Today they've just publicly announced the evidence of ancient text "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" straight from HARVARD Theological Review.
Have fun here ...
Go to HARVARD here ..
.
I smiled.
I really am not getting what is so fantastical here. Of course Yeishuu`a has a wife...her name is Yisraa'eil.
Honestly, sometimes I feel like this whole thing is one big, long episode of the Twilight Zone...everyone has taken leave of their senses.
I also suspect that anyone nonplussed by this whole Coptic episode won't be issued a wedding garment...how could these folks receive one if they don't even see themselves as the bride of Messiah?
I think stuff like this comes along just to illustrate how far removed from understanding everyone is.
"I never knew you", indeed!
"What's more, you never knew Me!!"
Today they've just publicly announced the evidence of ancient text
Not just found but rather additional dating tests on a text announced in 2012 see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54765/397770.aspx
Thanks for the update
The announcement was late by 10 days... [:P]
Today they've just publicly announced
Yep, it's Easter time.
If you have difficulty remembering when Resurrection Sunday is in the current year, you can always approximate it when all the nonsense comes out of the woodwork. As Yogurt said: "merchandising, merchandising!"
Every Easter, the crazies come out of the wood pile. This time—as MJ noted—they could not even be original but had to recycle one. Besides, the supposed document is from the eighth century. Even if it was authentic, it would have no bearing on the life of Christ.
In connection with this, you might also want to read this review The Alleged Gospel of Jesus’s Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity which contains this paragraph:
[quote]There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind personally that the text (henceforth: the Text) presented to the world on September 18, 2012, as theGospel of Jesus's Wife is a patchwork of words and phrases from the published and well-known Coptic Gospel of Thomas. The dialect of Coptic in question is Sahidic. “Coptic” is therefore henceforth an abbreviation of Sahidic Coptic. This patchwork is characterized by a certain loss of textual coherence, by minor modifications designed to put a certain spin on delicate modern issues of theology, and by a couple of fatal grammatical blunders. A careful word-by-word juxtaposition and comparison of the text with the text of the Gospel of Thomas reduces the chances that the text is not a somewhat clumsy remix of words and phrases from the Gospel of Thomas statistically to zero. It is therefore clear that the Text is not an independent literary composition at all.
Next they will tell us Jesus came to us through a spaceship from outer space.
Afterall life supposedly (to some) came from outer space so why not Jesus?!!!!
I am just joshin....sad that so many would entertain a lie but NOT the actual truth.
Given that the fragment is so tiny one can barely sample it, it's obviously forged. Else they would have made it bigger like real fragments. And the writing really looks like it was carefully badly copied ... just like typical forgers. Real fragments are copied more carefully.
I think what we're looking at is scholarly baiting ... of other scholars. Probably the ink was tested two years ago. Karen's not that slow.
If one reads beyond the headline, the scholar does not claim that the text is proof Jesus was married. Rather she places it in the context of a debate on the role of women - something still being debated.
Besides, the supposed document is from the eighth century. Even if it was authentic, it would have no bearing on the life of Christ.
I called this to the attention of the forum when it was first announced. What they have now done is to authenticate that it is from between 400 ad or later, not necessarily the 8th century. That still makes it rather late and likely a product of the many rather fanciful accounts regarding Jesus' life.
I am always amazed at the stir caused by nothing. A document dating over 700 years after the events of Jesus' life claims that he was married. So what? One can find much earlier cults and heresies.
The stir was an academic question; up until the tiny fragment, there'd not been any association of a 'wife' with Jesus. Thus King reported it (and if I remember, not in an academic way). And given the ink's time range, it's really unknown how far back (or not) it goes.
But the religionists should remember, that absent Paul's interest in money, we'd never have known that Cephas or 'the brothers' had wives. Nor do we know what they were doing (cooking or teaching). The NT text really doesn't speak to 'who's married' much, even when scholars have a male and female paired name (and thus presume 'married'). I've always been curious about Eliezar; I assume after being dead for four days, no wife showed up in the account.
The tremendous emotionalism illustrates how people don't really deal too much with the text. Saul (later Paul) traipsed off to Damascus to yank a bunch of Christian women down to Jerusalem. How exactly do you do that? Bathrooms? Eating? Sleeping? Gossip (which Tertalian was immensely afraid of)? Even in the 1800s west, sheriffs were not too thrilled on traveling with women. The NT really 'skirts' the day-to-day issues like 'married'?
There a a few different issues here. One is whether the fragment is "real". Even that is a question that depends on defining what "real" means. Is it a recent piece of work? Not real. Is it pre-1000CE? Then it's real as a document produced by ancient sources, but the greater question remains...does it speak of either historical or canonical...or prophetical...truth? Yeishuu`a wasn't married to a physical human woman, so if the author meant that, it is bogus as a "truth document" though possibly legit as a gnostic document. How do we know with 100% perfect certainty that Yeishuu`a NEVER married a human woman? Simple...because He is already betrothed to another--to Israel--and He is not an adulterer.
Which brings me to my main gripe where this thing is concerned, the fact that many people are dismissing this document as a "forgery" (even though it could be a legitimate gnostic document) because they don't like the content found in the fragment. From a Biblical prophecy perspective, the three lines mentioned in the article--"My mother gave me life", "And Jesus said to them, 'My wife...' ", and "She will be able to be my disciple..."--are all pefectly valid Biblical prophetic concepts. To deny the prophetic truth of all three statements, and the literal truth of the first and last, is to have no clue who YHWH/Yeishuu`a is. Equating this with "Jesus is an alien" or similar crackpot notions is to become a crackpot oneself.
I didn't bother making an exhaustive list...the above is sufficient. My point is...withholding judgment as to whether this document is a recent forgery or not is appropriate. Judging that this document is bogus based purely on content is to judge oneself and be found wanting. Nothing in the scrap is unbiblical on its face. There is no reason for the content to cause a stir among Bible adherants.
...everyone has taken leave of their senses.
“In a mad world, only the mad are sane.” ― Akira Kurosawa
“When you're the only sane person, you look like the only insane person.” ― Criss Jami, Diotima, Battery, Electric Personality
"1 Cor 15:34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame." ― The Apostle Paul
Thus King reported it (and if I remember, not in an academic way).
I think she reported it at a Coptic scholars' convention - at least that was the first I saw in the media/ But I'll admit I don't really keep my eyes out for such things.
The tremendous emotionalism illustrates how people don't really deal too much with the text.
Or even with the facts as reported. In fact, it shows why journalists report such things.
There is no reason for the content to cause a stir among Bible adherants.
[Y]And if it didn't cause a stir, it probably would never have made the headlines. Coptic fragments aren't often publicized outside academic circles.
Recommend these two links (easy to read with more links available on Goodacre's blog) along with the link Jack posted in his comment.
Larry Hurtado and Mark Goodacre and Michael Heiser
Edit: forgot to list Michael Heiser
Yeishuu`a wasn't married to a physical human woman, so if the author meant that, it is bogus as a "truth document" though possibly legit as a gnostic document. How do we know with 100% perfect certainty that Yeishuu`a NEVER married a human woman? Simple...because He is already betrothed to another--to Israel--and He is not an adulterer.
I followed the Hurtado link from the post above and found a link to Michael Heiser's website where he said this...
Theological message, yes...and precisely for that reason, and the reasons from my post quoted above, we can be 100% certain Yeishuu`a didn't have a human wife. He has been betrothed from since before creation. He was wed at Sinai to Israel, in a marriage covenant. He died, ending that covenantal obligation. He will become husband to remnant Israel during the millennial reign in a new marriage covenant. There is NO room for a human lady in His human life. It is prophetically impermissible. It cannot happen. It did not happen.
David, David, David, you are one twisted sister brother.
Theological message, yes...and precisely for that reason, and the reasons from my post quoted above, we can be 100% certain Yeishuu`a didn't have a human wife. He has been betrothed from since before creation. He was wed at Sinai to Israel, in a marriage covenant. He died, ending that covenantal obligation. He will become husband to remnant Israel during the millennial reign in a new marriage covenant. There is NO room for a human lady in His human life. It is prophetically impermissible. It cannot happen. It did not happen. David, David, David, you are one twisted sister brother.
Hello, George! [:)]
David could not rise to be a twisted-sister.
I'm proud to notice that female-shoe-throwing-talent maximizes just north of the Salt River here in Arizona. We are certainly 'twisted' talented!
Just 700 years after true events? Obviously more reliable than those first and second century documents, like the New Testament and Church Fathers.
Personally, I prefer to go back to the second and third century for my heretics. Sounds like they built a theology off the Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary.
Actually the little fragment (bless its papyri heart) demonstrates so much. The scholarly angriness at the writer re-using earlier text. Conservatives with excitement of maybe finding another way to feel being attacked. And what appears to be curious ink-testers amused by it all.
I like the little fragment because it comes close to explaining Matthew, Luke (and probably John), Acts, 2 Corinthians, and 2 Peter to start with. I'd always wondered how the writers re-used text. And don't get your feathers up ... the Acts writer fully discloses. Nothing unusual.
But most of the NT re-writes are monsters from a papyri and messy ink point of view. So I'd think, like the little papyri, that there were quite a few drafts for each one. We don't know but most just assume one version emerged.
bless its papyri heart
Papyrus, "papyri" is plural.
Are you sure? I'm using it as an adjective. I didn't want to say 'papyrusy heart' since its sounds to me like a platypus (which indeed shares the continent of many papyri researchers today).
I think George "adjects" to your usage.
papyrus (pǝˈpaɪrǝs) n, pl -ri (-raɪ) or -ruses 1 a tall aquatic cyperaceous plant, Cyperus papyrus, of S Europe and N and central Africa with small green-stalked flowers arranged like umbrella spokes around the stem top 2 a kind of paper made from the stem pith of this plant, used by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans 3 an ancient document written on this paper [c14: via Latin from Greek papūros reed used in making paper]
Collins English Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2006.
If one waits for the facts, keeps an open mind - and your eyes open for more information --->
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html
If one waits for the facts, keeps an open mind - and your eyes open for more information ---> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html
Quote from the above article: "What is harder to understand was the rush by the media and others to embrace the idea that Jesus had a wife and that Christian beliefs have been mistaken for centuries."
Not hard to understand at all. The media loves a shocking, groundbreaking story. And if it upends traditional Christian beliefs, all the better. That stuff sells.
I repeat...Yeishuu`a does have a wife. Her name is Israel.
Who is Yeishuu`a? I know of Jesus—Paul and the authors of the gospels seemed to think it appropriate to call him such (well, in Greek, Ἰησοῦς).
I repeat...Yeishuu`a does have a wife. Her name is Israel. Who is Yeishuu`a? I know of Jesus—Paul and the authors of the gospels seemed to think it appropriate to call him such (well, in Greek, Ἰησοῦς).
I think I've answered this question for you at least once or twice before. Anyway, it is pretty common amongst those who prefer to use Hebrew names when referring to YHWH/Yeishuu`a (Messianics, whether Jewish or Christian; Hebrew Roots folks; and Sacred Namers--the latter typically being the most ornery and least informed of the bunch) to refer to the Messiah (Jesus) as either Yeshua or Y'shua. There are a few annoying, entirely ahistorical variations on this, such as Yahshua, Yehushua, and whatnot. Most people recognize that the Messiah's name is a variation of the Hebrew name for Joshua, which was Y'hohshu`a. However, there was a broad shift in the way Biblical names were spelled and pronounced after the Babylonian exile. My name, David, is usually spelled Daawidh (rhymes with "did") in the Former Prophets and Psalms, but in later books such as Chronicles and Nehemiah, it is spelled Daawiydh (rhymes with "deed"), with a yohdh included after the waaw, the hiriq-yohdh combination thus producing the English long-E sound. The Modern Hebrew shift from waaw to vav thus results in a "Daveed" pronunciation like the last name of the Ziva character on NCIS.
The name Joshua also underwent a change, so that Y'hohshu`a became Yeishuu`a. This is confirmed in Neh. 8:17. The spelling variations in Hebrew are:
Joshua in Book of Joshua -- יְהוֹשֻׁעַ transliterated Y'hohshu'a
Joshua in Nehemiah -- יֵשׁוּעַ transliterated Yeishuu`a
The transliterations I use for these conform to my own transliteration method (which I've described in previous posts, but it has been a couple of years, I think). The only reason I bothered establishing a new transliteration method is that there is virtually no method whatsoever in the way transliteration is done now, and thus many mistakes and errors get perpetuated as a result, both among the consonants and the vowels. For instance, my way of spelling Tohraah (for the more common Torah), which seems to annoy you so greatly, George, is done for very specific reasons.
Torah, the usual spelling in English, produces a pronunciation, even among Jewish speakers, of TOR (rhymes with "door")-uh, with the first syllable receiving the emphasis. The correct way to pronounce it is Toh (rhymes with "doe")-RAAH, with the emphasis on the last syllable. In Hebrew, nearly all "O" sounds are English long-O. "Torah" and its pronunciation are decidedly non-Hebraic, which is a slight problem when attempting to pronounce Hebrew.
As to the use of the double "aa" in Tohraah instead of the much more common (practically universal) use of "a" in Torah, the reason is straightforward. The niqquudh (vowel point) for Tohraah (תֹּורָה) is a qaamats (רָ) and not a patthahh (רַ), and qaamats is a loooooong vowel. In virtually all English transliteration of Hebrew that I am aware of, there is no attempt whatsoever to make distinctions in vowel variations. This, to put it plainly, is stupid. Fortunately, to help me make my case, I have the post I made just yesterday (I was thinking as I posted it that this post would make a great example of this point about the "aa"--impeccable timing, George!). In it, I describe the difference and relationship between zaakhaar (male) and zaakhar (to remember).
In pretty much every English transliteration of "male" and "to remember" you might find, the two words will be spelled identically, probably as "zakar". There is simply no distinction made for vowel variation. But as anyone can see from my example in the excerpt above, the distinction in the two words is clear and obvious. No one has to wonder whether I am referring to one or the other. Also, for those still in a state of not having perfect fluid knowledge of Hebrew, the difference in the niqquudh spelling is made apparent, whereas with zakar, it is only those having such fluidity who will even know that there is a difference. And perhaps I should point out that in Israel they teach the niqquudh in grade school from the beginning; it is only in adult communication that they are dropped on the assumption that readers will have the ability to fill in the correct vowel sounds. Thus, for people trying to learn Hebrew, accurate transliteration including niqquudh is of immense importance.
I came up with the double vowel for qaamats (aa) and shuuruuq (uu) as a means of differentiating them from the patthahh (a) and the qubhbuuts (u). Notice that the first syllable of each niqquudh-nameword includes an exemplar of that niqquudh. What I didn't realize, until I had already decided to use this convention for each of these phoneme/morpheme combos, was that I had stumbled upon the "variation of pronunciation" between the long qaamats and the short patthahh. The difference isn't one of sound quality, as is the case with English long-A ("made") and English short-A ("mad"). Rather the difference is one of length of pronunciation...the long vowel is literally pronounced for a longer time. This may be true also for the U-sounds, but there may be a slight quality variation as well.
The sound of an English long-A in Hebrew is symbolized by the niqquudh symbol tseirei (pronounced TSAY-ray). The long-A sound is arrived at by diphthonging a short-E sound ("eh") with a short-I sound ("ee"), which when pronounced together quickly results in the long-A sound ("ay"). Why not just use "ay" in my transliterations then? Because Y already represents the yohdh, or Y-equivalent letter (whether as a consonant or matres lectionis vowel).
Finally, to represent the 'aaleph and the `ayin I use the ' and the ` respectively.
Returning to Messiah's name, יֵשׁוּעַ is transliterated yohdh - tseirei - shiyn - shuuruuq - `ayin - patthahh...therefore Y - ei - sh - uu - ` - a, and thus Yeishuu`a. It is simple, really. And to make it all the more elegant, my translation method, which provides a one-to-one correspondence for all relevant Hebrew language information, allows pretty much any Hebrew word that is transliterated into English with my system to be translated directly back into Hebrew including all niqquudh with something approaching 100% accuracy. It also helps enormously in guiding correct pronunciation.
I'm not sure if that answers your question to your satisfaction, George. It may not since I suspect you just view what you don't already do, think, or believe with suspicion. You may not comprehend why anyone who is an English speaker would see a need to bother with Hebrew pronunciation and spelling. However, it has a lot to do with the inherent nature of the Hebrew language. You have made statements on a number of occasions, mirroring Barr's objection to "root" etymologies, that etymology is of next to no concern when attempting to establish meaning, for without context, so the idea goes, words have no meaning. That, in a nutshell, is flatly wrong...and it is especially so in the Hebrew language (and by extension, to some degree, Semitic languages in general). While your "context is king" ideology may hold, more or less, for a language like Greek or English (but not as much as you may believe), every Hebrew word has its own context, and for that matter so does every Hebrew letter. This is by Design, and I assure you that YHWH makes ample use of these inherent meanings in His prophetic communication throughout the Bible. This is not gematria per se and it is not Bible codes. You may choose to deny what I'm saying, but you will only shut off massive amounts of Providential communication if you do so.
Unlike Sacred Namers, who insist that the name "Jesus" is loaded with pagan hullabaloo, I don't have a problem using that name, but I am far more comfortable using His name as revealed in the Bible. Which brings me to Iesous, the Greek name you mentioned which the anti-Hebrew contingents always point out is "the name He was given in the NT". I have talked elsewhere about why I think the NT was written in Greek. I think it is one of many ingredients which have purposefully contributed to the "famine of the hearing of the word of YHWH" mentioned in Amos 8:11, 12. The fact that most Bible scholars have focused on Greek rather than Hebrew has kept the prophecy infused within the Hebrew locked safely away...that along with hermeutical "rules" that make prophetic exegesis practically verboten.
The common idea that underlies the "reason" for why YHWH chose Greek over Hebrew in the NT is that He felt a need (or supposedly "saw the wisdom") in choosing the language of the nations in order to get His Word to them in the most efficient way. The problem with that explanation is that it is prophetic poppycock. For some reason, one that baffles me at the conscious human level (though I fully understand the prophetic purpose that drives it along), Bible readers seem to utterly forget that both Greece and Rome were the 3rd and 4th iterations of the Daniel 2 & 7 & 8 beast powers. The fact that the NT is written in Greek CANNOT and does not have a tangible existence apart from that aforementioned fact. This also is related to the LXX and its questionable Egyptian birth, as I related in another recent thread. So, what motivated YHWH to "condone" a Greek NT? It is one of the means of accomplishing His prophetic purposes. The Bible is written deliberately in such a way that people who read it see nothing more than what they expect (or want) to see. That is why I made the comment I did in this thread. Ideas such as "God would never do that" (like deliberately confuse people) which are usually entirely based on what someone "thinks" God must be like or not be like, are the stuff that has motivated Him to initiate the famine of the hearing of His word in the first place.
Take an idea like "the NT is the OT revealed". Are you sure? Where does it say that? Whatever you point to, is that "precisely" what it says, or could it perhaps mean something else? What about Yeishuu`a speaking in parables "so they won't be able to understand Me and thus cause Me to have to heal (i.e. save) them"? Doesn't that actually sound a whole lot like He is just stringing along Isaiah's prophecy toward a future culmination...and not explaining either it or His ultimate intentions? [This perspective accords with Jer. 23:20 & Jer. 30:24, which say His intentions will be revealed "in the last days".] If that is true (He isn't "revealing" things), why hasn't that "understanding" been broadly activated and accepted in this time of generalized NT "revelation" of the OT? Why do people constantly say in pulpits that "Jeeezus spoke in parables so that simple, common folk could understand His meaning by His use of simple, common everyday concepts that were easy to comprehend?" Does that absurdly common pulpit teaching indicate that Mr. Preacher Man has any clue what Yeishuu`a was saying? Why & How is it possible to say "the NT is revealing the OT" if most Bible explainers say utterly ridiculous things that are 180 degrees opposed to the clear language of the text? What happened to the supposed revelation? And why has the Spirit apparently dropped the ball in getting the NT "revelation" into the explainers minds? The only thing that explains the totally unexplainable (Mr. Preacher Man says Jeeezus is "revealing" things when He explicitly said He was doing the exact opposite) is that Mr. Preacher Man expects Jeeezus to "make things easy" and "simple" such that "even a child could understand". Try doing a few searches in your library on these phrases to see how often this notion comes up. It's shocking.
Anyway, Iesous, the Greek word for Joshua, pretty much confirms the spelling and pronunciation I am using. How? Why? It's pretty simple. Of all of the multitudinous variations that have been concocted for how to pronounce and spell His "NT" name is Hebrew, pretty much the only one that incorporates an English long-A sound is the one I use--Yeishuu`a--which I took straight from the Bible. Where do all the other ones come from, including ones that native Hebrew speakers, like Orthodox and Messianic Jews, use? Things like "Yeshua"? Somewhere else. Notice that the Greek version of His name begins with the iota-ayta (eta) combination, which is often described in grammars as being pronounced as "Yay". It ought to be pretty obvious that the iota-ayta combo was chosen by the NT authors precisely because it reproduced as closely as possible the yohdh-tseirei combination that results in Yei, pronounced in English as--surprise, surprise--"Yay". Again, I emphasize, the only transliteration and pronunciation that mimics this initial Greek sound in Iesous is Yeishuu`a...I have never encountered any other "option".
So that's the "who, what, where, when, why, and how", George. I've tried to be clear enough so that I don't have to go over it again. I'm not real sure what else I could add to it. I hope this suffices.
Sounds a lot like written Navajo developed for the missionaries.
I had a lengthy reply for you, but I am having some problems with my computer and managed to lose it so this time I will make it short. Many names were used for God in the OT with preference only being given to what seemed appropriate in a particular context. It is therefore of little import what one chooses to call God so long as the meaning is clear. Baal was even used for God though that fell into disfavor due to a close association with the Canaanite Baal. At Pentecost "each man heard in his own tongue …" Insistence on using an ersatz transliteration is simply an affectation (LOOK AT ME !). I would discourage being a show-off.
To say that Jesus spoke in parables to avoid the people coming to know the truth reminds me of a title that was requested recently: The Glory of God in Judgment. This strikes me as approaching blasphemy. It is specifically stated that God did not send his Son to condemn the world—quite the opposite. I think you need to get your head screwed on straight.
Insistence on using an ersatz transliteration is simply an affectation (LOOK AT ME !). I would discourage being a show-off.
Ersatz? Really?? Because it is Hebrew? Because it is the only such option that is chronologically appropriate found in Scripture? Because it alone of all options explains the Greek pronunciation used in the NT? Ersatz??? George, I think Inigo needs to have a word with you...again.
Oh, I see you have this all worked out, George--it must be because it is so simple and easy to understand...
In other words, Yeishuu`a doesn't judge anyone...because it is the words that come out of His mouth that do the judging. This is a distinction without a (practical) difference. There may be a prophetic or theological difference (or the prophetic "difference" may be that there really is no difference) but in terms of the impact on human lives, it is immaterial to draw a distinction between the Word and His words. The fact that you have apparently made such a distinction (or just haven't thought it through) indicates the possibility that you have been hoodwinked by the Word...or should I say, His words? I could point to multiple dozens of verses that say He does judge because He is the Judge. Or maybe, if you are correct, George, then YHWH is a blasphemer too? Doubtful.
Just to affirm we are on the same page, a couple of words to consider...first, thw word for "save" in Jn. 12:47 above...
I can see why you don't like Strong, George...he doesn't agree with you.
But you do favor BDAG, right? Good...the Greek word translated "judge" in the verses above is the same as the word "condemn" that you mentioned above in bold print...
κρίνω
① to make a selection, select, prefer
② to pass judgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of other people
③ to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon
④ to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process, reach a decision, decide, propose, intend
⑤ to engage in a judicial process, judge, decide, hale before a court, condemn, also hand over for judicial punishment
⑥ to ensure justice for someone, see to it that justice is done
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (3rd ed.) (567). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hmmm...[^o)]
Yes, I said "ersatz" and I meant ersatz. Ersatz is "made in imitation of some natural or genuine product; artificial" (Collins English Dictionary). Your transliteration is not genuine.
You seem to suffer from the same malady as the compilers (I will not call them translators) of the Amplified Bible in thinking that because a word may have a meaning in some particular context that it has the same meaning in all contexts in which it is used. "Judgment" does not imply condemnation in any particular passage unless the context demands it. You need to learn to distinguish the meanings of words in their context. May I suggest a course in remedial English? You bet your sweet bippy that I don't like Strongs. Strongs is for the braindead.
Oh my goodness. Not the Amplified Bible??
We ARE talking about Frances Siewert, bless her heart (no papyri or papyrus).
And per the Lockman Foundation, 'The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice.'
I might point out, there's not a single other translation that can accomplish what the Lockman Foundation claimed for the Amplified.
Well, ok. Maybe Julia Smith's. Hers was so oddly unique, how could anyone willingly associate it with denominational prejudice.
Oh my goodness. Not the Amplified Bible?? We ARE talking about Frances Siewert, bless her heart (no papyri or papyrus). And per the Lockman Foundation, 'The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice.' I might point out, there's not a single other translation that can accomplish what the Lockman Foundation claimed for the Amplified. Well, ok. Maybe Julia Smith's. Hers was so oddly unique, how could anyone willingly associate it with denominational prejudice.
Did I say anything about denominational prejudice with regard to the Amplified Bible? All I indicated was that they include other glosses for a word allowing the reader to pick his own poison—as though all glosses are equally valid in a particular context.
My apologies. I was a bit too un-transparent. Amplified demonstrates the danger of locking a specific translational source that people (at the time) were familiar with (Thayer), and then proceeding with blunt force. And then claiming 60 years later, what no translation can claim.
But I'd also assign that same problem to BDAG (locking in glosses to a passage).
Good morning, George. And a fine Sunday morning too.
EDIT: I think, also, Amplified (1954+) was one of the 'last' attempts at so-called nondenominational. Subsequent attempts have either been 'easy-reading', or quite obviously tradition-based.
Well, ok. Maybe Julia Smith's. Hers was so oddly unique
Edit: I would welcome comments from all...It was just Denise's comment that sparked my interest.
My apologies. I was a bit too un-transparent. Amplified demonstrates the danger of locking a specific translational source that people (at the time) were familiar with (Thayer), and then proceeding with blunt force. And then claiming 60 years later, what no translation can claim. But I'd also assign that same problem to BDAG (locking in glosses to a passage). Good morning, George. And a fine Sunday morning too. EDIT: I think, also, Amplified (1954+) was one of the 'last' attempts at so-called nondenominational. Subsequent attempts have either been 'easy-reading', or quite obviously tradition-based.
And a good Sunday morning to you as well, Denise. I'm trusting that you are "seeing red" today (let the reader understand [;)]). Hint: Sedona.
'Seeing red' is interesting here. I once ran neural nets on images from Sedona just to see what it would highlight (my curiosity motivated by tourists literally stopping their vehicles on a busy highway and jumping out of the cars to snap pictures, fearful the rocks might disappear before their very eyes). I thought it'd be high contrast breaks in the forms. The networks said '3 colors' was the unique identifier (red, green, blue). Kind of interesting.
Paul (C ... two Pauls on this thread), do you have Metzger's 'The Bible in Translation' https://www.logos.com/product/2816/the-bible-in-translation-ancient-and-english-versions A good read and cheap too.
Here's a cut from his write-up: 'Julia Smith had a very odd notion about Hebrew tenses. She writes in the preface, “It seems that the original Hebrews had no regard to time, and that the Bible speaks for all ages …. I think that the promiscuous use of tenses shows that there is something hidden, that we must search out.” Paying no attention to the function of the Hebrew waw consecutive, in historical narratives she frequently translated the imperfect by the English future and the perfect by the English simple past.'
I like her translation. The main reason I like hers and having MANY translations, is to catch varient MEANINGS (vs varient translations). I don't propose any specific translation will hit it, absent the original author. But it gives clues that something's amiss.
Julia Smith quite frankly admitted to her technique as purposeful (what Metzger mentions). So, recognizing her whimsy, I enjoy its literalness ... so also YLT ... the same Young that followed her with the same goal of literalness.
Excellent CP you mention ... I'd like it more than the latin and talmud dictionaries. History of translation is so revealing. I haven't read Phillips but would like to. https://www.logos.com/product/16808/english-bible-collection
Thanks for your comments. Here is a link to the online Phillips New Testament. [:D]
http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPNT.htm
Thanks, Paul!
I notice it's easy to copy (personal use ... ha), and so I'll move it into my Bible software and let my big boy networks see what they can find.
A transliteration that is predicated on one-for-one phoneme & grapheme correspondence with the original language isn't genuine? What, pray tell, does constitute a genuine transliteration? I bet the answer is, "Anything that David Paul didn't develop." Am I right? I am, aren't I? [:)]
You really are a hoot, George. Logic by force of will.
Perhaps you would care to explain how judgment can actually be called "judgment" if the possibility of condemnation isn't on the table? It isn't a contextual matter, George...it is a conceptual one. My point, in case you don't perceive it, is that for judgment to qualify as judgment, it is not logically possible to have a context that precludes condemnation as a possible outcome of the judgment taking place. To do so, as you seem to indicate is possible, is to willfully assert the outcome aforehand by prejudice--it is the antithesis of judgment.
The point is that although logically judgment may include condemnation, you cannot simply substitute "condemnation" for judgment. A judge is still a judge even when he acquits. In Jn 3. there are variations in the connotation of κρίνω. In some cases it indicates negatively the action of God (he did not condemn) while in others it indicates an action of the individual himself (ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται). The verb here is a perfect passive or middle . This is ordinarily translated as a passive, but could (and I think should) be translated as a middle so that "he condemns himself."
