1500 years rendering it wrong? That's tragic if that's the case!
No because first off nobody was forced to use the Vulgate until Council of Trent. There were numerous Vetus Latina, Gothic, etc. witnesses and original language witnesses that had the correct rendering and meaning. What's really unhinged though is to think that the whole world at some point forgot what the Old Testament said (and they have nothing but one admittedly messed up translation) which is essentially what you are saying. This was never the case except perhaps in certain circles of course.
>And why did the LXX choose what they did?
In the case of Psalm 2:12, it's probably a case of flawed scholarship. They simply didn't have what it took to make a correct translation, similar to how someone working on the Hexaplar Septuagint tried to change Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say "75" instead of "70" but they forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22 which still says 70. It's just bad scholarship. I'm not knocking you just saying get a good translation. Nothing personal.