Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:26 am
Turmel argues that this is an anti-marcionite interpolation:
56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
if Abraham is a friend of Jesus, then YHWH is friend of Jesus, which is not true for the original anti-YHWH author.
Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure what to make of this passage to begin with. What does it mean that he saw it?
Isn't his day in the present of the story? Abraham was not alive then. By "saw" does it mean that he foretold it?
rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:55 am
Interesting. The YLT doesn't translate it that way. I'd have to defer to someone with more knowledge of Greek and the early manuscripts to assess this.
Richmond Lattimore did not carry Young's burden (baggage) of having to see things through the perspective of, and in full conformance to/with established Christian dogma. Plus as stated earlier, no one is likely to exceed Lattimore's grasp of ancient Greek. Beware of inherent translation bias when picking your translator of choice.
lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:35 am
As to the relevant section you quote from John chapter 8, the Richmond Lattimore and April DeConick "literal" translations peak my interest. I believe they both quite independently come to the conclusion (from memory here) that more properly the translations are: "You are of the father of the Devil.", and "Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and so is his father."
Thanks for bringing this up. I haven’t thought about this verse in a while. Lately I’ve been collecting verses that are systematically perverted in modern translations, and (heads up) this issue really pisses me off so if you’re not in the mood for that…
The highlighted words are omitted only in one medieval Greek and in two non-Greek manuscripts (K, SYs, BOms). So the text is not in dispute.
Modern Christian translators are unanimously dishonest, as one can see at a glance over at Bible Gateway.
The critical issue is that there is no “your” in the Greek; you are of your father, the Devil, is not what the text plainly says, but rather, you are of the father of the devil. The interlinear at BibleHub even goes so far as to constue τοῦ as meaning “your” in this context; and certainly they can cite this or that unconvincing parallel to justify their orthodox perversion of the scripture. I have already noted how the BDAG, the standard 20th c. Koine-English lexicon, made up a defintion for Colossians 2:15 to please the needs of orthodoxy.
The possessive pronoun (your) is not expressed in the Greek, and the form of the sentence is one which would have required it if it were included in the sense.
While I'm on a full Romantard Binge these days, I want to make a Footnote for this Passage. I believe it refers to Nero and his Bio-Father who was somewhat worse than a very despicable character. I appreciate the lack of "your..." in the Greek Vocabulary. It would provide a ready-made container for Linguistic Mischief.
Nice observations,
CW
PS: I don't usually go fishin' but did the observation concerning Samaritans not recognizing Jews and Jews not recognizing Samaritans resonate with anyone, regardless of interpretation? It sticks out to me and it appears that it was put in for cause...
Isayre, I'm curious what Lattimore/DeConick translation you are referencing. I have a copy of Lattimore's The Four Gospels and the Revelation (c. 1980), in which he (oddly) splits the baby--
The father you come is the devil and you wish to do your father's will. He has been a man killer from the beginning, and he does not stand upon the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks his lie he speaks from what is his own, because he is a liar and so is his father.
In the first part the devil is the father; in the second he has a father.
"Man killer" is great stuff btw (i.e. the literal sense of ἀνθρωποκτόνος). Lands very differently from "murderer."
Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:45 am
lsayre and Irish1975 --
While I'm on a full Romantard Binge these days,
"Romantard Binge" is funny. I assume you mean the family of theories that the Gospels are allegories of Roman domination in some way or other.
I used to be intrigued by those conjectures but I can't see them as anything more than that. The synoptics seem to have much more to do with Rome than gJohn.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:36 am
Isayre, I'm curious what Lattimore/DeConick translation you are referencing. I have a copy of Lattimore's The Four Gospels and the Revelation (c. 1980), in which he (oddly) splits the baby--
The father you come is the devil and you wish to do your father's will. He has been a man killer from the beginning, and he does not stand upon the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks his lie he speaks from what is his own, because he is a liar and so is his father.
In the first part the devil is the father; in the second he has a father.
"Man killer" is great stuff btw (i.e. the literal sense of ἀνθρωποκτόνος). Lands very differently from "murderer."
You are correct here. I did say I was quoting from memory. It is April DeConick who translates both lines as I suggested.
I wish to expand a bit on the John 8 Passage as a rewrite of a passage directed at Nero.
Again, I invite you to read several of these from a Roman perspective. The direction of the argument runs, NOT from a Judaic argument amongst Temple frequenting Jews ("...I taught daily in the Temple...") but may be easily seen as antagonistic between Rivals within the Roman Court. Nero will soon enough be swept away.
First, the review of Nero's father:
Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Nero":
"He had by the elder Antonia a son Domitius who became the father of Nero, a man hateful in every walk of life; for when he had gone to the East on the staff of the young Gaius Caesar, he slew one of his own freedmen for refusing to drink as much as he ordered, and when he was in consequence dismissed from the number of Gaius' friends, he lived not a whit less lawlessly. On the contrary, in a village on the Appian Way, suddenly whipping up his team, he purposely ran over and killed a boy; and right in the Roman Forum he gouged out the eye of a Roman knight for being too outspoken in chiding him. He was moreover so dishonest that he not only cheated some bankers of the prices of wares which he had bought, but in his praetorship he even defrauded the victors in the chariot races of the amount of their prizes. When for this reason he was held up to scorn by the jests of his own sister, and the managers of the troupes made complaint, he issued an edict that the prizes should thereafter be paid on the spot. Just before the death of Tiberius he was also charged with treason, as well as with acts of adultery and incest with his sister Lepida, but escaped owing to the change of rulers and died of dropsy at Pyrgi, after acknowledging Nero son of Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus..."
A thoroughly loathsome individual. The Match between this and John 8 may not hold but it does go some distance to understanding some of the Cut 'n Paste material in the NT. Claudius is used with some frequency in the NT and Nero's story is Front-and-Center in Acts - I believe that one of the "Magician" characters in Acts is Nero with the first part of Chapter 5 in Acts finding the Ananias and Sapphira story giving the Death of Messalina ("...Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Find Annals and the death of Messalina. What position is Messalina in with regards to her mother?)
We come then, to the VERY odd interplay:
[37] I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.
Not "WE are descendants..."
[38] I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."
Here is dissonance. There are 2 different "Fathers" here. Further, this character is stating that these Jews are doing what they heard from THEIR Father. The resolution of this conundrum is not improved here by Apologetix(R). If this is in any way reflecting a Real-World conversation (Actual or Implied, an assumption we should always check), would it make sense coming from an until now unknown savior-god or rather the son of a General and sometime soon to be Emperor of an Empire?
[39] They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did,
[40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.
Many a Sermon has been built on these 2 verses. It continues the argument.
[41] You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."
I often look for the "Small Clue" that lets you know that the subject is different that what is perceived from the Supersessionist Christian Faith. "The Jews" know the depth of this argument and it does not apply to this subject. There is something else at play here:
[42] Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
[43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
This argument has morphed. It is not even about a Transcendent savior-god. It leads to what follows:
[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
To add a little fuel to the fire...
John 3: 16 (RSV):
[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Deified Claudius offered his only BEGOTTEN son (Look up the History of the "Begotten" here...). Who believed on Him? TITUS!!!
When Claudius' son Britannicus was poisoned, Titus ate a small bit from B's plate and was sick for days. He built a gold statue to Britannicus when he recovered. Eternal Life was for the Emperors and Rulers, not the people.
This is the end of the Julio-Claudians, through the Year of the Four Emperors. Vespasian offered his Legions Loyalty through Otho. Vitellius was to be eliminated and the Rule of the Flavians began. Mucianius, Procurator of Syria, threw in with Vespasian at the urging of Titus ("The Vision on the road to Damascus") which gave Vespasian 7 Legions.
After the death of Domitian, the Organization of the New Religion began in earnest. Material applied to previous regimes was liberally used in Cut 'n Paste jobs to pad out the "Miracle Stories" (Ex: "Barabbas Released" refers back to the Parthians wanting to be Ruled by a son held by Rome. Thermusa, Roman Concubine sent to the Parthians, used much intrigue to get her son on the Parthian throne...).
Thanks for bringing this up. I haven’t thought about this verse in a while. Lately I’ve been collecting verses that are systematically perverted in modern translations, and (heads up) this issue really pisses me off so if you’re not in the mood for that…
Hey Irish when you've finished collating these how about posting them here?
I could really do with a proper literal translation but i don't know which one to pick, whose the best in your opinion?
Well on John 8, there's another angle. In 1 John the complaint is some Christian's are anti-Christs and follow Satan (not a big split then!) What if John preserves here some kind of response from these guys to such accusers? It's "right back at you". 'The Jews' is just a cypher to represent these 1 John type Christians and get away with it. I suspect John's gospel originated among the opponents mentioned in 1 John and later on got rewritten to become acceptable
