שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כִּכַּר

[Geert van den Bos]

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 ".

[robrecht]

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?

[Geert van den Bos]

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

[robrecht]

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?

[Geert van den Bos]

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.

[robrecht]

Hebrew would have been "Yeshu haNotsri" -- gematria of which is 671, like of "yom hashishi", the sixth day.

Precisely.

[Geert van den Bos]

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?

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

(Iēsouas) when transliterated from Hebrew into Greek letters, and

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

[robrecht]

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.

[robrecht]

... 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?

[Geert van den Bos]

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.

[Geert van den Bos]

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

[robrecht]

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.

[robrecht]

... 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!

[Geert van den Bos]

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.

[robrecht]

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.