I would like to apologize and have not known how to navigate the mess I think I've made here. I feel totally over my head and would like some help/guidance to express appreciation to Dan and to fix the question I posted to honor him while yet find what I'm looking for.
@SarahNoll Well, another user suggested an edit on one of @DanO'Day's answers that basically gutted the answer. I'm not sure why that happened, however.
@SarahNoll Nah. But there's a little arrow on the right side that you can click when hovering over a previous chat item. If you click that, it facilitates threading.
@ Jon Ericson I have been doing research for the past two years on "the first day of the week" for the reasons I shared in the post by brilliant. I have endeavored to share it with people of greater knowledge than I have. I discovered I was not alone in my conclusions as Bullinger comments on it in his bible commentary. I then found Brilliant's question. I read one of the comments that said they wished someone who understood that position would share. So I did.
Hoever, feed back I received generated more info and more questions.
Encouraging again! My questions pertain to words that have traditionally been translated a certain way but no one could tell me why
Likewise, as I shared in the post I deleated at your reflection on it not really answering the question, I began to lose faith in the translations and even in the Greek text as there were so many variations
Anyways, I do not deny that I lean toward Peshitta Primacy as it restored my faith even in the Greek texts. However, if there is evidence to the contrary I welcome it. That is shy I was endeavoring to help Dan on his question looking for strong arguments against Aramaic Primacy.
I think so too now if I look at them as translations from a common source from words that can mean either way it occurs in the Greek! I too am Christian fully convinced of the NT truth. Anyways, I operate not with a bent on being the one who is right, but on finding what it right. The chances of finding truth are lessened if we are merely dogmatic. If we set out solely to prove our point than we often are not honest with ourselves when our own logic breaks down.
I suspect Dan was endeavoring to protect the forum from heresy he thought that I was purporting. However it distracts from the focus of the question and answers.
The only time I edited Dan's messages to any proportion that might warrant your thinking I was vandalizing them was to remove all the info he posted on Nestorians and seventh day Adventists. I did so because I am not associated with them nor are my questions nor my answers.
It would be helpful for me if you shared with me what made you think that of my edits.
I'm not offended at all by correction. It is much less painful than gossip!
@SarahNoll Well, I rejected them because they would have damaged @DanO'Day's answers. I don't think he was accusing you of those beliefs. Are you thinking of this edit?
This edit didn't really hurt the answer much, but I didn't see any reason to remove the paragraph that clarified that he wasn't taking a position on the primacy argument for the sake of that answer.
Nor would I want to lessen the value of anything he posts. If you look at the things I deleated, with the exception of that one paragraph you spoke of I think you will see that it is his same answer only focused without the tangent. As for your decisions on all of that I trust your judgement! I only seek to learn how to improve.
I should not have said contend, but rather take exception to.
@SarahNoll I won't speak for @DanO'Day, but I think popping in here to ask is a good start!
My judgments are not always to be trusted. The site works by a complex system of peer review. So we all need to learn to be flexible and try to understand where other people are coming from.
I'm convinced the site is the best place on the internet to ask about the Bible. And it works because we have a number of real experts who keep each other honest. ;)
I kept wishing I could talk to someone and there is no way to pm. I kept trying to find the chat room but all I saw was the Libraray. Today I just thought to find out what the library is. And that is how I found the discussion for which I am greateful
I was delighted to find the site! It is like a dream come true if I don't find I have made it into a nightmare and don't know how to fix it!
my internet connection is weak, just so you know if suddenly we get cut off.
I have learned a lot. I had made an edit one day that I realized afterward would have completely distorted the question and moreover realized was incorrect as well, I sought for how to undo the edit or contact someone about it; but, again, I was at a loss. I figured you all would catch it though undoubtedly think less of me.
I could not believe he went to all that for me!!! Moreover his answer was well presented. That is why I chose it. I just got confused when I receive the message I posted later.
I truly did not handle it well. Even in changing the answer because I thought the other brought new information that answered exactly what the difference was between the two words I still though Dan was worthy of the honor.
In general, my advice is "pick the one that you want as soon as you want."
If you feel like a question has been fully answered by a given answer, choose that as accepted. If you feel like the topic has a lot more to depth to it and you want to wait until more answers come in, feel free to not a...
@SarahNoll I don't know about his honor, but the points are awarded to whoever has the accepted answer. When you move it, points are moved with it. But I wouldn't worry about that too much.
I added the bounty because I want @DanO'Day to get more reputation points. It really had nothing to do with the accepted answer.
In fact, I'm not sure if the concept of accepted answers works well here:
On Stack Overflow, the "accepted" answer shows that the loop has been closed and the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the asker. That's true here too. But there's a big difference between accepting an answer on a practical and specific question as opposed to a general and broad...
I have much to learn about all those kinds of things.
Thank you for taking the time to talk me through all this. As for the site, I am ever so thankful for the feedback I have received. I'm soaking in all the information and processing it and reprocessing it. It has been most helpful! Please forgive me for my many offenses. I hope to be able to contribute as positively to the community as they have to me. Shalom. --
@SarahNoll hi! Thanks for joining us in chat! (Looks like I missed the party.) Stack Exchange has a bit of a learning curve, so it's not unusual to have some bumps along the way. Thanks for sticking with it!
@JackDouglas I still have a whole to-do list in RTM full of questions I thought of but still haven't gotten around to asking. Even asking questions here takes real effort.
@Caleb I just attempted to edit the following answer to insert the page number and I think it somehow erased the link itself to the document: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15/…
@SarahNoll Yes, it looks like you inadvertently broke the markdown link formatting. The [1] needed to stay connected to the text of the link as that is the reference to the link in the footnotes. I fixed it for you.
@JonEricson yes, sorry I misunderstood you and thought you were saying the saints were singing (whose prayers were rising as incense)
@SarahNoll @JonEricson apology accepted. I'm not concerned with 'honor.' I'm concerned if I feel as though I'm wasting my time, I'm glad to see that was not your intention. When I wrote this, I wasn't really too aware of the Aramaic primacy argument.
@SarahNoll I became aware of it because I looked into it after your edit and after seeing your other question.
@SarahNoll @JonEricson it also seems as though you cite individuals associated with the Millerites, a group from which the Seventh Day Adventists have descended. For instance, your recent chart on days of the week is a product of the The Hebraic Roots Network of South Africa, AKA Sacred Name movement. Thus there is a clear bias in their interpretation of these texts
@SarahNoll you had edited any mention to Greek texts out of this question
(which I had written prior to being aware of the Aramaic primacy argument, which I later posted questions about - for and against)
@SarahNoll and then when you then began accepting answers on your questions that only had support from Nestorian and Millerite / Seventh Day Adventist scholars (I know you said this was not your background), I concluded that you for whatever reason you were only seeking answers with this bias and decided it would be a waste of time to answer any more of your questions
@SarahNoll I was encouraged after reading the chat transcript above, and I believe you that this was not your intention to place doctrine over textual and linguistic evidence as your determining factor in accepting answers, and so I look forward to interacting with you further on this site
@SarahNoll @JonEricson so again, I look forward to interacting with you further. I think you're a great asset to the community. I'm glad to see that you were not intentionally trying to use doctrine as your criteria of acceptance, rather than reason (which is in some ways the higher authority on BH.SE - Christianity.SE is the place for doctrinal questions).
@SarahNoll @JonEricson plus for a little while there it seemed like I was being ganged up on by you (Sarah) and @theosis - I'm thinking this may have just been coincidental - so I got a little flustered
@SarahNoll especially because I felt I was trying to help (because I do not agree with Aramaic primacy yet to have a diversity of opinions I answered/questioned from this perspective), but felt like it backfired on me as my answers began getting used as sources when they were poorly reasoned and had dubious sources to begin with.
@SarahNoll I tend to enjoy playing devil's advocate - but don't confuse this as my actual position. I think there is little stock in the Aramaic primacy argument, except perhaps the Q document and some selected works of the NT.
@SarahNoll anyhoo, enough of my rambling. I'm glad to have you on board.
@DanO'Day Thank you Dan. I feel better having heard from you. I do hope I have not wasted you time. I know I regardless of what answers I pick that everything I hear I am processing. I appreciate the advocacy on the other side as sometimes it demonstrates where my perspective breaks down and is in error. It usually causes me to dig deeper into the issue and look at it from more angles. Sometimes it strengthens my stance.
Any way it goes we grow from it. I think you are that way too. While your honor would not be what drives you I still would want to guard it because I thought your were truly worthy of it. I knew when you posted this hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/4128/423 you were not aware of the Peshitta primacy theory.
@DanO'Day I do not know who the millerites are. I had no idea of any connection between SDA and the Peshitta.
@DanO'Day Did not heresies emerge amongst those using the Greek text. Is it because of the text that heresy emerges, or is it because of what we do with it? Can you clarify what you mean about a "clear bias in their interpretation of these texts?" This chart was not pertaining to any particular text but to the days of the week. IT is either true that that is how the days of the week are rendered. Or it is not. That is what my question seeks to find--truth.
@DanO'Day I do not know of the network you cited either. I have heard of the sacred name movement, but I do not know what it is. I do hold any name of God as sacred and revere His covenant name.
@DanO'Day This was a fantastic answer. I chose it because I thought it answered the question. It also had a lot of other things that were distracting. The question is about Aramaic not Greek. But, you judge; look at the question, then look at the answer, edited and not, side by side and see which is clearer and more focused.
@DanO'Day I was seeking answers that pertain to that text, not to any theological doctrine. I think your answer is critical in demonstrating the diversity of thought directly in answer to the question which invokes further study. Without your answer how would I have known that. All told I chose your answer, because you worked for it and posted the other for info.
@DanO'Day I prefer answers with facts not opinion.
@JonEricson oh definitely, but I would prefer that baggage. I've seen some weird stuff on H http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/2876/2052 , and I don't want answers that are that creative
What follows is a reading of the Sodom narrative based on the commentary of Nachmanides which is drastically different from the way this story is commonly understood. No other reading of this story makes sense to me.
Progression of events:
The people of Sodom gather outside Lot's house and they...
.
@SarahNoll Just so you know, I think this answer about what Christianity.SE is about applies to BH.SE as well:
I've come to understand what is and isn't acceptable in a way that can be expressed in two images.
In one, I picture a seeker, maybe coming to their Pastor or Priest, or maybe climbing a mountain to ask a guru the secret of life, or hoping the heavens will open up and divinely reveal absolute tr...
@DanO'Day @DanO'Day I too agree that much of the scholarship offered in response to this question is superb. I suspect the only reason she chose my answer was because it answered directly to the question, the quote she posted and the theory behind it, which I was able to do only because I had searched the matter out for myself and share the perspective.
@DanO'Day Thank you. That is why I like this site. It is not about doctrine but hermeneutics! It is a place to ask for insight, and search for fact, not opinion. Yay BH.SE!
@SarahNoll This is a bit of an odd case. There are three answers with more votes than the accepted answer. But since the asker of the question may pick any of the answers to be "accepted", it's their privilege to pick whichever one they like best. We don't always know why people pick the answers they do.
@DanO'Day So sorry you felt this way. I don't know @theosis; but I suspect that the edit I saw was a statement mocking my attempted edits or the whole Peshitta primacy theory and any herecy clinging to it. Perhaps he will jump in here and clarify. I agree with @Jon Ericson, I think he is a Greek Primacist and may even have been demonstrating support of you.
@JonEricson Yes. I suspect I may not have clearly said what I meant here. I meant that because my answer was not only about "the first day of the week" but I was also able, due to my recent exploration of that very theory and was able to explain the theory behind the quote it may have answered to HER directly while other answers may be more scholastic and perhaps more helpful on the subject.
@DanO'Day Please if you are willing do not hesitate to share those diverse perspectives. I think it brings balance and makes whatever conclusions are drawn I the end more secure and well thought out! I am so thankful for the help. I think it is so graceful for a community to interact like this. Who of us deserves the others help. Yet you all were there when I needed you--So grateful!!
@DanO'Day Dan, you said, "I . . . felt like it backfired on me as my answers began getting used as sources when they were poorly reasoned and had dubious sources to begin with." What do you mean by that?
@DanO'Day LOL! I know perfectly well what your position is! As I said before, I value the opposite advocacy as I think it can make us stronger if we let it. Moreover, I think it is right for you to be able to state your persuasion when doing so to make that clear. It was wrong for me to attempt to edit THAT out here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1588http:/…
@DanO'Day Thank you Dan. Thank you for taking the time to walk through all that with me. I appreciate the grace and I am glad to be on board. Shalom.
@DanO'Day LOL, I'm not confused one bit on your position! And, as I said, I appreciate the opposite advocacy. It strengthens us if we let it! Moreover, you were right in stating your true persuasion to make that clear; I was wrong to attempt to edit THAT out!
@JonEricson Is it ok to leave the post you commented on here hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4146/… as backdrop to the bounty or should I move it to the related question Dan posted and put up a link to it somewhere/somehow on this question? Is what I did even Ok?
@SarahNoll It would be best to edit the first answer you gave to more directly answer the question. The link to "Problems With Peshitta Primacy" is really the core of the answer to the question itself. If you summarize that page (and left out the arguments that you find convincing for Peshitta primacy) you would have a better answer.
The second answer doesn't really help much. I think it ought to be deleted.
It's generous of you to add a bounty! It's not really necessary; I give out bounties because I'd like to help others get the reputation points.
@JonEricson Not generous! I did it because I think it is important. Kind of you to think so though, and kind of you to do as you do for folks. I'll get onto those changes. Thanks.
@SarahNoll I don't think I can reply to everything, hard to follow the conversation thread ;)
@SarahNoll concerning this question, what I mean is that I my answers on Aramaic primacy have very biased sources (mostly Nestorian quasi-scholars who have a vested interest in asserting Syriac Peshitta primacy), and the arguments are fairly illogical and unconvincing. I added them, though, just so others would be aware of the arguments
@SarahNoll I do think some parts of the NT were originally in Aramaic, but I really don't see how anyone could assert that the entire thing was - there is really no support for it.
@SarahNoll from everything I've read, the Peshitta actually supports the Byzantine Greek manuscripts' primacy more than anything else (in contrast to most modern critical texts which repudiate the Byzantine texts)\
@SarahNoll it tends to follow the Byzantine manuscripts most closely, but in some places it seems to follow the Latin Vulgate or none of the major texts at all.
@SarahNoll but the biggest issue for me is the linguistic argument: Syriac Aramaic is a completely different dialect than the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus spoke. Also, why do the NT authors usually quote from the LXX (Greek Septuagint) rather than from the Hebrew or even from an Aramaic OT? For the record, I don't think Greek nor Aramaic can be prime for the entire NT. I think it's a both-and
@SarahNoll they came from the Millerite sects, the Adventists and the Church of God, and thus from the false prophet William Miller who prophesied the return of Jesus in 1843 and made a subsequent false prophecy concerning 1845. Though his group self destructed by the mid 19th century the followers became the Adventists and later Church of God sects, preserving the strict legalism and false prophetic bents of the original group.
they basically think that those of us who use the name 'Jesus' are attributing God as a part of the greek Pantheon
and so if we use the Greek texts we're a bunch of pagans who will burn in hell
I do believe the Sabbath was set apart by God as recorded in Gen 2, and blessed as a day of rest. It is between God and mankind what He and they do with it. Before God they stand or fall, not before me. I am not their judge.
I do think that many pagan traditions have found their way into the church
I appreciate the holiness of the Holy days that so vividly reflect what God has already done and foreshadow what He is going to do. They are prime teaching tools!
@SarahNoll you understand that Christians have layered a bunch of meaning on top of that that Judaism doesn't hold by, right? (Specifically, our messiah is a human king, descended from David, who will do certain things to bring about the third temple. Not part of God, not a prophet, not able to revise the law, not an object of worship.)
@SarahNoll that was pretty much it. You drew a connection between "messiah" and Jesus, and I just wanted to ask if you knew the difference between how our two religions view that role.
I've met Christians (and for that matter atheists) who thought we were waiting for God incarnate, which we're not.
OK, but I have a question for you. What if God did come in the flesh and was born of the line of David.
What if he did so because the guilt of the law he gave Israel was not ever removed by the sacrifices, but he wanted to set them free from the curse that being guilty of the law incurs.
What if he didn't want to do away with the law--make way for unrighteousnesss, but he did so because he didn't want them to die in their sins.
@SarahNoll the problem is that this would contradict the torah that God gave us as instruction for how to relate to Him. That torah tells us how to atone for transgressions, and God wouldn't give us an untrue torah.
Currently we have no temple at which to perform certain mantatory acts; part of the job of the messiah will be to build that temple anew so we can go back to this.
The concept of atonement exists in torah. Transgressions we can't atone for via korbanot at the temple are, as I understand it, held in abeyance until we can -- we're "right with God" <strike>but we have an IOU, so to speak</strike>. (edit: that part was wrong)
The torah doesn't talk about the IOU per se; it tells us to bring offerings to the temple. We can't do that right now, but that doesn't mean we are all under the threat of karet (being cut off) or death sentence because of that.
@DanO'Day sure, but it'll have to be later when I'm not at work. Sorry for the delay.
@MonicaCellio I only ask because some in my tradition views the concept of substitutionary atonement as a later addition to the Christian faith (Anselm's notion of satisfaction in the 11th century), which by extension would assert that this concept was not in Judaism prior to that either. But I tend to disagree with this.
@DanO'Day and to the priests (for ones that aren't wholly burned), because the priests administer God's temple. Let me clarify that "payment" is my word and I'm speaking in shorthand here.
Actually, @SarahNoll and @DanO'Day, I'd encourage you to look at the question I linked to. Feel free to comment there if you have questions about any of the answers, or to ask a new question.
I may have been slightly off about the IOU part; I remember learning that certain korbanot will be owed in the future, but maybe not everything. (I remember learning, in particular, tha tthe one owed by a new convert will be due.)
That's not atonement, obviously, but it's a temple offering nad it may have confused me.
@SarahNoll we understand that the law was given at Sinai in two parts, the written torah that we have as the 5 books of Moshe and the oral torah that contains the more-detailed explanations. The latter includes the rules for deriving future interpretations (e.g. Moshe didn't write the laws about driving on Shabbat :-) ). The talmud is largely a compilation of that oral law.
But it's important to note that, per Jewish tradition, the rabbis of the talmud didn't change anything. They didn't say "that was then, this is now, that doesn't apply"; rather, they understood that this is what we have to do to apply torah now.
We believe that so long as we follow the laws given to us in torah (both of them), we are right with God.
Sorry, korban = "sacrifice" (korbanot is plural). The word "sacrifice" sometimes implies "giving up something valuable to you", but these are statutory -- one goat, two chickens, that kind of thing. Not like "your most treasured possession".
Korbanot weren't just brought for atonement; they were brought every day, and also on holidays, and so on. All that stuff you read in (mainly) Leviticus about bringing rams and goats and birds and stuff, e.g. on the new month, on festivals, etc. - that's all mirrored in our prayer service today.
@SarahNoll I approach God every time I pray (which is daily++). I speak to God; whether God speaks to me is not so clear, but I figure it can't happen if I don't initiate. :-) I pray with our liturgy, which includes fixed texts and places to insert personal words.
I can't explain this in words, but: I used to be something of an "apatheist" ("atheist" would be too strong; I just didn't care). I got to a point where I re-examined that, and proceeded as any good engineer would: I hypothesized the existence of God, reached out using the rules I understood, and, um, understood that I was doing the right thing.
I found this on the first page you linked to: "Hence, sacrifices as part of the worship of G-d help, but Judaism goes on without them. As far as atonement, the Laws of Repentance were described by the Talmud and codified by rabbis long ago. We are obligated to recognize our sins, confess them to G-d, regret them, accept upon ourselves to do better, and make good on that acceptance. If we do that, we've done our part." However, What does Torah say about sin?
It seems that the Jewish faith today is based on what the Rabbis said long ago; but it does not seem to coincide with what Torah says
The only way the Jews could approach God was after attonement was made and then never into the Holy of Holies. Today there is not temple, not Holy place, no holy of holies, no priests, no attonement, how can one approach God?
What I want to know is does it work relationally with God, not theoretically with mans thoughts. Does it enable Jews to walk and talk with God like Adam and Eve before the Fall.
Reading the links @MonicaCellio left might help. But us Christians must have an open mind to start to understand. (And others need to have an open mind to understand the gospel, as well. ;-)
@JonEricson that's largely where I am. Do I understand every connection between rabbinic interpretation and the torah on which it is founded? No. But I have seen enough, and further I know that for any given ruling I can find the path back to its sources if I want to, and for me that is sufficient. The early rabbis tell us that, in the absence of the temple, we can still relate to God through prayer, make teshuva (literally "return") from our sins, and be right with God.
@SarahNoll if you mean personal conversation with dialogue and everything, I don't think that happens. But (waves hands here) I have seen the results of crying out to God for help with something, and I am satisfied that the channel is open and in both directions.
I know that must sound all woo-woo, and I'm not normally like that, but words literally fail me. Sorry.
Back to the laws understood from torah by the rabbis: to me it is enough that it's verifiable. I don't need to personally verify every detail, though when I get curious I can go looking, or ask my rabbi, or ask on Mi Yodeya. :-)
When something is disputed, well, you know the expression "two Jews, three opinions"? It's true. :-)
I'm going to have to drop off now. @SarahNoll and @DanO'Day, I hope the links I provided help some, and again, my "IOU" characterization may have been faulty (see my earlier comments). TTYL.
@DanO'Day depends. linguistically there's significant overlap between future and subjunctive. there's also some overlap between future and imperative. hebrewhammer's answer is cute and attempts to address the grammar. yours addresses the reading. the reality is that in all three variants there is a sense of desire by the for a hoped-for outcome.
also, third-class condition (subjunctive) indicates a future hoped-for desired state.
i'll have to look at my notes to see if there's any sort of subjunctive interactions with future ind. vs. imp. it could be that the subj adds uncertainty to the imperative. however, imperative is often anachronistically overstated in the English as "Must" when in reality, it is still a mood of uncertainty with the subj. and opt.
but i'm not really sure it's worth it to argue these things. good luck, @DanO'Day
also, UBS4 has τηρήσατε (imperative) but only with a C grade
if you have an email, @DanO'Day, i'll scan the UBS apparatus and send it to you
@swasheck I have the UBS apparatus in Logos, I believe - but to be honest - I don't really know how to make much sense of it
@swasheck which is why I copy/paste most stuff dealing with variants. I understand enough to pick up the local-types (if that theory is even valid), but beyond that not much
In general, my advice is "pick the one that you want as soon as you want."
If you feel like a question has been fully answered by a given answer, choose that as accepted. If you feel like the topic has a lot more to depth to it and you want to wait until more answers come in, feel free to not a...
On Stack Overflow, the "accepted" answer shows that the loop has been closed and the question has been answered to the satisfaction of the asker. That's true here too. But there's a big difference between accepting an answer on a practical and specific question as opposed to a general and broad...
The Library
The Library