Posts by kepler

20

Jeremiah 29:8-21 and the August 2012 Oral review

by Bobcat in

something caught my attention in connection with the tms oral review.. i was hoping to ellicit some comments, especially from any who have some working knowledge of ane matters.. .

here is question 9 of the august 2012 tms oral review:.

when was egypt desolated for 40 years, and what basis do we have for believing that such a desolation took place?

kepler

Bobcat,

A book I have here (Georges Roux's Ancient Iraq) puts it this way ( based on Wiseman's Chronicles of the Assyrian Kings):

"A fragmentary tablet in the British Museum alludes to a campaign against pharaoh Amasis in 568 BC and mentions an Egyptian town, but this cannot be regarded as sufficient proof that the Babylonians set foot in the Nile valley."

Egypt was conquered by Esarhaddon, but this did not last long. By the end of the same century Egyptian Necho was battling with Josiah.

I would also note that Ezekiel seems to exaggerate the exploits of Nebuchadnezzar. Tyre was a 13 year siege with inconclusive results. It was Alexander of Macedon who "desolated" it. Yet for two chapters Ezekiel seems to write a eulogy for it. In chapter 29, in which Nebuchadnezzar directs his agression against Egypt by Ezekiel's account, my annotated NJB observes in a footnote:

i. March-April 571. Chronologically the last of the divine utterances in Ezekiel, it completes or revises his earlier ones. As compensation for his partial failure against Tyre, v. 18 cf. of 26:7, Nebuchadnezzar is given permission to plunder Egypt which he invaded in 568, see Jer. 43:13. As agent of divine punishment he deserves his wages.

This story gets complicated since Jeremiah 25:12 also says that the King of Babylon is condemned and is to suffer desolation forever immediately after Jerusalem's 70-year desolation is done. While I would say that Jeremiah's prophecy was simply confounded by history, Ezekiel appears more to be a mouthpiece for Babylonian policy and expectations. Marduk's views of these campaigns were probably quite similar.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Having had some time to reflect on my earlier suggestion about Luke 21:32, that “this generation could be placed in “truly I tell you” clause - I don’t think it would work. So far as I can tell, it would have to be an indirect objec with the appropriate inflectiont, unless someone can think of something equivalent to the Latin vocative. Were that the case, it would have been noticed by now. But let’s take a look at it anyway.

NJB: “In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away all will have taken place.”

Not an exact transliteral, phonetic rendering of the Greek:

Amin lego imti oti ou mi paralethi i genea avti pareleisontai.

-----

Slimboyfat has offered another example of Luke's writing which uses “simeron”- this day or today.

Acts 20:26

“Therefore I declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you.”

Dioti martiromai imin en ti simeron imeraoti katharos eimi apo tou aimatos.

Notice that “simeron” and “imera” appear side by side, strong numbers 4594 and 2250 respectively. They are “today” and “day”.

Like it has been said about Freudian psychology, sometimes a train going into a tunnel is a train going into a tunnel. In this case we have Paul testifying what he is going to do on this day. I don't think it would make any sense for him to say at the end of the day he was going to declare - unless he was running for political office in this country. But nontheless, "today the day" structure tells us something about what an oath or declaration should look like, no?

To be literal minded about translation it could be said, “I declare to you today, this day,…” And if Luke had intended to write in Greek Jesus’s declaration on the cross in the same manner, had it been spoken in Aramaic or not, I've got firm ground to say that he would express such a thing in the same manner.

Luke does use the word “cimeron” ( I think of westerns like “Cimarron”) in about 8 other verses in Acts and 11 times in the Gospel. I think most of the cases are simply statements of fact, but some are related to time limits such as I argue for in the case on the cross.

Luke 22:34: I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, before you deny me three times.

Luke 22:61 Before the cock crows today,

These are complex expressions to transliterate, but it is clear that the redundant “imera” is absent.

Bobcat,

Yes, I do think it strange that Gospel writers use the expression regularly and the writer of Revelations does not use it at all. Yet each is recording the words of Jesus Christ. Admittedly, the Gospel speech of Jesus in resurrection does not resort to these expression, but what is included in these encounters is very brief. And so far I haven't found any quote among the epistles related to this manner of speech either.

About Revelations, the current exercise with "Truly I say to you..." is illustrative of many other differences in vocabulary and perspective between this book and the Gospel of St. John. For this topic I will leave it at that.

284

ABOUT TERRY

by Quentin in

jw
friends

terry was admitted to the hospital yesterday.

he has a severe case of cellulites which has affected his neck glands.

his face and neck are very swollen.

kepler

Terry,

Good Lord, that last post sounds better than yesterday.

Do you know how many hand wringers you now have on staff? Wow. We were all hoping there would be a break.

Maybe at the very least you can get a break from the Turner Broadcast Channel. Can you play DVDs? Order out.

Just brain-storming: Immune reactions are strange even when the system is brand new and works well. As a kid I remember being able to discover poison ivy where there didn't seem to be any. Now and then I can still come up with a hives like reaction to something. One time it was an orange a day instead of an apple. Too much vitamin C or the spray on the orange skins? Off the wall, yes. But if it is simple as removing something in the environment, the quicker it's found the better.

Good luck!

Kepler

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Bobcat,

Much of what you say on the two camps seems to rest on where the audience seemed to think the dead would go. True, there was at least one orthodoxy on that, but according to Josephus it was not unanimous. Pharisees and Saduccees were not in agreement. But nonetheless, with regard to preparation for death, there was the law.

Another point. The narratives go on to show that Jesus returned. We never hear from thief again. And no one asks. But yet a kingdom has been claimed to have been founded.

Leolaia,

You are certainly not obliged to come up with an answer to the riddle about Revelation. You've done more than enough or that I can even assimilate already. But I will continue to claim a more general topic definition than simply the issue of Luke 23:43. Finger-printing would not be worth study if it was a method that was destined to be used only once.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Hello, Folks. At the very least, signing in to let you know I'm still reading/listening to the replies. It just gets more difficult to provide detailed or cogent replies as this topic goes on. But I'll try.

Wonderment,

I don't think your questions are silly. But rather, they are quite in order. Looking from the outside in, my take is that no one publicizes this difference in the NWT from others. On another recent topic about differences in the NWT, the verse did not even come up until I brought it up; and the means of analysis we are discussing now was courtesy of Bobcat. Though on a couple of questions such as why did the "good" thief identify with Christ, a lot is explained within the few verses of chapter 23 in which the incident is described. The other thief berated Jesus to the effect of something like don't just stand there: get us out this mess. The "good" thief seems to act as a peacemaker. But taking into account that the official WTS version of this story is one where paradise is promised but much delayed, and that's where nearly all this forum refugees are from, a sense of confusion sounds like as good a place to start as any in contemplating this story. Let us all know later what else you notice.

Slimboyfat,

I mean to contribute to you other topic about history. Mostly it's an arbitrary stack, but sometimes complementing these discussions. But for now, what can I say about your counter arguments?

While "today" as a temporal qualifier was used only one time in the expressions, we did have a couple of others time related expressions. Matt 19:28. I'll probably be answerable to Greek students about this one, but based on the English, if the NWT were consistent about this it would place "this generation" in front of the comma too in Matt 24:34. The same with John 5:25 concerning the hour.

But then there is the question of Luke's perspective. You say that he is very inclined to speak in Greek like a Hebrew writer of Deuteromy would. Now how can I argue about that one? It's a proposition I had never heard before one way or another. Well, we are led to understand that he was a friend and associate of Paul. And Paul, if anyone, certainly liked to quote Deuteronomy to explain why Christ had come to earth to wipe away a sin. But I have also heard one rabbi say that Luke sometimes was a loose cannon when it came to Paul's arguments. In his first chapter he describes Zechariah, the father of John, as such a good guy that he was "blameless". Now how did that happen?

Some introductory passages I have in my NJB ( which is not aware of our discussion) describe Matthew as the most concerned of the Gospel writers with the fulfilling of the promises of the OT for the people of Israel. And later it describes Luke writing in "sophisticated" Greek to Greeks and Gentiles about Christ's mercy and forgiveness. The OT element is in his origin and upbringing.... Luke and Acts were at one time pre-Bible a book ( directed to Theophilius)... But any of this does not really settle whether Christ meant that the thief would be in paradise today.

But on the other hand, does the argument remain what Christ said and meant or what Luke had written and intended?

This is problematic since neither Mark or Matthew mention this incident. When Jesus also says, "Father, into thy hands I commend myself," one might wonder if things in Luke are what ought to have appeared in the other accounts but they neglected to mention. Why? If Luke's Greek is beyond reproach to scholars, it would seem odd that he would speak it like an anonymous Deuteronomy scribe. Perhaps someone will be able to elaborate further on that, but I can't. But if this incident ends up in the Gospels as nearly an after thought, could it possibly be that Luke wanted to describe how the heavenly kingdom's naturalization and immigration service would really work: a sojourn in Hades with a VIP guide and then report to a footlocker to await the dawn of the next dispensationalist age? Or is the thief right away as in Luke 20:36, "the same as the angels"?

I can easily enough tell the difference between which two interpretations were then considered glad tidings. Same with anybody nowadays showing up at my door.

Leolaia,

I can follow the Latin better than the Greek, owing to more formal training in the former. hodie me cum eris in paradiso - today me with you will be in paradise seems to appear frequently with Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. That much I understand. And it would seem as though that would be a widespread belief in the western church - since it has any currency now at all. The Greek equivalent has been cited a number of times as well, but I would not want to jump to conclusions without understanding the sentences preceding, either more of the Bible text or church father commentaries. I just don't know that much Greek. Are any of the Greek patriarchs arguing for "I am telling you today,.."?

-----

The Sinaitic text I wasn't able to see at all. Visible somewhere else?

No one has anything to say about Revelations?

Kepler

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Leolaia,

"It is rather evidence of how some translators parsed the text as they read it." If I understand this correctly ( and I am not sure, since I am not sure I know when you mention another text which language it is in), then examples cited are translations from Greek into Aramaic or other languages with the translators discretion.

I don't have the McReynolds text handy here mentioned above, but on the matter of the use of "kingdom", I was able to do a quick on-line search of a NKJV concordance. Matthew indeed sticks largely with "kingdom of heaven". There is an instance or two of "my father's kingdom". Mark uses "kingdom of God" with an occasional "my kingdom". The Lord's prayer is "your kingdom". Luke adheres to "kingdom of God".

In John chapter 3, Jesus tells those that they have to be born again if they are to experience the kingdom of God. But in chapter 18, he speaks of "my kingdom".

And then we reach Revelations where this matter is referenced several times as the kingdom of our God and of his Christ.

Paradise, according to this concordance, is referenced in the NT only several times: Luke 23:43, II Corinthians 12:4, Revelations 2:7.

While I have come across discussions of Greek neo-platonism's influence on Jewish and Christian thought elsewhere, I really don't know what to make of it in the context of what Luke's narrative would have us believe when Christ speaks to the thief as he does.

Finally, I wasn't speaking of Thomas, but Revelations. Whoever wrote Luke appears to be much the same as the author of Acts, if by no other reason than certain story telling conventions. John of Patmos claims he had a vision and transcribed the words of Jesus. Jesus says, "Amen I say to you" not once.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Leolaia,

I deeply appreciate the depth of study you have given this matter. It was neither one-sided or dismissive and added a historical dimension.

In my earlier examination, I had seen some evidence of time related expressions appearing after the comma. I wish I had examined it more carefully and made more mention of them in the original post. But fortunately you provided a comprehensive discussion of the matter.

What I gather from some of your citations in behalf of "placing the comma" as it is in the NWT, many or most of those in agreement appear to be either writing the Greek into another middle easter language such as Syraic or else citing the conventions of OT Hebrew texts. Of course, I am pointing out this aware of my own advocacy (and forewarning others), but when I first encountered the change and its implications, it struck me like a political pronouncement in our present day, a public official proclaiming "today" what I am doing - and it sounded to me preposterous - and by comparison, a way to turn the direct statement into weasel words. My intuition was that this was terribly wrong when viewed in context.

But back to your discussion. Also cited are the arguments about time and place which are external: "Since Christ's next stop is the nether world of the dead, how could Christ be in one place and he and the thief be in another at the same time?" I can see how that is a stumbling block for thinkers millenia ago because they could imagine the Creator vexed because he is running late according to his sun dial. Or else events were delayed because the Creator had to get there on foot or a slowly floating cloud. But we are also talking about a translation produced in the 20th century.

I'll have to dig up my notes or do the exercise again, but there are differences in the Gospels with regard to what heaven or the kingdom Christ spoke of was. Variations were "my kingdom", "the kingdom of heaven" and a few others, preferred by one Gospel writer or another. "Paradise" was more of an exception - and the word is not of Hebrew origin, but Persian (those Persians who booted Nabonidus) and an expression for an enclosed garden. Like other words, it took off with a life of its own. It would appear that the WTS has a very traditionalist view of words, much akin to one wing of Supreme Court justices talking about founding fathers defini tion of words fixed for all eternity. So inherent in the argument as well is that paradise is a garden and it would be re-established on Earth.

Now so much for the Persian word for garden. Where did the Hebrew word come from? How could there be an appreciation of being in a garden if no one before Adam and Eve had been PLANTED in one?

I truly hope today (sic) that later you or others will look into the absence of "truly I say to you" introductions in the remaining book that quotes Jesus extensively.

284

ABOUT TERRY

by Quentin in

jw
friends

terry was admitted to the hospital yesterday.

he has a severe case of cellulites which has affected his neck glands.

his face and neck are very swollen.

kepler

Terry,

As a recent correspondent of yours, looked forward to hearing from you and was starting to notice your absence.

Wish you had been on vacation.

No splitting hairs. My hopes and prayers are that you get well soon.

Kepler

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Bobcat,

10:4 and thanks.

Haven't downloaded any concordances per se as of yet, but getting more acquainted with their use on line - including the Strong number.

As mentioned, Greek is inflected, but Strong number words are not necessarily. The "I say - lego" is an example. Yet earlier, while looking at the use of Babylon in Hebrew, I discovered that Babylon the city was number 0894 and Babylon(ia?) the province was 0895. So sometimes the system does allow the researcher to explore finer points.

Some details I did not check thoroughly, but might be worth examining further. Amin, amin in translation was treated as "Very truly or most truly" and a single amin as truly. Now I am not saying that words identified as strong number 3004 are entirely absent in Revelations, but I did not see any of that characteristic Gospel form, "Amen, amen I say to you,..." For four Gospels, this expression averages about 19 times per book. To me its absence in Revelations says a lot, bringing up every question ever posed about whether or not Revelations should have made it into the canonical final cut as a cross between an epistle and a gospel.

... Did Christ ever before address his apostles to write anything according to his instructions?

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

The standard reply, down to the 24 hour layover in the nether world , illustrates a basic problem:

Who is setting the agenda of the story? Jesus or the organization. To the outsider like myself, everyone in the Bible appears to be held captive in a Brooklyn basement with a host of PR people distributing pamphlets continually updating their status. Unlike the grand inquisitor of Dostoevskij's Brothers Karamazov who does not allow Jesus to act further or make any further pronouncements, we have a set that alters his pronouncements past.

In any case, it is clear that except for the "translators" of the NWT, few have looked at the decision making process or evidence of Luke 23:43.

I hope someone examines Revelations for anything equivalent to "Truly I say to you..." Does Jesus, when he speaks to John the Apostle or John of Patmos - from wherever he was - lose his manner of speech? How then should we recognize him this time amid all the other dreams that Christians have had?