Sheshbazzar

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Reading this stuff bears a similarity to reading a page from the 'Watchtower' then a page from the "Book of Mormon" then a page from "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" followed by a couple of pages from "Peace with God"* and then using the mixed sum to decide what constitutes "Christianity", as though it were a cohesive and unified belief system.

The Hebrew 'texts' were similarly assembled from a variety of ancient documents, which often reflect the widely differing views, hopes, and interpretations of various power factions. Redaction's and revisions somewhat 'harmonised' the texts over time, but blatant contradictions are still to be found, the remnants of the divisions and diversity of views that once existed.
I agree with Loomis that 'there are more than two different "theisms" in early Judaism,'
Prior to the introduction of a (somewhat) 'standardized' Torah, the 'Hebrew' people would have been basing their religious beliefs primarily on recited traditions, and hearsay, and thus would have been easily influenced by the ideas of the non-'Hebrew' or 'marginally' 'Hebrew' cultures that they lived and worked among.

With a 5 minute drive each direction, I can visit 'Christian' acquaintances with extremely differing views about the Bible, or stop in at any one of hundreds of
'marginal Christians' friends homes where a watery 'blend' of 'christian' ideas will be given the lip-service of token respect.

People are people, in whatever age, with all of the diversity of conviction, of weaknesses, and of strengths, that are common to mankind.
Certainly the Bible (once written) set forth its 'heroes' and favored 'examples', but these are set forth simply because they were outstanding, that is to say 'exceptional', and acted the way the priesthood -wanted- the Hebrew people to act.
However, the -average- Hebrew did not normally conduct himself in any such exemplary or pristine fashion, unconscious compromise and religious cultural syncretism were a rampant fact of everyday life, 'with every man doing that which was right in his own eyes'.
It is questionable how much of the 'rigmarole' written within these texts, ever actually achieved to status of actual acceptance and practice, much of The Law code reads more like a 'P' (Priestly) -wish book-, similar to the CCC in the modern world, with about the same level of acceptance, conformity and practice.

edited to add this link
(* http://www.objectivismonline.net/content/view/106/34/

Sheshbazzar

A sincere thanks Loomis,
I must admit, that I had never before read a full recital, and had only encountered quotes here and there.
(-most often from -you-, back when I was still defending "the other side" )

Admittedly my personal focus has always principally been on the Biblical texts, and post-Biblical religious commentaries.
Now, I can much better appreciate where you are coming from, and can see that I need to expand the scope of my reading, as the information you led me to provides much more documentary support for the positions that I have of late have been arguing.
Found the link quite a mind-blower in fact;
Especially about lord "Baal" in this;

"Aliyan Baal hearkens.
He loves a heifer in Deber,
A young cow in the fields of Shechelmemet.
He lies with Her seventy-seven times,
Yea, eighty-eight times,
So that She conceives
And bears Moshe.
Baal was found dead there in the fields....'

is buried, and latter Baal is 'resurrected' from the dead to again take his Throne on 'the heights of Saphon'!
Man! does this all have a most familiar ring to it!

Who was this 'Moshe' that being conceived, leads to Baal dying? :huh:
Could it be....?

Well I must admit that I am new here, and am in unfamiliar 'waters'
but this 'water' -seems- like 'water' and the -'current'- certainly does... feel and ....appear to be flowing in a certain direction....

Anyway, my original intent in replying, was to indicate to you, and others, that the 'fence' that used to divide us, has long been taken down.
(that's why I consciously avoided using the phrase to "mend fences" )
As much as I used to be a 'thorn in the side', it is my hope, that in the future, I can be a friend at your side.
This post was necessary, and is a PUBLIC APOLOGY for having in past years, so adamantly resisting your good sense.

Now, I can see, that although my arguments were often -technically- correct, and often gave a good appearance of knowledge, that I was nonetheless "missing the FOREST for the trees".

Thanks again Loomis.
Sheshbazzar

Cesc

But isn't Jerome's Vulgate translated from the Septuagint?

I dont have any unstated thought lurking behind the statement that I'm aware of. I'm in the process of learning Latin though, and these things interest me.
And the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the sentence can be translated that way. You can then argue which one is more likely, but as I see it, it can mean "I am I who am" if either:

1. there's implicit subject in "sum":
Ego(I) sum(am I) qui(who) sum(am)

or

2. "qui" means "I who":
Ego(I) sum(am) qui(I who) sum(am)

I don't know if one or both are likely translations or not, but first of all, are they possible translations? I don't see why not?

For example, isn't ego sum qui existo a meaningful Latin sentence? Meaning ego(I) sum(am) qui(I who) existo(exist)?

bacht

It does seem like many people, pro- or anti-Bible, assume that it actually describes how people really behaved, rather than presenting an idealized picture of how the Jews should have acted (in the minds of the writers)

spin

Sorry, but rubbish. It doesn't work like that. Ego is the subject of sum.

Again, rubbish. What have you been told about qui?

Haven't I made it clear that qui = "who/what"? I've said it umpteen times. I also said that using English idiomatic translations doesn't help you at all. It will only divorce you from the language you want to know about.

As you have been insisting on a priori structures that you want to come out of the discussion, it indicates that you do in fact have something unstated you want from this discourse. You keep on with things like ego(I) sum(am) qui(I who) existo(exist), forcing Latin through English preconceptions. You have to know about what the source language does.

I've said all I can, so good luck.


spin

show_no_mercy

From my understanding of Latin, "Ego" isn't really necessary. You could say "sum qui sum" and it would still translate as "I am who I am". English doesn't have the conjugations that other languages have. "Estoy" means "I am" in Spanish. "Yo Estoy" also means "I am" in Spanish. "Είμαι" means "I am" in Greek. "Εγώ είμαι" also means "I am" in Greek (though in the LXX it's "εγω ειμι"). The "I" is implied as being the subject in the tense of the verb. This is nonexistent in English. In English we need the subject for the sentence to make sense. We wouldn't say "am who am"; we need the "I" there. Though in Latin the "I" isn't necessary since it's implied in the conjugation of the verb.

"Who" isn't a verb, so it doesn't get any implied pronoun from any conjugation like "I" or "you", etc. This is your major misunderstanding.

So it's more like Ego(I) sum(I am) qui(who) sum([I] am). I think anything else is English-izing the Latin. Ego sum ego qui sum would be your English-ized version of the Latin ("I am I who is"). But don't really quote me on that, since I'm really just inferring that from my Linguist background...

andrewcriddle

No, the Vulgate Old Testament is mostly direct translation from Hebrew to Latin (Psalms and Apocrypha are special cases.)

Andrew Criddle

PapaverDeum

Not to be too picky here, but in order to say "I am who am the Lord"
would you not have to put dominus in the 4th declenssion accusative form (I think that dominus" is a 4th declension noun) ,so would it not properly be ;

ego sum qui sum dominum (-um 4th declension accusative)

??

It has been a longtime since I've done any latin.

Every time I do something like this I am reminded of something clever from Monty Python's Life of Brian about latin grammer ? Can't remember the exact scene or what happenned.

spin

The statements in bold are literally not correct. Strangely, "estoy" does not mean "I am" in Spanish. Only "yo estoy" does. But "estoy" can only have "yo" as subject, which, as you know, means, even without the "yo", the subject remains so obvious that it isn't necessary to be said, so many languages just don't say obvious pronouns. Custom in English doesn't permit this, despite the fact that "am" so patently implies "I".

Saying that "Είμαι" means "I am" or that "Estoy" means "I am" will cause more confusion than necessary although that's how it might be perceived. And Cesc is already confused.


spin

spin

Naaa. Verb "to be" uses nominative.

ego sum Esau primogenitus tuus

spin