On Some (Wacky?) Theories

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patrick457

Guest
I’m talking here about certain scholarly ideas about Jesus and the Gospels that may sound rather bemusing and outlandish, perhaps even offensive, to a number of people. Note that I don’t hold most or all of them personally, but am just reporting about them here.

For example, take the one which proposes that, based on Mark’s account of Jesus’ death, that Jesus suffered a demonic assault at His final moments.

And sixth hour having become, darkness came over all the land until ninth hour, and at the ninth hour Jesus cried out a great voice: (eboēsen o Iēsous phōnē megalē) “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?” (which is, being translated, ‘My God, [my] God], why did you forsake me?’) And certain of the bystanders, having heard it, said, “Behold, Elias He calls!” Now one having run, having filled up a sponge with vinegar, having put it on a reed-staff, was giving it to Him to drink, saying, “You all let Him be, let us see whether Elias comes to take Him down.” But Jesus, having let go a great voice (apheis phōnēn megalēn), expired, and the veil of the sanctuary was rent in two, from above until below.

Those who espouse this idea point to the exorcism stories in the Gospel, claiming to find parallel expressions within the narrative (1:26; 5:7):

And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, “What to us and to you, Jesus the Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I have known you who you are––the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, [saying,] “Be quiet, and come forth out of him!” And the unclean spirit having torn him, and having called out a great voice (phōnēsan phōnē megalē), came forth out of him.

And, having seen Jesus from afar, he ran and bowed before Him, and having shouted a great voice (kraxas phōnē megalē), he said, “What to me and to you, Jesus, Son of God the Most High? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!” (For He had been saying to him, “Come forth, unclean spirit, out of the man!”) And He was questioning him, “What is your name?” and he says to Him, “Legion is my name, for we are many.”

The implication, so they say, was that Jesus, who has on His Passion entered so fully into the human condition of estrangement from God, has actually experienced the most radical form of that estrangement, demonic affliction/possession, and thus spent the last minutes of His life in a bitter struggle, exorcising the demons that torment Him.

This interpretation, they say, would cohere with the portrait of a darkness over the land (15:33); the horror pressing down on Jesus was not just the physical darkness, but the demonic power of the old age ruled by Satan. In this context, His question (cf. Psalm 22) would be parallel to the demoniacs’ cry: “What to us and to you?” (a Semitic idiom meaning something like, ‘We have nothing to do with each other so why bother us?’): both express a radical sense of separation from the power and goodness of God.

If Jesus’ death had this darker side, then the scene would represent an ironic, kenotic reversal of the situation in the controversy about Beelzebul (3:22-30), in which Jesus is presented as the “stronger One,” whose exorcisms prove Him mightier than Satan. Now, however, Satan has gained the upper hand (albeit only temporarily), and Jesus’ cries might almost be taken as confirming the scribes’ earlier charge against Jesus (3:22). This is not surprising as there was an ambiguity about exorcists, whose power over unclean spirits may be seen by critics as an indication that they are on cahoots with the spirits themselves. The exorcist, therefore, inhabits a dangerously liminal space because of his commerce, and this may lead either to his own possession or testify that he is already possessed.

The possession suffered by Mark’s Jesus, if that’s what it is, may thus be the result of His grappling with the powers of darkness - a grappling He undertakes for the benefit of man, enslaved to the powers of darkness. The “Son of God the Most High” takes His place among the possessed in order that humanity may be definitively delivered from its demons. The earlier exorcisms, then, were proleptic of Jesus’ own exorcism at the Cross, just as the healings in which Jesus “raises” people from disease (1:31; 2:9, 11-12; 3:3; 9:27; cf. 10:49) or death (5:41) as proleptic of Jesus’ own resurrection (14:28; 16:6).

But there is also a hope hidden in these cries of dereliction. If these are demonic cries, we need note that in the exorcism stories, the demons shriek with a “great voice” as they are in the process of being driven out. Jesus’ death is not thus not just a landscape of desolation and despair; it is also a scene of hope. The screams torn from Jesus’ lips are desperate last attempts of resistance by a power that is in the process of being vanquished. The Crucifixion thus represents a climax of old-age darkness but also the dawning of the light of a new age: the veil which has hitherto shielded the glory of God now tears off, allowing the divine light to radiate throughout the world. And as the first fruit of that effulgence, someone finally perceives Jesus who He truly is (the first time in the Gospel that a human being does so): “Truly this was the Son of God.”​
 
The death of Jesus, then, may be seen as the culmination of the Gospel’s (and Jesus’) last and greatest exorcism. When the Gerasene was exorcised, the people saw him fully healed (5:15), restored from frenetic activity, nakedness and insanity to the wholeness that is God’s will for mankind. Similarly, perhaps, the “exorcism” that Jesus undergoes at His death restores with Him all of man. The centurion, seeing Jesus’ manner of death, proclaims Him as “Son of God.” Up to this point, the Gospel pits anthrōpos (man) and theos (God) as opposites, with the former being linked with Satan (1:23-24; 5:2, 7; 7:7-8; 10:27; 11:30; 12:14). With Jesus, these opposites are now fused: “this man…Son of God.” The enemy has been defeated; man has been restored and accorded divine dignity through Jesus Christ.

So goes the idea espoused by folks like Frederick W Danker (who penned a study on it: The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Reexamination of the Cry of Dereliction). Admittedly slightly strange and perhaps a bit problematic IMO. For some reason I can’t help but picture Fr. Karras from The Exorcist or Neo being infected by Smith (thereby destroying the latter) in The Matrix Revolutions when I read about this. 😛
 
So the entire congregation in the book of Numbers was possessed too, right?

*Numbers 14:1 Then all the congregation raised a loud cry; and the people wept that night. *

And Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit and possessed at the same time?

Luke 2:41-42 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Luke incidentally used the same phrase to refer to the voice of the demon too: And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried out with a loud voice (Lk. 4:33). Luke also says that a man praising God used the “loud voice”: Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice (Lk 17:15). And Luke uses the phrase to describe Christ on the cross: Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Lk. 23:46)

Luke demonstrates that the same phrase can be used other than for demonic possession. In other words, the loud voice is descriptive not exclusively of a demonic voice, but of a passionate utterance whether good or evil. :rolleyes:
 
MarcoPolo said:
Luke demonstrates that the same phrase can be used other than for demonic possession. In other words, the loud voice is descriptive not exclusively of a demonic voice, but of a passionate utterance whether good or evil. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Indeed, but the point is, that proponents are looking within Mark’s Gospel only and considering it by itself (its characteristics, its themes, etc.) - how the author of Numbers and Luke use or interpret the instances of loud cries would thus be out of the question. Just how wise that approach is would be for another discussion. 😉
 
And how about the one where the early Church waged an active campaign against the brothers of Jesus? And where the apostles had some rivalry with one another?

I’ve heard of these from a certain guy named Jack Kilmon (who runs this otherwise pretty good site). He proposes that Jesus indeed had biological brothers and sisters, as a literalistic reading of the Gospels would lead you to believe. So far, so good, right?

Now the clincher is, according to him, that the early Church, with its sexist attitude toward women and the increasing veneration of Mary, ‘assassinated’ these brothers literarily and historically. He thus finds a way to reconcile his reading of the Gospels and the Fathers’ belief in Mary as ‘ever-virgin’.

I would just quote:

Thus the brother of Jesus was assassinated by a jealous and vain High Priest. It was a difficult time for the Nazarenes. Paul of Tarsus was imprisoned in Rome. The Apostle Yehudah Toma (Thomas), the “Twin,” was killed in India, and the Apostle Simon Qannai (the Zealot) was crucified by Decianus in Britain. The assassination of James, however, would be made doubly bitter over the centuries by another “assassination.” This would be a literary and historical assassination, again by priests, but in this case, ironically, by the gentile followers of his brother. This second assassination would result from the attitude of the later church “fathers” toward women and the veneration of Mary, Jesus’ mother. Women were sexual objects and the property of men. Where “men” were created in God’s image, women were a secondary creation for the sole purpose of providing men with companionship. Women were sexual objects and, as such, inherently evil unless controlled by a man in marriage.

In order for Mary to be venerated as an ideal woman of near divine status, it was necessary to desexualize her. Mary had to be a virgin, not only for the birth of Jesus but for the rest of her life. The doctrine of Mary’s “Perpetual Virginity” necessitated the historical and literary assassination of Jesus’ brothers and particularly his sisters.

Essentially, the position of this doctrine is that Mary was always a virgin throughout her life and had no progeny after Jesus. My position is that Mary did indeed have other children after the birth of Jesus. As we examine this doctrine we find that Orthodoxy relies heavily on the tired and inaccurate premise that “brother” in the New Testament, like its counter-part in the Old Testament really means “cousin” or “kinsman.” Proponents of the “perpetual virgin” doctrine use examples from Genesis and Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, etc. to “prove” that the Hebrew usage of “brother” was ambiguous concerning the degree of blood relation, and to that degree is correct. However, the “brother” usage in the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, therefore using Old Testament Hebrew idiom to interpret the context of New Testament Greek is absurd.
 
Now, as for the apostles.

Kilmon is of the idea that after Jesus’ death, a shaken John began to bear some animosity toward Peter because of his denial of Christ. As one of the last surviving relatives of Jesus (here he is His cousin) - his brother James the Greater is, by now, dead at this point - he felt he should have assumed leadership of the movement (ca. Mark 10:35-45).

Now, Peter also had some hard feelings - so sayeth Kilmon - to James the Just, ‘brother of the Lord’ because of his assumption of authority over the ‘Kingdom Movement’ (as Kilmon calls first-generation Christianity). Kilmon here tries to solve the enigma as to how James the Just, who was virtually absent during the time of Jesus’ ministry, just rises to a position of authority immediately afterwards. He believes that it can only be explained by it having been ordered by Jesus Himself (cf. Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12), and that James was actually an integral part of Jesus’ movement from early on, only the early Christians, in their campaign to make Mary the Ever-Virgin, apparently struck him out from the records. 😉

He writes: “The first “burst” of Gospel writing begins just prior to the second half of the first century. I believe this Gospel Writing period was stimulated by an initial animosity and rivalry between the disciples and followers of Jesus. First, an animosity to Peter by John, who believed Peter a traitor, and perhaps some hard feelings by Peter to James, Jesus’ brother.” In this troubled period, each side started to pen their own versions of the Jesus story.

Kilmon attributes to John the so-called Signs Gospel, the one some scholars believe to be a primary source for our Gospel of John since Rudolf Bultmann suggested its existence in 1941. In his idea, this ‘Proto-John’ - which he says was written in Aramaic around AD 44-45 - was very hostile to Peter, only, the polemic would later be softened and edited by redactors, leading to our canonical John.

Following proto-John is an account of Jesus’ death and resurrection (which Kilmon identifies with John Dominic Crossan’s Cross Gospel), which he proposes was composed by James and Peter, perhaps partly to alleviate the John-Peter controversy. Slightly later (ca. AD 43-49) of course Mark comes and writes the first drafts of his Gospel as a way of countering proto-John’s hostility to Peter.

For the record, since we’re talking about Gospels, here’s how Kilmon thinks the Gospels were written. I quote him now (note: book titles are boldened and dates italicized for easier reference; also I’ve corrected a spelling mistake or two):
  • Oracles of the Lord 27-29 by Levi Mattai ben Alfai** (later to be incorporated in Greek translation in Q along with oral material)
  • 40-42 Sayings Gospel compiled by Jerusalem Assembly under James
  • John I “Proto-John/Signs” 44-45 Hostile to Peter. Shaken by Jesus’ crucifixion, his cousin Yohanon bears animosity to Peter whom he believed a traitor. Yohanon was Jesus’ closest relative who was a follower from the very beginning. He may have felt that he, as the surviving cousin (James the Greater now dead) should have assumed leadership of the movement. That Ya’akov (James) and Yohanon (John) felt some “special position” in the coming “Kingdom of God,” and was chastised by Jesus for it, may be reflected in Mark 10:35-45. The polemic against Peter in the first edition of John would later be softened and edited by redactors. I think that this Proto-John may have been the Signs Gospel. Earliest and most rudimentary gospel. An Aramaic, continuous and connected account of the deeds of Jesus beginning with John the Baptist. Composed by the Jerusalem Assembly to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. This may very well have been “proto-John.”
  • The Cross Gospel, an account of the passion and resurrection by Jerusalem Assembly. 45
    May have been composed by James and Peter and would be preserved in the “Gospel of Peter.”
    I believe it reflects the “suffering Righteous One” link to the Essenes and may also have been written to alleviate the John-Peter controversy.
  • Mark I 43-49 counters “proto-John’s” hostility to Peter.
  • Q material. A sayings gospel from a Greek source for Greek speaking “pre-Christian” Jews. O.T. references are from Septuagint. The Greek source may have been a translation of the Sayings compiled by the Jerusalem assembly from both Mattai’s “Oracles” and other sayings that family, disciples, and eyewitnesses remembered.
  • Protoluke 65 (4Q286, 4Q246??) uses Mark I, “sayings” and Q
  • Mark II “secret Mark” 65 7Q5
  • Luke 80
  • Matthew 85
  • John II 85 … The excommunication [of Christians from the synagogues; ed.] may have been the stimulus in 85 to write and compile, edit. This editor incorporates the Signs Gospel verbatim without rewriting or paraphrase, leaving rough connections between the text of Signs and the text of John I.
  • John III
 
patrick457 said:
Indeed, but the point is, that proponents are looking within Mark’s Gospel only and considering it by itself (its characteristics, its themes, etc.) - how the author of Numbers and Luke use or interpret the instances of loud cries would thus be out of the question. Just how wise that approach is would be for another discussion. 😉
Click to expand...
I realize that, which is why I pointed out that consistency in their use of similar words, if applied elsewhere, is proven foolish. :o
 
patrick457 said:
[quoting Kilmon]Proponents of the “perpetual virgin” doctrine use examples from Genesis and Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, etc. to “prove” that the Hebrew usage of “brother” was ambiguous concerning the degree of blood relation, and to that degree is correct. However, the “brother” usage in the New Testament was written originally in GREEK, therefore using Old Testament Hebrew idiom to interpret the context of New Testament Greek is absurd.
Click to expand...
It’s revealing that Kilmon uses a strawman here. For instance, from Catholic Answers:*In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins. *Not to mention the fact that the NT uses various forms of adelphos for people that are obviously not uterine siblings (e.g. Acts 1:15). Even Strong’s Greek lexicon doesn’t restrict the word as Kilmon does!
 
MarcoPolo said:
It’s revealing that Kilmon uses a strawman here. For instance, from Catholic Answers:*In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins. *Not to mention the fact that the NT uses various forms of adelphos for people that are obviously not uterine siblings (e.g. Acts 1:15). Even Strong’s Greek lexicon doesn’t restrict the word as Kilmon does!
Click to expand...
Well, it seems like he was one of those folks who proposes that there is a divide, a schism, between the Jerusalem Church (or ‘Assembly’ as he calls it) headed by James the Just and gentile Christianity began by Paul and formulated by Greeks and Romans. So the literary and historical ‘assassination’ of Jesus’ siblings is, apparently, part of a propaganda waged by the non-Jewish faction against Jewish Christians! 🤷
 
patrick457 said:
Well, it seems like he was one of those folks who proposes that there is a divide, a schism, between the Jerusalem Church (or ‘Assembly’ as he calls it) headed by James the Just and gentile Christianity began by Paul and formulated by Greeks and Romans. So the literary and historical ‘assassination’ of Jesus’ siblings is, apparently, part of a propaganda waged by the non-Jewish faction against Jewish Christians! 🤷
Click to expand...
Ah! The we-have-no-evidence-for-it-because-someone-hid-the-evidence-theory!!
 
To keep ourselves busy, let’s do another one. Probably not (as) wacky as the aforementioned theories, but still worth mentioning.

I refer of course to the idea common in some circles - it is also known to have been held by Anglican scholar E. W. Bullinger - that Jesus was not only crucified with two brigands (or ‘thieves’ as the traditional translation would have it), but four!

The gospels of Matthew (Matthew 27:44) and Mark (15:32) note that the two criminals executed along with Jesus kept reviling Him, yet Luke (23:39-43) goes into detail, saying that one reviled Jesus while the other defended Him. The standard explanations here are either that Matthew and Mark are just summarizing things (in a rather bad way, IMHO :p) or that while the two did taunt Jesus, one later repented. Now this is where some folks - very often usually of the tough Sola Scriptura variety - come in. In their minds, there can be no blatant contradiction between the Gospels, so what they do is, propose that there were four: Matthew and Mark thus refer to two out of four criminals while Luke talks about the remaining two. A few apparently go further and use this as a vehicle for bashing “the Church”, which ‘hid the truth’ about the four criminals (the usual! ;))!

To support their point, they give out the following proofs for their argument:

1.) Matthew 27:38 (cf. Mark 15:27) speaks of two lēstēs, ‘robbers’/‘bandits’ crucified with Jesus. They point not that they do not say only these two were crucified, which in their minds leaves room for more.

2.) Luke 23:32 notes that with Jesus are led two kakourgoi, ‘evildoers’/‘criminals’. While the usual interpretation is to identify these kakourgoi with the lestai of Matthew and Mark, proponents argue that the difference in terms may point out that different groups are being specified.

3.) Some add the following bit in John 19:17-18. I quote from the first site I linked to:

Now we turn our attention to the gospel of John. John seems to be less interested in the timing of the flow of the events, and more concerned with the “where” of the crucifixion, because John 19:18 opens with the word “there” (which is even better translated “where,” as in the KJV). Thus, rather than recount the flow of events as they happen, John gives us more of a “summary statement” of the situation.

John 19:17 and 18 (ESV)
(17) and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
(18) There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

Whoa! If John 19:18 is accurate in the ESV, then we must be wrong about there being four others crucified with Jesus, because it clearly says there were two others with him, one on each side. When we come to a situation where there seems to be a problem that we cannot resolve in the English, we must check the Greek text to see if the translation is correct. If you have a Greek text available, or it you have a Greek Interlinear translation available, you can check the Greek for yourself. What we find is that there is no word “one” in the Greek text. It simply reads:

kai meta autos allos duo enteuthen kai enteuthen mesos de ho Iēsous
and with him others two on this side and on that side middle but the Jesus.

http://www.truthortradition.com/images/john1819.jpg

The Greek word order is slightly different that the English word order, so we could literally translate that as: “and with him two others on this side and on that side, but Jesus in the middle.” This would make it clear that there were two others “on this side” and two others “on that side.” However, the phrase enteuthen kai enteuthen is somewhat idiomatic and is perhaps better translated into English as “on either side.” It is helpful to know that the phrase enteuthen kai enteuthen appears one other time in the Bible, in Revelation 22:2, which is referring to the tree of life growing “on either side” of the River of Life. If John 19:18 was translated the same way as Revelation 22:2, but with the recognition that duo, “two,” immediately precedes enteuthen kai enteuthen , we would have, “two on either side.” Actually, the ESV version would be very accurate if the commas, which are not in the Greek text but were added by translators, and the word “one,” which was also added, were omitted. It would read, “There they crucified him and with him two others on either side and Jesus between them.” This is the simple truth of Scripture. There were four others crucified with Jesus, as John says, two others on either side.

The fact that almost every modern version of the Bible adds the word “one” to John 19:18 when it is not in any known Greek text is a testimony to the power of tradition. The tradition that there were only two men crucified with Christ leads translators to support that tradition even though the textual evidence is against it. Interestingly, Young’s Literal Translation is one of the few English translations that does not add the word “one,” and without punctuation it reads: “where they crucified him and with him two others on this side and on that side and Jesus in the midst.” [2]​

It then goes on to the account of John’s breaking of the legs and the piercing of Christ’s side, asserting that the words “the soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him” does not make sense if only two folks were crucified.
 
4.) A number of proponents also point out a few items they claim to support their idea. Those who assert that the Church was this evil, Satanic power-hungry entity who reveals the truth only to the ‘enlightened’ (ooh!) claim that these are kind of like obvious clues set up as a sort of “in-your-face” to the ignorant masses! 🤷

1.) The five crosses often engraved on altar stones.

2.) The Five Crosses (Les Cinq Croix) found at Ploubezere, near Lannion, Côtes-du-Nord, in Brittany, France. E.W. Bullinger cites this monument as proof for his ideas.



3.) The famous Jerusalem cross (aka Crusaders’ cross), which consists of a large Greek cross surrounded by four smaller Greek crosses, one in each quadrant.

 
One of the problems with these arguments are as follows (I’m sure readers would point out other problems more eloquently than I could ever do, and so I let them):

Is not a robber (or thief or brigand or bandit or revolutionary, however you want to translate lēstēs) by definition an evildoer? There is no reason to conclude that ‘robbers’ are different from ‘criminals.’ I feel that you’ve got to perform a lot of mental gymnastics to conclude that the Evangelists are actually describing different groups. On the contrary, the simplest answer (applying the idea of Occam’s Razor) to me is the traditional one - that Matthew, Mark and Luke all speak of the same two persons.
 
I appreciate this thread is taking a willing consideration of these alternative perspectives. I don’t appreciate the good old boy attitude that’s been the source of strife for centuries on end. Relegating every criticism to the pile of ‘Church bashing’ will only serve to perpetuate &/or exacerbate schisms. Let’s try to remember the mission and recall the faith- the truth requires no embellishments. Thou shalt not bear false witness isn’t vague. Mark Fuhrman robbed justice believing himself clever and righteous. Let’s not do that.

I’ve come across some theories myself which, although intriguing, lead to conclusions that (to my intuition) seem far fetched or licentious themselves. I’m no theologian so I’m reliant on those who are. I’m failing to find any official response from the Vatican’s website, the USCCB’s website, or newadvent’s website so if anyone comes across the arguments laid bare, please do post it. This is in reference to the Aramaic translation of the New Testament from it’s original Greek codex.
Fair warning; I do sense some willful deceptions/ redirections are afoot.

Here was my first awareness of it’s existence, which appears to breathe fuller wisdom & artistry into the Lords prayer…
youtube.com/watch?v=Bs-j-ByzpVE
Followed by the official source aent.org/index.htm
Wikipedia has a rough sketch… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy
Note that one of the characters involved in the movement early on became a dissenter, but a dissenter that has since disgraced himself with false allegations.
netzaripress.com/dbauscher.htm
The remaining allegation not addressed appears to be the needle under the haystack. This is strikingly similar to gnostic philosophy that has a toe in the eastern orthodox, but also presents itself full steam in the Quran’s treatment of Jesus as a mere prophet.

And the 6’oclock news, although superficial shorthand reporting as per usual, did manage to point squarely at the serious departure of interpretation (the meaning of Christs sacrifice).
Fair warning, this will be offensive to many Catholic ears: youtube.com/watch?v=0x2rN8GzqZQ&NR=1
 
BTW, the same Lords prayer translated to aramaic…
Version 2.0 youtube.com/watch?v=RUGrXljE6OQ
Version 3.0 youtube.com/watch?v=PVrWXu_Ce4U
There are more (none of which are identical), but please make note of the symbols and language utilized. Very closely linked with New Age phenomena, repetition of mercaba, 6 sided star (star of david is seen as a colorful flower). This palette of symbols is identical to theosophy’s full palette presentation of world religion.

As for translations the gospels are not written in the hand of the actual apostles. The path of translation based on information available…
oral tradition of the apostles themselves (hebrew & aramaic) recorded by?—> Greek----> further translated to latin.

Those who may be reading this need to understand that this seeming ‘purist’ translation from the original greek —> aramaic----> english has the same potential for grievous misinterpretation as any other version of the Bible we have today. Particularly in light of the fact that some words in aramaic may have a conceptual meaning vastly different from 2,000 yrs ago relative to today, and so too does the English language have a tendency to evolve where the significance of a word is more or less emphasized in meaning from one generation to the next. Language is far more crude a tool than people realize.

Unlike our Jewish grandfathers having a sense of linguistic continuity & careful commitment to preservation through scribes, Christianity had considerable handicaps having multi lingual involvement & secular conquesting going on as a back drop disrupting the work at every turn. It’s a miracle unto itself that the message of Jesus was ever able to survive under such hostile conditions. The schisms of the Church coincide with translation bridges that appear to be the real source of strife all along.
Memory serves me right (can’t find the link) the first attempt to introduce a translation from greek to latin via Gerome in eastern orthodox region resulted in a riot from the flock. They could no longer recognize the God they knew and so responded as if an allergic reaction to clergy. Easy enough for us to speak so nonchalantly as arm chair quarterbacks centuries after the fact, but at the roots of all this strife is the common culprit of translation. They keep trying to bury the bones, and them bones just keep coming back again and again.

To the credit of Jewish scholars, they had adopted a habit of leaving mistakes where they stood rather than risk editing out the wrong things. They also seem to have come to consensus as a community where those mistakes were and kept their disagreements restricted to philosophical points of emphasis or de-emphasis rather than drag the baby and the bath water together in their disputes.
While we hear that tares are sewn in among the wheat in doctrine, the flock never did get to see illustrated in straightforward fashion
  1. Who/ how many individuals identified tares
  2. Who/ what/ how many they were pointing at
  3. What was the basis caused them to determine it must be a tare.
SO… if there are any scholars out there far beyond my avenue of expertise in life, I hope you see fit to connect some dots for the rest of us why LDS separation (est 2CE) shares a common theme of Gnostic dissent as does Eastern Orthodox and far Extreme Muslim community. We’ve got to get away from ‘because I’m the daddy and I said so’ answers or the lessons of the past we needed to learn will not be settled. If these traditions are to be preserved properly they must be fully understood or risk going extinct one paper cut at a time.
 
discrete comment

The Greek word is megas Strong’s G3173. It’s used 195 times in the NT. It describes, among other things, the upper room, an amount of astonishment, the stone that was rolled away from the tomb, the volume of Elizabeth’s voice when she recognizes Mary as Blessed among women, (yes, just like the demoniac and Jesus), a feast, … you get the picture.

It’s a generic word indicated a lot of something, basically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top