Clivedurdle

Thank you for a doh moment!

But how would Bible translators make this explicit?

Maybe no Bible should be published without extensive foot notes to every letter, coma, space.....

jon-eli

I'm actually slowly, verse by stupid verse, making my own translation of Mark (that's a damn quick way to memorize the whole thing, trust me), and I'm starting to think that translators cop a lot of silly flack. They practically have to be mind readers. I bet Paul is a real pain to translate, since whenever there's a verse that might well be alluding to an LXX verse, you have to compare the two, and see if there's some kind of play-on-words happening, in which case you can't translate literally.

In the above example with Joel and Romans, Paul seems to be making a play-on-words with the word "kurios," which has both a technical and non-technical meaning. He uses the non-technical meaning to describe Jesus, while at the same time using the technical meaning to refer to God almighty. Luckily we can represent this by using "Lord" to describe God, and "lord" (with a lower-case "l") to describe Jesus. And then you just need a footnote explaining that Paul's play on words wouldn't work in Hebrew... meaning the great rabbinical exegete, Saul of Tarsus, is performing rabbinical exegesis on a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures and demanding to be taken seriously.

Mark is even worse, though... he's the prince of thickly-veiled allusions. I'm not liking my chances of making it past chapter 1.

DCHindley

I'm not sure where the mass conversions you speak of are supposed to have come from. I'm talking about the kind of people who became the creators of Christianity as we know it. I say they were gentiles who were very familiar with Jewish scriptures. How they got that knowledge I am not sure, although I threw out one explanation I had heard of (that it was one of the "fad" religions patronized by both Romans and "Greeks").

Those who are familiar with my posts here will know I am of the opinion that "Christianity" as we know it was created by gentile associates of the original, and quite Jewish, Jesus movement, who looked forward to the establishment of a super-fruitful and benevolent Kingdom of God tight here on earth. It is my opinion that some of these had gone as far as formally converting to Judaism (circumcision and all), but many could have remained "strangers at the gate." These gentiles were peasant residents of villages of Greek cities throughout southern Syria and areas of Judea, Samaria & Galilee who were in daily contact with their Jewish neighbors, and thus picked up their knowledge of their scriptures (in Greek translation, the common language of most non-Jews of the region).

As a twist, I am also of the opinion that Paul had his own circle of followers, although without any connection with the Jesus movement whatsoever, who catered to gentile slaves and retainers of prominent Jewish families (probably Herodian princes and princesses), and these had absorbed a good deal of Jewish culture and heard their scriptures through synagogues and private discussions sponsored by their patrons and masters. These were members of the retainer classes (worker bees) resident in Greek cities throughout Syria and Asia Minor, and Achaia (Greece & Macedonia).

It was only later (after the Jewish rebellion against Rome 66-70+ CE) that factions within the gentile wing of the Jesus movement, who had come to abandon their conversions and become radicalized into a sort of mystery cult, obtained collections of Pauline letters and updated them to make Paul a good Christian of their own type. These were used to merge these two separate groups of Judeophile gentiles into a single movement, uniting rural and city dwellers. Contrary to most people's expectations, there were quite a few of these kinds of gentiles around both towns and countryside.

Anyone who chooses to be shocked and horrified, can see for themselves the folly and impertinence of my analysis of the Pauline letters at:
http://www.textexcavation.com/dch.html

DCH

DCHindley

In the Pauline letters, I found a general rule of thumb that seems to work 99% of the time: if the noun KURIOS ("lord") is anarthrous (does not have a definite article, "the"), it is a circumlocution for LORD (YHVH). If it does have a definite article, then it is referring to Jesus/Christ.

This does not work with quotes from scripture in these letters, which occasionally violate this rule (in other words, sometimes the definite article is included with KURIOS even when referring to YHWH). It also does not work with the book of Hebrews or most of the other NT books. It is a peculiarity of the Pauline letters.

DCH

spin

The central issue here is really an unwise translation. The translation may say: "For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that he may be the Lord of both the dead and the living", but there is actually a verb kurieuw, "to be lord, or master, of". It implies the titular use of kurios (using it as a title) and I see no reason to think it would be confused with the LXX style habit of using kurios in place of YHWH (so, not a title), for, as I've pointed out to Solo in this thread, there is no problem understanding "the lord said to my lord", where the first "lord" refers to YHWH while the second is a title for the Davidic king.


spin

Loomis

Right. The verbal form shows that it is not a simple substitution for YHWH. And as such it does not support the position that Paul was aware of the proper name YHWH, nor does it support the position that Paul read Hebrew.

It looks to me like the LXX translation of Isaiah 45:23 can be read in such a way so as to suggest that the Lord to which “every knee shall bow” is not necessarily the same God to which “every tongue shall swear”. But I don’t think the Hebrew version can.

Take a look:

Isaiah 45:23 Hebrew
To me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear.

Isaiah 45:23 LXX
To me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear to God.

Romans 14:11
For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will swear to God.”

Do you see what I see? The LXX introduced the trailing reference to ‘God’ and 'Paul' inherited it. It looks to me like 'Paul' was reading from the LXX.

One problem I see is that by having two “Lords” it breaks the connection between Lord #1 who came to life so that he could become the lord of the living, and Lord #2 for whom it is written that every knee shall bow. The connecting phrase in Romans is “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me”

Paul says it’s the same Lord.

Loomis

Can you offer any evidence to support the position that any NT author ever heard of a god named YHWH?

gentleexit

and I said I think ...
And it's a question that only speculation, hopefully based on precedents, can answer - they are too few artifacts left.

The reason I think the diaspora was the basis for Christianity (almost exclusively) until Constantine is that (precedent) no religious movement has ever attracted mass conversion of a culturally different society. I don't think Christianity/sects of Judaism are somehow different or unique, that paganism/hellenism was a void waiting to be filled. Sects convert within their own broader communities - ex/ mormons convert christians, not hindu's. Christianity was light-weight Judaism for accomodators.

Per this thread (Alexandria), it had a largest collection of Greek-speaking Jews. Their disappearance is possibly down to conversion to a like sect.

spin

Consider theophoric names.


spin

Loomis

I have. The presence of theophoric names does not demand that the NT authors understood their meaning.

Can you offer any direct evidence to support the position that any NT author ever heard of a god named YHWH?