Scholars Corner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the literal being the author’s intention.

I tried to say that, but I was not successful.

When the Bible uses a comparison, there is always a literal meaning.

Herod that fox. I think means: Herod is an evil doing person.
 
Yes. Sometimes when people try to be overly “literal,” it’s easy to miss the literal point. Odd, isn’t it?
 
cpayne said:
Yes. Sometimes when people try to be overly “literal,” it’s easy to miss the literal point. Odd, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Hi
I agree with you.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
 
Is there a dictionary of the literal meaning of the symbols in the Holy Bible?
 
There are dictionaries of Christian symbolism (in fact, I think that’s the title). But they are mostly dictionaries of symbolism in art. For biblical symbolism, I think you’d have to rely on commentaries instead of dictionaries. Anyone recommend any specific commentaries on Revelation?

I like Steve Gregg’s book “Revelation: Four Views.” It presents four interpretations of Revelation in a side-by-side column format and goes through the entire book that way. (Revelation is a good example of a book packed with all kinds of symbolism, but I don’t know of a “Dictionary of Revelation,” although there might be one.)
 
The tree of life might not actually be a tree. It might be simply the divine nature. God is our life.

As we can see from the NT, the tree of life is a type of Christ. Through His sacrifice, Christ became the life to the world. Our life comes from Christ.
 
cpayne said:
There are dictionaries of Christian symbolism (in fact, I think that’s the title). But they are mostly dictionaries of symbolism in art. For biblical symbolism, I think you’d have to rely on commentaries instead of dictionaries. Anyone recommend any specific commentaries on Revelation?

I like Steve Gregg’s book “Revelation: Four Views.” It presents four interpretations of Revelation in a side-by-side column format and goes through the entire book that way. (Revelation is a good example of a book packed with all kinds of symbolism, but I don’t know of a “Dictionary of Revelation,” although there might be one.)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I got this mixed up with another thread. 😃 What I meant was: Anybody recommend any commentaries on Genesis?
 
Dear Friends,
In my attempt to translate the Victor Codex Gospel into English, one word in particular caused me trouble.
It still does.
The word in Latin is ‘unigenitum’, commonly translated into English as ‘only begotten’, and generally understood in English, as meaning the only true decendant, (first generation), usually of a father, that is, ‘only child of his loins’.
Much is made of Our Lord being begotten of G_d, and the rest of humanity being the creation of G_d. However, ‘gigno’, ‘I beget’, and ‘creo’, ‘I create’ are virtually similies in Latin.
So to try to find a difference in essence, I considered the old Classical meaning of ‘unigenitum’, finding that in old times, it was understood to mean, not ‘the only begotten’, but the child of one union. The formation of a mating pair in marriage was considered equivalent to a unique begetting.
Until I came to these fora, that remained my opinion. Now though I have seen that the Hebrews used the verb which becomes in Latin ‘gigno’, in a far looser sense.
It was commonly used by a father, presenting his son for circumcission, as a publick acknowledgement of his fatherhood to his son. This acknowledgement was a legal formula, and once made, the genetic connection between father and son was irrellevant, they were father and son in all possible ways, and that was the end of it.
The verb was also used by Abraham in acknowledging his grandchildren, ‘begetting them on his knee’, I believe was the phrase.
Now, the only evangelist to use this word is John. But he had a connection with the priesthood, and was probably familiar with its use in the rite of circumcission.
Now we do have in the synoptics, at least two references to a publick acknowledgement by G_d of his special fatherhood to Our Lord, firstly at the baptism of John, and the secondly at the transfiguration. Though Our Lord has promised us that by acknowledging Him as Lord, we acnowledge G_d as Our Father, and Our Father will acknowledge us as His children, yet this will happen on the last day. At the time that John writes, Our Lord is the only person acknowledged by G_d as His son, so in this sense, ‘unigenitum’ seems appropriate.
However, should ‘begotten’ be substituted with ‘acknowledged’? or should the original stand, with a footnote explaining the alternative useage by the Hebrews?
What think you?
 
“Begotten” has such a long history as standing in opposition to “made” that it has a certain theological meaning by now. The word “acknowledged” would certainly not carry the theological sense of “begotten.” I’d also think that perhaps “only acknowledged” would carry the implication that God had other sons, but only “acknowledged” the one. Or maybe I’m reading too much of our contemporary culture into that?
 
cpayne said:
“Begotten” has such a long history as standing in opposition to “made” that it has a certain theological meaning by now.
Click to expand...
Yet in the Latin, and in the English, unless we take the strictly modern interpretation, meaning sexually procreated, the two words are very close similies. There has to be more than that.
The word “acknowledged” would certainly not carry the theological sense of “begotten.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but what actually is the theological sense. We have, I hope eliminated one.
I’d also think that perhaps “only acknowledged” would carry the implication that God had other sons,
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Are we not ALL the children of G_d, through Adam? In the genealogies, Our Lord is such by that descent.
but only “acknowledged” the one. Or maybe I’m reading too much of our contemporary culture into that?
Click to expand...
I would say that the word ‘acknowledge’ also falls short, ‘completed’, by the acknowledgement seems to be what is implied, as the procreation and birth is completed by circumcission, and manhood by Bar-Mitzvah.
Thankyou for your considered reply.
 
“Genitum not factum”—genitum implies equality, a like being proceeding from a like being. Factum implies a creator / creation, maker / made thing, distinction, which is absent in the Father / Son relationship.

If one takes “acknowledged” as meaning God’s acknowledging of the uniqueness of Christ as Who He is in their relationship, I see your point. It would at least be a fresh translation, but I would still miss “begotten” (while appreciating a footnote with the additional information).
 
cpayne said:
“Genitum not factum”—genitum implies equality, a like being proceeding from a like being. Factum implies a creator / creation, maker / made thing, distinction, which is absent in the Father / Son relationship.

If one takes “acknowledged” as meaning God’s acknowledging of the uniqueness of Christ as Who He is in their relationship, I see your point. It would at least be a fresh translation, but I would still miss “begotten” (while appreciating a footnote with the additional information).
Click to expand...
Many thanks,
I will restore ‘only begotten’, and add a footnote. In the book preface though, where I have explained the ancient usage of ‘unigenitum’ to mean ‘true offspring’, I will explain, or warn, that the common English meaning may be a misunderstanding of Hebrew useage.

I would welcome more comments. I appreceate that this is a delicate theological point, but if we can move away from any biological implication, then we can cause far less offence to Muslims, who in fact are very close to our understanding on this matter: certainly much closer than the Jews.
 
In the Book of Revelation, are the five and ten kings related to the Herodian kings?

Thanks!

I read on this forum that Hahn teaches this.

If one of you kind saints knows, please give me the title of the book, thanks!
 
Origen taught that the same word is used for interior and exterior man.

Our interior man has a heart.

Our exterior man has a heart.

The same is true of mouth, ears, hands and so forth.

If it is true, how does this effect Biblical interpretations?

I think that an example is: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one…”

I believe Jesus was addressing the interior man.

I know that I have asked this poorly, but that is the best that I can do, sorry.

Thanks!
 
cpayne said:
“Genitum not factum”—genitum implies equality, a like being proceeding from a like being. Factum implies a creator / creation, maker / made thing, distinction, which is absent in the Father / Son relationship.

If one takes “acknowledged” as meaning God’s acknowledging of the uniqueness of Christ as Who He is in their relationship, I see your point. It would at least be a fresh translation, but I would still miss “begotten” (while appreciating a footnote with the additional information).
Click to expand...
I have looked again at my text, with intent to carry out the editing I mentioned, but I have hit upon a surprise.
‘unigenitum/unigenitus/unigeniti’ occurs in only four places, all taken from John, being: Jn. 1: 14, Jn. 1: 18, Jn. 3: 16, and Jn. 3: 18. In all four cases, the Saxon scribe who produced the AltHochDeutsch translation seems to have seen in ALL four cases, ‘unicus’ or its declined varient, in place of ‘unigenitus’ or its declined varient. That is, he seems to have seen ‘only son’, in place of ‘only begotten son’.
This has put me into a quandry. I want to be true to the text. I do not have access to the manuscript, only Sievers’ transliteration. Now I understand that the manuscript text used common abbreviations which Sievers expanded without comment, I am wondering if Sievers automatically replaced as he wrote, ‘unicus’ with ‘unigenitum’, seeing what he expected to see, rather than what was there. This does happen. There is no shortage of pilots who have landed their aircraft ‘wheels up’, having seen three reds, and told control that they have three greens! Have you never waited at a green light for the red? I have!
As for the rite of begetting, take a look at Psalm 2: 7. Is not the wording here reminiscent of the acknowledgement at the Baptism of John, and the Transfiguration?
If the Saxon scribe omitted ‘begotten’ should I include it?
“Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu - ego hodie genui te.”
“The LORD said to me: Thou art my son - today I have begotten thee.”
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
I have looked again at my text, with intent to carry out the editing I mentioned, but I have hit upon a surprise.
‘unigenitum/unigenitus/unigeniti’ occurs in only four places, all taken from John, being: Jn. 1: 14, Jn. 1: 18, Jn. 3: 16, and Jn. 3: 18. In all four cases, the Saxon scribe who produced the AltHochDeutsch translation seems to have seen in ALL four cases, ‘unicus’ or its declined varient, in place of ‘unigenitus’ or its declined varient. That is, he seems to have seen ‘only son’, in place of ‘only begotten son’.
This has put me into a quandry. I want to be true to the text. I do not have access to the manuscript, only Sievers’ transliteration. Now I understand that the manuscript text used common abbreviations which Sievers expanded without comment, I am wondering if Sievers automatically replaced as he wrote, ‘unicus’ with ‘unigenitum’, seeing what he expected to see, rather than what was there. This does happen. There is no shortage of pilots who have landed their aircraft ‘wheels up’, having seen three reds, and told control that they have three greens! Have you never waited at a green light for the red? I have!
As for the rite of begetting, take a look at Psalm 2: 7. Is not the wording here reminiscent of the acknowledgement at the Baptism of John, and the Transfiguration?
If the Saxon scribe omitted ‘begotten’ should I include it?
“Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu - ego hodie genui te.”
“The LORD said to me: Thou art my son - today I have begotten thee.”
Click to expand...
My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the AltHochDeutsch translator simply took unigenitum as synonymous with unicus, as it would be in most cases involving familial relationships. However, your suggestion is interesting.
 
cpayne said:
My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the AltHochDeutsch translator simply took unigenitum as synonymous with unicus, as it would be in most cases involving familial relationships. However, your suggestion is interesting.
Click to expand...
Here though is the rub:
AltHochDeutsch is virtually identical with late Anglo-Saxon. That is why St Boniface, from Crediton in Devon was chosen to evangelize the natives of the then Western Germanic peoples. It is very similar to Old English, and with a smattering of German, and a good imagination, you can almost read it as English.
So if in AHD, ‘begotten son’ is a tautology, then so it is in English.
So, I have to ask again, should I understand ‘begotten’ as ‘acknowledged’ in the same way we now accept ‘comprehend’ as ‘take under control’. Should I emend the translation so, but add a comment referring back to the word ‘begotten’, and adding a reference to Ps. 2: 7 to explain the contextual meaning.
 
Dear Friends,
Not so much a reply, as a postscript…
I have updated the relevant files on my site, and enabled the new version of the EBook to be printed, but not edited.
The affected pages in the EBook: sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TheForgottenGospeEBook.pdf
are:-
viii Alterations to the Douay Text,
23 col (45) lines 7 and 21,
98 col (197) line -8, and,
99 col (198) line 5.

On the web site: sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ pages 45, 197, and 198 are affected.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top