hatsoff

It is thought that Matthew altered the beatitudes somewhat more than Luke. So if Jesus did say anything like that, the best clues we have probably come from Luke's version.

Doug Shaver

What any Jew would have said would have depended on how conventional or orthodox he was. If Jesus was a radical as some Christians think he was, he could have said anything that the gospel writers attribute to him.

Chris Weimer

Argh, I wish I wasn't posting so late last night. I could have caught myself earlier. But still, Koy is wrong.

No. That's just wrong. And ugh, what's wrong with the KJV? YLT is such a grating translation.

In fact, I'll throw out there that the YLT is misleading in its translation of μακαριος as "happy". Newman's Greek-English Dictionary of the NT used by UBS has "blessed, fortunate, happy" appearing in that order. Liddell and Scott's Abridged Dictionary has "blessed, happy, properly of the gods, opp. to mortal men: absol. μακαρες, the blessed ones, i.e. the gods. II. of men, supremely blest, fortunate: but also prosperous, wealthy."

Moreover, in Greek, the verb ειναι is often left off. It is here also, but you cannot do so in English. And, although "reign" is a possible translation of βασιλεία, it's neither preferred by use in general nor by Matthew's use of the term, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, "the kingdom of the heavens", or more idiomatically in English, "the kingdom of heaven".

So, as I was saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Does this have any antecedent in Jewish literature? Let's see.

Isaiah 57.15:

(KJV) For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I swell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

(YLT) For thus said the high and exalted One, Inhabiting eternity, and holy [is] His name: `In the high and holy place I dwell, And with the bruised and humble of spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of bruised ones,'

Doesn't matter which version you use, the meaning is the same. The "bruised and humble of spirit" dwell with God in the "high and holy place".

And I still don't see how you can get persecution out of being meek, or hungering and thirsting after righteousness, nor especially those who try to bring peace. :huh:

Strawman. Any simple exegesis shows that Jesus is talking about their being persecuted for God. Verse 12 doesn't go with verse 11 so much that verse 11 and 12 go with verse 10. This is obvious in the Greek, where verse 11 breaks the parallel that verses 3-10 maintained, since 11 adds the verb εστε after μακαριοι.

So here's the connection:

- Blessed are those
- Those [also] should rejoice and be exceedingly glad
-- who are persecuted
-- who are reviled and persecuted, and cursed
--- for the sake of righteousness
--- for Jesus' sake
---- for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
---- for great is your reward
---- because also the prophets were persecuted

So in essence, Jesus is saying that those who pursue righteousness shall be rewarded greatly in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Laughable. Not only did you create a strawman (Jesus isn't saying that the Jews will be persecuted for messianic prophecy), but you couldn't even beat it down. Years after Jesus, Simon Ben Kosiba, nicknamed Bar Kokhba, meaning "son of the star", referring to the prophecy in Numbers 24.17, led an assault to fight the Romans... So, guy takes up title Messiah, and his little revolution is put down.

Aren't you forgetting a little important clause?

Chris Weimer

I'm not saying that Jesus actually said Matthew's beatitudes, but it's definitely not out of character for him to say so.

Clivedurdle

So Jesus prophecied the Apollo programme!

Chris Weimer

I didn't realize that the Apollo program was a kingdom. Feel free to correct me, though.

Ben C Smith

I agree completely. Our English word happy has no devotional or religious feeling to it, and is as likely to conjure up images of fluffy white bunny rabbits as anything to do with the final eschatological state of affairs; our English word blessed, on the other hand, is ripe with such profound connotations, and better mirrors the feeling I think μακαριος conveys in Greek.

It is not just that the poor (and hungry, and the rest) will be happy in the final state of affairs; it is that they will be divinely blessed or rewarded.

Ben.

spin

I wouldn't be so hasty. Young's is a somewhat archaizing effort, which should be a clue to understanding here. Our modern word "happy" has forgotten its origins, which relate it to "happen" and "perhaps". It once could have been thought of as the opposite of "hapless". Yes, "happy" was "auspicious", the good lot. That's basically what μακαριος means, as I read it.

If you want to throw happy out of YLT, it would be simpler to throw out YLT, but then, it would be more useful to understand the language of YLT and words like "happy" stop being a problem.

This may be consequent (especially the intrusive "divinely", "devotional", etc), but it's not what the text says. The word "bless" (which incidentally comes from the fine pagan act of sprinkling with blood) is a rendering of the Greek eulogew. It is that they will be happy, at least in the sense that YLT intended.


spin

Chris Weimer

The average person here, personified by Koyaanisqatsi, at least as far as I can tell, takes "happy" to mean it's "modern" (and I put this in quotes because it's had the same meaning for hundreds of years) meaning.

Moreover, I still don't think that even happy meaning lucky or fortunate (or even auspicious, which I definitely think is stretching it a bit) is the appropriate translation.

Bless actually has two different components, though. It not only meant it's original meaning of "sprinkled with blood", but also, even before the transition to Middle English, it was infused with "bliss".

Finally, language is determined not only by it's etymological and historical origins, but also it's usage. As far as I can tell, no one in modernity uses happy to mean fortunate anymore, and certainly if one would do so, it wouldn't just appear archaic, but too archaic. As I said, it's had it's modern meaning for hundreds of years now.

Young's Literal Translation is good for so much, but not in the way that Koy is trying to (ab)use it.

spin

You could be right.

(What does "happy" in "happy birthday" really mean?)

I think you'd have to support your claim.

Given the way the English versions use "bless", it's clear that the term left its origins before the versions and had come to mean something quite like bene dicere, eulogew.

As I said, "it would be more useful to understand the language of YLT", which is where your difficulty with Koy seems to be. It is where your complaint in the first paragraph above (starting "Finally") founders. Yes, it uses archaic English, but to use the text you need some ability to recognize the language YLT uses and compensate with more modern terminology.


spin