/ Topic > Re: Who is James Talking To? / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 18Dec01 /
.
> On 16Dec Justin say: Carl, I know you didn't address me, but I'd like to make a few comments
.
textman replies: Hi, Justin. I know you didn't address me, but I'd like to make a few comments. On behalf of Carl, geoff, and the gang, I'd like to welcome you to the thread. You're free to make as many comments as you like, of course ... But be forewarned: Getting in is one thing. Getting out unscathed is quite another!
.
> (James is my favorite NT book, after all :)
.
Excellent! That's just the sort of thing us Jamesian scholars *love* to hear. Now maybe we can start getting somewhere, instead of constantly running around in circles. . . . Right, geoff?
.
> I believe that James was the first NT book,
.
Oh oh! Don't tell geoff that. He says there IS *no* such animal!
.
> with Galatians coming maybe a decade or so after it. As an example (though certainly not the only example)
.
oh ho ... hehehe ...
.
> for the reasoning behind an early dating, the councils of Jersualem (Acts 15 and 21,
> the earlier one coming about 51-53AD) are not even alluded to.
.
The idea here is that if Jm was written after this so-called council it would have fallen under the influence of the major concerns that were raised at that historic event. In other words, the text would show the concerns of the Mother Church with things like purity, prayer, piety, diet, circumcision, collections for the poor, and so forth. Now I would like to point out to the reader that these concerns were long established in the Aramaic synagogue, and did not just suddenly pop up out of nowhere on the eve of the alleged council. No indeed. These concerns were there at least as long as James was the Numero-Uno Pillar, and probably even longer. In this case, the question we should be asking ourselves is this: If James (the Lord's brother) truly wrote the text of Jm, why is there no trace of any of the issues and concerns that characterized the Jerusalem church? I submit that it is inconceivable to picture a situation where *this* James could have written *this* document without putting anything of himself therein. Where is the First Pillar of Jerusalem in the text of Jm? Nowhere to be found! And do the scribes and pharisees care to offer *any* explanation for this rather glaring discrepancy in the evidence? Certainly not!
.
> This perhaps points to the epistle pre-dating large numbers of gentiles converting, and would explain
> the absence of at least mentioning how the Jewish audience should relate/deal with Gentile Christians.
.
Now this is an interesting argument, to be sure. The matter of the autograph's intended audience can indeed shed some light on when the letter was written. Justin supposes that the letter's lack of interest in the relationship between the Aramaic Mother Church and the Gentile churches can only be explained if it predates the emergence of the Gentiles as a significant factor in church politics. But remember that there can be, at this time, only one group of people that can function as the intended audience; namely, the Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jewish-believers. And not only is this group familiar with dealing with Gentiles, but they were well-nigh thrust into the midst of them after being driven out of the Holy City! This was the time when concern with how to relate to Gentiles would be at its peak. This is when the small and scared Greek churches were strangers in a strange land, rejected by both the pagans and the Jews that dwelt in these foreign countries.
.
But now let us say more about the letter's audience. Throughout the epistle Jacob constantly refers to his auditors/readers as "brothers of me" or sometimes as "my beloved brothers". On the face of it this seems a strange form of address for the Lord's brother to use, simply because, technically speaking, one of the brothers of Jacob was Joshua (ie. our Lord). So does this mean that every time Jacob says "brothers of me" he is referring to his brother Jesus? ... No, of course not. So how is the author using the word 'brother'? If not in the literal sense, then perhaps 'brothers' is meant in a more generic way to include all fellow Jewish-believers (regardless of what their primary language was). If the author was truly Gentile-blind, as Justin suggests, then this mainly 'Jewish' meaning of 'brothers' is doubtless the right one, since it is unlikely to be here a universally inclusive label (ie. one that makes no distinction between Jewish-believers and Gentile-believers). But when we check these ideas against the text, see what happens:
.
"Brothers, do not speak against one another; for the one speaking against a brother,
or judging his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law" (Jm 4:11).
.
Here it is plain to see that 'brothers' is meant in the fully Christian sense of including all believers (ie. no subset of believers has a special status under the law). Thus the letter exhibits no concern for the Jewish/Gentile question *because* it was written at a time *after* the great parting of the ways (ie. toward the end of the first century).
.
> I also personally see a ton of similarity between the epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,
.
This only confirms our contention that Jacob is well-acquainted with early Christian literature, including the Gospel of Matthew. So how do you, Justin, explain that The Lord's brother could have such intimate knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount BEFORE it was even written?
.
> both of which seem to have the same focus (I can send you a very short paper I wrote on it if you like,
> detailing the similarities in focus--and I mean short :) This is a more down-to-earth message, a message for
> the people and not containing a ton of theological-speak.
.
Right. Jacob is concerned to show people what it means to *live* the Faith. He is not interested in theology for its own sake, but rather uses theology in the service of daily living. In doing this, he reveals himself to be a true Christian prophet and a truly unique Christian theologian!
.
> It's more practical and less of a developed theology, as would happen as time passed on.
.
It's true that theology tends to progress and develop as time passes, and more and more faith-documents become available for reflection. So if Jacob was aware of the bulk of the NT documents, along with the LXX, as I maintain he was, then we should expect a theology from him that is anything but primitive. Justin and I cannot both be right. One or the other of us is wrong about the quality of Jacob's thinking . . .
.
So consider first the use of the word 'double-minded' (1:8). Now as far as we know, this word did not exist prior to its use in early Christian documents, and it may well be the case that our author is here the first to use this new psychological term. Is this the sort of thing we should expect from a primitive thinker?
.
Consider also the word 'law' as in the quote above. If Justin is right about Jm exhibiting a less developed theology, then the concept of 'Torah' could hardly be much different from the traditional Jewish understanding. But, in fact, Jacob's understanding of the Law is decidedly more advanced: "But they who have caught a glimpse of the Perfect Law (the one of Freedom), and stayed with Him ..." (Jm 1:25).
.
Consider also the term 'word' as it is used in the text (4X: 'So be doers of the Word ...' 1:22). Can the author's direct use of 'the Word' be understood in any intelligible fashion without reference to the Gospel of John? I say that unless the reader is well aware that Jacob was familiar with John's Gospel there is no possibility of correctly understanding the text of Jm! So does James exhibit a primitive and Jewish theology, as the scribes and pharisees maintain? No; far from it!
.
> I personally think it might be a good indication as to what kind of form the oral tradition had in between
> the death of Jesus and the writing of the first Christian documents, but that's really speculation.
.
We have already given our view that Jm is in fact an edited collection of homilies, so there is indeed an oral tradition behind the text. But this oral tradition certainly does NOT witness to the early traditions flowing through
Jerusalem in the 40s! How Justin can even imagine that this is the case is quite beyond me.
.
>> Carl previously wrote: I'm assuming James and Jude were both written by the half-brothers of
>> Lord Jesus, do you agree?
.
> Sounds about right - Justin
.
No, actually, it sounds about wrong!
.
- the almost completely contrary one - textman ;>
/ Topic > Is James the Best Translation of Iakobos? / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 19Dec2001 /
.
> On 16Dec Flipper wrote: <snip> I don't know what all the fuss about post-modernism is <snip>
> It seems to me to be a philosophy whose popularity has peaked; at best it provides some useful critical tools
> and intriguing insights. At its worst, it becomes completely incoherent and/or trivial to the point of irrelevance.
> At any rate, post-modernism provides some interesting new ways to look at our world around us...
.
textman replies: Amen, brother! I couldn't have said it better myself. Post-modernism is just a tool, not a threat to anyone's faith. And like any other tool, its value depends entirely upon its utility in helping us to achieve our goals. For bible-study this means that if post-modernism can help us to a better understanding of scripture, then it is a welcome addition to our hermeneutical toolbox. But if it ever ceases to be useful, then away with it!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 18Dec Carl Smuda wrote: <snip> I'd love to see your short paper comparing the "Sermon on the
> mount" with James's letter.
.
textman replies: Me too!
.
> Now I have to go back to work. Since good Mr.Textman only posts in filibuster,
.
Obviously textman takes his bible study *very* seriously indeed. Yes, it's 'balls to the walls' if you want to keep up with up *this* cyber-prophet! :D
.
> I'm gonna need some time to read them before I say anything. very respectfully, Carl
.
Darn good plan there Carl. I highly recommend you take all the time you need to carefully think these things over before coming to any final conclusions. Don't be tempted to opt for the time-honored understandings of established traditions simply because "most people" accept them as gospel truth. But if you do elect to follow the path of the Logos (ie. universal reason), know well that this is not an easy way. Many will say nasty things about you for holding contrary ideas and beliefs, and some may even call you a crackpot for it. But there *is* a bright side in walking the road less traveled:
.
"Consider it all joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith works endurance. And let endurance have its complete work; that you may be mature and complete, lacking for nothing" (Jm.1:2-4 / Prophet Version)
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 18Dec geoff wrote: <snipsome> iakob is jacob EVERYWHERE in the NT and is never james. iakobos is
> ALWAYS James, and NEVER jacob. They are 2 different names. You can not claim jacob is iakobos, because
> jacob is iakob. textman is wrong. There is no possible way that iakobos can mean 'jacob' - although it is a
> derivative. iakobos is always, without fail, translated as James. No one EVER is called iakobos and is named
> jacob. Jacob is always iakob in Greek. have we got it clear yet? Can we see the wood for the trees?
> textman has admitted he is not expert enough to prove the experts wrong.
.
textman answers: Saying that 'iakobos' and 'iakob/Jacob' are two different names is technically correct. It's like saying that 'Paul' and 'Paulos' are two different names. Today we rarely hear anyone refer to the Apostle as 'Paulos'; it is always invariably 'Paul'. But IN HIS DAY there was no 'Paul'. He and everyone who knew him knew his name as 'Paulos'. This is not the sort of thing that requires the intervention of experts ... Is it?
.
> So, we are right to accept he is wrong at this point,
.
It certainly *looks* that way . . .
.
> therefore the rest of his argument is also wrong.
.
Ah, not so fast there, geoff. Even if I'm wrong about translating 'iakobos' as 'Jacob' (and I'm not yet convinced that I am), this does NOT mean that the rest of my argument is also wrong. My hermeneutics are equally valid whether we translate 'iakobos' as 'Jacob' or 'James' or even as "I/O koh bos"!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 18Dec Jaltus wrote: Of course, iakob and iakobos have the same root, and the only reason that iakobos
> is translated James was to make the patron of the AV happy and because the translators did not want
> anyone to confuse iakob with iakobos.
.
textman say: Exactly. This is what I'm saying. The use of 'James' is purely a matter of convenience, rather than linguistic necessity (as geoff seems to imply).
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
[Latter the same day friend geoff wrote *another* article regarding this matter of translating 'iakobos'. It is a very long article, heavily laden with copious quotes from many and varied authorities. This posting looks like, and reads like, pure gibberish, so I will not burden the reader with detailed quotes from this post-o'quotes. Let the reader also understand that I gave this article all the thought and consideration it merits (ie. not very much really). Anyway, the whole point of presenting this cloud of witnesses and authorities is to emphasize the point made in the earlier article quoted above ...]
.
> On 18Dec geoff wrote: <snip LOTS> Thus, iakob is ALWAYS jacob, and iakobos is ALWAYS james.
.
textman ponders the significance of geoff's declaration for a moment, and then sayeth: So if I agree with you that there is a long tradition of translating 'iakobos' as 'James' then we are basically agreed on the essentials. The main difference in our views, I think, stems from the fact that whereas I consider 'Jacob' a legitimate translation of 'iakobos', you say that only 'James' will do. As to this point, let me quote ONE authority of my own:
.
-> JAMES (7) James, Saint ... Traditionally regarded as the brother of Jesus, the author of the Epistle of James in the New Testament, and the first bishop of Jerusalem. (9) James ... Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin Iacomus, variant of Iacobus, Iacobus. See Jacob ...
-> JACOB (1) Israel 1. Bible a. Jacob. b. The descendants of Jacob. 2. Judaism The Hebrew people, past, present, and future, regarded as the chosen people of God by virtue of the covenant ... (3) Jacob ... Isaac and grandson of Abraham. His 12 sons became the progenitors of the 12 tribes of Israel. Late Latin Iacobus, from Greek Iakob, from Hebrew ya aqob, (God) has ... [from: The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000]
.
Now if I'm reading this right, our English 'Jacob' comes from the Hebrew by way of the Greek 'Iakob' up through the Latin 'Iacobus'. But our English 'James' comes from the Old French by way of the Late Latin 'Iacomus'. In other words, 'James' originates from the Latin language, and NOT from the Greek, and therefore is NOT a *better* translation of 'iakobos' than 'Jacob', but merely the more *common* one!
.
Looks like maybe textman's translations are justified after all, eh? . . . How about that?!
.
- the almost surprised one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "(most versions) James, strictly, Jacob" ...
From J. Swanson, 'A Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)'
.
P.P.S. God bless you, Mister Swanson!!!
.
<><
/ Topic: On Getting Out While the Gettnz Good! / Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 20Dec01 /
.
> On 19Dec geoff wrote: <snip> James and Jacob do not equate to Paul and Paulos. Jacob and Jacobos do.
.
textman replies: I couldn't agree more!
.
> What you are really trying to convince us [of] is <snip some more>
.
Is something you haven't a clue what that is!
.
>> textman previously wrote: My hermeneutics are equally valid whether we translate 'iakobos' as
>> 'Jacob' or 'James' or even as "I/O koh bos"!
.
> If you can't translate iakobos as jacob then you can't have valid exgesis,
.
But we *can* validly translate 'iakobos' as 'Jacob'. Even your own sources say so! James Swanson, 1997:
"(most versions) James, strictly, Jacob;" -- 'most versions James' means simply that most translations into English render 'iakobos' as 'James'. Here 'most versions' means not *all* translations use 'James' (as geoff claims).
- 'strictly, Jacob' means that strictly speaking, 'Jacob' is a more linguistically accurate rendition of 'iakobos'.
.
> because you are starting with a wrong premise right from the first word, in the first sentence of the letter.
.
But even IF the translation of iakobos is wrong, this does NOT logically rule out a valid exegesis of the text as a whole, because this is, after all, just one word in a long series. And besides all that, one does not necessarily need to be a translator in order to do quality commentary and exegesis.
.
>> ... [from: The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000]
.
> geoff: So now an english dictionary is an authority on Greek names? And how you should translate them?
> hahahahahah
.
It is an authority on the *sources* of English words and names. That is all I used it for. So bite me already!
.
> Of course, you misread and misquote James swanson,
.
Oh of course, geoff, of course. I *misread* it, AND I *misquoted* it! ... You bet I did ... NOT!
.
> who isnt saying 'iakobos is jacob' but that it is 'from' iakob, <snip remainder>
.
I think you are wrong on that. I think Swanson is *clearly* implying, in no uncertain terms, that 'Jacob' is a more linguistically accurate translation of 'iakobos' than 'James' is. And he is saying this *only* because he is quite correct to do so! Obviously geoff, unlike Justin, hasn't got sense enough to know when to bow out gracefully. Clearly, geoff and I will never see eye to eye on this matter. Fortunately, the cyber-saints can decide the issue for themselves simply by checking their own understanding of Swanson. If you think geoff's interpretation of Swanson's information is right, then you might as well stick with him all the way ...
.
Then again, why would anyone want to do that?
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 19Dec Jaltus wrote: <snipsome> Saul was Paul's Jewish name, his Greek name was Paulos. Thus the
> switch from Saul to Paulos when he began spreading the gospel to Greek speaking lands in Acts.
.
textman replies: There is NO evidence *prior* to the Fall of Jerusalem to suggest that Paulos had another "Jewish name". Thus there was no so-called "switch" in actual church history. The only 'switch' is in Acts of Apostles, and scholars have long been banging their heads against the walls trying to come up with some coherent explanation for the author's use of 'Saul'. You know what? They can't find one! Ha! And the reason they can't come up with a sensible explanation is simple: There Ain't None Folks! And that's the unvarnished truth about that.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> textman previously (on 18Dec) wrote: Hey Justin, do you seriously expect the Lord to revise all his mysterious
>> methods and prophetic procedures *solely* to benefit your doubtless justified demands for convenience?
>> If so, thou asketh a lot from thy Lord and God! ...
.
> On 18Dec Justin replied: Sorry, didn't realise I was talking to a prophet of God,
.
textman sayeth: Tis nothing to apologize for, friend Justin. It's a rather common mistake in this enlightened and progressive and computerized generation to automatically assume that prophets are animals of a long-extinct species. In fact, however, this assumption is sheer nonsense; but it is one that is well-nigh universally encouraged by the pomo scribes and pharisees (and perhaps even by many of their friends as well). Of course, any bible-student can overcome this institutionalized ignorance, with a little effort, simply by reflecting LONG & HARD on the many *many* teachings of the New Testament regarding these 'slaves of Christ'. If the reader is not sure where to begin digging into all these juicy texts, this bible-byte may be as good as any to start with:
.
"It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God - a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ's full stature. The purpose of this is to no longer be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who with craftiness carry out their deceitful schemes" (Eph.4:11-14/NETbible).
.
Hmmm . . . crafty people with deceitful schemes, eh? Gee, I wonder *who* that could be? The post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees maybe?! THEY certainly are *not* animals of a long-extinct species; since one can hardly spit in any direction without nailing one ...
.
> surely I wouldn't even dare to discuss this issue with you, someone who already knows the answers
.
Well, Justin, and as I indicated earlier, you are more than welcome to join the thread and dare dare away. Moreover, since I have never claimed to know *ALL* the answers, I can only assume that your declaration to the contrary (which you, of course, do NOT believe) is merely some feeble excuse intended to justify your unwillingness to answer my questions to you regarding your views and beliefs concerning the epistle called James. That's okay, Justin. You are certainly not required to give a rational explanation for your interpretations . . .
.
OR for your efforts to influence the thinking of the cyber-saints regarding the text of James.
.
No indeed.
.
Not required at all.
.
Ummmm ...
.
Maybe friend Justin here is not quite as passionate about the Book of Jacob as he initially led us to believe, eh?
.
- the extremely 'not required' one - textman ;>
.
P.S. As Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus exclaimed loudly, "You have lost your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane!" But Paul replied, "I have not lost my mind, most excellent Festus, but am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and I am speaking freely to him because I cannot believe that any of these things has escaped his notice; for this was not done in a corner. Do you believe the prophets, King Agrippa? I know that you believe." Agrippa said to Paul, "In such a short time are you persuading me to become a Christian?" Paul replied, "I pray to God that whether in a short or a long time not only you but also all those who are listening to me today could become such as I am; except for these chains." - Acts 26:24-29 / NETbible
/ Topic > Just A Double Dose of Prophecy / Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 21Dec01 /
.
> On 20Dec geoff wrote: textman, Are you completely blind, or just ignorant?
.
Well, if you absolutely *MUST* know ... It's just a little of both, I fear.
.
>> textman previously pointed out to one and all: But we *can* validly translate 'iakobos' as 'Jacob'. Even your
>> own sources say so! James Swanson, 1997: "(most versions) James, strictly, Jacob;" - 'most versions James'
>> means simply that most translations into English render 'iakobos' as 'James'. Here 'most versions' means not
>> *all* translations use 'James' (as geoff claims). - 'strictly, Jacob' means that strictly speaking, 'Jacob' is a
>> more linguistically accurate rendition of 'iakobos'.
.
> Textman takes one sentence (or part of) and manipulates it, as if it proves he is right. WRONG.
.
No, actually what I am doing above is simply showing how I understand the "raw data" (ie. a mere five words). I am breaking it down into logical units according to the code adopted by Swanson. If we could get him online here he would do pretty much the same thing in order to clarify his intended meaning. ... Can somebody PLEASE give this guy a call or something?
.
> Show me a translation of Scripture (ie in a BIBLE ... a recognised one) that translates iakobos as jacob.
.
Well, geoff, I checked all the versions that I have in my little library here at home, and even a few online, and I couldn't find one that fits the bill. But there must BE such versions ... Else why would Swanson say "most versions" rather than "all versions" if the latter is technically correct, eh? An error on his part maybe? The odds are rather against it, I think.
.
> I have 13 here and NONE, NOT ONE translate it as jacob. Why?
.
Because translators are far more comfy-cozy translating the Word of God according to the traditions and fashions of the World, according to the politically correct theologies of the moment, according to the whims of a fickle and detached bible-buying readership, and according to whatever fancy catches their attention. What they do NOT do is translate the text according to the rigorous rules involved in maintaining the integrity of the Greek text. That would necessarily deny them the opportunity to insert their own ideas and biases into the unresisting text, and *that* they will not have!
.
> BECAUSE IT ISNT THE SAME NAME!
.
No, it's because they're a bunch o swinehounts who don't really care about making an accurate version when they should be making best-sellers!
.
> Swansons whole sentence indicates that the word iakobos comes from the root iakob, NOT that jacob
> is a better translation of the word.
.
I see. 'Jacobos' comes *from* 'Jacob', as 'Paul' comes from 'Paulos', and 'Jacobos' is a *derivative* of 'Jacob' (so as to be very closely placed in the linguistic family tree), but that doesn't mean that it's a good translation, oh no, of course not. Some foreign word that comes centuries later from a far off land is a *much* better choice. Oh yes. Why on earth would anyone think otherwise? Of course the *translators* MUST be right! ...
.
Excuse me while I woof my cookies ... ARRRGGGHHHHH!
.
>> tx: It is an authority on the *sources* of English words and names. That is all I used it for. So bite me already!
.
> geoff: You were talking about GREEK words and their translations, NOT english words and their sources.
.
I was talking about both. English to Greek. Greek to English. It's a darn long road either way you look at it. The main difference between us is that while I appreciate that fact, you obviously don't.
.
>> I think Swanson is *clearly* implying, in no uncertain terms, that 'Jacob' is a more linguistically
>> accurate translation of 'iakobos' than 'James' is
.
> If this is true, then howcome NO ONE ... except a crackpot like you actually translates it jacob?
.
We have already answered this question, see above.
.
> Swanson is an authority in this area ... surely SOMEONE SOMEWHERE would say ... hmmm, swanson
> is right and we are wrong, its supposed to be jacob... lets change it... Why dont they?
.
Once again from the top: It's because the translators and bible-makers are toadies of the scribes and pharisees, not to mention a bunch o swinehounts who don't really care about making an accurate version when they could be making best-sellers! That's why.
.
> BECAUSE IT ISNT RIGHT. Iakobos is ALWAYS translated James and NEVER EVER jacob.
.
Swanson disagrees with you, geoff, else he would not have said 'MOST versions'. I trust him to be correct on this matter. Why can't you?
.
> NEVER EVER.
.
Ignorance rules because ignorance compounded throughout all eternity is still just plain old ignorance!
.
> Are you stoned?
.
Not at the moment ... :)
.
> Or are you always this stupid?
.
Always. It's part of the cyber-prophet's irresistible charm.
.
Anyway, it's obvious that geoff has a LOT more faith in the imagined perfection of the translators than I do. As for myself, I rely on the honest labors of dedicated scholars who will state the facts even if it does hurt our pious or theological sensibilities. Yes, yes, there ARE some few good scribes and pharisees out there. We all know that, okay? But do you, dear reader, know exactly how many translations of the scriptures are out there right now? I would say hundreds, if not thousands. More than any other book, by far! No one could possibly check them all. But one thing that most textual-critics will agree upon is that there is not a single one that is *entirely* free of translation related errors. This means that even your most favorite and beloved version (whichever it happens to be) contains some of these errors. And there are many more of such things than most bible-readers suppose ...
.
Now I was somewhat puzzled at first as to why geoff is so persistently, and even methodically, hammering away at this somewhat inconsequential matter of my translating the author's name as 'Jacob' rather than 'James'. To me it's no big deal really. I find it useful to distinguish the author from THE James; and it's easier to use than 'Iakobos'. So why is geoff so bent on convincing the cyber-saints that my translations must be rejected? Could it be because after the first word comes the second word? This 'doulos' I translate as 'slave'. Now this translation is also hard to find in your average popular English versions, so why doesn't geoff point this out to us? It would surely strengthen his argument if he could demonstrate that my alleged bad translating extended beyond the first word.
.
So why doesn't he do that, eh? That's a darn good question there, dear reader! I think it's because in this case it's not so easy to cover up the common error. In fact, there are several "relatively" good translations that DO use 'slave'; including the NETbible. So geoff's rather weak argument that 'everybody does it this way' wouldn't work at all when applied to the second word. Therefore geoff would prefer that the cyber-saints not notice that I got that one right by focusing our attention exclusively on his "rock-solid" James. ... And then he *still* dare's to call me a lame crackpot? ... Sheesh!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> textman previously wrote: There is NO evidence *prior* to the Fall of Jerusalem to suggest that Paulos
>> had another "Jewish name". Thus there was no so-called "switch" in actual church history. The only 'switch'
>> is in Acts of Apostles, and scholars have long been banging their heads against the walls trying to come up
>> with some coherent explanation for the author's use of 'Saul'. And you know what? They can't find one! Ha!
>> And the reason they can't come up with a sensible explanation is simple: There Ain't None Folks! And that's
>> the unvarnished truth about that.
.
> On 20Dec Jaltus replies: I did not say that Paulos was a Jewish name, because it is not.
.
textman scratches his head in extreme confusion, then finally manages to agree: Yes, I know this, Jaltus. Wherever did you get the impression that I think otherwise?
.
> The point is, as a Roman citizen, Paulos would have 4 names. He would have his full name as a Roman citizen
> (in either Latin or Greek) and he would retain his Jewish name (this being Saul, which is Jewish only, not
> Greek in any way).
.
I only count two names up there, Jaltus. Where are the other two? In hiding perhaps? Are you *sure* you got your facts straight? Why on earth would a Greek-speaking and thoroughly hellenized person want to "retain" his supposed Jewish name? Is there something wrong with 'Paulos'? Wut? You can't use it in the synagogue maybe? Just what does that mean anyway "retain his Jewish name"? … Clarification here would be much appreciated.
.
> Scholars have long been banging their heads? Then you need to read some real scholars! Try FF Bruce,
.
I *have* read FF Bruce, and you know what? He is a *perfect* example of a scholar who routinely practices sloppy and slipshod scholarship. His commentaries on Paul in particular are so awful because his exegesis and hermeneutics are atrocious and appalling to the extreme! And if you think he is a top gun in the real world of biblical studies, then it is you, friend Jaltus, who needs to read some real scholars!
.
> leading NT historian for years.
.
No wonder the secondary literature, along with church history in general, is in such a sad and sorry condition.
.
> Check out his commentary on Acts
.
If anyone wants to know how to torture the cyber-prophet until he weeps and begs for mercy, this is the only way proven to get results!
.
> or else his New Testament History,
.
Oh my Lordy! Please STOP!!!
.
> considered the leading book of NT history for his generation.
.
Not by this cyber-prophet, bub. Just more proof of the universal stupidity and ignorance of the scribes and pharisees in general. That's all *that* book is.
.
> Otherwise, check out Ben Witherington III's book on NT history.
.
Who? Another silly scribe you say? Thx, but I'll pass.
.
> You really need to read some more before making statements like:
>> There Ain't None Folks!
.
How on earth do you know how much I have or have not read, eh? You think I'm ignorant of F.F.Bruce for pete's sake! ... I'd have to be the exegete from Mars not to know just how *tiny* F.F.Bruce is!
.
> All you do is show your lack of understanding and lack of reading.
.
Apparently, the only errors around here today are yours, Jaltus. However, if you wish to demonstrate my lack of understanding - you have yet to do so - you are certainly free to try.
.
And good luck to you with that, friend Jaltus.
.
F.F.Bruce indeed . . . Good Grief!
P.S. "All who are interested in the teaching and study of the New Testament today cannot fail to be concerned with the lack of commentaries which avoid the extremes of being unduly technical or unhelpfully brief." - R.V.G. Tasker in 'The First Epistle General of Peter' by Alan M. Stibbs
>> textman previously wrote: Well, geoff, I checked all the versions that I have in my little library here at
>> home, and even a few online, and I couldn't find one that fits the bill. But there must BE such versions ...
>> Else why would Swanson say "most versions" rather than "all versions" if the latter is technically correct,
>> eh? An error on his part maybe? The odds are rather against it, I think.
.
> On 22Dec geoff replied: Perhaps Swanson is wrong, or perhaps you are.
.
textman sayeth: Perhaps Swanson is wrong, or perhaps your understanding of him is.
.
> I suspect it isnt swanson.
.
Likewise.
.
> NOTE: textman has admitted he has no support for his view.
.
If you mean by "support" acceptance by recognized scholars, then this is so. However, if you mean by "support" a coherent interpretation of the textual evidence, then I do, in fact, have plenty of support.
.
> He can not find a translator that translates iakobos as Jacob.
.
I can find ONE! And that'll have to suffice for now.
.
>> tx: I see. 'Jacobos' comes *from* 'Jacob', as 'Paul' comes from 'Paulos', and 'Jacobos' is a *derivative*
>> of 'Jacob' (so as to be very closely placed in the linguistic family tree), but that doesn't mean that it's
>> a good translation, oh no, of course not. Some foreign word that comes centuries later from a far off
>> land is a *much* better choice. Oh yes. Why on earth would anyone think otherwise? Of course the
>> *translators* MUST be right! ... Excuse me while I woof my cookies ... ARRRGGGHHHHH!
.
> geoff: NO. iakobos comes from iakob. Thus James comes from Jacob like katherine comes from Karen.
.
So in other words, James and iakobos BOTH come from Jacob? That would make them blood-brothers, wouldn't it? ... I didn't know 'James' was Jewish! :D
.
> My defense of the name of the author has NOTHING what so ever to do with the next word.
.
oh ho!
.
> We havent got that far yet.
.
I'm beginning to think that maybe we never will ... :)
.
> And we arent going to get to the next word until it is clear that jacob and james are not the same
> Greek word, they are not, and they are not the same person.
.
Jacob and James are two different names. We agree on that much at least. You think that the author of the epistle is 'James the Pillar of Jerusalem'. I think it is someone else. It does not matter what we call him (although his name is Iakobos, NOT James), because that's a secondary issue. I've given my reasons for why the author is an Egyptian prophet, but no one has as yet really bothered to say much by way of explaining why we should suppose that the author is actually James (the Lord's brother). Pointing out that the scholars have always thought so is, to my mind, not much of an argument. So far, geoff, you have not convinced us of anything. If you want the cyber-saints to reject my hermeneutics as fundamentally unsound, you can best proceed to do so by showing us WHY we should consider James as the best candidate for author.
.
- one who explores the possibilities - textman ;>
/ Topic > On Not Abiding by the Rules / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 25Dec01 /
.
>> textman previously sayeth: Perhaps Swanson is wrong, or perhaps your understanding of him is.
.
> On 24Dec01 geoff wrote: If my understanding was wrong, there would be a translation of iakobos as James.
.
textman replies: Not necessarily. The power of tradition and politics in determining how translations get done is something that should never be underestimated by any believer or bible-student.
.
> There is not.
.
Yes there is; it's on my web-site. :)
.
>> If you mean by "support" acceptance by recognized scholars, then this is so. However, if you mean by
>> "support" a coherent interpretation of the textual evidence, then I do, in fact, have plenty of support.
.
> Actually, there is no scholarly support for your view, by anyone with any credentials worth noting. You don't
> have ANY support, because you dont have any coherence, let alone a coherent interpretation of anything.
.
I resemble that remark! :D
.
> *-unsupported claim number 1-* *-incoherent raving 1-*
.
Supported claim #1: textman's interpretations are far better than those of the scribes and pharisees *only* because his hermeneutics are vastly more rational and historical and respectful of the integrity of the texts!
.
>> I can find ONE! And that'll have to suffice for now.
.
> No you cant *-unsupported claim number 2-*
.
I was referring to myself, silly. *-supported claim #2-*
.
>> So in other words, James and iakobos BOTH come from Jacob? That would make them blood-brothers,
>> wouldn't it? ... I didn't know 'James' was Jewish!
.
> Actually, even the latin name Jacob and the name James have a similar root. However, they are as
> different in latin as iakob and iakobos are in Greek.
.
Which is to say: Not Much! :)
.
> NEITHER name is hebrew. *-incoherent raving 2-*
.
I never said they were. *-innocent cherubic smiling #1-*
.
> blah blah blah bleat bleat bleat
.
huh? *-innocent cherubic confusion #1-*
.
> so far we have had incoherent mumblings ... rather than a coherent interpretation,
.
Sayeth the cyber-prophet: Yeah, but mostly from geoff.
.
> we have barely comprehensible ravings.
.
Again, mostly from geoff.
.
> If the cyberlunatic wishes to be taken seriously,
.
Yes, yes? *-innocent cherubic expectation #1-*
.
> first, he will write in such a way as to be understood,
.
I *thought* I was doing THAT! *-innocent cherubic consternation #1-*
.
> he will stick to the laws of english grammer
.
Which I generally does! :D
.
> and he will abide by the current rules of scholarship in order to prove his point.
.
The current rules of scholarship are a joke. The current rules of scholarship define Jesus as "a wandering preacher" for pete's sake! What could possibly be more misleading than to call Jesus "a wandering preacher"? Jesus was NOT "a wandering preacher" in any way shape or form. Teaching and preaching were actions or activities rather more than a class of professionals. There certainly were no pomo fundy preachers two thousand years ago! But there were prophets; particularly John the Baptizer. John and Jesus both knew what it meant to be a prophet, and at one point in the Gospel Jesus even identifies himself as such:
.
Jesus went out from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in their synagogue. And many who heard were amazed, saying, "Where did he get these things? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these miracles that are done through his hands? Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his house." He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. Then he went around among the villages and taught. -- Mark 6:1-6/NETbible
.
Hmmm ... An interesting event all round, I'd say. So then why should we follow the scribes and pharisees in calling Jesus "a wandering preacher" when he was technically, culturally, and explicitly identified as "prophet"? Could it be because the scribes and pharisees have a colossal blind spot concerning anything remotely related to prophets? ... Could be!
.
> second, he will actually demonstrate his claims instead of just making unfounded assertions, which
> are simply dismissed by the educated because, they are quite frankly, a load of c-wrap.
.
So now you say you want me to demonstrate my claims, eh? Well, that's what I've been trying to do all along! When I ask for some specific topic or problem that requires explanation or clarification, I don't get one. When I ask you to demonstrate (or at least explain) your scriptural interpretations and understandings, you decline to do so because my hermeneutics are deemed abby-normal. So fine. What more can I do? Ask you to trust me maybe? ha ... I'm doing my part, true believers. As for the educated, I most urgently recommend that they spend some time with Matthew 23:13-34. Nuff said.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> textman sayeth: "completely ridiculous baloney", eh? Gee, that's exactly what I think about the unfounded
>> claims of the scribes and pharisees whenever they attempt to explain the why's and wherefore's of the
>> text of Jm. ... Anyway, it's nice to see that the universe remains consistent after all: geoff continues
>> to offer his unique brand of witty critical insights that are entirely lacking for even one miniscule shred
>> of analytical content!
.
> On 25Dec geoff replied: The 'unfounded' claims of the scholars are NOT so unfounded as yours.
.
Oh but they are, geoff. That's my entire point. They only *seem* well-founded because they're very old and well-worn and familiar. But if you stand back and examine them critically and objectively, and start asking unfortunate questions ... Look out!
.
> So far you have made claims,
.
Many many claims, no doubt!
.
> expected us to accept them as truth,
.
No, they are offered as a basis for critical comparison and investigation. That's a significant distortion there
on geoff's part, folks. Please take note for next time you get the urge to do some prophet-bashing!
.
> and have never proved a thing at all.
.
Proof is irrelevant. The evidence for my claims is all right there in the sacred text. Where is the "evidence" that James the Just wrote Jm, eh? Where? Will somebody PLEASE show me one tiny shred of evidence to support this so-called "well-known fact"?! Cause I haven't been able to find one anywhere.
.
... In any case, what I am trying to do is get believers to consider the quality of the exegesis that they have been exposed to all their Christian lives. I am trying to get them to think for themselves, and to ask questions about these supposedly infallible and inerrant interpretations. I am offering alternative answers for the questions not answered (or very poorly answered) by the scribes and pharisees. I am demanding that bible-readers NOT abide by the scholarly rules. I am asking a lot of the bible-student because a lot is required!
.
> I dont have to offer analytical content,
.
Of course not. Of course it rather does weigh the cards in favor of the dealer, if you take my meaning.
.
> because you havent offered anything, let alone something worth considering
.
Okay geoff, you win. You're right. You're always right. I bow to your greater wisdom in these vital matters, and humbly accept thy generous judgment of my unworthiness. Truly I art a worm! A wiggly worm not fit to set eyes upon the inerrant and infallible scriptures. I shall repent at once, and exile myself in the desert for three long years to reflect deeply upon all these things . . .
P.S. ... On second thought, maybe not.
textman
*