Dlx2

I'm not sure it is acceptable to completely equivocate עול×? with αιων.

Chris Weimer

I just ran a check through Genesis. Every form of αιων* corresponds to a form of עול×?. The list, though is a long one. Perhaps you'd like to offer any evidence in favor of your hypothesis? Where does a form of αιων* occur that isn't from עול×?? Hint, don't start with Genesis.

Dlx2

That's not what I meant. I mean, the Greek translation is a translation. Nuance is sometimes lost in translation simply due to differences in language. Additionally, a lot of of the Torah seems to have been deliberately mistranslated due to different understanding of the nature of God during the era when the translations took place. The obvious example would be the translation of ×?לוהי×? as the singular θεός. ×?לוהי×? is not a singular noun. I don't think we need to go into a long discussion on Jewish polytheism.

It is simply not clear that the original meaning of עול×? that existed at the time the various books of the Torah were originally written is the same as the interpretation of עול×? at the time the Torah was translated to Greek. If Rhutchin's going to argue from the scripture, then we all need to be arguing from the original intent of the scripture, not later interpretations.

My understanding of עול×? is that it refers to the entirety of existence, because it is used to refer both to time and place.

Chris Weimer

Ah, I see now. I agree, but I'm not equivicating those two terms. My support for that article remains limited, as you should have been able to tell from my caveat. Perhaps I didn't make it explicit enough though...

I don't think that at the time of translation that Judaism was polytheism. I don't think that it's a mistranslation either. Though elohim is a plural noun in form, it takes a singular verb, thus making it singular. There's good reason to translate elohim as theos. (I hope you won't mind me writing this out in English characters. I will do this only after a new word has been introduced, so others who aren't fluent in either Greek nor in Hebrew will be able to follow along without ado.) The problem isn't really related to (WLM v. AIWN* though.

I also agree. However, it must be noted that that the later interpretations are valid until there's at least some specific evidence they're not. Is there any reason to think that the two aren't equivalents?

Examples?

Dlx2

At the time of translation, Judaism was certianly monotheistic. I do have questions about the time it was initially written, though. There are a hell of a lot of names for God and they all seem to be used for distinct aspects of God. I find it hard to believe that, for example, יהוה and ×?ל שדי refer to the same entity.

A good example of why `LM is not equivalent to AIWN* would be found in Shmot/Exodus 3:14 where God says to Moshe:

×–×”-שמו לעל×? וזה זכרן לדר ודר

Translating roughly as:

This is my name L`LM, and this will be my remembrance forever and ever.

It appears this refers to time, and that `LM and LDR VDR are being more or less synonymized.

`LM is definitely a characteristic of God, and God is called ×?ל על×?, for example, in B'reisheet/Genesis 21:33. This is normally considered as referring to time.

I don't have any immediate references of `LM referring to "the universe" from the Torah off-hand, but I'll post some as soon as I can find some.

Chris Weimer

Here we may run into some problems. You see, surely going back far enough YHWH and El Shaddai were two different gods. This is no dispute over this (well, no real dispute). I'm less sure about when it was written though. Even though I find a lot what Finkelstein says seems plausible enough, getting texts from pre-exile to post-exile does require a pretty large leap in imagination. We know that the Judah did not flourish during the intertemple period. How could such an economy maintain employed scribes to keep what's written is beyond me. And as for those who took it to Babylon in the first place - what, do we really think that the Babylonians are going to say, "OK, OK, you can take your books, but NOTHING ELSE!"?? I seriously doubt it. I so far haven't been able to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints. I wish spin were still here to hash these out...

Interesting. Do remember, though, that aiwn* was also able to extend its meaning ad infinitum, I don't see why (WLM shouldn't have that capacity either.

Dlx2

Except, I think that AIWN* changed from meaning "of an age" to "infinite" while 'VLM changed from meaning "infinite" to "of an age." There are a few examples in the Haftarot where 'VLM is plural, such as Kings I:7:13.

By the way, I forgot a few vavs in the previous posts. It's late and I was nose-deep in Shmot.

Chris Weimer

Not a problem! We all make mistakes. I'm sure you'll see me doing it before this discussion is over.

rhutchin

I agree. Translation is an art. One must not only know the meaning of the word and how the nuance changes depending on who is speaking, how the word is being used, cultural influences and who knows what else.

A good example, would be to translate the phrase, "I love you," from English to Greek. How one translates would depend on whether the object of such affection was (a) a prostitute, (b) one's wife, (c) one's brother, or (d) God. However, one would also have to know the context in which the phrase was spoken. Given that the Scripture contains a lot of allegorical or parable type language and it is not always clear when such langauge appears, you can get great arguments over original intent.

The position I finally came to was that the Bible must define itself. Treat the Bible as a self contained whole and translate each passage consistent with the way words are used in other passages. You still get problems because words can have different meanings even in the Bible.

I agree with original intent. Now the fight is over defining original intent.

Ben C Smith

Exodus 3.14 would seem to indicate that על×? points to a much broader timeframe than דר, right? It looks like it takes generation after generation to equal one age.

I am under the impression that the expression לעל×? really does mean something like forever, literally netting out to unto the age, but that it can also be hyperbolic, meaning just a very long time, as in Deuteronomy 23.3 (LXX 23.4), where ten generations seem to express the same idea as forever. But, then again, both the Hebrew and Greek words for forever are highly susceptible to hyperbole anyway.

Ben.

Edited to add: I argue on another page that the numerous ways of saying forever, including the plural in verses such as 1 Kings 8.13, all net out to mean the same basic thing, and that the authorial choice of expression is simply a matter of style or preference.