Scholars Corner

[Seamus_Sully]

Jesus says some of the following things:

I am the Bread come down from Heaven.

I am the way.

Iam the truth.

I am the life.

I am the Lamb of God.

Next, I am looking for a complete list of these kinds of sayings.

Any help?

Thanks!

Oh, I am not a scholar, but I am looking for help.

I hope that I made sense.

Again, thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Next question:

What does Jesus mean that He is the truth?

Thanks!

I do know some philosophy, so that is not where my question is.

My question centers on the Hebrew and Biblical Greek meanings of truth.

Again, I am not a scholar, but am looking for help.

Again, thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Next question:

Biblically speaking, What does Jesus mean when He says He is the Way?

Thanks!

I am wondering if it is connected to the Garden of Eden and the fiery sword.

I am wondering if He is not the Way mentioned in Genesis chapter three.

Again, thanks!

I hope that I have made some sense.

Copland, are you out there?

 

[Bible_Student]

Tyconius I think makes a great point. The tree and the garden are prefigurements of something better. The Garden prefigured the Church, and the tree of life was the Wisdom of God, eternal life. It (tree of life) came to Adam as implying fullness and indivisibility, and conveying only participation in what is good(St. John of Damascus). But that was a prefigurement of the Holy Eucharist, which is what the Lord Jesus spoke of in Rev. 2:7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.

Your postings, especially on the Church fathers, had some very thoughtful answers about the tree of life - I appreciate you posting them here. Personally I have not read St. John of Damascus but I love reading the early Church Fathers . I have just spent two hours almost every morning during the last 8 months studying Revelation - I’m almost done with chapter 21. I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be so captivated by this wonderful and enlightening book. It’s been a journey that has yeilded so much fruit from God’s Word for me and brought me through so much scripture. It has blessed my life as I’m sure it has yours as well.

Maranatha, and
May God Bless You

 

[cpayne]

Jesus says some of the following things:

I am the Bread come down from Heaven.

I am the way.

Iam the truth.

I am the life.

I am the Lamb of God.

Next, I am looking for a complete list of these kinds of sayings.

Any help?

Thanks!

Oh, I am not a scholar, but I am looking for help.

I hope that I made sense.

Again, thanks!

On the internet, you might look up “The I AM Sayings Prove Jesus to be Divine,” by Adel Mohammed El Naggar. Helpful discussion.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Jesus is:

way,

truth

life

light

Word

Bread of Life

Bread come down from Heaven

Temple

Life giving water???

Beginning

End

Alpha

Omega

Fulfillment of the Law

Resurrection and Life

Bridgegroom

Vine

Good Shepherd

Door or Gate

Which ones have I missed?

Please list the ones that I have missed, thank you.

A follow up question and idea, How do these correlate with the first chapters of Genesis (if they do)?

Again, thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Any further help?

Thanks!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Jesus is:

way,

truth

life

light

Word

Bread of Life

Bread come down from Heaven

Temple

Life giving water???

Beginning

End

Alpha

Omega

Fulfillment of the Law

Resurrection and Life

Bridgegroom

Vine

Good Shepherd

Door or Gate

The translation of Latin into English here leaves room for misunderstanding:
Door, from Latin ‘ostium’, derived from ‘os’ = ‘mouth’, implies doorway, or entrance, rather than the door which blocks it.
Likewise, in old English, gate, related to ‘gait’, from German ‘gehen’ = ‘to go’, also implies the way, (still used in North Country English dialect, cf Micklegate, in York, = Small Street, or more precisely, Little or Narrow Way).

Which ones have I missed?

Please list the ones that I have missed, thank you.

A follow up question and idea, How do these correlate with the first chapters of Genesis (if they do)?

Again, thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

The translation of Latin into English here leaves room for misunderstanding:
Door, from Latin ‘ostium’, derived from ‘os’ = ‘mouth’, implies doorway, or entrance, rather than the door which blocks it.
Likewise, in old English, gate, related to ‘gait’, from German ‘gehen’ = ‘to go’, also implies the way, (still used in North Country English dialect, cf Micklegate, in York, = Small Street, or more precisely, Little or Narrow Way).

Concerning these great and most helpful observations, do they apply to the Greek and Hebrew originals?

Thanks!!!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The translation of Latin into English here leaves room for misunderstanding:
Door, from Latin ‘ostium’, derived from ‘os’ = ‘mouth’, implies doorway, or entrance, rather than the door which blocks it.
Likewise, in old English, gate, related to ‘gait’, from German ‘gehen’ = ‘to go’, also implies the way, (still used in North Country English dialect, cf Micklegate, in York, = Small Street, or more precisely, Little or Narrow Way).

Concerning these great and most helpful observations, do they apply to the Greek and Hebrew originals?

Thanks!!!

Hi Seamus,
I cannot speak for the Greek.
What I can say, is the Gospels we have can be traced back to the Old Latin of Alexandria, to AD 200, which is far earlier than the earliest extant Greek fragments.
That Greek was used as a tranlational tongue for the Gospels is beyond doubt, but what Greek now remains is almost certainly dependent on the Old Latin. Even the Pesheeta can be traced back to the Old Latin.
Likewise, the Hebrew originals are irrevocably lost.
The best we have of those are in Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on Tatian’s first Diatessaron.
Tatian worked from Syriac Gospels, Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, or vice versa. These Gospels may not have been written sources, but folk-tales of story-tellers, transmitted by word of mouth, and remembered as sagas. Indeed, much of their content is saga-like.
Likewise, I cannot understand Syriac or Aramaic, but must rely on translations.
Also, the Syriac of Ephrem is lost, and all that remains ai an Armenian translation. What claims to be a newly found Syriac, seems to be a pious forgery, for it complies too well with the normative account, and is contrary to the Armenian.
Thus I am left with the conclusion that the best record we have of the Gospels is the Latin Diatessaron, which is attributed by Victor of Capua to either Tatian, or Ammonius Saccas, thus must use the Old Latin of AD 200, for Ammonius died in AD 220.
85% of John, and 85% of Matthew can be extracted from this harmonised Gospel. A Goodly portion of Luke, and a few fragments of Mark.
However, reading Jerome’s preface to the Gospels, it is clear that he used the Old Latin, editing only with the lightest of touches.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Voco proTatiano

I am most interested in what you write.

In a few lines, could you tell me some source for the Latin Alexandrian texts. I hope and pray that you keep it simple. Please write slowly because I read slowly. I am a student not a scholar. Thanks!

What sources?

Also, I may have heard you on another post about all of this, but I cannot recall who informed me of similar or the same ideas. If it was you, please refresh my memory.

Thanks

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano

I am most interested in what you write.

In a few lines, could you tell me some source for the Latin Alexandrian texts. I hope and pray that you keep it simple. Please write slowly because I read slowly. I am a student not a scholar. Thanks!

What sources?

Also, I may have heard you on another post about all of this, but I cannot recall who informed me of similar or the same ideas. If it was you, please refresh my memory.

Thanks

Hi Seamus,
I have to admit that this is only my theory, and it is contrary to received teaching.
However, I believe it stands up to honest scrutiny.
About AD 199, Pope Victorius Africanus commissioned the translation into Latin of the Mass, and many associated prayers and hymns. There is also reason to believe that he also let it be known that the Gospels also be translated.
It is known that in AD 201, a couple of years after his death, a set of Gospels was in circulation in Carthage, which was the birthplace of Victorius.
This was the era of the University of Alexandria, commonly referred to as the Great Library. This is where all the great scholars worked, and there is good reason to believe that Tatian and Ammonius worked there. There is also some justification in believing that the two were one person, though that requires that he lived to the age of 110 years. A huge, but not impossible age for an ascetic.
Many students of the Gospels claim that the fingerprints of Tatian are all over the Gospels, so time and place suggests that he himself, or under the pseudonym of Ammonius, was actually involved in the translation.
Tatian is reputed to be a Syrian, so was native in Syriac, or Aramaic, thus if he was involved in the translation, then, he, being familiar with the original tongue of Matthew at least, would not make errors in the Latin.
Now, Victor, Bishop of Capua, writing in AD 540, says he found a harmonised Gospel, without title, and without named author. It was also lacking the reference system which had been in use for over 200 years, so he considered it to be ancient, and consulting references, he concluded that it was from the pen of Tatian.
Thus it must have been composed prior to AD 210, thus it must have been based on the Gospels which were in circulation at that time.
Now if Tatian had indeed been involved in the Gospel translation, nothing could be more natural than for him to use these as the basis for his new Latin Diatessaron.

End of part one

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Part two

Now for the objections:
The received theory is that the Latin Diatessaron is a translation from either Syriac of Greek, using Jerome’s Gospels as a substitution template. A method called ‘fragment substitution’.
How this works is:
A set of Gospels is found in the source language, (Syriac), and this is laid out beside a set of Gospels in the target language,(Latin).
Then, phrase by phrase, or paragraph by paragraph, the source text is compared with the source language Gospels for a match, then using the target language Gospels, the equivalent text is substituted.
My objection to this, is from my painful experience, which is:
It is extremely difficult to identify every minute variation between the source text and the source language Gospel, and some differences will be missed inevitably.
Also, the coarse structure, and the fine structure of the original, will be echoed in the target text.
What we have though, is a Latin text, which differs from the Vulgate text in minor linguistic nuances, from both Clementine Vulgate, and also from the Stuttgart. These differences are mainly archaicisms, and variations in grammatic interpretation, such as substitution of ‘within’ for ‘into’ and vice versa.
Also the Coarse and fine structure is grossly different from all witnesses to the original Syriac Diatessaron, once you get past the first few pages, thus it must be an entirely new work, though reference has clearly been made to the original.
So what I am left with is the conclusion that although the Old Latin may be lost, we do have a witness to about 85% of Matthew, and John, and somewhat less of Luke, along with tiny fragment of Mark.
We also have Jerome’s assurance that he altered only a tine fragment of the Old Latin he was working from, to produce his Vulgate, and it is thus clear, by comparing Jerome’s text with the text of the Latin Diatessaron, that they shared the same source.
The Latin Diatessaron can be found in the Codex Fuldensis, which can be reliably traced back to the hand of Victor of Capua, so it is also known as the Victor Codex.
It was in the 8th century copied into a singe Gospel manuscript, in two columns, one, Latin, and the other in the Saxon dialect of Old High German, and both these documents are still in existence in the University of St Gallen in Switzerland.
Eduard Sievers has transliterated the bilingual 8th century text, cross comparing with the original Latin, in his book:
Tatian, Lateinisch und altdeutch mit ausfuerlichem Glossar
and this book is available on line as scanned pages at:
ling.upenn.edu/%7Ekurisuto/germanic/ohg_sievers_tatian_about.html
I have, using a collegue’s work, to be found at:
users.belgacom.net/chardic/html/tatien_intro.html
Recompiled the single file into a set of page by page files echoing the structure of the bilingual text, but I have inserted an English translation between the two original columns.
This work can be found by pursuing the link found in my signature.

Sorry, there is no short answer.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Voco proTatiano

Thanks!

I enjoyed reading your ideas.

I want to thank you for your help.

It would be great to know just how correct your ideas are.

We might someday find out.

Thanks!!!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano

Thanks!

I enjoyed reading your ideas.

I want to thank you for your help.

It would be great to know just how correct your ideas are.

We might someday find out.

Thanks!!!

Hi Seamus,
would you like a hardcopy of the EBook, (late Christmas present.)
I’d need an address to post it to.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Yes!

I sent you a message under jim baur’s sign-in, thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Copland

In your judgment, based on your research, Is the deep/abyss in the first chapter of Genesis God’s judgement?

Is the firmament the power of God?

Also, Is Jesus said to be the day?

Thanks

 

[Seamus_Sully]

All help is welcomed.

Is the deep/abyss in the first chapter of Genesis God’s judgement?

Is the firmament the power of God?

Also, Is Jesus said to be the day?

Also, Is the soul of man considered feminine because the Wisdom dwells there? (The feminine pronoun is used in Scripture for the Wisdom.)

Thanks

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

All help is welcomed.

Is the deep/abyss in the first chapter of Genesis God’s judgement?

Is the firmament the power of God?

1

Also, Is Jesus said to be the day?

2

Also, Is the soul of man considered feminine because the Wisdom dwells there? (The feminine pronoun is used in Scripture for the Wisdom.)

3

Thanks

Hi Seamus,
I think we are conflating two ideas here.

1/ The account in Genesis is in my opinion, an attempt, using limited concepts to describe conditions which we even today, scarcely have the words to describe. The idea of the state of whatever might contain the universe, before the universe, and the time-frame which is an integral part thereof, is beyond imagination, never mind description.

2/ Lc 1: 78-79.

Per viscera misericordiæ dei nostri,
in quibus visitavit nos oriens ex alto,
inluminare his qui in tenebris
et in umbra mortis sedent,
ad dirigendos pedes nostros in viam pacis.

Through the heart1 of the mercy of our God,
in which the Dayspring2 from on high hath visited us:
To enlighten them that sit in darkness
and in the shadow of death:
to direct our feet into the way of peace.

1 Douay here reads ‘bowels’, but context and modern usage suggests that ‘heart’ would be better.
2 Douay has here ‘Orient’, which is here meaningless. KJV has ‘dayspring’, which is meaningful, but should have been capitalised.

This is an attempt to interpret a spiritual concept, and it of course does so in the context of contemporary understanding.
So Our Lord is described as the ‘dawn’, or the ‘rising day’, the ‘bringer of light’, even as the ‘Sun’
This is in compliance with John 1: 1-5

Jn 1: 1
In principio erat verbum
et verbum erat apud deum
et deus erat verbum.

In the beginning was the Word:
and the Word was with God:
and God was the Word2.

Jn 1: 2-3
Hoc erat in principio apud deum.
Omnia per ipsum facta sunt
et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est.

The same was in the beginning with God.
All things are3 made by him:
and without him is3 made nothing that is3 made.

Jn 1: 4
In ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum.

In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

Jn 1: 5
Et lux in tenebris lucet
et tenebræ eam non comprehenderunt.

And the light shineth in darkness:
and the darkness could not control4 it.

2 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. – This is a perverse translation: the correct translation has been substituted
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. – Treating these as adjectival phrases, instead of as perfect passive tense conjugations, the Latin clearly gives the present tense.
Additional note: This is sometimes seen as perfect passive tense, but the English is also perfect passive when the auxiliary verb is in the present instantaneous. The present passive is not uniquely represented in English, though the use of the present continuouse tense for the auxiliary verb does give that feeling
So the present passive would be:
All things are being made.
I believe the context better supports the adjectival phrase than the perfect passive verbal concept, for the important essence is not the act of creation, but the fact that the universe is the result of that creation.

4 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. – In 1610, to comprehend meant to take by force, and hold under control or arrest. That meaning is now applied only to ideas, hence to understand. Thus ‘comprehend’ is not appropriate, and ‘control’ is therefore substituted.

3/ The soul, or in Jewish Cabbalistic ideas, the Shekhinah, ‘wisdom’, is seen in this idea as feminine, and as a reflection of a similar aspect of G_d.
The Idea is that the Earthly Man is a reflection of the Heavenly Essence.
So the Shechinah is a relection of the Holy Spirit, so some see the Holy Spirit as feminine.
This brings us into a whole new ball game, so I’ll leave off here for now. . . . . .

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Voco proTatiano

Thanks!

I will be back with more questions. Thanks!