Greetings-
I've been @ JWDF before, having been "referred" by an Ex-JW I met at Beliefnet.com. This person said I'd find some folks here who are interested in the stuff I am. Namely, the "historical-critical studies of the Bible" (not to be confused with theological liberalism, per se, which is a specific "movement" within the history of Christianity). In any event, I'm an ex-fundamentalist Christian and can't quite classify what version of a Christian I am right now...I just know I am one, LoL. (Be that as it may)...and Praise Jesus!
As a student-hobbyist of "the background of the Bible" I've been especially interested in The Intertestamental Period and/or the Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of that time-frame as it has relevance for the NT Era (and to the NT itself).
A prominent "sect" (as Josephus coined it) of this time were the Essenes. They are a subject unto themselves and scholars are coming up with more on them continuously; new books and articles are being released as I post.
But what does this have to do with Matt. 1:18-25? and "the virgin birth" of Jesus? (as it has been traditionally understood)? I CAN'T TELL...which is why I've started this thread!
I'll suffice it to say (in summary) that certain marriage customs of the Essenes -- and undeniable "links" (for lack of vocabulary) -- between the Essenes and the Early/earliest Christians are simply, "there." And not to mention the various divisions or "sects" within the Essenes themselves.
This must sound like Hogde-Podge. And I'd have to agree that it is in that we are only gaining more information/data on the Era of Jesus... However, I've been working on an exegesis of our passage in question and am at a kind of stand-still in that I'm only a beginner/self-taught in NT (koine) Greek.
I'm seriously doubting that English Bibles (all of them) have the accurate translation of this passage (in several ways that I won't go into for now).
One particular phrase I'm having problems in translating is from Matt. 1:18:
εν γαστρι εχουσα which is normally rendered as "pregnant with child" in most Bibles. How do they come up with this? (I don't know?). The Greek words for "child" and "pregnant" just aren't in the text!
My (tentative) literal translation/paraphrase has this as: "in [her] womb, having ability coming out-of." Stated another way, this phrase meant that [Mary] "became able to have a child" -- she had her first menses or became menstrual (a woman).
I'll leave it here, for now -- thanx!
rick
\o/
Matthew 1:18-25..."the virgin birth"...(seeking exegetical help)
by rick_here 17 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
rick_here
-
Narkissos
Hi Rick,
Nope: en gastri ekhein (lit. "to have in belly/womb") is a fixed idiom for "be pregnant" (e.g. Herodotus III,32; and LXX Genesis 16,5).
-
rick_here
PS-
I have other exegetical work (as tentative translations) of this passage, taking into account my "background studies." I think (and hope!) some of you may find this interesting.
Leolaia and Narkissos --- where are you???
(we've met before)....
\o/ -
rick_here
Greetings Narkissos-
Nope: en gastri ekhein (lit. "to have in belly/womb") is a fixed idiom for "be pregnant" (e.g. Herodotus III,32; and LXX Genesis 16,5).
LXX in the Greek is: εν γαστρι εχει. And the English translation of Herodotus is also open for interpretation, imo. (However, I can't access Herodotus right now @ Perseus). If I'm not mistaken, Herodotus has εχουσα εν γαστρι.
I'll concede that in the English idiom/translation "[to] be pregnant" (or) "to be with child" are considered acceptable. But I can't help but see a potential (if not probable?) bias here, based on traditional renderings of the phrase. If it were translated otherwise, it would threaten "orthodox doctrine."
One other thing that is often overlooked is that there are words in the Greek passage (in question) that have no other apearances in Greek literature. And what few there are; we have been dependent on English translations as they have come to us -- without question.
Matthew's Gospel, if indeed Matthew was a tax-collector and the author of this Gospel as traditionally known (which I accept, btw); tax-collectors of that era knew various forms of "short-hand (writing)" which was needed for their job descriptions and performance.
I've wondered if Matthew's Greek might reflect an "abbreviation tendency" and consider this as not only a possibility, but as a possible "key" to understanding his writing (in Greek). I don't want to belabor this point. But I would like to emphasize that centuries-old understandings, based on possible faulty "translations of the Greek" would be unreliable.
If you have further input for rebuttle, I welcome them (please)! As of now I'm unconvinced (agnostic) of traditionanl interpretations of the text. My only "debate" has to do with finding the true exegesis of this passage.
rick
\o/ -
rick_here
PS-
Other than the details outlined so far...I'm still interested in doing an online exegesis of the passage -- with y'all's help (that would be). -
gumby
Hi Rick. I can't be of much help on your question concerning greek, but have you ever wondered why Matthew went to such great lenghts to establish Jesus geneology down to Joseph...........only to tell us that Joseph wasn't really Jesus dad afterall? Mary became pregnant by Holy Spirit....not by Joseph. Why do you suppose Matthew labored so hard on a geneology that has zero revelvence or importance to Jesus conception?
Gumby
-
rick_here
Howdy Gumby-
Um, well, lemme see here....hmmmmm.....
How's about, "Were Joseph & Mary a in a 'sub-sect' of the Essenes?"
(Alex, in the proper question form-answer), LoL.
Thanx. -
Leolaia
Here is the passage in Davies & Allison:
-
euripides
One other thing that is often overlooked is that there are words in the Greek passage (in question) that have no other apearances in Greek literature. And what few there are; we have been dependent on English translations as they have come to us -- without question.
I don't know what you are talking about here. What hapax legomena are you referring to? What words have uncertain meaning?
Euripides
-
Robert K Stock
Monty Python's movie Life of Brian has the most plausible explanation of the Virgin Birth. It did not happen.
Jesus father may not have been Roman Centurian Naughtius Maximus, but the father of Jesus was a human being that Mary had sex with while engaged to Joseph.