Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כִּכַּר

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I must be missing something because I'm not sure how verse 15 relates to what you are saying.

    With respect to verse 19, you seem to be imagining that John was thinking in Hebrew while writing Greek, more specifically that he was thinking notsri instead of hanotsri or natsrat, even 'though he does use the definite article in Greek.

    How do you know that John was thinking something different than what he wrote?



    Maybe John would say to you: ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα.

    John is written in Greek,

    ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.

    And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.


    That John was thinking in terms of Hebrew gematria might be clear from the number of 153 large fish, and also from the 38 years the man at the pool had been sick, and also from the calling out of the grave of Lazarus.

    The 153rd word of the Torah being "tov" = good. "tov" has gematria 17; if the earth would have brought forth what was asked in Genesis 1:11, then the "tov" in v.12 would been the 154th word --
    The number is also in Ezekiel 47:10, מֵעֵין גֶּדִי וְעַד עֵין עֶגְלַיִם, "g'di"= 17; "eglajim"= 153.

    The number 38, I think is a play with "chol"= profane/ "choleh" = sick.cf. Rashi on Genesis 2:2,
    And God completed on the seventh day: Rabbi Shimon said: [A human being of] flesh and blood, who cannot [exactly] know his times and his moments, must add from the profane to the holy = צריך להוסיף מחול על הקודש
    , ("chol" = profane, is normally spelled without "vav").

    Next John has another man sick, Lazarus. I think the name alludes to the 318 trained servants of Abraham with whom he gained victory over the four kigns in favor of the five (Genesis 14:14), 318 being gematria of Eliezer, and also of "siach"in Genesis 2:5. "siach" = bush, shrub; but also speech; thought, meditation, which places stress on the "mist" , Hebrew אֵד, (Genesis 2:6) as being the principle not only of time (nothing could grow without it) but also of speech and also of resurrection. LXX tranlates "ed" with πηγὴ, a word that also occurs in John and more times in Revelation, and I think it alludes to "ed"; even as the word that was "εν ἀρχῇ ".
    Last edited by Geert van den Bos; 03-08-2014, 03:09 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
      John is written in Greek,

      ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.
      Precisely my point. John was written in Greek. How do you know he was thinking instead about Hebrew gematria and imagining that what was written on the 'charge' was different than what he himself had written in Greek?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Precisely my point. John was written in Greek. How do you know he was thinking instead about Hebrew gematria and imagining that what was written on the 'charge' was different than what he himself had written in Greek?
        See my edited post #16

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
          See my edited post #16
          Thanks, but you've added other passages. How do know (why would you think) that John was thinking something different in Hebrew than what he wrote in Greek in John 19,19, ie, with the Greek definite article?
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Thanks, but you've added other passages. How do know (why would you think) that John was thinking something different in Hebrew than what he wrote in Greek in John 19,19, ie, with the Greek definite article?
            Hebrew would have been "Yeshu haNotsri" -- gematria of which is 671, like of "yom hashishi", the sixth day.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
              Hebrew would have been "Yeshu haNotsri" -- gematria of which is 671, like of "yom hashishi", the sixth day.
              Precisely.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Thanks, but you've added other passages. How do know (why would you think) that John was thinking something different in Hebrew than what he wrote in Greek in John 19,19, ie, with the Greek definite article?
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Precisely.
                You agree?

                Most Christians would argue that his Hebrew name would have been Yeshua haNotsri or Yehoshua haNotsri.

                But see : http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/4...1#.Uxrxrc4zG9R

                Originally Posted by ProfBenTziyyon

                1. When a Hebrew word or name is transliterated into Greek letters, the Hebrew letter י yod is replaced by iota (I,ι) and the Hebrew letter ש shin is replaced by sigma (Σ,σ or ς at the end of a word) because the Greek language lacks both of the consonantal sounds y and sh; and, furthermore, men’s names regularly end with -s in Greek (e.g. Ἀρίσταρχος Arístarchos, Ἀρχιμήδης Archimēdes, Μωσῆς Mōsēs, etc etc etc).

                2. The Biblical Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a started to be shortened to יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a during the Babylonian Exile period, and this was shortened still further to יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu in the post-Biblical period after the Return (christians sometimes claim that this form of the name is really just an insulting acronym that “stands for” the Hebrew phrase יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ yimmaḥ sh'mo v'zichro “may his name and memory be blotted out”, but this simply isn’t true because nobody would ever say, for example, “Hitler yéshu”—when that phrase is used, it’s always written out or spoken in full: “Hitler yimmaḥ sh'mo v'zichro”).

                3. The combined result of 1. and 2. is that “Yéshu'a” becomes Ἰησοῦας (Iēsouas) when transliterated from Hebrew into Greek letters, and “Yéshu” becomes Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous)—and then, when these names undergo a second transliteration from Greek into Latin letters, they become respectively “Jesuas” and “Jesus” (because the initial “I” was replaced by “J” from the Middle Ages onwards).

                4. The christian mangod is consistently called Ἰησοῦς Iēsous (apparently a transliteration of the Hebrew name יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu) throughout the new twistament, but this is only part of the story. I have been able to find fourteen Hebrew names in the T'nach that begin with the letters יְהוֹ־ (“Y'ho–”) in Hebrew, and the transliterations of these names in the pseudo-septuagint begin with Ιω– (“Io–”) in all of these 14 cases with one single, solitary exception:

                1. יְהוֹאָחָז Y'ho'aḥaz is spelt Ιωαχας (“Ioakhas”),
                2. יְהוֹאָשׁ Y'ho'ash is spelt Ιωας (“Ioas”),
                3. יְהוֹזָבָד Y'hozavad is spelt Ιωζαβεδ (“Iozabed”),
                4. יְהוֹיָכִין Y'hoyachin is spelt Ιωακιμ (“Ioakim”) [although this is actually an error],
                5. יְהוֹיָקִים Y'hoyachin is also spelt Ιωακιμ (“Ioakim”),
                6. יְהוֹנָדָב Y'honadav is spelt Ιωναδαβ (“Ioanadab”),
                7. יְהוֹנָתָן Y'honatan is spelt Ιωναθαν (“Ioanathan”),
                8. יְהוֹעַדִּין Y'ho'addin is spelt Ιωαδιν (“Ioadin”),
                9. יְהוֹצָדָק Y'hotzadak is spelt Ιωσαδακ (“Iosadak”),
                10. יְהוֹרָם Y'horam is spelt Ιωραμ (“Ioram”),
                11. יְהוֹשֶֽׁבַע Y'hosheva is spelt Ιωσαβεε (“Iosabee”),
                12. יְהוֹשַׁבְעַת Y'hoshav'at is spelt Ιωσαβεθ (“Iosabeth”), and
                13. יְהוֹשָׁפָט Y'hoshafat is spelt Ιωσαφατ (“Iosaphat”),

                BUT

                14. יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a is spelt Ἰησοῦς (“Iēsous”).


                In fact, יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a is the only Hebrew name starting with the letters יְהוֹ־ (“Y'ho–”) whose transliteration in the pseudo-septuagint doesn’t begin with Ιω– (“Io–”), which is mighty suspicious because this makes it look very much as though the spelling of the Greek transliteration of the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshu'a has been deliberately altered to make it match the way יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu (“J-sus”) is spelt in the additional Greek texts that christians print as a kind of “supplement” to their bibles and which they pretend are a “continuation” of the books they stole from us.

                And from where comes the name "Notsri"?

                Not from Nazareth. after Matthew 2:23,
                And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

                So Jesus of Nazareth doesn't seem to be a propper rendering ...

                From where then the name?

                Maybe from Exodus 34:7, , נצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים, "notser chesed l'alafim" = = (continuesly) preserving loving kindness for thousands

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                  You agree?
                  ...
                  I agree that the gematria of the Hebrew of both phrases is 671, not 666, and there is no indication in the text that one should equate either with 666 of Revelation.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                    ... And from where comes the name "Notsri"?

                    Not from Nazareth. after Matthew 2:23,
                    And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

                    So Jesus of Nazareth doesn't seem to be a propper rendering ...

                    From where then the name?

                    Maybe from Exodus 34:7, , נצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים, "notser chesed l'alafim" = = (continuesly) preserving loving kindness for thousands
                    You don't see an allusion to Isaiah 11,1 in Matthew 2,23?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      You don't see an allusion to Isaiah 11,1 in Matthew 2,23?
                      Might be.

                      "netser" is from the root "natsar"

                      Isaiah even says such ....

                      and a twig shall sprout from its roots.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        By the way:

                        Domitian can be seen as Nero redivivus (tell John):

                        http://usccb.org/bible/revelation/13
                        [13:3] This may be a reference to the popular legend that Nero would come back to life and rule again after his death (which occurred in A.D. 68 from a self-inflicted stab wound in the throat); cf. Rev 13:14; Rev 17:8. Domitian (A.D. 81–96) embodied all the cruelty and impiety of Nero.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus_legend
                        Last edited by Geert van den Bos; 03-08-2014, 09:28 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                          By the way:

                          Domitian can be seen as Nero redivivus (tell John):

                          http://usccb.org/bible/revelation/13

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus_legend
                          Of course. I am sure John is already aware of this possible interpretation. He is very well versed in scholarly studies of the book of Revelation, much more so than me, and much more so than the great majority of people. There are always many different scholarly interpretations of any given book, chapter, or verse, and the book of Revelation is notoriously difficult to interpret if the long history of contemporizing misappropriations is any guide. I think John's interpretation is one of the more simple and obvious ones, and therefore more probably correct than overly subjective and highly creative approaches. My bias is toward interpreting scriptures in 'the plain sense of the language of men', which was an important emphasis of our friend Rashi. But I am also attracted to a later composition based on an earlier tradition that might have originally applied to Nero and later was applied to a Nero redivivus. A later composition might better explain the lack of wider acceptance of the book. But this could also be explained by an initial impression that the book expected an imminent parousia that did not materialize. It is one of the questions I hope to discuss with John in the world to come.
                          Last edited by robrecht; 03-08-2014, 10:17 AM.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            ... It is one of the questions I hope to discuss with John in the world to come.
                            Just to clear up any potential ambiguity, I originally meant John, the author of the book of Revelation, but I'm sure John Reece will be an important part of this conversation as well!
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Reece
                              See post #6 in the ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ thread = the last post in the thread as of now (3:00 p.m. Sat. March 8), posted yesterday morning.
                              It doesn't say that Domitian can be seen as Nero redivivus.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                                It doesn't say that Domitian can be seen as Nero redivivus.
                                I think that goes without saying. There were a few known claimants or imposters shortly after Nero's death and it could be applied typologically to any subsequent emperor, not only Domitian, 'though his persecution of Christians is obviously important, or to any future eschatological figure.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X