TedM

The implication is that all references to Jesus' biological brothers was based on a misunderstanding, as well as a lost tradition of a group of metaphorical "brothers" of God within the Christian faith, which were not the same as apostles or simply fellow believers, but included some of each and excluded some of each, yet traveled with wives like the apostles, and for which there is no surviving record in all of the evidence about the early Christians. It furthers the notion that all references to Jesus' family were bogus, which furthers the notion that Jesus himself was not historical. It could be right, and is worth exploring--all sides of the issue.

We should start with asking: how important was it that the term "the Lord" be reserved only for God himself?



It's an angle worth exploring. One I tend to avoid because it seems even more iffy than most everything else..

spin

That's an amazingly foresightless question, TedM. How important was haShem?

TedM

If haShem was used in place of God's name what is the need for using "the Lord" for God only? "the Lord" may have a different nuance. Perhaps it simply meant "the Master", which could apply to God, a teacher, Jesus, etc..., and in the OT happened to be the phrase of choice to apply to God as a Master of the Universe. The question is how 'sacred' the phrase that substitutes for a sacred name is. Using it in place of God doesn't imply any degree of sacredness. What was sacred was God's name, not necessarily any one of many possible substitutions. Many phrases/titles can be used in place of God (the judge, the artist, the creator) that aren't so 'sacred' as to never be used in place of someone on earth or otherwise. Do you have some EVIDENCE that "the Lord" was as sacred as you keep suggesting? Is there a discussion of the term in the OT or midrash that leads you to this conclusion?

spin

:banghead:

I'll forget this rubbish.

HaShem is the sacred reference in Hebrew to the name of god, the name which is replaced in Greek by "the lord". That means that in Greek "the lord" refers to the sacred name, which you so easily feel would be debased. Go back to your silly original question and think about it:

how important was it that the term "the Lord" be reserved only for God himself?

TedM

HaShem doesn't mean "the Lord". "refers" to the sacred name does not imply that "the Lord" is sacred. I gave examples (the judge, the artist, etc.) but they appear to have gone over your head. OF COURSE God's name "the Name" is sacred. But "the Lord" doesn't have to be any more sacred than "the judge" or "the artist". Do you not get that?

SO now, I go back to the original question:

Note my usage of the words "reserved only". Do you have evidence that "the Lord" was reserved only for use as a substitute for God himself? Can you point to a discussion of this phrase by Israeli scholars/religious leaders who used it 2000+ years ago?


I just looked up the names for God in wiki:

Eloah (God)
Elohim (Gods)
Adonai (Lord)
Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (I am that I am)
YHWH (I am that I am)
El Shaddai (God Almighty)
HaShem (The Name)
YHWH Tzevaot (Lord of Hosts: Sabaoth in Latin transliteration)

I don't understand. Are these names or descriptions? If names, then is "the Lord" (see Adonai) a name also, or a substitute for one of these?

spin

Gosh, you figured that out! But who said it did?

Right, it does not imply that. It implies that the reference "the lord" is to god and is in lieu of the sacred name. That's why it entered the text. To replace the use of Yahweh. This is what haShem did in Hebrew and we note that even today haShem maintains its unique status.

You are trying to argue as though you have forgotten the basics of the argument so far. The special κυριος is used in Greek translation in lieu of a transliteration of Yahweh. Do you get that yet??

The entire LXX.

They are what's called a smokescreen. We are dealing with Greek, Paul's Greek, Marcan Greek and the LXX Greek. Can you focus?

stephan huller

I don't understand Ted's argument. The facts are the facts. Clever people can find a way around the facts by re-interpreting them. Just take a time out and come back to the table with a new interpretation of the evidence. This is just looking silly

TedM

Good. Now we might be able to move forward. If "the Lord" is not necessarily sacred, then what is to stop it from being used in lieu of Jesus' name? I think the answer you might give is simply: habit, practice. Well, habits change.


Ok. How do you know that people in their every day lives didn't reference a teacher or master as "the Lord"? You don't if all you have to go on is the LXX. That's why I asked for something that discusses whether "the Lord" was used exclusively for God.

Without that, it's just another assumption on your part.

It goes against the normal 2nd to 3rd person conversion of words. We know that Jesus was referred to in the 2nd person as "Lord" in Mark. We know that soon after Mark there is no question he was referred to in the 3rd person as "the Lord". We have a verse in Mark that most reasonably references him in the 3rd person, though a few may interpret it as referring to God (the colt verse). But, the best that we can say is that the passage for the colt may be referring to God, and it may be referring to Jesus. Sometimes ambiguity exists.

spin

It takes on aspects of the sacredness of the original Yahweh as haShem does, for users are well aware what it is used for. It's dead, Jim.

We deal with the evidence we have and not take an excursion into the twilight zone of unfalsifiability.

When you are talking through your hat it may, but you need to look at the evidence. You will find the vocative used in speech in the narrative of the LXX, eg 1 Kgs 18:7 "O lord (κυριε) Elijah", 1 Sam 22:12, Ahimelech says to Saul, "her I am, lord (κυριε)", but you will not find the special κυριος used for anyone but god. The English translator of the LXX tended to use "my lord".

You are doing what my cat does when it goes through every maneuver it can to try to achieve its ends, for example as it tries to open a door. You know what your conclusion is.

spin

I've just realized why the discussion regarding the return of the ass's colt took the turn that it did. The text of Mk 11:3 can be seen as ambiguous. Below are three versions of the passage, which are mainly very similar, and yet they each treat v.3 differently. The KJV has no quotation marks, while the other two differ in their use of quotes. The ambiguity is removed through the use of quotes, so that the KJV maintains the ambiguity, while the other two diverge in meaning.

If you are interested in this sort of thing I suggest you read v.3 in the order I have given and try to work out who "he" is in two of the translations and where "here" ("hither") is in relation to the participants.

[t2]{r:bg=#F0EBED}KJV|NASB|NRSV||
1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.|
1 As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples, 2 and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.|
1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it.||
{r:bg=lemonchiffon}3 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him ¹ hither.|
3 If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."|
3 If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' just say this, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.'"
||
4 And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus...|
4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it. 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7 They brought the colt to Jesus...|
4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus...[/t2]¹ The word "back" is in the best ancient sources.[HR=1]100[/HR]

If you are looking into the issue, I need to hide the ambiguity a little further along so that you don't see my spoilers and I rob you of the opportunity checking it out yourselves. So here's where I spill the beans....

After another decoy phrase (<--), you'll note that the NASB puts the "he" outside the message Jesus gives to the two disciples to say. The "here" is also not part of the message, which indicates that Jesus is referring to where he is as "here" and "he"--outside the message--cannot refer to the lord in the message. This means that Jesus is tells the two disciples that, when they say that the colt is for the lord, the person who asked "Why are you doing this?"--presumably the owner--will understand the importance and send the colt back to where Jesus is with the two disciples.

On the other hand in the NRSV Jesus's message is "'The Lord needs it and [he] will send it back here immediately.'" That's what the disciples are supposed to say if asked, so "[he]" in this case is not the challenger, but the lord and "here" is the location of the challenger, ie the lord will send the colt back to where it came from.

Although it doesn't change the earlier discussion regarding "the lord", I think the NASB is the likely understanding, when we see how the event developed:

5 some of the bystanders said to them, ^a "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 ^b They told them what Jesus had said; and ^c they allowed them to take it. 7 They brought the colt to Jesus...

^a this is what Jesus predicted.
^b this is what Jesus said, "The lord has need of it." And
^c this is the sending back here to Jesus immediately.

The story has no interest in Jesus or anyone sending the animal back to its owner(s).

I find it's rare that other versions do it better than the (N)RSV, but in this case it seems to me that the NASB did it better. And it all comes down to the use of quotation marks, which change the intent of what Jesus said.