Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 04-10-2011, 07:07 PM

Matteusarguðspjall 26

2. "Þér vitið, að eftir tvo daga eru páskar. Þá verður Mannssonurinn framseldur til krossfestingar."

Care to translate it for everyone?

or
12:40

40. Jónas var í kviði stórhvelisins þrjá daga og þrjár nætur, og eins mun Mannssonurinn vera þrjá daga og þrjár nætur í skauti jarðar.

No, I don't normally study or speak any Icelandic. The text of The Bible however, is pretty standard worldwide and with little effort can be compared between languages.

hjalti · 04-10-2011, 07:15 PM

"You (pl) know that easter is in two days. Then the son of man will be handed over to be crucified."

And why did I have to do that?

Sheshbazzar · 04-10-2011, 07:26 PM

'Easter' eh?

Try the next one.

Sheshbazzar · 04-10-2011, 07:42 PM

Just out of curiosity hjalti, what event do you think it was that Easter commemorates?

hjalti · 04-10-2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Just out of curiosity hjalti, what event do you think it was that Easter commemorates?

The jews during Jesus' lifetime? I'm pretty sure they were commemorating the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And I'm pretty sure "páskar" means easter, you probably want some more jewish-sounding name for the holiday. But I think the KJV agrees with me, and that's good enough for me!

Sheshbazzar · 04-10-2011, 08:19 PM

You do not seem very familiar with either the Bible or the Christian religion___or are you just putting me on?
Whatever. Easter in Christianity is the commemoration of the day the son of man is believed by Christianity to have risen from the tomb.

If you had translated Matteusarguðspjall 12:40 above, you would have seen that event was supposed to happen three days and three nights -after- the son of man was crucified. In the verse you translated there were yet two days to "páskar".

"páskar" = 'Passover' was the Jewish holiday when a Lamb was sacrificed for the sins of the people. Many are confused about the count of days and nights between these two events, and I will not get into that cat-fight here, except to say that the day that he was crucified and buried on, near evening, is not understood by any known sect to have taken place upon same day he arose from the dead.
Easter Sunday (morning) was not, and is not "páskar", not in Christianity and not in Judaism.

hjalti · 04-10-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Easter Sunday (morning) was not, and is not "páskar"

Easter morning most certainly is "páskar".

Sheshbazzar · 04-10-2011, 08:40 PM

Have thine own way then......many do.

Or actually take the time to think it through.
What day was he placed in the tomb? And what day was the tomb found empty?
The Bible provides all of the details.

Þriðja bók Móse 23

Quote:

5Í fyrsta mánuðinum, hinn fjórtánda dag mánaðarins um sólsetur, hefjast páskar Drottins.

Markúsarguðspjall 14

Quote:

1. Nú voru tveir dagar til páska og hátíðar ósýrðu brauðanna. Og æðstu prestarnir og fræðimennirnir leituðu fyrir sér, hvernig þeir gætu handsamað Jesú með svikum og tekið hann af lífi.

And perhaps a hundred similar and supporting verses. If you don't know, it isn't my fault.

.

hjalti · 04-10-2011, 08:45 PM

Shez, I just don't think that you know what the Icelandic word "páskar" means

But anyhow, do you at least agree that you shouldn't translate idioms word for word if the result is gibberish?

E.g., since we're discussing Icelandic, should "Nú detta mér allar dauðar lýs úr höfði". Be translated as:

1. "Now all fleas are falling dead from my head."

or

2. "I am very surprised."

spin · 04-10-2011, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

I will take a shot at explaining it the best I can.

Let's take a look at spin's post one more time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We can see that Dan 7:13 has been corrupted by the time we read Mk 13:26. No longer do we talk about "one like a son of man coming", but "the son of man coming". No longer is he returning to heaven, but he is coming to earth. It is no longer the common Hebrew use of "son of man" in Mark's little apocalypse.

Something has happened between the time of the traditions indicated in the HB and those placed in the mouth of Jesus. "The son of man" has become a title of an apocalyptic figure, and given Mk 13:26 that title seems to be derived from a misunderstanding perhaps directly of the Dan 7:13 tradition (notwithstanding the fact that the one like a son of man could be seen as an apocalyptic figure, though I think it is of the same category as the four beasts, angelic-type representations of peoples/nations, with the human figure being the Jews).

(bolding mine)

Now let's look at a quote by Sheshbazzar:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Agreeing that it had evolved, (and certainly do, never argued otherwise) the phrase stayed the same....

(bolding mine)

I see a discrepancy here. The phrase did not stay the same. It went from the general to the specific. It went from "one like a son of man coming" to "the son of man coming".

It is correct that the words "son of man" or "human being" did not change. The indefinite to a definite article in the phrase changed, thus altering the meaning. This is equal to "a human being" in the general, and "The human one" in the specific.

Returning then to The Common English Bible's preferred usage of "The Human One", in each NT instance of the phrase, that the rendition has been so altered in no way significantly affects the fact that the term continues to be employed as an exclusive TITLE applicable to only ONE specific individual given the contexts.

Can we agree that there is a disjunction in the use of son-of-man in the Hebrew bible compared with the use in the christian literature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You of course, in commenting on the 'discrepancy' and 'The phrase did not stay the same. It went from the general to the specific. It went from "one like a son of man coming" to "the son of man coming".
Are only considering comparison with its usage in the HB cannon texts, However that transition took place through many apocryphal texts,

Which "apocryphal" texts are chronologically relevant? The Book of Parables in 1 Enoch only appears in the Ethiopic Enoch canon and there is no trace before then. While there was quite a good selection of 1 Enoch at Qumran, nothing of the Parables is suggested there, so we have to go with the Ethiopic being the best chronological indicator. The first deviant use of SoM seems to have been christian.

The Ethiopic Enoch was a christian preserved collection. Is there any reason to think that the Parables wasn't christian written?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

TaNaKa commentaries. and various sectarian post-TaNaKa writings, some very popular, and with which the contemporary audiences, the 'crowds', would have been well familiar.

With the titular SoM? You need solid examples that reflect a reasonable chronology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Very few would have objected to the change from "one like the son of man" in Daniel, into the title "The Son of Man",

How do you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

and it wasn't as though the 'Christians' (no such name or term at that time)...

(What would you say about talking of "humans" in times before the word "human" came into vogue?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...had even done so, that change had already long since been made, and been willingly recieved and long repeated and invoked in Jewish society as a proper and popular TITLE for their expected Messiah.

As you are asserting this so strongly, one would presume you'd have heaps of evidence. I don't think you do.

So what evidence do you have for a Jewish title SoM before the writing of Mark... or in fact at any time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Of course fervent Messianic believers would have quite naturally employed it in their speech, both before and after his (alleged) coming.
Even as a strictly literary creation, it would have been almost imperative that any Messiah figure must be "THE" son of man" being promoted in contemporary popular imagination and writings.

More of that asserting with apparently no support whatsoever.

Incidentally, thinking about it, I could argue that the Hebrew usage of בן אדם should imply "son of Adam". That's what the words literally indicate, though we know the use of "son" is quite flexible in Hebrew, as in "son of David". This suggests that not even "son of man" is a good literal translation of בן אדם. Anyone who is human is a son of Adam. The reason for thinking of Adam literally, is that every time בן אדם is paralleled with "man", the latter is איש (ish), not אדם.

The use of אדם would be similar to Israel, ie Jacob. Depending on the context, the sons of Israel would not be just the twelve, but any descendant. Talking about Israel, when not referring specifically to the patriarch, one would be referring to all his descendants. (See Deut 23:17b, "none of the sons of Israel shall be....")

In this light "son of man" would be considered a mild translation error in LXX Greek, υιος ανθρωπου ("son of man") (and note the difference with regard to the NT formulation, ο υιος του ανθρωπου).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2011, 07:07 PM	#141
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Matteusarguðspjall 26 2. "Þér vitið, að eftir tvo daga eru páskar. Þá verður Mannssonurinn framseldur til krossfestingar." Care to translate it for everyone? or 12:40 40. Jónas var í kviði stórhvelisins þrjá daga og þrjár nætur, og eins mun Mannssonurinn vera þrjá daga og þrjár nætur í skauti jarðar. No, I don't normally study or speak any Icelandic. The text of The Bible however, is pretty standard worldwide and with little effort can be compared between languages.

04-10-2011, 07:15 PM	#142
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	"You (pl) know that easter is in two days. Then the son of man will be handed over to be crucified." And why did I have to do that?

04-10-2011, 07:26 PM	#143
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	'Easter' eh? Try the next one.

04-10-2011, 07:42 PM	#144
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Just out of curiosity hjalti, what event do you think it was that Easter commemorates?

04-10-2011, 08:19 PM	#146
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	You do not seem very familiar with either the Bible or the Christian religion___or are you just putting me on? Whatever. Easter in Christianity is the commemoration of the day the son of man is believed by Christianity to have risen from the tomb. If you had translated Matteusarguðspjall 12:40 above, you would have seen that event was supposed to happen three days and three nights -after- the son of man was crucified. In the verse you translated there were yet two days to "páskar". "páskar" = 'Passover' was the Jewish holiday when a Lamb was sacrificed for the sins of the people. Many are confused about the count of days and nights between these two events, and I will not get into that cat-fight here, except to say that the day that he was crucified and buried on, near evening, is not understood by any known sect to have taken place upon same day he arose from the dead. Easter Sunday (morning) was not, and is not "páskar", not in Christianity and not in Judaism.

04-10-2011, 08:45 PM	#149
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Shez, I just don't think that you know what the Icelandic word "páskar" means But anyhow, do you at least agree that you shouldn't translate idioms word for word if the result is gibberish? E.g., since we're discussing Icelandic, should "Nú detta mér allar dauðar lýs úr höfði". Be translated as: 1. "Now all fleas are falling dead from my head." or 2. "I am very surprised."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.