aa5874

Your own research have contradicted your previous statement. There are hundreds of mentions of Jesus/Christ in the Pauline writings which cannot be regarded as random or a few phrases.

"Paul" ideally has properly IDENTIFIED the NAME and TITLE of his Messiah, Jesus Christ, over 150 times.

In Suetonius' "Life of the Twelve Caesars" the author used the title "emperor" or "Caesar" many times without giving the name of the emperor.

For example in Suetonius' "Life of Tiberius", he called Tiberius the "emperor" about 16 times but did not write the name and title Tiberius the Emperor, ONLY the "emperor" .

Suetonius also referred to Tiberius as Caesar but only wrote Tiberius Caesar twice.

In the "Life of Julius Caesar", Suetonius mentioned the title "Caesar" over 160 times but did NOT write the name and title Julius Caesar except perhaps ONE or TWO times.

The vast amount of times that "Paul" mentioned both name and title (Jesus Christ) in the epistles is far in excess of Suetonius' mention of the name and title of ALL characters in his TWELVE biographies.

It is simply erroneous to claim that the Pauline epistles contain RANDOM insertion of Jesus/Christ.

avi

Thanks, Jay, three good answers to my questions.

I agree with your analysis above.

I will be curious to learn what some of the other forum members think of the remarkable ratios, you have uncovered....I cannot imagine a guy like "Luke", or "John", holding a copy of Paul's epistles, or Marcion's gospel, and then NOT writing messiah, i.e. Cristou, in their own texts.

That's just a mind-numbing distinction.....Great work, Jay.

avi

mountainman

Hi avi and Philosopher Jay,

First thanks again DCH for preparing this small section of the "lonely and untrodden path" so that others could follow its characteristic nuances. Second thanks for all the great questions. Thirdly, just a note to mention again that the Greek terms "Lord" and "Jesus" and "Christ" were all encrypted in the earliest available evidence.

If we have an interpolator it is therefore not necessarily the case that the original editor of the books of the canonical new testament was also responsible for the standardisation of the nomina sacra, since this task may have been performed by the later interpolator, who must have also had the opportunity to alter the textual transmission. Stay with the evidence itself.

Best wishes


Pete

DCHindley

Thanks Sarai,

Of course I will reserve the right to make changes here and there.

One reason I am going to do this Greek-English analysis (I'll simply bold the interpolations in both languages) will be so anyone can see that they are not arbitrary, and how they are based on the Greek text, not the English translation.

Another problem I have to deal with is that the RSV, which I prefer over the others for several reasons, is that it often moves around parts of the sentences to make for easier reading in English. There is one particular translation that actually translate the Greek clause for clause in the same order as they appear (within reason) but I doubt anyone would pay attention to an analysis that used the translation produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses (ignoring their arbitrary substitution of "Jehovah" for some occurrences of Kurios and Theos). So I have to at times make changes to the RSV wording.

Fun fun ...

DCH

aa5874

You seem to have made an error.

You are not really showing "what real interpolations look like" but what "real plagiarisms look like".

If you suggest that an author used parts of texts which was attributed to another then you are dealing with plagiarisms.

Perhaps an example of "what real interpolations look like" is to examine Codex Sinaiticus gMark 16 and Codex Alexandrinus gMark 16.

avi

Thank you aa5874, very instructive.

The question then, in my mind, is why the scribes left a blank space in codex Sinaiticus, for the text of Mark 16:9-20. Everywhere else, in Codex Sinaiticus, a new gospel commences immediately, without leaving space. Yet, here, Luke 1:1 begins only after space has been retained to copy the missing verses.

Since we imagine Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the fifty bibles ordered by Constantine, then, shouldn't we conclude that the space for the additional, ostensibly interpolated, material, must have been ordered by someone at the top of the food chain, perhaps Eusebius himself? But, then, in such a scenario, does this imply that Eusebius declined to authorize the interpolation? If so, why?

The Codex Alexandrinus, (thought to have been created about 50-150 years after Codex Sinaiticus,) does contain the "interpolation", and thus presents then, another question: Does the existence of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Alexandrinus represent a repudiation of Eusebius? Are there other, substantial dissimilarities bearing theological significance between the two versions?

Since Hort & Westcott include Mark 16: 9-20, one is obliged to conclude, without evidence, that Codex Vaticanus contains this "interpolation". But, if Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both part of Constantine's 50 bibles, then, why should there be any distinctions between them?

Too many problems, too many questions....No, I think the pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:12) is a better illustration of unadulterated interpolation, for then, one observes that Codex Sinaiticus omits the interpolation, without leaving a space for the contested text. Perhaps it was not contested, but rather, had not yet emerged. The Alexandrian version, does contain the full text of the pericope.

avi

Sarai

Don't worry, DCH, now that I know what you're doing, I'll keep monitoring! I have a question about the JW translation of the NT: Do they (or any NT translation) distinguish between the terms YHWH and El/Elohim? (I apologize if my question is too basic...I'm kind of new to this.)

Warm regards,
Sarai

avi

Thanks Sarai, excellent question, and definitely relates to DCH's main point about interpolation, because, most of what we think of, today, as "old testament", is based upon LXX, which is filled, in my opinion, with modifications of the original text.

I like this post from Leiolaila:.

I think it addresses your question, at least to some extent, and may offer some link to another site which is more directly focused on addressing the question.....

If we didn't know better, one may have thought that spin had written this summary....

cheers,
avi

Sarai

Thank you for the link, Avi--I've bookmarked it, lots of great info there. I'm pretty familiar with the different names of God and their histories that are used in the Tanakh, but the site you linked to puts it all together so concisely.

What I'm most interested in right now is the names of God as they are rendered in early Christian texts. (I haven't had nearly as much exposure to them, as I have to Jewish texts.) I'm at a distinct disadvantage as I can't read Greek, so I have to rely on translations when it comes to Christian literature. Hence, my question about the name(s) of God that are used in the New Testament.

Warmest,
Sarai

DCHindley

The JWs (I am not one, BTW) are famous for calling God "Jehovah" (the divine name JHVH with the vowels from Hebrew Adonai, "lord').

What they did was buy the printing plates for an old (and out-of-copyright) interlinear translation of the NT by Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), based on the critical Greek text of J J Griesbach (1796 & 1806). This they acquired from Wilson's estate after his death, and published in 1902, 1926 & 1942. This translation sometimes used the word "Jehovah" where the Greek text had κύριος (Lord).

Later the JWs developed their own interlinear translation of the NT, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969 & 1984) which used the 1881 Greek NT of Westcott & Hort. The interlinear English text is extremely literal, and consistently translated Greek words with the same English words and in accordance with the Greek' word's tense and mood. In fact, the Interlinear Greek-English part is excellent (and cheap, like $5-6 if you order it directly from them). FWIW, the Interlinear English does NOT translate κύριος as "Jehovah" but always as "lord" or "Lord". This interlinear does contain a very extensive introduction to the issue of how the term κύριος (lord) came to replace JHWH in the LXX over the ages, with plenty of examples from Oxyrhynchus and Fayoum Egypt. Very interesting reading.

This latter Interlinear does include another column with the JW's own New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures (NT published 1950), which besides the W-H 1881 Greek text and several others, also relied upon a number of translations of the NT into Hebrew, many of which used JHVH for κύριος in different places. They decided where they believed the NT text, as originally written, had the Tetragrammaton (the divine name of God, JHVH) like some ancient copies of the LXX did. Personally, I think their translation decisions regarding "Jehovah" vs. "Lord" are completely arbitrary.

See if your local library has a copy of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. Of course, there are several competing Interlinear translations out there, most of which use English words from the KJV although there are others that use the RSV or NIV. I find encountering a word-for-word translation of NT Greek to be extremely informative, as Greek grammar is tied to prefixes and suffixes to word roots rather than the order of these words in the sentence. It is sort of how Yoda talks in Star Wars, which forces you to think how to understand it in normative English grammar. It also helps you understand why different English translations render the same Greek sentence differently.

Gotta go and make dinner.

DCH