- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by geniusIts just one difference between my recently translated (which came from a more veracious source) bible and the old one. The closer the translation is to the original Greek, the closer it is to the truth. Most common bibles have been altered and expurgated.
can you find a source for this?
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KCareful. Your presentation of the information is not accurate.
Its not so much typos but erred translations. There is an instance in which Luke's gospel predicts the birth of the saviour to a virgin. This has in fact been realised as a mistake (when it was compared with the original manuscript in Greek). I think Luke predicted the birth of the the saviour to a pure woman (which in the greek form did not imply sexual co ...[text shortened]... e accumulated. Compare recent translations to old ones
and there is a significant difference.
The word used in the Hebrew Bible is the word for a maiden, which presumes sexual
innocence, but does not require it. The Bible that St Luke used, however, was the
Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), which uses the word
which is best rendered 'virgin.' The original Greek manuscripts say 'virgin' all throughout.
The argument has been made (and it is not uncompelling) that, since the Jews knew
what the Jews meant, the Septuagint's rendering as 'virgin' best reflects the intent of
the Hebrew. However, since the Jews were equivocal on the interpretation of individual
words and passages, I see no reason to believe this; the Septuagint reflects the
interpretation of the sect of Jews that produced it.
Either way, the NT Greek says 'virgin' and used the (rightly) Septuagint as justification for
that reading.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioI must confess that I haven't entertained much study in biblical interpretation for some time now. I thought later i should have recommended you as one of the authorities on these kinds of matters (having read your posts you seem to be among the people who know what they are talking about. Because I certainly don't! Or atleast on this subject). However, (even if my memory fails on certain occassions), there are translations which rendered incorrectly or equivocally. Consider, the Good News bible editions. Every now and then authorities on the subject change the words in it to reflect contemporary language (recently they were contemplating removing the word "stoning" and "to stone" considering it ambiguous in modern time). This also happened a long time ago and to a much more severe extent.
Careful. Your presentation of the information is not accurate.
The word used in the Hebrew Bible is the word for a maiden, which presumes sexual
innocence, but does not require it. The Bible that St Luke used, however, was the
Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), which uses the word
which is best rendered 'virgin.' The ...[text shortened]... rgin' and used the (rightly) Septuagint as justification for
that reading.
Nemesio
My history teacher told me ever story is told for a reason and that have every account of what happened is changed slightly to demonstrate ones point. He also said we need to look at each version of events to determine what really happened. Thus, not only is the authenticity of translations questionable but also of the originals because the others were ignored. (consider Jesus supposed marriage. Just a heuristic example which in no way do i support. So bible nutters please dont attack me!)
26 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K
However, (even if my memory fails on certain occassions), there are translations which rendered incorrectly or equivocally. Every now and then authorities on the subject change the words in it to reflect contemporary language (recently they were contemplating removing the word "stoning" and "to stone" considering it ambiguous in modern time). This also happened a long time ago and to a much more severe extent.
As you well know, I fully agree with this. But translation isn't about words, it's about meaning.
A translation that renders words precisely and does not transmit the intent is a failure.
The problem is this: knowing the intent of the author such that a translation can be a faithful
representation of that intent is difficult, particularly when you don't know who the author was.
So, you take your best guesses, applying all sorts of critical apparati available -- text criticism,
redaction, hemaneutics, whatever -- in order to get at the author's original intent.
However, a translation can never transmit all of it -- even when it is a translation of a modern
text, something is lost. So it is the duty of any person genuinely interested in what a text
says to peruse at least secondary sources to become familiar with the original material and
then take a crack at the text with dictionaries and concordances handy.
The issue of 'maiden' versus 'virgin' is not resolvable; the Greek NT sources and their immediate
predicates are clear: it is 'virgin.' But is that what the original Hebrew authors meant (of
Isaiah, that is) or is this a reflection of what this group of 2nd-century Jews thought of that
text? None can say definitively.
So, to make a blanket statement about the NT sources' unreliability is a little bit over-reaching.
There are some clear problems, some passages which pose difficulty, and some which seem
fairly authentic and untouched.
Your characterization of the council which ratified the contents of the Canon is not accurate
either. We have hundreds of fragments -- several rather substantial -- which attest to the
relative stability of the texts. Yes, there is a passage here and there which is added or
edited, but most have been transmitted pretty linearly. St Jerome, who fashioned the edition,
was a meticulous individual (transplanted 1600 years ahead of time, he would have no
difficulty holding his own with modern Bible scholars). He utilized all of the sources available
to him, making critical decisions of his own to go from Greek to Latin, and smoothing out
any scribal infelicities. These changes were relatively minor, sometimes even the repairing
of awkward literary sections in (e.g.) St Mark. Yes, he a member of the faithful and had an
axe to grind, but, of all the places to criticize transmission history, St Jerome is hardly the
best target.
DragonFiend presented a relatively fair presentation of the development of the Canon, although
he conveniently minimizes the amount of debate amongst prominent Christian communities
about what should and shouldn't be Scripture (e.g., the Murtorian Canon encourages the inclusion
of the Apocalypse of St Peter, or respect for the Shepherd of Hermas as Deutero-Canonical).
The four Gospels seem to be pretty mainstream by the end of the second century, but the
various letters were still subject for argument (should Clement's letters be included? Should
St James'? What do we do with Revelation?!, and so on).
As for the divinity of Jesus, the Bible does not provide support for this claim as my fruitless
thread with FreakyKBH demonstrated. Those decisions were dogmatic ones (like the
Trinity, which followed suit). They are a part of orthodox Christian tradition (so-called
'sola scriptura church traditions notwithstanding). It may not be Biblical, but it was
the product of mainstream (Gentile) Christians' understanding of that Bible.
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhich two vesions do you have? It should say on them.
I have two different bibles each translated by different people. They are extremely different in content. And their messages are equally disparate.
What I was trying to intimte is that Constantinople decided a lot of the literature that went into the bible (consider the apocrypha). You cannot establish which is more true: the apocrypha or the MMLJ gospe ...[text shortened]... The probity of the bible still remains suspect despite assurances from obscure Oxford scholars.
Can you give an example of a passage the differs significantly between the two? I'd be interested in that.
The Apocrypha was added to the Catholic Bible in 1545 at the Council of Trent. Mainly in response to the Protestant Reformation. The books were included in the Latin Vulgate (completed in 405 AD) but even then St. Jerome put them in their own section and labeled them as non-inspired but edifying.
Obscure? The woman was knighted and had a school named after her! You may not know who she is, but that doesn't make her obscure.
Your trying to convince me of something via half remembered ideas. I'm going to need more than that.
DF
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioI'm sorry, I'm not familiar with your fruitless thread with FreakyKBH. Are you saying the Bible doesn't show Jesus claiming to be God?
... As for the divinity of Jesus, the Bible does not provide support for this claim as my fruitless thread with FreakyKBH demonstrated. ...
Nemesio
DF
27 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe argument has been made (and it is not uncompelling) that, since the Jews knew what the Jews meant, the Septuagint's rendering as 'virgin' best reflects the intent of the Hebrew. However, since the Jews were equivocal on the interpretation of individual words and passages, I see no reason to believe this; the Septuagint reflects the interpretation of the sect of Jews that produced it.
Careful. Your presentation of the information is not accurate.
The word used in the Hebrew Bible is the word for a maiden, which presumes sexual
innocence, but does not require it. The Bible that St Luke used, however, was the
Greek Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), which uses the word
which is best rendered 'virgin.' The rgin' and used the (rightly) Septuagint as justification for
that reading.
Nemesio
I do find that argument to be “uncompelling” on several counts, which I will repeat here—
There are at least three words in Hebrew bearing on this question:
(1) b’tulah, which can mean a chaste maiden, a virgin or a bride.
(2) na’ara, which means girl or maid (apparently younger than almah, below).
(3) almah, which means maiden, young woman or young marriageable woman. It is this latter term that is used in Isaiah 7:14—
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” This is the NRSV translation; KJV translates both words as “virgin,” and appears to translate na’ara as “damsel.”
The Jewish translators had to know that any single-word translation from the Hebrew into another language was going to be inaccurate to some degree. Even the Targum of Onkelos, a translation into Aramaic, is thought of as a “commentary.”
They were translating for a Jewish audience that had lost their facility with Hebrew; but in that context, the words could be explained in terms of their underlying Hebrew meanings. (What I am trying to get at is, the Jewish audience and users of the Septuagint may not have assumed that parthenos meant a biological virgin.) Just as we today look back at the original languages to get a handle on English translations, the rabbis of Greek-speaking Jewish groups may well have explained the underlying Jewish understanding of the term.
Let me give a contemporary example: In the Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1985) translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, they follow other English translations in rendering the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) as “LORD.” Now, many Christians may not know the background for that (I did not until adulthood; it was not part of my catechism or Christian education generally). But a Jew, reading the JPS, is going to know that what is really there is the unpronounceable name of God, for which Adonai was substituted (actually, the vowel-points for Adonai, inserted into YHVH to “cue” the reader). (In my Orthodox translation of the Tanach, Hashem is substituted for YHVH.)
Similarly, the Torah scrolls were not read in Greek, but in Hebrew. There was, for religious Jews, not a total divorce from the Hebrew. Another contemporary example: the prayer book (siddur) may be in English, but you still read from the Torah scrolls in Hebrew.
Off the top of my head, I’m sure I have not come across any reference to virgin birth(s) in the Jewish oral tradition. (I cannot speak to the apopcryphal/deuterocanonical texts).
Now, I do think that (especially in the case of Matthew) one can treat the whole thing as a “midrash” on the Hebrew scriptures. Remember, that for Jewish authors, midrash is a perfectly legitimate method. Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner argued that the Matthean Gospel was a classic example of a midrashic type. In other words, these writers employed the method of midrash to construct their new understanding and ground it in the Hebrew Scriptures (perhaps consulting the LXX in the process). If they were doing midrash (and the early Church Fathers, too, I think, were not unfamiliar with midrash), they were not doing strict exegesis, as we tend to understand the term today.
__________________________________________
With all that said, I would find the argument more compelling (or at least plausible) if there is an alternative Greek word corresponding to almah that the LXX translators could have used rather than parthenos. Unfortunately, I don’t have a dictionary or lexicon that goes from English to Greek.
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by DragonFriend100% wrong. First of all, St Jerome's opinion wouldn't have been authoritative
The Apocrypha was added to the Catholic Bible in 1545 at the Council of Trent. Mainly in response to the Protestant Reformation. The books were included in the Latin Vulgate (completed in 405 AD) but even then St. Jerome put them in their own section and labeled them as non-inspired but edifying.
anyway, since he was the servant of the Church. Second of all, he never
considered them non-inspired. The term deutero-canonical didn't even exist
before the middle ages when the beginnings of the Protestant movement were
churning out doctrinal ideas. He expressed reservations about them, just like he
did about the book of Revelation, but that doesn't entail that he rejected them.
And the Biblia Sacra Vulgata did not have the stuff the Protestants
summarily reject as Scripture (after over 1000 years of Christian tradition,
founded in the very Disciples of Jesus).
The contents of the OT part of the Bible were set longe before that Council.
The reason there was no official proclamation was because none was needed;
unlike the books of the NT, there was no significant debate about which
books belonged in the OT. The Septuagint was the Disciples' standard,
and thus it was the standard of the Church Universal. They were ALWAYS
Scripture. That's why they were included in the Bible. (The first editions of
the King James had them, too, until they were considered economically and
theologically inconvenient.)
The Jews that excised them from their canon in the late 1st century cursed the
name of Christ as they did so. This is hardly a standard a Christian should use.
The two of you need to do some biblical-historical study before engaging in
debate. You both lack a firm grasp of the history of the Bible's construction
and you are debating with elements which are not factual.
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by vistesdAs always, I submit to your knowledge of Hebrew which is vastly more comprehensive than
With all that said, I would find the argument more compelling (or at least plausible) if there is an alternative Greek word corresponding to almah that the LXX translators could have used rather than parthenos. Unfortunately, I don’t have a dictionary or lexicon that goes from English to Greek.
mine.
I have quoted what I feel is the critical argument against such a reading: I do not
know English to Greek like this, so I defer to those who maintain the argument I mentioned
above to justify the position. As I said, I am not of that opinion, but (you are correct) it
would be more meritorious if there were an alternative word for 'almah.'
Thanks Vistesd!
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendhttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35981
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with your fruitless thread with FreakyKBH. Are you saying the Bible doesn't show Jesus claiming to be God?
DF
St Paul clearly did not think of Jesus as God, and neither did the
authors of the Synoptic Gospels. St John's Gospel comes the closest
to approaching that, but even it has passages which make such a
conclusion questionable.
Go through the thread and read what I wrote. Try to ignore the smoke
and mirrors that FreakyKBH threw up (especially when he demanded that
I look at the Greek when he was totally wrong about that).
Note what the authors consistently say: Jesus was the servant of God, He
was touched by God, He was a mediator sent by God, He was close to
God, He came from God, but He is not equal to God in any way.
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioI will do more research on the specifics so I can post the sources to my statements.
100% wrong. ...
The two of you need to do some biblical-historical study before engaging in
debate. You both lack a firm grasp of the history of the Bible's construction
and you are debating with elements which are not factual.
Nemesio
Now, since you are putting yourself in a postion of authority on this topic, will you share with us your credentials to do so?
DF
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioTry to ignore the smoke
Note what the authors consistently say: Jesus was the servant of God, He was touched by God, He was a mediator sent by God, He was close to God, He came from God, but He is not equal to God in any way.
Nemesio[/b]
and mirrors that FreakyKBH threw up (especially when he demanded that
[b]I look at the Greek when he was totally wrong about that). [/b]
You were unable to respond to point blank questions relative to the original language, nor dismiss the implications of the same. In most people's opinions, that would be counted as a loss.
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendLOL!
will you share with us your credentials to do so?
So you're a 'badge' man. How many books have I read? How many degrees do I have?
How many articles have I published?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese.
A fact presented by a layman or an expert remains a fact. If you wish to wrestle with
the issues, then let's do so.
If you wish to just post nonsense, expect people with facts (regardless of how they
obtained them -- college courses or independent study) to expose it.
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour last post in that thread contained a bunch of rhetorical questions, some sarcasm,
You were unable to respond to point blank questions relative to the original language, nor dismiss the implications of the same. In most people's opinions, that would be counted as a loss.
and a quotation from the Bible that simple supported my observation (as it ended with the
Jesus the Messianic King to the glory of God the Father). You conclude that
because it looks like worship, it's either idolatry or Jesus must be God. Such a conclusion
is based on an incomplete or erroneous understanding of what the Messiah signifies to a
1st-century Jew, especially in light of one who was believed to be raised from the dead
(note how St Paul always uses the passive voice on Jesus's Resurrection; Jesus is always
raised, indicating that Jesus was not the agent of the raising, only the object. This
is in stark contrast to the Gospel accounts (that is, the later ones, after the theology of
the Resurrection was becoming established and the mystery of Jesus's personage was
starting to form).
Meanwhile, you were at a loss to explain the multitude of passages I cited (some of which
contained quotes attributed to Jesus Himself), you remained unable or unwilling to
explain your foible in asking me to turn to the Greek when it said precisely
what I indicated in English, and your conclusions drawn in spite of the evidence.
I know you think of this as 'winning' and 'losing.' I don't; I think of it as exchange of
information. You'll note that all of my answers are completely consistent with the
writings of the authors (Jesus as created, Jesus as mediator, Jesus as distinct from God).
Your single conclusion -- based on a flawed understanding of what a Messiah represents
from a single fragment of a Scriptural excerpt -- is, contrastingly, not consistent with
any of the other writings.
If you want to count it as a 'win,' feel free to stamp a little 'X' over the icon 'Nemesio'
you have on your wall.
If you want to address the passages I cited and the conclusions drawn from them, feel
free to reopen that thread and let's continue to exchange information.
Nemesio
27 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioThe following result from an English-to-Greek word search in the Perseus Project site (which I think you’d like), which uses Liddel-Scott-Jones and “Middle Liddel” lexicons (this site slipped my mind when I posted yesterday)—http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_PersInfo.html. I’m not sure that I have the proper gender form in all cases—
As always, I submit to your knowledge of Hebrew which is vastly more comprehensive than
mine.
I have quoted what I feel is the [b]critical argument against such a reading: I do not
know English to Greek like this, so I defer to those who maintain the argument I mentioned
above to justify the position. As I said, I am not of that opinion, but (you ...[text shortened]... more meritorious if there were an alternative word for 'almah.'
Thanks Vistesd!
Nemesio[/b]
parthenos—a maid, maiden, virgin, girl; as an adjective—maiden, chaste, virgin (there are a number of variations on this word; I did not look them all up). I am wondering now if parthenos would always mean a biological virgin.
hestia—vestal virgin (Plutarch).
palla(x)—a girl, maiden, youth below the age of puberty (ephebos).
pallakis—concubine or mistress.
athiktos—untouched, chaste, a virgin; untouched because sacred.
adiakoreutos—undeflowered, virginal
akeratos—unmixed, uncontaminated, undefiled.
amiges—unmixed, pure.
askethes—unhurt, unharmed, unscathed.
___________________________________________
The issue for me is not whether the Gospel writers intended parthenos to mean a biological virgin. That really becomes a question of patristic tradition—how clear that is, and how much weight you give to it. The issue for me is between the Hebrew and the LXX, and the argument from the LXX that almah meant virgin. Given that (1) parthenos, the word used in the LXX translation of Isaiah 7:14, may not necessarily mean a biological virgin; and (2) that athiktos, at least, may have been a better translation if the LXX translators wanted to establish such virginity—I find the argument even less compelling.
I really didn’t think that we were necessarily in any disagreement on this—I just wanted to address the issue. 🙂