> General Discussions
What's the Deal with "Ideal?"
Pax Vobiscum:
Thank you, Tim, for the wonderful (and more loving) read on the "orthodox" translation. I think that is a lovely idea.
As to the "new" translation....
I believe that this translation was recognized in the late 1800s (if my sources are correct).
As far as your other idea, what I thought about was that Jesus used a pronoun -- not Judas' name. We only inserted Judas. So whoever fulfills the role of betrayer would be the person in the statement.
Such a slippery slope...
Peace
TimothyVI:
--- Quote from: Pax Vobiscum on January 17, 2007, 11:54:12 AM ---Thank you, Tim, for the wonderful (and more loving) read on the "orthodox" translation. I think that is a lovely idea.
As to the "new" translation....
I believe that this translation was recognized in the late 1800s (if my sources are correct).
As far as your other idea, what I thought about was that Jesus used a pronoun -- not Judas' name. We only inserted Judas. So whoever fulfills the role of betrayer would be the person in the statement.
Such a slippery slope...
Peace
--- End quote ---
Hi Pax,
By "new" interpretation I meant new to me. The first time that I heard about that translation was when I read what Ray said about it.
Let's continue with your thought . Even if Jesus had used a pronoun, or the name of George or James or Samantha. Wouldn't the
meaning of the sentence be the same? It would have been better for Jesus if that person had never been born.
Why would Jesus express that lament when the outcome of His mortal life had to end the same as it did, regardless of whether He was betrayed or not.
The people coming to get Jesus knew what he looked like. They did not need Judas to point Him out. The betrayer was required so that prophesy could be fullfilled, and perhaps for other reasons that I do not yet quite comprehend.
I suppose that a person could think that perhaps Jesus was really insinuating that it would have been better for Him if this whole idea of being betrayed to crucification had never been born. If there could have just been another way.
Just my rambling thoughts.
Tim
Hokie0000:
This is an interesting conversation . I looked up the verse in the NASB which is the translation that is most true to the original Greek text. It says, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Therfore, Pax, you are right to interpret the verse that way you have with "would have been better". The subjunctive mood implies multiple meanings.....from the encyclopedia
"It typically expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity, and statements that are contrary to fact at present. The details of subjunctive use vary from language to language." It can be a sugesstion or a judgement or a command. Taken in these three ways give different ways inwhich the text could be understood. But the commonality is that fact that what ever is being said is contrary to what is actually happening. No matter what, the Son of Man will be betrayed. But, why do we only understand it in terms of someone at the table. I take it a step farther and see Jesus expanding this out ot us today....2000 years later....who are still betraying him.
Chap Lex
eggi:
Isn't this verse among the same lines?
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (Mark 9:42 KJV)
Craig:
--- Quote from: Hokie0000 on January 18, 2007, 05:42:58 PM --- I looked up the verse in the NASB which is the translation that is most true to the original Greek text. It says, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
--- End quote ---
I've never heard that the NASB was the most true, how do you know this for a fact? (I personally wouldn't put it in the top ten, but thats just my opinion) I've read that Rotherman's is the most true, (another opinion) and it states:
The Son of Man, indeed, goeth his way, according as it is written concerning him, -But alas! for that man, through whom the Son of Man, is being delivered up: Well, had it been for him, if, that man, had not been born!
That translation supports Rays view. I do not know greek and I have not looked at the original scrolls, but I would say this would be a tough verse to translate and in my feeble mind, it doesn't much matter anyway. :)
Craig
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version