I'd like to thank Penatis for detailing the sort of family values attributed to Jesus Christ (I'm not going to try to distinguish between some historical Jesus and his followers' imaginations and propaganda). Much of Biblical Family Values would be considered an outrage if they appeared outside the Bible. Consider what happened to the Mormons because of their practicing polygamy.

And on that subject, if ex-President Clinton had followed the family values of some OT kings, Hillary Rodham would have had such company as Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Elizabeth Gracen, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, etc.

And in the NT, it's clear that "family values" there include leaving one's biological/marital family behind for a new family of fellow followers. Which means leaving one's mother behind, as JC had reportedly done. Even though she would eventually be turned into some sort of mother goddess.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read their propaganda. BTW, I have not said one word about their honesty. They may be totally honest in what they believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Don't be disengenous penatis. If you want to accuse someone of a bias, and have that accusation have any actual meaning, you have to imply that they are dishonest.

The word "dishonest" is Nomad's word, not mine.

Nomad: Allow me to explain. The most "biased" people about the Holocaust are the survivors themselves. Yet their accounts of what happened in the death camps is treated as the most reliable by almost everyone.

If I used Nomad's logic, I could accuse him of calling Holocaust survivors "liars."

Nomad: So for a bias to truly have meaning, and to disparage an individual for that bias, you must establish that the bias fatally colours their work.

I have disparaged no one. Nomad seems intent on misrepresenting what I said.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: And BTW, while you're at it, tell us how the NIV gets the translation wrong as well please.
I offered the Scholar's Version because the translators pull no punches. The NIV makes every attempt to soften the hostility in Jesus' words.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: So your translation is better than my translations because you say so? Give me a break.

The Scholar's Version best shows the fact that Jesus did not get along with his family. (Nomad does not deserve a break.)

Nomad: How about I say my tranlsations are better than your translation and leave it at that. Prove your points penatis. Don't just assert them.

Nomad makes an unevidenced assertion and then tells me not to make assertions.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: With your vast knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek at your disposal, no doubt you are in a position to offer a rational and scholarly criticism of this, or the NET translations.
1. I read English quite well. If that is not enough to understand the translations of the Greek texts, then all English-only speakers, including Nomad, are in deep trouble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Yes we are, if we rely on only one translation and exegetical interpretation. You do this consistently of course, preferring those translations that line up with your biases, but you have yet to show how this necessitates us thinking that your translations are somehow superior to others.

I could have said the very same thing to Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Only those who have nothing substantive to offer (as in EVIDENCE) would suggest that an extensive knowledge of Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic languages are required to read and fully understand the JC Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Try this. Give us some scholars that thinks the NIV or NET Bibles are fatally flawed translations, and why they think so. I'm sure you will forgive us for not giving your opinion a whole lot of weight in this question.

The words "fatally flawed" are Nomad's words, not mine. This exemplifies his propensity to misrepresent my views and statements.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lpetrich:
I'd like to thank Penatis for detailing the sort of family values attributed to Jesus Christ (I'm not going to try to distinguish between some historical Jesus and his followers' imaginations and propaganda). Much of Biblical Family Values would be considered an outrage if they appeared outside the Bible. Consider what happened to the Mormons because of their practicing polygamy.

You are quite welcome, Ipetrich.

Ron

Alright then, it looks like we can wrap up here. In summary, penatis accused the translators of the NIV and NET Bibles as being biased, but has roundly backed off of any insinuation or implication that this has any real meaning (in other words, that their translations are somehow inaccurate because of these biases).

This is cool, and I can live with that.

Secondly, he has chosen to accept a translation that, when read in English would imply that Jesus insulted his mother. This is cool too, but as we can see, when the actual idiom used is read in the original Greek or Hebrew, it is not an insult at all, but more of a question from Jesus to his mother. Again, penatis is free to choose whatever spin he wishes on a Biblical passage, so this is cool too.

We disagree. Go figure.

Personally, I think a person can accept either interpretation, and that the one that will be chosen will line up with prior biases. Since this is about as surprising as the notion that a Yankees fan will cheer for the Yankees in the World Series, I do hope that this comes as no great shock to anyone.

Thanks to the readers for putting up with us.

Salute,

Nomad

Nomad: Personally, I think "objective" scholarship is a chimera, and you have yet to prove that it matters in any event. Even conceding the biases of both the Christian and non-Christian scholars, the real question is, has this bias affected their translations?

There are certainly critical scholars who wish to ascertain precisely what happened in history. They are more objective than those who have a Christian agenda. Christians have modified portions of the text of the NT for centuries. Did they do it for theological reasons? Absolutely! This is a well documented fact. Are Christians still attempting to shade the meaning of certain embarrassing portions of the NT? Absolutely! Anyone who has doubts need only go to www.bible.org and read the NET Bible and the accompanying notes.

Nomad: If it has, you have to prove how.

The passage that started this thread is a perfect case in point.


Nomad: So, again, the NIV and NET Bible's show that there are two perfectly reasonable ways to interpret the idiom used by Jesus at the wedding in Cana.

Those with a Christian bias certainly would consider it "perfectly reasonable" to reinterpret an embarrassing statement made by Jesus to his mother.

Nomad: You have chosen one, Christians have chosen another. You have yet to demonstrate why your choice is better than ours.

The Scholar's Version is supported by textual evidence; Nomad's versions are not supported by anything but Christian bias.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: If you want to challenge their interpretations, do so on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds, not based on your own theological or political motivations.
penatis: One obvious problem with their "interpretation" of John 2:4 is the fact that they attempt to soften the insult.

Nomad: Hmm... why is it an insult? Did any of Jesus' followers at the time think he was insulting her? Did Mary think she was being insulted? Did any of the other Jews present think she was being insulted?

I gave textual evidence demonstrating Jesus did not get along with his family. That perfectly explains why Jesus was hostile to his mother at the wedding in Cana.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You threw out a bunch of red herrings without addressing the direct and plain text of the passage in question penatis. You seem so eager to tell Christians not to do this, then when you do it yourself, you are quite blind to your hypocracy.

I admit that I presuppose the existence of Jesus and his family. I also admit that I presuppose that the anonymous gospel writers "Mark," "Matthew," "Luke," and "John," all spoke of the same Jesus and his family. Based on these presuppositions, I contend that the information contained in all the gospels that speak to Jesus' humanity, may well, to some extent, be historical. That being the case, any statements made about Jesus and his family are germane, whether they are made by one of the writers of the synoptics or by "John." I have presented textual evidence demonstrating that Jesus and his family did not get along, and that he was hostile to his family on several occasions. I have also presented textual evidence demonstrating what Jesus said about families in general. My conclusion, based on the textual evidence, is that Jesus made a hostile remark to his mother at the wedding at Cana.

Nomad: So again, look at John 2, and tell me how we MUST read this as an insult. And if you can, demonstrate from within the Gospel of John that Jesus and his mother definitely did not get along. After all, I'm sure that you know that John is independent of the Synoptics right?

If the Jesus and his family in the synoptics are the same Jesus and his family in "John," then why must a reader rely solely on "John" to determine what kind of relationship Jesus had with his family? Now, if Nomad believes that "John's" Jesus is not the same as the one depicted in the synoptics, then we have a totally new issue to deal with. As I stated earlier, I presuppose they all wrote of the same human being.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: And if you want a good appreciation of how honest the men at www.bible.org were, and how faithful they remain to the text, perhaps you could take a look at Isaiah 7:14 and the accomanying notes.
Whatever their treatment of Isaiah 7:14, the NET Bible website is not interested in presenting an objective analysis of the Bible; they are interested in winning over people to Christianity.
Nomad: Quick question, did you actually go and READ this particular passage before launching into your attack on their integrity and

I have not attacked anyone. I have stated that the NET Bible website has a Christian bias. Anyone who goes to the website and reads their material can readily see this for themselves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Translation: Why of course I haven't gone to the web site to see if the NET Bible gave a fair and honest treatment of this passage, eventhough their translation could be seen as injurious to the fundamentalist Christian cause.

As a matter of fact, I have spent some time at the Biblical Studies Foundation website (www.bible.org). It is this website that offers the NET Bible, only one of numerous resources for Christians.

I will quote from the BSF "Mission Statement" as evidence to substantiate my warning to use this website with caution, if a person's interests are of a historical rather than theological bent:

"The Biblical Studies Foundation is a non-profit organization founded for the purpose of distributing sound evangelical Bible study materials in electronic format..."

The BSF also offers "God's Plan of Salvation" to anyone interested. According to BSF, no matter how "good" a person is and no matter how "religious" a person is, he will not make it to heaven if he does not believe precisely what BSF believes. I personally have no belief in heaven, but there might be quite a few religious people who disagree with the BSF's narrow, arbitrary "plan of salvation."

Nomad: I understand your desire to not be troubled by the facts penatis,

I could very well have said the same thing to Nomad.


Nomad: ...but if you continue to imply that the NET Bible translators are not doing solid scholarship in their translation of the Bible,

The scholars who translated the NET Bible are, to my knowledge, evangelical Christians. How objective can they be? Maybe Nomad knows.


Nomad: I am going to continue to brow beat you about your obvious unwillingness to examine all of the facts before drawing your conclusions.

1. Nomad can gush and blubber all he wants. I am not going anywhere. BTW, I enjoy telling it like it is and am glad Nomad is playing the devil's advocate, so to speak. Exposing Christian apologetics for what they truly are is most satisfying.

2. I have looked at numerous facts. How many has Nomad looked at?





[This message has been edited by penatis (edited February 05, 2001).]

Sigh.

This shows what I get for being patient. Oh well, at least we get to correct penatis one last time, and see if he finally get's it.

Here's hoping.

Let's do that shall we? This way we can cut through all your bullshit and red herrings and get to the chase.

The question of the thread is, did Jesus insult his mother in John 2:4? Real simple question, but penatis just can't seem to get past his English translations, and actually LOOK at the original Greek. So, let's do that, see if penatis can produce an alternative Greek text, and if not, stick to the facts as we know them.

So what does the passage say?

phrase tiv ejmoiVV kaiV soiv, guvnai (ti emoi kai soi, guna)

We that sure helps, doesn’t it? Working on the assumption that none of us actual speak Greek here, let’s go with the literal, word for word translation. And what is that?

"Woman, what to me and to you?"

Still doesn’t look like much help though does it? After all, a direct verbatum translation from one language to another, especially when dealing with things like idioms is not very useful.

Luckily, we have an explanation for this idiom offered to us, and that it can be read in one of two ways:

(1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say "What to me and to you?" meaning, "What have I done to you that you should do this to me?" (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18).

When used like this, it is an affront to the person being spoken to. The translation is acceptable, and it is the one chosen by penatis’ source, the Scholar’s Bible (BTW, do we have a place where we can actually read what the agenda of these tranlators happens to be? If they are not Christians, then what is their purpose? What is their level of education? Who thinks that they are reliable (besides our dear penatis of course)?

What is the alternative translation?

(2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his, he could say to the one asking him, "What to me and to you?" meaning, "That is your business, how am I involved?" (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8).

This translational choice, we are told, is not considered to be an affront, or hostile in any manner. We are told that it is acceptable to read the phrase like this. Since we have no reason to choose the first over the second, or the second over the first outside of personal preference, what are we left with? Why, personal preference. Hardly earth shaking news. All we know now is that penatis’ choice is the one that looks the most embarrassing to Christians (and also happens to be the choice of the King James Version Bible as well, which I find interesting). I, on the other hand, think that the second is perfectly acceptable as well, and except for being told that this reflects my bias, hardly seems to be a reason to reject it.

So, here is the challenge. If the authors of the NIV or NET Bible have mistranslated the idiom phrase tiv ejmoiVV kaiV soiv, guvnai (ti emoi kai soi, guna) or literally "Woman, what to me and to you?", then we need to demand an explanation of why translation (1) presented above MUST be chosen over translation (2). In the absence of such a proof, we are left at an impasse, with dogmatist penatis on one side insisting that his translation alone is the One True Translation™ and any other is forbidden, and me on the other, admitting that two choices are reasonable, but that I believe my own is more reasonable.

Now you know why I hate dealing with fundamentalists and dogmatists of all stripes. Sadly, in this business, they are the majority of what I have to deal with on places like this. After all, if people like penatis did not think that they alone had the One True Translation™ they probably wouldn’t be here in the first place.

Luckily, I am a patient soul.

Now, if anyone wants to talk seriously about the larger question of how Jesus may or may not have viewed his family as a whole, start a new thread. I am not going to start chasing every red herring raised by fundamentalists on every thread on the boards. This is a worth while issue, however, and I will pursue it if anyone is so inclined.

Patiently yours,

Nomad

P.S. I don’t want to have to listen to anyone else telling us that a Christian bias actually means anything when it comes to Biblical translations, unless they are prepared to actually back up the charge with something concrete (like Biblical texts, supported by original Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, and solid demonstrations of how a translation is impossible) instead of just increasingly vociferous assertions that produce a lot of heat, but not a whole lot of light (and I say this only because having to put up with penatis and his mindless mantras on the subject is quite enough for this apologist. Thanks, in advance).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Sigh.

This shows what I get for being patient. Oh well, at least we get to correct penatis one last time, and see if he finally get's it.

Nomad continues to use the pronoun "we" as if he is speaking for himself and others. Where does he get the notion that his ideas are accepted and endorsed by the Secular Web's readership?

Nomad: Here's hoping.

Let's do that shall we? This way we can cut through all your bullshit and red herrings and get to the chase.

I could very well have said the same thing to Nomad.

Nomad: The question of the thread is, did Jesus insult his mother in John 2:4?

Yes, he did.

Nomad: Real simple question...

Yes, it was.


Nomad:...but penatis just can't seem to get past his English translations, and actually LOOK at the original Greek. So, let's do that, see if penatis can produce an alternative Greek text, and if not, stick to the facts as we know them.

Here Nomad pretends to know something about Greek.

Nomad: So what does the passage say?

phrase tiv ejmoiVV kaiV soiv, guvnai (ti emoi kai soi, guna)

We that sure helps, doesn’t it? Working on the assumption that none of us actual speak Greek here, let’s go with the literal, word for word translation. And what is that?

"Woman, what to me and to you?"

Sounds good to me. And it looks like an insult, which is what I have argued all along. This is absolutely consistent with the textual evidence I presented to substantiate my argument.

Nomad: Still doesn’t look like much help though does it? After all, a direct verbatum translation from one language to another, especially when dealing with things like idioms is not very useful.

It still looks like a remark that shows disrespect for one's parent. I personally would never address my mother as "woman," and I certainly would not insult her with the rest of the comment. But, then again, I love and respect my mother, and I have never said that anyone must hate his parents to be one of my followers.

Nomad: Luckily, we have an explanation for this idiom offered to us, and that it can be read in one of two ways:

(1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say "What to me and to you?" meaning, "What have I done to you that you should do this to me?" (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18).

When used like this, it is an affront to the person being spoken to. The translation is acceptable, and it is the one chosen by penatis’ source, the Scholar’s Bible (BTW, do we have a place where we can actually read what the agenda of these tranlators happens to be? If they are not Christians, then what is their purpose? What is their level of education? Who thinks that they are reliable (besides our dear penatis of course)?

I am not sure where Nomad got his translation, but it is not mine.

Nomad: What is the alternative translation?

(2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his, he could say to the one asking him, "What to me and to you?" meaning, "That is your business, how am I involved?" (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8).

This translational choice, we are told, is not considered to be an affront, or hostile in any manner. We are told that it is acceptable to read the phrase like this. Since we have no reason to choose the first over the second, or the second over the first outside of personal preference, what are we left with? Why, personal preference. Hardly earth shaking news. All we know now is that penatis’ choice is the one that looks the most embarrassing to Christians (and also happens to be the choice of the King James Version Bible as well, which I find interesting). I, on the other hand, think that the second is perfectly acceptable as well, and except for being told that this reflects my bias, hardly seems to be a reason to reject it.[/b]

Nomad continues to dodge the textual evidence I presented demonstrating the problems Jesus had with his family,including his mother. He also dodges the fact that some of the Fathers considered Jesus' statement an insult.

Nomad: So, here is the challenge. If the authors of the NIV or NET Bible have mistranslated the idiom phrase tiv ejmoiVV kaiV soiv, guvnai (ti emoi kai soi, guna) or literally "Woman, what to me and to you?", then we need to demand an explanation of why translation (1) presented above MUST be chosen over translation (2). In the absence of such a proof, we are left at an impasse, with dogmatist penatis on one side insisting that his translation alone is the One True Translation™ and any other is forbidden, and me on the other, admitting that two choices are reasonable, but that I believe my own is more reasonable.

I have never said that the Scholar's Version is the only acceptable translation of Jesus' hostile remark to his mother. I have only stated that I think it captures the essence of Jesus' words better than the NIV or the NET Bible.

Nomad: Now you know why I hate dealing with fundamentalists and dogmatists of all stripes.

I could very well have said the same thing to Nomad.

Nomad: Sadly, in this business...

So now it is a "business." I was under the impression it was a discussion. Is Nomad geting paid to promulgate his horse hocky?

Nomad:...they are the majority of what I have to deal with on places like this.

I wonder if Nomad is familiar with the Warren Zevon composition entitled "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me?"

Nomad: After all, if people like penatis did not think that they alone had the One True Translation™ they probably wouldn’t be here in the first place.

I could very well have said the same thing to Nomad.

Nomad: Luckily, I am a patient soul.

This is an example of unintended irony.

Nomad: Now, if anyone wants to talk seriously about the larger question of how Jesus may or may not have viewed his family as a whole, start a new thread. I am not going to start chasing every red herring raised by fundamentalists on every thread on the boards. This is a worth while issue, however, and I will pursue it if anyone is so inclined.

Nomad can take the "fundamentalists" comment and put it where the moon doesn't shine.

Nomad: P.S. I don’t want...

I am going to send Nomad a quarter so he can call someone who cares.

Gentlemen,

As in most things in life, perception is everything. It is obvious that penatis wants to see what he deems to be an insult. The idea that this verse includes the possiblity of an insult is a major stretch of the imagination.

The traditional interpretation of this verse is that it contains no insult, and this interpretation is consistent with the remainder of the narrative of this particular story. After making the statement, Jesus goes ahead and performs the miracle of changing the water into wine. He has "honored" his mother's request after his initial statement that the quantity of wine available was not his concern.

If Jesus was, in fact, insulting his mother - where is the consistency in his going ahead and creating wine from water? What is the motivation? Guilt? Shame? Where is the evidence of any of this in the text?

It takes a great deal of creative reading to find and support an insult by Jesus towards his mother in this story. It just doesn't fit without significant re-writing of the story - and a good deal of speculation that isn't supported by the text.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RugbyJJ:
Gentlemen,

As in most things in life, perception is everything. It is obvious that penatis wants to see what he deems to be an insult. The idea that this verse includes the possiblity of an insult is a major stretch of the imagination.

1. Why didn't you address the textual evidence I presented demonstrating that Jesus and his mother had problems?

2. Why didn't you address the fact that some of the Church Fathers considered Jesus' remarks to be hostile?

3. Why didn't you address the fact that Jesus addressed his mother as "woman," instead of a more appropriate term? When Jesus spoke to a woman accused of adultery in the Fourth gospel (8:10), he addressed her as "woman." Did Jesus see the two women as equals?

RugbyJJ: The traditional interpretation of this verse is that it contains no insult, and this interpretation is consistent with the remainder of the narrative of this particular story. After making the statement, Jesus goes ahead and performs the miracle of changing the water into wine. He has "honored" his mother's request after his initial statement that the quantity of wine available was not his concern.

1. What "traditional interpretation" are you alluding to?

2. To see "honor" is Jesus' statement to his mother is a major stretch of the imagination.

RugbyJJ: If Jesus was, in fact, insulting his mother - where is the consistency in his going ahead and creating wine from water? What is the motivation? Guilt? Shame? Where is the evidence of any of this in the text?

Do you really believe Jesus allegedly turned the water into wine to appease his mother? Why so? Also, why do you believe Jesus' behavior should have been "consistent?" The text of the gospels indicates he sometimes behaved in an unpredictable manner. Also, consider these facts: His own family considered him to be mad. His fellow Jews thought he had a demon.

RugbyJJ: It takes a great deal of creative reading to find and support an insult by Jesus towards his mother in this story. It just doesn't fit without significant re-writing of the story - and a good deal of speculation that isn't supported by the text.

Have you read all four of the gospels? There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating Jesus had problems with his family, including his mother. His remarks at the wedding at Cana are perfectly consistent with those of someone who did not get along with his parent.



[This message has been edited by penatis (edited February 06, 2001).]

Okay, penatics, I'll bite:

You asked why I didn't you the fact that some of the Church Fathers considered Jesus' remarks to be hostile.

Which Church Fathers considered these remarks to be hostile? And what are their comments that lead you to believe that they thought Jesus harbored hostility towards his mother?