Posted on 08/18/2015 7:24:51 AM PDT by Salvation
...often and to strive to master ancient Greek. I am no Greek scholar, but as the years tick by I am becoming more and more familiar with the language in which God chose to inscribe His Holy Word of the New Testament.
Something of the hidden richness of the Greek text struck me recently as I was teaching my parishioners in Bible study. (We are preparing for the arrival of the Pope in Washington by studying the Office of Simon Peter, as laid out in Scripture.)
Why do I speak of the richness of the Greek text as “hidden”? Surely a good translation shows forth the meaning of the text, right? Well, no; not fully. There are too many subtleties and complex constructions that English just cannot accurately convey. Much is lost in the translation; much is hidden.
Consider, then, a well-known section in Matthew 16. The Lord has just declared Simon to be “Peter” (rock) and then goes on to give him the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Lord says to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mat 16:19). The only problem is that this is not exactly what the Lord says. The Greek is much richer and more emphatic. It not only affirms Peter’s authority, but also describes how and why that authority is commendable and infallible.
Here is the Greek text, followed by an English translation that is as literal as possible:
δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever, if you might bind on the earth, it will have been bound in the heavens; and whatever you might loose on the earth, it will have been loosed in the heavens.
Note that the verbs related to heaven’s binding and loosing are dedemenon and lelumenon. They are perfect (passive) participles in the middle voice. As such, they indicate something that has already been done in Heaven before Peter does it on Earth.
Hence a literal, though awkward, English rendering would be “Whatever you might bind on the earth, having (already) been bound in heaven, and whatever you might loose on the earth, having (already) been loosed in heaven.”
But this is just not the way we talk in English. And thus most English renderings go something like this: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” And, while smoother, it loses the inspirational emphasis that the Greek text conveys.
The Greek text makes clear that if Peter binds or looses something on Earth, it is because Heaven has inspired this act; in no way is Heaven engaged in a “rearguard action.” Rather, Peter is inspired to carry out what has already been done in Heaven. Heaven is not forced to comply with Peter’s decision. Rather, Heaven binds or looses, and then inspires Peter and his successors to do likewise. The Greek conveys this important subtlety; the English does not.
This subtle but important description of inspiration also fits well within the context of Matthew 16. Recall that Jesus had said to Peter, who correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven (Matt 16:17).
Thus, Heaven “has Peter’s back,” inspiring what Peter utters. Heaven is not bound by Peter, it inspires him. Our Faith is not in Peter as a man; it is not in any of Peter’s successors as men. Rather, our faith is in God, who protects Peter and his successors from error and inspires what is formally taught and proposed for belief.
Is the English text wrong? No. It is just limited in conveying the subtleties. The Greek text is better at affirming the Catholic belief in the infallibility of the formal papal teaching on Faith and morals. It affirms more clearly that our faith is in God, who inspires. And while we pray that whoever is pope is a smart guy, this is not the source of our confidence. The source of our confidence is God’s capacity to inspire even sinful men who are not brilliant theologians. Our faith is in God, not in men as such. The Greek text invites us to believe that whatever is bound by the pope has already been bound in Heaven.
As another example, consider how Peter was prepared to teach properly at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) by the vision God gave to him in Acts 10. In this vision, Peter was instructed to baptize the first Gentiles and receive them as brethren. Thus, when the time for the Council came, Peter was ready to speak and teach the truth. He loosed on Earth what had already been loosed in Heaven. And while it is true that St. Paul later had to rebuke Peter (Gal 2) for not living the teaching fully (for Peter drew back to consort only with Jewish Christians out of fear and social pressure), it remains true that Peter taught it rightly by inspiration. And this is what is promised: that whatever Peter would formally bind or loose on Earth had already been bound or loosed in Heaven.
And thus the Greek, in all its subtlety, sets forth an important reminder that the mechanism of infallible teaching from the Pope is not in the man, but in God, who inspires and leads Peter and his successors.
The primary issue comes down to how κεχαριτωμένη is understood.
The NASB translates it as favored one. (As a side note so does Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Also, the NASB is the closest literal translation we have available outside of an interlinear.
The interliner translates it as [you]favored with grace.
The majority of the translations render it this way. Douay-Rheims renders it full of grace as does the Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
The Expositor's Greek Testament notes the vulgate translation is incorrect and translates it as much graced or favored by God.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges translates it as having been graced by God.
Pulpit Commentary also noted it should be rendered as "having been much graced by God".
Vincents Word Studies also notes it should be translated as thou that art highly favored.
These commentaries note the Vulgate translation is incorrect. As we both know DR is based on the Vulgate.
Another thing to keep in mind, the KJV translation is not based on the oldest Greek manuscripts available. It's a good translation, but isn't based on the best texts available.
The issue comes down to is this a title or a greeting.
The κεχαριτωμένη is a perfect participle, middle/passive voice, vocative female singular. Being middle/passive indicates the subject is being acted upon.
I think we all agree Mary is being graced by God in that she has been chosen to be the mother of Christ. The vocative indicates this is the voice of direct address so there is no mistake who Gabriel is talking to. We do not know who else is home....but he's talking to her.
Is she being set apart from other women? Most assuredly.
However, none of this indicates a title or a sinless nature being conveyed upon Mary.
Again, the catholic encyclopedia online article of the immaculate conception concurs there is no direct biblical support for this position.
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.Grace (karitow) appears twice in this verse. A reasonable translation, sticking rigidly to "grace" as a consistent match to karitws, might look something like this:
(Ephesians 1:6)
To [the] praise of the glory of the grace of him, in which [grace] he bestowed grace on us in the beloved [one].Note that the grace has it's source in God (genitive, "of him"), and has it's object in us, i.e., all believers. Therefore, to reduce this use of grace to a title given to one or two persons of exceptional stature, above that of any ordinary believer, would be a complete reversal of the Greek usage.
2) I would hope that in your studies you have heard of "Archetypes", Foreshadowing in the OT directly pointing to items in the NT. Adam, Noah, Moses, David, etc... were human Archetypes of Christ. The Ten Commandments, Manna, and Aaron's staff were all inanimate Archetypes.
A careful open minded study of the OT will also see Human Archetypes of Mary, these include; Ruth, Ester, Judith, and Bathsheba. They will also see two inanimate archetypes. The first is Noah's Ark, and the second is the Ark of the Covenant.
The thing with Archetypes is that they are all lessor foreshadows of their fulfillment. The description of the materials and construction of the man made Ark of the Covenant is a pale imitation of the perfection achieved by God in Mary, and this is confirmed in Revelation chapters 11/12.
Sorry, no, little more than a friendly greeting. The substance of Mary’s honor is not found in that word in and of itself. I’m not blaming you, but your lexical aid seems rather wobbly. See here for some fun info:
http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/greek_anc.php
So it’s like saying “cheers!” It addresses her need, in the presence of an angel of God, to understand this is going to be a happy encounter.
And I do not dispute that Mary was greatly honored. She was. But the basis must be found in the substance of the announcement itself, not in ordinary greetings.
Peace,
SR
It is still a greeting. Most of the major translations go with Greetings. Less than half translate as Hail. In either case, it's a greeting.
We never have a hint of anyone in the OT or NT referring to Mary being an archetype or the other way around.
Post a link to your source for the person of high honor. I'd like to read it.
I posted the links already. Zodihates defines it that way.
Compared to WHAT?
Who is the Super-Expert that COMPARES them?
I've discovered something in the original languages that teams of translators have missed over the centuries!
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
Foul; if your car is getting dented!
Here’s a copy... http://www.sarshalom.us/resources/scripture/asv/bible.html
So learn Hebrew
Luke 23:38 And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:20 Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
Acts 21:40 So when he had given him permission, Paul stood on the stairs and motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying...
Acts 22:2 And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said:
Acts 26:14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
and a favorite source...
Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/
F.A.Q.
In what languages were the scrolls written ?
The majority of the scrolls were written in the Hebrew Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block script. From this majority there are a few cases in which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example 4QPaleoExodus). In addition to the texts found in Hebrew there were also some texts written in Aramaic and Greek.
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/resources/FAQ.shtml#language
90 to 95% Hebrew, I imagine the Greek documents were letters from home.
The Qumran community is where Yochanan the Immerser (John the Baptist) lived, he would have been under Herod’s death sentence as well as Yeshua.
And there is no such thing as a Greek Torah Scroll.
Paradise
Luke 23:43 Gan Eden (Garden of Eden) בְּגַן־עֵדֶן
2 Corinthians 12:4 the word is PaRDeS which means orchard
פַּרְדֵּס
And in Revelation 2: 7 it’s simply Gan G-D
גַּן־אֱלׂהִים
The Greek has just one word Strong’s #3857
The Hebrew is richer than the Greek, which tells me the Brit Chadashah was written in Hebrew, dumb-ed down into Greek and further dumb-ed down into English. BTW, the KJV is a train wreck.
More on PaRDeS
THE RULES OF PARDES INTERPRETATION
The four level of interpretation are called: Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sud. The first letter of each word P-R-D-S is taken, and vowels are added for pronunciation, giving the word PARDES (meaning "garden" or "orchard"). Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.
http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/pardes.htm
Sorry, but there is no extant Hebrew text for the NT, so whatever that is at your website has to be a later invention. All the pretenders to such a text that I know of are very late and the arguments for an original Hebrew text are 100% speculation.
Furthermore, given the juxtaposition of First Century Israel with the Greek-speaking world, the odds are outstanding that the original texts, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles, were written in Greek, directly inspired by the Holy Spirit in Greek.
As for which language is richer, I am a student of both, and find they are each rich in their own way. Hebrew has a greater tendency to concrete imagery. Greek facilitates a higher degree of abstract thought, and has unique features that tend to preserve the precision, among many other fine virtues. If the Holy Spirit chose one or the other or both on various occasions, that is His prerogative.
As for a Hebrew proto-text, we have challenged the Hebrew Roots crowd here repeatedly to come up with even one verifiable Hebrew proto-text, and all we ever get is crickets.
BTW, a number of links at your website don’t work. Is it under construction? I’m curious to know what sort of fellowship it is because there are plenty of Messianic fellowships that have no problem with the Greek NT. And it has been that way for a very long time. I was a Jewish Studies major at Moody Bible Institute some 40 years ago. That’s where I had my first contact with Hebrew. But this Hebrew Roots nonsense hadn’t cropped up back then, and people were still doing just fine finding Jesus in the pages of Scripture.
Peace,
SR
I agree that there is no evidence of the entire NT having been originally written in Hebrew/ Aramaic there is some evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was.
Irenaeus of Lyons wrote: Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).
Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).
There are those that argue that the Greek came first, other argue that the Hebrew came first and yet another group that claim that it was written in both at the same time.
I don't have a horse in this race but I think it is a fascinating idea/ discussion point.
All the writings of the inspired New Testament were written in the common, precise Koine Greek of the day. No records of the life and acts of Jesus and His Apostles countd as inspired of the Holy Spirit were written in any other language but common Greek save a proper nouns, names of places or people (Aceldama, Golgotha, Iesous, Simeon) transliterated from Hebrew or Aramaic.
A Hebrew writing cannot capture the eords and meaning of agape and hilasterion and katellagoh.
Luke 23:43
In Paradise (παραδείσῳ)
Originally an enclosed park, or pleasure-ground. Xenophon uses it of the parks of the Persian kings and nobles. “There (at Celaenae) Cyrus had a palace and a great park (παράδεισος), full of wild animals, which he hunted on horseback....Through the midst of the park flows the river Maeander (“Anabasis,” i., 2, 7). And again' “The Greeks encamped near a great and beautiful park, thickly grown with all kinds of trees” (ii., 4, 14.) In the Septuagint, Genesis 2:8, of the garden of Eden. In the Jewish theology, the department of Hades where the blessed souls await the resurrection; and therefore equivalent to Abraham's bosom (Lk. 16:22, Lk. 16:23). It occurs three times in the New Testament: here; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7; and always of the abode of the blessed."
From Albert Barnes:
Paradise - This is a word of “Persian” origin, and means “a garden,” particularly a garden of pleasure, filled with trees, and shrubs, and fountains, and flowers. In hot climates such gardens were especially pleasant, and hence, they were attached to the mansions of the rich and to the palaces of princes. The word came thus to denote any place of happiness, and was used particularly to denote the abodes of the blessed in another world. The Romans spoke of their Elysium, and the Greeks of the gardens of Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit. The garden of Eden means, also, the garden of “pleasure,” and in Gen_2:8 the Septuagint renders the word “Eden by Paradise.” Hence, this name in the Scriptures comes to denote the abodes of the blessed in the other world. See the notes at 2 Cor. 12:4. The Jews supposed that the souls of the righteous would be received into such a place, and those of the wicked cast down to Gehenna until the time of the judgment. They had many fables about this state which it is unnecessary to repeat. The plain meaning of the passage is, “Today thou shalt be made happy, or be received to a state of blessedness with me after death.” It is to be remarked that Christ says nothing about the “place where” it should be, nor of the condition of those there, excepting that it is a place of blessedness, and that its happiness is to commence immediately after death (see also Phil. 1:23); but from the narrative we may learn:
1. That the soul will exist separately from the body; for, while the thief and the Saviour would be in Paradise, their “bodies” would be on the cross or in the grave.
2. That immediately after death - the same day - the souls of the righteous will be made happy. They will feel that they are secure; they will be received among the just; and they will have the assurance of a glorious immortality.
3. That state will differ from the condition of the wicked. The promise was made to but one on the cross, and there is no evidence whatever that the other entered there. See also the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Lk. 16:19-31.
4. It is the chief glory of this state and of heaven to be permitted to see Jesus Christ and to be with him: “Thou shalt be with me.” “I desire to depart and to be with Christ,” Phil. 1:23. See also Rev. 21:23; Rev. 5:9-14.
Adam Clarke also has a nice little summary on this word.
Although "paradis" is attributed to the Persian tongue (probably arising out of Sanskrit), we should never forget that Adam and Th Elohim conversed in Hebrewaccording to the theologian Thomas Strouse, with which the Septuagint lends credence
"In this light the Septuagint have viewed Gen. 2:8. as they render the passage thus: εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος παραδεισον εν Εδεμ, God planted a paradise in Eden."
We might well equate "paradise" with "garden."
Please show at least two sources where this statement has proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.
My understanding is that the principles of the community were more Pharisaical than the Pharisees, whom John Baptist called figuratively a generation of vipers. How could he live with such hypocrites?
Unfortunately, having Latin 1 in high school, I don’t think I’ll try ancient Greek. At least I did once master modern German.
Unfortunately, having Latin 1 in high school, I don’t think I’ll try ancient Hewbrew. At least I did once master modern German.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.