Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 06-14-2012, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common named used by many, as common as Mark today.

and its translation is all over the board

the counter problem is that you wont find the name in earliest manuscripts of the greek new testament

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

And suggestion that Constantine got up the Tanakh from scratch is surely beyond anyone.

mountainman · 06-14-2012, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common named used by many, as common as Mark today.

and its translation is all over the board

the counter problem is that you wont find the name in earliest manuscripts of the greek new testament

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

Not to the gentiles. Or to their Kings and Lord God Caesars.

Quote:

And suggestion that Constantine got up the Tanakh from scratch is surely beyond anyone.

We know Constantine got up the new testament in greek.

Eusebius may have found an LXX in Origen's library.

Greeks/gentiles couldnt read the Hebrew Bible. It was Greek to them

But for Christ's sake why should they have to read Hebrew?

They were happy enough with the Greek of Homer and Aesop.

The New testament (the "Holy Writ" of the Canonical Christians) is a greek phenomenom.

sotto voce · 06-14-2012, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common named used by many, as common as Mark today.

and its translation is all over the board

the counter problem is that you wont find the name in earliest manuscripts of the greek new testament

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

Not to the gentiles.

To everyone. Even the Chinese.

mountainman · 06-14-2012, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common named used by many, as common as Mark today.

and its translation is all over the board

the counter problem is that you wont find the name in earliest manuscripts of the greek new testament

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

Not to the gentiles.

To everyone. Even the Chinese.

sv there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek.

Quote:

We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek. The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible. The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough. Lactantius noted: ‘apud sapientes et doctos et principes huius saeculi scriptura sancta fide care(a)t (Inst.v.1.15). If we find a pagan who had a slight acquaintance with the Bible, such as the anonymous author of On the Sublime, we suspect direct Jewish influence: justifiedly so, because the author of the Sublime was a student of Caecilius of Calacte, who, to all appearances was a Jew (11).

Sheshbazzar · 06-14-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Greeks/gentiles couldnt read the Hebrew Bible. It was Greek to them

But for Christ's sake why should they have to read Hebrew?

They shouldn't. The conveyance of The Faith, and of that Name which is above every Name which is named among men, was not conveyed by writing nor by reading, but by HEARING.
One does not need be able to read a single word of any language. One only needs to HEAR and to believe upon that Name which they hear.

The gentile congregations were not established by the sending or the receiving of any writings,
But in every one that was true, by a personal visit from a Disciple who had heard The Name spoken, and in turn had SPOKEN that Name to his hearers, and immersed them into The Name.
This is the way it was done. This is the way it is still done. This is how I came to hear it in the day that it was SPOKEN into my ear, and I was immersed, (baptized) with the laying on of hands, into the Name.

What needs to be conveyed, is conveyed from person to person and in person, and by the laying on of the hands of the messenger.
No one can accomplish this by the sending or the reading of a letter.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

mountainman · 06-14-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Greeks/gentiles couldnt read the Hebrew Bible. It was Greek to them

But for Christ's sake why should they have to read Hebrew?

They shouldn't. The conveyance of The Faith, and of that Name which is above every Name which is named among men, was not conveyed by writing nor by reading, but by HEARING.
One does not need be able to read a single word of any language. One only needs to HEAR and to believe upon that Name which they hear.

The gentile congregations were not established by the sending or the receiving of any writings,
But in every one that was true, by a personal visit from a Disciple who had heard The Name spoken, and in turn had SPOKEN that Name to his hearers, and immersed them into The Name.
This is the way it was done. This is the way it is still done. This is how I came to hear it in the day that it was SPOKEN into my ear, and I was immersed, (baptized) with the laying on of hands, into the Name.

What needs to be conveyed, is conveyed from person to person and in person, and by the laying on of the hands of the messenger.
No one can accomplish this by the sending or the reading of a letter.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

It might be suppose the early christians "heard" the word of Jeebus God Save the King uttered by the reader in church, reading in greek from a greek new testament. If someone talked in Hebrew to the Greeks I cant see that they would have been understood. My understanding is that the new testament is a product of Greek authors and possibly Roman authors, but not Hebrew authors, for a Greek speaking audience.

Sheshbazzar · 06-14-2012, 07:40 AM

And if I say unto you; "Say now 'Shibboleth"

What will you say?

Got another WORD, interpretation, or pronunciation that you might prefer?

Or will you get the message.
Some do, some don't.

Duvduv · 06-14-2012, 07:44 AM

And for WHOM were the heresiologists/apologists writing? Certainly not the unwashed masses. They were obviously writing for the regime elite literati who would find "history" and heresies of interest.

Even the Apology of "Justin" wasn't written to evangelize the masses, it wasn't addressed to the masses, but to members of the elite. Maybe it sounds more important that way, even if there is no evidence that the Emperor Antoninus received such a document in the 2nd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

Not to the gentiles. Or to their Kings and Lord God Caesars.

Quote:

And suggestion that Constantine got up the Tanakh from scratch is surely beyond anyone.

We know Constantine got up the new testament in greek.

Eusebius may have found an LXX in Origen's library.

Greeks/gentiles couldnt read the Hebrew Bible. It was Greek to them

But for Christ's sake why should they have to read Hebrew?

They were happy enough with the Greek of Homer and Aesop.

The New testament (the "Holy Writ" of the Canonical Christians) is a greek phenomenom.

sotto voce · 06-14-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

yeshua was a common named used by many, as common as Mark today.

and its translation is all over the board

the counter problem is that you wont find the name in earliest manuscripts of the greek new testament

Greek matters not. Hebrew matters.

Not to the gentiles.

To everyone. Even the Chinese.

sv there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek.

Very good. But some say that there was a Joshua around before there were Greeks.

PhilosopherJay · 06-14-2012, 08:16 AM

Hi sotto voce,

Good point that "anointed" does not have to mean king, so the meaning is context dependent. We should take into account these verses:

Matthew

Quote:

2.1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,
2.2 "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him."

20.21 And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom."

24.4 And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray
24.5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

27.11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."

27.17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?"

27.27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. 27.28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, 27.29 and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

27.36 then they sat down and kept watch over him there. 27.37 And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews."

Mark

Quote:

15.2And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered him, "You have said so." 15.3And the chief priests accused him of many things.

15.9Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy. 11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead. 12Answering again, Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?

15.17They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; 18and they began to acclaim Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

15.26And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews."

15.31So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 15.32Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

Luke:

Quote:

1.31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 1.32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 1.33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

1937 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:38 “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”[a]“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”39 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!”

23.1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.” 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”38 There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.

John:

Quote:

1.49 Nathan'a-el answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"

6.14 When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"6.15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

12.13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!" 12.14 And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it; as it is written, 12.15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on an ass's colt!" 12.16 His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.

18:33Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" 18.34 Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?" 18.35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?" 18.36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." 18.37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

19:14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. 16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

19:20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

I would suggest, based on these passages, that in the context of the four New Testament gospels, the term "Christ" or "Anointed" would have had the basic and dominant meaning of "King." This would not prevent the term from having other auxiliary meanings at the time or picking up different meanings later in time.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

When we translate a proper name of a person, we may leave the name in the foreign language we find it in or do a literal translation. For example the name of the 19th Century Native American leader is Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake. It is commonly translated into English as "Sitting Bull."

When we look at the name "Jesus Christ," we see two words. Jesus is Joshua/Yeshua or "Yaweh saves." Yahweh is the name of the Jewish God, but God saves is probably the better translation, as the Jews regarded Yaweh as their God. Χριστός means "Anointed One." The anointed one is what the Jews called their King. Thus Χριστός is a term that means "king."

Therefore the translation into English of the name Jesus Christ should be "God Saves King" or perhaps more grammatically correct "God Saves the King."

It occurs to me that the best translation of the opening sentence in the Gospel of Mark, "Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ," should be: The beginning of the Good News/birth of God Saves the King, the son of God.

I think this translation would more correctly bring out the fairy tale nature of the ensuing story.

It would not be a good translation. A more realistic one would be:

The beginning of the good news of God Liberates, the Anointed, the manifestation of God.

Had Mark needed to, he could have been more mundanely specific:

The beginning of the good news of God Liberates of Nazareth, the Anointed, the manifestation of God.

The word 'Anointed' is context dependent: millions of people were anointed for medical reasons, but were not specially designated for that reason! The word 'christ' does indeed mean 'anointed', but it does not mean just 'king' or 'ruler'. In Israel, some were anointed on the forehead as signifying a special leadership role in the nation, as it denoted appointment by God, and gave the anointed special honour and 'holiness' on that account. A prophet, in Israel as elsewhere, was one who spoke to a nation to warn or advise, and also to predict events. Sometimes prophets were anointed, but always the High Priest, who was appointed from the start. At first Israel was a democracy (very probably an exemplar for Greece), but, against prophetic advice, a monarchy was established. Kings were also anointed.

Now Israel as a political state cannot be taken as the final condition intended by Jehovah, or a necessary one, if the Bible has any meaning. For one thing, it ceased to exist over 1800 years ago. For another, it did not exist for hundreds of years, from Abraham until Sinai, though the promise and pre-figurement of a single future priest and king were never far from events in that period. So the significance of anointing must now have a non-political, non-ritual value, or none at all.

Now Jesus was undoubtedly an Israelite, and undoubtedly a prophet, as his teaching shows; though he was by no means the only prophet; so the partial association of anointing with prophet-hood may aptly contrast with the claim for Jesus that he was the only priest, the only king, or lord. The second of these claims is contingent on the first. Jesus is lord only if his priesthood, i.e. the oblation of himself for atonement' is accepted. So the word Christ applied not only because of kingship, but also because Jesus is regarded as saviour, or one who sets consciences free.

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

06-14-2012, 07:40 AM	#17
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And if I say unto you; "Say now 'Shibboleth" What will you say? Got another WORD, interpretation, or pronunciation that you might prefer? Or will you get the message. Some do, some don't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.