Be kind, be polite, ask about her life, make new friends
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
20
SPIMI Friend Asked Me For The Name Of My (FORMER) Congregation
by HiddlesWife ina present-spimi friend texted me to ask me the name of my congregation--which is my former and last one that i left right after becoming completely/presently pomo.
she was a longtime buddy, who was pimq-pimo-ppimi-on-occasion for many decades.
then shortly before the pandemic, she was dating a brother who was reaching out to become an ms [mind you, this guy was a mic-handler for several decades as well--until an older brother (who was a close friend of his uncle--who converted him into the cultporation years ago--encouraged him to the point of harrassing him to move up the wt corporate ladder🙄😤].
-
-
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
The issue raised in this thread is that the NWT corrupted its translation of Zechariah 12:10. Quite clearly that is not so unless you wish to argue that is true of John also.
That is precisely the real issue. (by issue I don't mean 'corruption' as much as adaptation) The pre-Christian history of interpretation and revision of the original Zechariah text resulted in use not intended by the author. Whether the author of John, living 500 years later, translated from Hebrew himself or used an available Greek variant, is of truly secondary importance. The text had by his time been variously reworded/interpreted because of progressive theological concerns and burgeoning Messianic trends.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
OK, getting to the bottom of this using only online resources is not easy. Ultimately the medieval (10th century) "L" your AI referenced is a primary Theodotionic manuscript, it really has no relevance to the discussion other than confirming what was already said that 2nd century Theodosius revised the LXX to conform more closely with Hebrew forms. "R" is the more relevant manuscript. It predates Theodosius, (1rst c.BC-late 1rst c.CE) and is therefore regarded as the unique example of an early Greek revision (R) of the LXX that may have been available to NT writers. It has actually come up before in arguments about the Tetragrammaton, as it includes the by then archaic YHWH in paleo-Hebrew in many places. The wording in neither manuscript is identical to John but the earliness of the idiosyncratic wording in R is suggestive that the writer of John might have been aware of it or some other early form available, but this is far from certain. The author of John may simply have, as was his practice, paraphrased for the typological purposes he used it. To insist either way is overstating the facts available.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
I'm coming to conclude that "L" in fact generally reads like the Theodotian form but at 12:10 follows the usual LXX. The "R" 8HevXIIgr, Nahal Hever Scroll on the other hand reads more like John's quote. In short, there were many versions and idiosyncratic attempts to translate this theologically and grammatically awkward passage. Some attempts were stimulus for fresh interpretation. If the author of John was using one of these in a few selective locations rather than translating it himself, his choice was made for Christological reasons.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
I'm very disappointed you chose not to engage as a human being. I appreciate the information regarding the theory that "L" represents a form of LXX that might explain some word choice by the writer of John. That of course is an interesting possibility, consistent with the usual suggestion that the writers may have had some now lost idiosyncratic Greek form rather than being an original Johannine translation. While interesting, the suggestion that this obscure manuscript represents proof of that is not terribly relevant to the larger discussion about how theology shaped the interpretation of a difficult text. Your AI program needs to be set aside, and you need to express yourself using your own mind for me to continue to engage with you.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
I found an article that argues that some early form of the Theodotian Greek version was being cited in John.
I think you would benefit from a read. It's an interesting proposal, but not terribly persuasive. As I said, either the writer translated it himself with a theological spin or he used some now lost Greek version that suited that purpose.
I have been unable to locate any Codex L that includes Zechariah. If you have more information about that I'd appreciate it.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
You may enjoy this article:The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37 on JSTOR
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
aqwesed....You made a good catch, my remark about the 'second half' having not been quoted/referenced was not specific enough. I was referring to the 'firstborn' aspect in particular. But you are very correct, the author of the prolog of Rev absolutely interprets the looking to and mourning elements as eschatological. It was just a passing observation that use of the Zecheriah 'firstborn' element didn't appear more, this surprised me.
Your Justin Dial. 118 quote is apparently AI creativity. It actually reads:
So that you ought rather to desist from the love of strife, and repent before the great day of judgment come, wherein all those of your tribes who have pierced this Christ shall mourn as I have shown has been declared by the Scriptures.
No mention of the firstborn element, odd isn't it?
Likewise your Irenaeus 4.33.15 reference (actually 4.33.11) basically repeats Rev 1:7 in both linking Dan 7 and applying the snippet form the first part of Zech.12:10 eschatologically, not as John does (as you acknowledged I think) There is no mention of the second half (and specifically the 'firstborn') that I can see.
Also, the Epistle of Barnabus makes no quote or reference to Zechariah 12:10 at all. ..........AI fakery.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
Yes, the technique of exegesis/eisegesis at Quran has much in common with early Christians. They often lifted phrases perceived to have had eschatological antitype fulfillments. These were laid beside each other into a new context and given fresh meaning. I was not suggesting the early Christians invented typological interpretation.
That Judaism wrestled with such an anthropopathic line is not an argument against the line’s authenticity
I didn't think it was. I am interested in the history of religion. That means an interest in how original ideas arise and become popularized. This verse as a whole has inspired enough to fill a library and as such is very interesting. Both the first half and the second half have stirred deep reactions. Yahweh had become transcendent to the point that the literate keepers of the texts felt justified in making adjustments. The second half of the verse about the people's response to Yahweh's (feelings or punishments) was worded in such a way that it was easily misunderstood. The Hebrew language contributed to that, IMO. You may believe 'The grammatical suffix is masculine singular, and nothing in the clause demands an abstract or collective antecedent;" by which I think you are saying that you prefer the awkward reading produced by the translating it as 'him'. My whole point is that the grammar does demand considering the neuter. If the 2nd Temple readers had not objected to Yahweh experiencing pain they would likely not have felt the need to interpret the second half Messianically. I didn't spend much time on it but there was a connection between the need to distance Yahweh from pain and the injection of a new character as his agent that experiences the piercing. There were a number of ancient ideas, some saw it as a reference to the nation collectively that experiences the pain, others saw it as referring to Josiah (vs 12 seems and allusion to his death), while others with an eschatological bent interpreted as a Messiah figure (such as the Messiah ben Joseph). While the first and second halves of verse 10 each posed unique issues, the solution to the second half was tied to the first, if Yahweh cannot be pierced, then it must be someone else. In some circles, that lent to the reading of the second half as Messianic.