‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by FransJVermeiren »

In the New Testament the ζωή αἰώνιος notion frequently occurs. Literally ζωή αἰώνιος means ‘life of the age’, but it is consistently translated as ‘eternal life’, which is clearly not a literal translation.

Below I will try to show that ‘eternal life’ is a theologizing mistranslation of a political notion, a notion that is part of the equally political ‘kingdom of God’ concept which is the key messianic concept of the New Testament.

Important elements of the kingdom of God concept are:
• A liberated Israel that is ruled by God himself, with the messiah as His substitute on earth.
• The final war against the oppressor is preceded by the calamitous last days of the current evil age. Fire plays an important role in the elimination of the oppressor.
• The pivotal ‘day of the Lord’ (also ‘day of wrath’ in Paul or ‘day of revenge’ in the DSS) closes the current age and marks the beginning of the new messianic age.
• This new messianic age is characterized by peace, joy, abundance, wealth and all other kinds of blessings.

Just as the overarching ‘kingdom of God’ concept could not be openly described as ‘the future rule of a Jewish emperor, God’s substitute on earth, instead of the Roman emperor’ in a Rome-controlled world, the life of the great period ahead could not be described as ‘life during our future Jewish golden age of world dominion’. The wording of the elimination of the Roman empire and the power switch to Jewish (Essene) world dominion had to be encoded if the movement which aimed at this power switch was to survive.

The occurrences of ζωή αἰώνιος in the synoptics can easily be read as encoded political messages.
Matthew 19:16-17 for example combines of ζωή αἰώνιος and ζωή (without αἰώνιος), both with the same political meaning, while 25:46 opposes future punishment for the evil nations with future life/health/prosperity for the good nation.
Mark 9:43-48 also combines ζωή αἰώνιος (verse 43) with ζωή in verse 45 and the ‘kingdom of God’ in verse 47. Mark 10:30b, which can be literally translated as ‘and in the future age the life of the age’, can be decoded as ‘and in the future [messianic] age the [splendid] life of the [messianic] age’.
In Luke the question what to do to participate in the ‘life of the messianic age’ arises thrice (10:25, 18:18 and 18:30).

John’s wording is more exalted; nevertheless 12:25b gives a good summary: ‘he who hates his life in this world [under Roman oppression] will keep it for the life of the [prosperous Jewish messianic] age’.

In the eyes of the propagators of the messianic age this new era would be everlasting after limited periods of dominion of several empires in the past (the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and now the Roman empire). Therefore, the ‘eternal’ connotation is not completely alien to the ‘golden age’ notion, but it is not its core. The ‘eternal life’ translation alienates from what the authors meant with this encoded political notion.

In several OT Pseudepigrapha this future golden age is discussed more openly. As far as I know, the most explicit and exalted description can be found in 2 Baruch chapter 29.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by Charles Wilson »

Matthew 19: 16 - 22 (RSV, amended as suggested):

[16]And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have Life of the Age?"
[17] And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
[18] He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
[19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[20] The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
[21] Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
[22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

FJV is a Strong Advocate for the Roman Thesis in one form or another and I believe he is correct.

1. Here, the statement of "Life of the Age" is shown in the Passage as a "Perfect Jesus Story", yet there are Clues aplenty that this Story is focused on something else entirely, the most obvious being that "Jesus" does NOT say, "Believe on me and you will have eternal life..." or similar. What is given is a statement of the Doing of Works:

"If you would enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS..."

2. Before this are 2 statements: "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good..."

"Well,here's good ol' Jesus being humble again...". I don't think so. This is a pointer to someone else and, by extension, to some other event.

3. The questioner is told to "Keep the Commandments" and he is puzzled: "The Ten Commandments?" "The Levitical Commands?" Which ones? "Jesus" begins to enumerate the Ten Commandments.

AHA! The Ten Commandments! Piece of cake! Except...there is a further question:

" 'Zat it? That's all?" Yes...But...Why would there be a further anything? You've just asked the Son of God...uhhh...Teacher a question and he not only answered the question, he gave you a shortcut as to which ones you MUST follow. What a Guy!!!

Uh, oh. That extra question, tacked onto the end of a perfectly good answer, disqualifies this person from the Life of the Age.
WHY? Is this some sort of Joke!?!!

As a matter of fact, it is. A deep, viscerally hateful one. The "extra, add on answer" shows it.

If this was Historical (In that Time Frame, in that part of the world), we could look for a Ruler who held out the promise of "Life of the Age" to someone who sought to a acquire it.

Caesar to Archelaus, for example.

Very short version: Herod dies in Jericho, Archelaus clocks in and all Hell breaks loose. Archelaus held Court in front of the Little People and asks them to hold off for a little bit. If they will, he will get permission to Rule from Caesar and all will be well. [[Edit Note: This is a great Sin against Archelaus. He asks Caesar for permission, not God. See FJV here.]]

The LP riot and Archelaus (supposedly) orders in the troops and 3000+ die. He goes to Rome argues in front of Caesar.

Josephus, Antiquities, 17, 9, 7:

"Now when Nicolaus had laid these things before Caesar, he ended his plea; whereupon Caesar was so obliging to Archelaus, that he raised him up when he had cast himself down at his feet, and said that he well deserved the kingdom; and he soon let them know that he was so far moved in his favor, that he would not act otherwise than his father's testament directed, and than was for the advantage of Archelaus. However, while he gave this encouragement to Archelaus to depend on him securely, he made no full determination about him; and when the assembly was broken up, he considered by himself whether he should confirm the kingdom to Archelaus, or whether he should part it among all Herod's posterity; and this because they all stood in need of much assistance to support them..."

War, 2, 2, 7:

When Nicolaus had gone through all he had to say, Archelaus came, and fell down before Caesar's knees, without any noise; - upon which he raised him up, after a very obliging manner, and declared that truly he was worthy to succeed his father..."

[["Life of the Age", then, may be considered the Grant of Rulership.]] Archelaus partied, looking grim during the day but all out during the night. He was partying on the Night of the Passover riot if "The Ten Maidens" of Matthew 25 is to be attached to this Story. In short, everything Archelaus was supposed to do -and claimed by him that he had done - was a lie. 'N the little note, the Addition to the Ten Commandments, the Storing Up of Treasure in Heaven?

"But Sabinus came, after he [Archelaus] was gone, and gave them an occasion of making innovations; for he compelled the keepers of the citadels to deliver them up to him, and made a bitter search after the king's money, as depending not only on the soldiers which were left by Varus, but on the multitude of his own servants, all which he armed and used as the instruments of his covetousness..."

Here is viciousness. "Who gave money to the poor?" None other than the evil, hated Herod, who sold everything in the palace to gain money to give to the Egyptian Procurator Petronius for grain while Judea endured a blistering famine.

Matthew 7: 9 (RSV):

[9] Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?
[10] Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?
[11] If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Notice the similarity of style, down to the use of a distractor, "If you then, who are evil...". Compare with "...One there is who is good..."

FJV is on to something quite important.

CW
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Charles Wilson wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:36 pm Matthew 19: 16 - 22 (RSV, amended as suggested):

[16]And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have Life of the Age?"
[17] And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
[18] He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
[19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[20] The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?"
[21] Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
[22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
CW, this is a useful example. Maybe verse 17b is better translated as follows: If you wish to enter the life, keep the commandments. (my underlining of the differences with NA) ‘The life’ seems to be an abbreviation of the ‘life of the age’ of verse 16.

In earthly terms this story tells the following:
• A person who wants to prepare himself for participation in post-Roman messianic society asks one of the leaders of the revolt how he can do so. (v.16)
• Jesus answers that keeping moral commandments is important. The Jews/Essenes abhorred (the lack of) Roman morality, in the impending messianic age the Jews would do far better ethically. (v. 17b)
• In verse 18 Jesus specifies the commandments. It is not difficult to see anti-Roman criticism in their selection and sequence.
• Verse 21 shows that the pursued change of rule also has an economic aspect: the revolutionaries need a lot of money. As ‘the poor’ is a self-designation of the Essenes, it is clear that the latter are the executors of the messianic rebellion against the Romans. As God is going to take over world dominion from the Romans, it is obvious that the reward will come from heaven. There will be ample opportunity to reward the donators of the revolution, as world economy will come into the hands of the Essenes and their emperor, the messiah. Jerusalem will take the place of Rome, 'the great city', the economic giant of the terminating era (Revelation 18).
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by Charles Wilson »

See also:

John 3: 1 - 5 (RSV):

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
[2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
[4] Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

In support of FJV, please examine John 3. The entire Story is illuminating. I believe that FJV may disagree with my placement of the actors but it is obvious to me that the questions he asks are on target. I have Posted my Analysis of the "Born Again" passage elsewhere.

1. "Nicodemus" is a "Ruler of the Jews". This does not make him a Jew. In fact, his knowledge of the language is quite suspect, as we shall see.

2. Just as FJV posits, this person seeks out the Rebel and asks him a question to attempt to "Understand": "...for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."

3. Verse 3 is idiomatic and betrays its Semitic Heritage: "Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The very definition of an idiom at work: Nicodemus understands the words but not their meaning in use.

4. The first use of our word "Freedom" is found in the Akkadian word "Amargi" and it means "Return to the Mother". Nicodemus displays his lack of knowledge here by repeating the words in the idiom and asking an obvious question if the words mean what they say!

Notice the difference in the Matthew Passage and this one! Matthew tells of doing WORKS - If you wish to enter into the Life of the Age, keep the Commandments!" Here, in John, the focus is on the "Inner Life". There is no contradiction - If you would enter into Life, keep the Commandments and do Good because you WANT to. To the Jews, the Law was not a burden, you lived according to Torah and that was sufficient. Not so to the Romans.

5. [20] For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
[21] But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

"...that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God..."

The Romans are to be supplanted as the Rulers of the Age and replaced by a Reconstituted Priesthood in a rebuilt Temple. The Romans rewrite the Literature to their benefit, even in Revelation. At the time however, they did not understand what the Jewish Culture was asserting.

CW
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by perseusomega9 »

My decoder ring only spelled DRINK MORE OVALTINE
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Charles Wilson wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:12 pm
John 3: 1 - 5 (RSV):

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
[2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
[4] Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

In support of FJV, please examine John 3. The entire Story is illuminating. I believe that FJV may disagree with my placement of the actors but it is obvious to me that the questions he asks are on target. I have Posted my Analysis of the "Born Again" passage elsewhere.
In this passage in John, Jesus also tells what is needed to enter the kingdom of God, but the demands are greater this time: it is not only important to follow the commands and to contribute financially; Jesus says that men should totally change - be born anew - to enter post-Roman messianic society.
I believe we can see this rebirth in the ‘New Man’ context which is characteristic for revolutionary movements. I found an interesting article by Tim Becker on the internet of which I quote the most relevant parts (http://www.backwordsrecordings.com/id100.html). It is titled ‘A New Kind of Man’.

The creation of a new kind of man: World history is permeated by this effort, though for most of us involved in history it is a new kind of men that is meant. (…)
Historically, specific individuals – from Moses to Mohammed to Mao – seek a transformed State: a place, a territory, in which good numbers of men are to be, through control of parameters of life and thought, variables and actions and perspectives, molded by that State into a new kind of men. (…)
States are manifestations of culture, and cultures exist through material reifications, through mental and spiritual reifications as well. To create a new kind of men, a transforming culture must be formed before forming a transforming State.(…)
The most impactful examples of such movements are the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Nazi effort, and the Maoist revolutions. All these have resulted in vast carnage, turmoil and disaster.

Becker's idea of a ‘transformed state’ is important, because that is exactly what the Jewish revolutionaries were aiming at: after the expulsion of the Romans they wanted to found a higher level state, of which the ethical dimension is already discussed in the OP. Becker rightly points to revolutionary movements, but he confines himself to the last centuries. I believe that the Essene revolutionaries were doing exactly the same thing: they were looking for transformed men to build up a transformed state, concretely a theocracy which they called the ‘kingdom of God’.

See also the ‘New Man (utopian concept)’ entry on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept).

Concretely on Jesus and Nicodemus.

My research has shown that Jesus was active during in the years before and during the Essene revolution. Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus perfectly matches with the atmosphere of the revolution. Someone who is skeptic about the revolution asks one of its leaders what this ‘to be born anew’ revolutionary slogan means.
(It is clear that verse 2b is not original, because verse 3 is a reply to something else than what verse 2b gives. Maybe Nicodemus introduced the subject like this: 'Rabbi, I hear that you speak about being born anew. Isn’t that impossible?')

Nicodemus has always been a mysterious figure because around 30 CE there is no Nicodemus available as a conversation partner for Jesus. It has been suggested that he may be one of the ancestors of Nakdimon bar Gourion, the rich and influential Jerusalem Jew of the second half of the first century. In my view the Nicodemus of the gospels is simply Nakdimon bar Gourion himself.
That’s my placement of the actors.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: ‘Eternal life’: the theologizing mistranslation of a political notion

Post by Charles Wilson »

Plz see: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=499&p=8716&hilit=amargi#p8716

Ecclesiastes 5: 13 - 15 (RSV):

[13] There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt,
[14] and those riches were lost in a bad venture; and he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand.
[15] As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil, which he may carry away in his hand.

With this comes some insight into Nicodemus and the young man who asked "What must I do to obtain the Life of the Age?"

The original use of "Amargi" => "Return to the Mother" => "Freedom" is found in a Sumerian clay tablet. The quote is long, though not as long as some of Huller's:

Samuel Noah Kramer, History begins at Sumer, https://www.amazon.com/History-Begins-S ... 0812212762

"But let the historian who lived in Lagash almost 4,500 years ago, and was therefore a contemporary of the events he reports, tell it more or less in his own words: "The inspector of the boatmen seized the boats. The cattle inspector seized the large cattle, seized the small cattle. The fisheries inspector seized the fisheries. When a citizen of Lagash brought a wool bearing sheep to the palace for shearing, he had to pay five shekels if the wool was white. If a man divorced his wife, the ishaNNu got five shekels, and his vizier got one shekel. If a perfumer made an oil preparation, the ishaNNu got five shekels, the vizier got one shekel, and the palace steward got another shekel. As for the temple and its property, the ishaNNu took it over as his own. To quote our ancient narrator literally: "The oxen of the gods plowed the ishaNNu' s onion patches; the onion and cucumber patches of the ishaNNu were located in the god's best fields." In addition, the more important temple officials, particularly the saQJa's, were deprived of many of their donkeys and oxen and of much of their grain.

"Even death brought no relief from levies and taxes. When a dead man was brought to the cemetery for burial, a number of officials and parasites made it their business to be on hand to relieve the bereaved family of quantities of barley, bread, and beer, and various furnishings. from one end of the state to the other, our historian observes bitterly, "There were the tax collectors." No wonder the palace waxed fat and prosperous. Its lands and properties formed one vast, continuous, and unbroken estate. In the words of the Sumerian historian, "The houses of the ishakku and the fields of the ishakku, the houses of the palace harem and the fields of the palace harem, the houses of the palace nursery and the fields of the palace nursery crowded each other side to side."

"At this low point in the political and social affairs of Lagash, our Sumerian historian tells us, a new and god-fearing ruler came to the fore, Urukagina by name, who restored justice and freedom to the long-suffering citizens. He removed the inspector of the boatmen from the boats. He removed the cattle inspector from the cattle, large and small. He removed the fisheries inspector from the fisheries. He removed the collector of the silver which had to be paid for the shearing of the white sheep. When a man divorced his wife, neither the ishakku nor his vizier got anything. When a perfumer made an oil preparation, neither the ishakku. nor the vizier, nor the palace steward got anything. When a dead man was brought to the cemetery for burial, the officials received considerably less of the dead man's goods than formerly, in some cases a good deal less than half. Temple property was now highly respected. From one end of the land to the other, our on-the-scene historian observes, "There was no tax collector." He, Urukagina, "established the freedom" of the citizens of Lagash.

"But removing the ubiquitous revenue collectors and the parasitic officials was not Urukagina's only achievement. He also put a stop to the injustice and exploitation suffered by the poor at the hands of the rich. For example, "The house of a lowly man was next to the house of a 'big man,' and the 'big man' said to him, 'I want to buy it from you.' If, when he the 'big man' was about to buy it from him, the lowly man said, 'pay me as much as I think fair,' and then he the 'big man' did not buy it, that 'big man' must not 'take it out' on the lowly man."
Urukagina also cleared the city of usurers, thieves, and murderers. If, for instance, "a poor man's son laid out a fishing pond, no one would now steal its fish." No wealthy official dared trespass on the garden of a "poor man's mother," pluck the trees, and carry off their fruit, as had been their wont. Urukagina made a special covenant with Ningirsu, the god of Lagash, that he would not permit widows and orphans to be victimized by the "men of power."

See also the ever Politicized Wiki-P: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ama-gi

You'd better believe FJV when he tells you that this is political. With Nicodemus, the argument is inverted: Nicodemus is a Ruler of the Jews. He is wealthy. The young man who talks to "Jesus" has great riches. They are both impoverished BECAUSE they are rich. If they are to "Return to their Mothers", they must give up their riches. Then they will be "Free" as a slave is freed from his master. This Semitic viewpoint is not known to the Roman Rich. The Romans took what they wanted and it was never enough. In the Age to Come, they will be overthrown.

CW
Post Reply