Doctor X

Fine . . . ruin my subtle wit. . . .

--J. "Oh the Angst!" D.

Down

ozone cowboy, what you are speaking about is preciseness of the Bible copies. It’s very well that those who rewrote the Bible scrolls were very attentive and precise but does it have anything to do with the Bible veracity? INHO, it does not.

What about Enoch Book? It is there among Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is not included into the Bible. What does the book verify?

As far as I know there are not too noticeable textual diversities in different copies of OT. As for NT, there are contradictions even about Jesus biography in different Gospels.

DiogenesofSinoppe

In the beginning there was the word....

No, er..uh, in the beginning there was the Logos, which is the only blatant translation error that I know anything about.

Logos means, among many other things, rational discourse. John is suggesting that rational discourse is divine in a rather irrational document.

(think about it, a man dies on a cross and is raised from the dead three days later. How irrational can you get?)

Doctor X

Somewhere I wrote my "favorite" in a similar discussion. Let us see . . . does "Search" work?

Crap!

Okay . . . the problem comes from "born again" which is taken from Jn with reference to Nicodemus. A good Jew comes by and asks about Junior's teachings, and Junior responds with a bizarre, "Truly, truly I tell you unless you are born anothen. . . ."

I am too lazy to work out the Greek font--half the time I cannot see it. Anyways, then places ano--"above"--in the ablative which means "from above." In every other incidence in the literature that I have found--other than Jn!--this is understood as "from above." Junior, in Jn, makes a distinction between himself as being ek ano--"from above"--and the Pharisees and Scribes Oh My as being ek Kato--"from below."

The distinction is that unless one is already from above they are not saved. Nicodemus' response plays on this pun--he is more concerned with the process of rebirth and does not understand the implication--by nature, he cannot change status.

The politics is obvious--those Junior/Jn agree wiith are "born from above" and those who disagree/are opposed to them are "born from below" despite the fact they drive the chariots with the fancy CD changers.

--J.D.

Mathetes

Doctor X,

just curious... Do you know why this mistraslation is so widespread? I have just checked a number of online Bibles in several languages, and they all have "born again".

Could it be because the mistake also appears in the venerable Vulgate?

"Denuo" meaning "anew, again, a second time, afresh".

CJD

Just a nit, before this goes any further:

While the good Doctor is of course correct, most commentaries from every side of the spectrum point this out. Besides, the point is the same: One can no more be born again (by crawling back inside his/her mother's womb) than one can be born from above. Redemption, per the gospel of John, comes by the sheer, unmitigated grace of God.

At any rate, since Doc X would be the first to admit that his search among other literary works is not exhaustive, the possibility that anothen can be translated both ways must stand. Assuming that there was a final writer/editor of this piece, we can safely conclude that since the author did not record Jesus correcting Nicodemus (since, after all, he understood Jesus' use of anothen to be "again"; cf. "a second time," in v. 4) that a double meaning might be in view here. In other words, he certainly didn't mean anything less than "from above." See verse 5.

Regards,

CJD

Doctor X

I frankly think the mistranslation is more theologically acceptable. After that, it becomes "tradition" and traditional readings are hard to discard.

The gospel writers had an agenda. This was no longer the agenda by the time of, say, the Vulgate. Mk-Mt-Lk also preach gospels of "exclusion"--though Mt and Lk somewhat "soften" Mk in this respect. Mk's Junior refuses to let some learn, repent, and be saved. The idea is that the audience who accepts the dog and pony show will "make it" and those who do not will not--despite appearances.

Methinks that exclusion is part of the reason for the attacks against the disciples. I do not know if they represent attacks against actual people--remnants of the Jerusalem group--or what was left of the traditions.

With deference to the translators, the pun is rather complex. Jn seems to love complex meanings that his audience will figure out, and his various characters do or do not depending on their status--the disciples completely misunderstand Junior's plan for Lazarus, for example . . . among other things. Nicodemus fixates on the process of being reborn--finding his mother, reentering her womb, et cetera--rather than the deeper distinction--he cannot be "born from above." It is not just a matter of "rebirth"--however you want to conceive it. Nicodemus walks away confused thinkiing his problem is he cannot find a large enough speculum [Stop that.--Ed.]. He does not realize that, by nature, he cannot be saved.

This is very severe for anyone wanting to preach a message of inclusion. In a way, Jn's predestination parallels the Calvinistic idea--with the "saved" obviously following the correct path because of their nature . . . and obviously all of the members of the "flock" are in this group. In Jn, the "saved"--for want of a better term--discover their status through Junior.

Of course, you cannot discuss NT theology without tripping over the Historical Junior Debate! Does this mean that if a historical Junior existed he preached a message of exclusion? Er . . . I do not know. I suspect that Mk and Jn both "turned up the volume." Mk's basis for exclusion is different from Jn's. Exclusion is common for cults--"we versus they"--with rivals about.

However, that does not mean that a historical Junior did not preach exclusion--probably would have to whenever someone did not "join" the group.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Absence of evidence does not imply hidden evidence. The translation of anothen as "again" does not exist in the extant literature. Perhaps a lucky person with a shovel will find something. However, the fact remains that anothen is the ablative of ano--"above" and not "again."

Again it is a complex pun. To be "born from above" implies a second birth process. Nicodemus fixates on the literal problem of rebirth with is, as typical in Jn, a ridiculously literal interpretation. Jn "set up" opponents to "miss" the "deeper" and therefore correct interpretations. The irony is that Nicodemus misses the real problem--it is not that he cannot undergo birth again, it is that he was not born from above--predetermined to be part of the elect 'n all of that.

The message from Jn is that there is nothing he and others ek kato can do to change their nature. This may seem unfair to modern universal sensibilities, but such is a message of exclusion.

Conceiving it as "again"--aside from being grammatically incorrect, is not supported in the extant literature--attempts to "soften" the message to allow a "spiritual" or whathaveyou rebirth. This is a contradition of Jn's message.

--J.D.

judge

Yikes!!!

Do we really need the bible to worship God??

Doctor X

Many do. Many require "objective" support for subjective belief.

--J.D.