@ScottS Yep - good discussion, so thanks for it! It could roll on and on of course :) but probably most of what's good to say has now been said (from me, anyway!).
A Simple Suggestion
StackExchange could improve the Hebrew font rendering quickly simply and (IMO) signficantly by using this "font-stack". This is the body CSS for BH.SE:
body {
line-height:1;
text-align:center;
color:#444;
font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:13p...
P.s. @JonEricson - why does the textarea CSS for SE (beta) sites have two complete (long) font-family lines? They are different, and it seems odd!
@Davïd We almost had a collision in the question edit. I considered clearing up the title to what you changed it to, but decided I needed to do other things this morning.
@JohnMartin I'm afraid I'm under-qualified for that one, and I'm confident Frank Luke will be able to help, so I think I'll let him....I'll be interested to hear, though!
@Susan Okay. Thanks. I'm wondering why the Egyptian may have asked a question in that way, and why the answer was given as it was. For all I know I may be getting into history and how Egyptians spoke/thought.
@JohnMartin I take it as Jacob uses "sojourn" instead of "life" to indicate that he sees his life as unpleasant and often moving from place to place. He is answering with the full length of his life.
@Davïd made a crucial point in his answer that needs to be more central in this discussion. While an accidental omission may well be plausible in isolation, such a theory seems far less credible (IMHO) when taken in light of the parallel passage in Matthew 17:21 which ALSO omits the fasting (indeed, the entire verse) in the same witnesses. [Note: I don't have my apparatus in front of me, so I am basing this statement off of greeknewtestament.net/mt17-21.] The plausibility of this statement being accidentally omitted in both passages by the same scribes seems extremely remote to me. — kmote18 hours ago
@Davïd if I understand the above correctly, it would rule out accidental omission entirely in this case, is kmote correct about the correspondence of the omissions and witnesses?
@publicstatic I'm back to the comments I made on your question over on CSE. First, consider that they are likely in translation. Second, have a look at this answer
David's answer there assumes that these were words actually spoken (in Hebrew, quoting the Hebrew bible), and he gives considerable scholarly support.
The "I am" statements are some of the most unique (to John) part of Jesus' words there, so it's an interesting case study. However, as I commented over on C.SE, I'd also like to learn more about the differing theories. What happened to your question there?
@publicstatic I think it's going to be hard for anyone to respond to that without knowing what the question behind the question is. Have you read something of his that indicates otherwise?
@publicstatic Most conservative scholars will also support them being authentic. Almost certainly Wallace would support them as authentic. Though I don't have a specific statement from him, he was one of the lead translators on NET Bible and the "I am" statements are there.
I'm trying to distinguish the term 'authentic' between words he spoke (translated or not whatever) and the author of John portraying Jesus in what he thinks he was. hope that is clear.
@publicstatic You're welcome. Geisler really gets into things like this.
@publicstatic Yes, you did make that clear with "words Jesus actually spoke? (and not the theological views of John)". I thought you might mean something like that, but your statement made it very clear.
Yes understood, but someone looking from the outside will always be drawn to the facts on the ground. anyhow that is more theological and not meant for this site iguess.
@Susan what's your opinion, like someone said that each Gospel found it important enough to mention that Jesus rode a donkey, but only 1 has these "I am" statements.
I always think of this, if you were going to write about Jesus, you would most certainly mention that you thought he was God very clearly, yet I only see this in John.
At the same time, to me they can be taken as 'one in purpose', some of them at least.
@publicstatic Jesus' divinity is seen in all the Gospels. For example, when He heals the paralized man, He says, "Your sins are forgiven." His enemies think "Who can forgive sins but God?" Jesus then heals the man, showing that the prior statement (forgiveness of sins) was also true. God would not honor the request of a person by healing when that person (the one who requests the man be healed) has just committed blasphemy (by making himself equal with God).
More examples from the synoptics can be found here.
Acts 2:22 "“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
"accreditted by God....God did among you through him"
@publicstatic Remember. Jesus is both God and man. As man, He humbled himself and submitted to the Law. As a good man in that time, naturally, He worshipped God.
We also know that Jesus will have that human nature forever more. In that sense, the human sense, Jesus will always have the Father whom He can call God. This in no way negates the divine nature of Jesus or Him being God the Son.
@publicstatic As far as being called good, Jesus is giving the man a test. He asks him a question "Why do you call me good?" He is giving the man a chance to state faith in Jesus. The man does not. However, that does not mean Jesus was not good or did not want to be called good.
@Davïd thanks for rescuing this. The reason there were two problems tangled into one question is because I had revised it to try to connect it to the Hebrew but not done such a good job smoothing it out...
@FrankLuke Not ignoring you, but I'm just not sure how to do that. Will let Caleb respond.
@Susan Ah - I hadn't actually looked at the question "pre-history". It was certainly a sensible question, and the "two problems" arise pretty naturally if one is reading (certain) translations. Not sure my attempt at an answer will prove all that helpful, though!
@JackDouglas @FrankLuke kmote is certainly on to something. I did list the "parallels" in my answer, but perhaps my wording was a tad cryptic. :)
The Matthew 17:21 parallel strongly points to the scribal tendency to expand, and the 1 Cor 7:5 gives precisely the "plus" that (I believe) the Mark text exhibits. When these are lined up, it becomes difficult (to my mind) to prefer a random omission (as you know).
As for the other discussion running in here today (not my conversation):
A Simple Suggestion
StackExchange could improve the Hebrew font rendering quickly simply and (IMO) signficantly by using this "font-stack". This is the body CSS for BH.SE:
body {
line-height:1;
text-align:center;
color:#444;
font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:13p...
The Library
The Library