03-30-2014, 02:35 AM
Thanks guys for the comments.
That?s funny about the Noah movie ? I?m guessing you weren?t surprised either that the producers went with the name Noah rather than the Hebrew nKh.
Nice points as well Chuck about textual integrity. I agree happily. When it comes to a scribe you really need a person who follows the rules strictly, every yod counts ? scribes demonstrate the good kind of stiff-neck. Interesting when the kingdom calls a scribe out of his comfort zone too, as we read in Matthew 8:19-20 ? the scribe is invited to follow Yahshua in his travels from place to place, ?Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.? I imagine this very eager scribe struggling within himself, trying not to turn back in his heart to the comfort of his cozy house, level desk, tidy scrolls, lamps, oil containers, inks, little treats in the pottery jar.
In our modern world we are tempted with a ridiculous amount of comfort, so the scribe?s calling resonates with many of us. It is written that Noah?s great grandfather was a righteous scribe. I suppose that got omitted from the movie as well? If so, the producers would at least be in agreement with the Council at Laodicea, right?
Jerry, thank you for your comment about the alternate translation of Eabra (?across?). I should have included discussion of the nuance here in my paper, so I just updated it to basically explain the following -- notice how this same phrase in John 1:28 bEabra dyurdnn is used in John 3:26 to refer to Yahshua and JB ?in the crossing of the Jordan? yet there is no mention of Bethany. The text instructs this is the same water crossing. It is tempting to refer to Eabra as ?across?, but I reason not if there is a ?bet? prefix (as in John 1:28, and John 3:26). Without the 'bet' prefix, there is a ?lamed? prefix, and for that phrase (with lamed) you find your alternate definition ("across") used consistently: John 6:1 (lEabra dyma dglyla dtbryus), John 6:17, John 6:22, John 10:40, John 18:1. So that also supports my theory and evidences consistency in the fourth gospel. Nice.
In further support, notice the use of bEaynyun in John 3:23 to refer to being literally inside the water -- this is because (1) Eaynyun is referring to a spring (just like Jordan refers to the river), (2) there is a 'bet' prefix here rather than a 'lamed' to emphasize being in the water (which is quite practical for a baptism), and (3) the author also uses a special phrase dEal gnb afterward to emphasize how the spring was next to another location -- that special phrase is not in John 1:28-29, which together with all the other evidence helps confirm that Bethany is not across from the Jordan in the literal sense being conveyed by the text. I do think "across" is conveyed in a figurative sense and through wordplay, but the wordplay should not be the primary reading.
On that other point you made about Matthew 9:18, we do see dyn used frequently throughout the gospels in the second position of a sentence (second word). I gather it is an ancient stylistic nuance of Hebrew/Aramaic because dyn (?and?) is a conjunctive word, so it is clever to say/write it in the second position. I should find a study of this type of thing in Hebrew. In any case, I see Matthew 9:18 is proper literal grammar, as the kd connects naturally to the hlyn, so the hlyn remains literal as ?these?. Really pleased to hear your thoughtful perspective, thanks again for the comment.
That?s funny about the Noah movie ? I?m guessing you weren?t surprised either that the producers went with the name Noah rather than the Hebrew nKh.
Nice points as well Chuck about textual integrity. I agree happily. When it comes to a scribe you really need a person who follows the rules strictly, every yod counts ? scribes demonstrate the good kind of stiff-neck. Interesting when the kingdom calls a scribe out of his comfort zone too, as we read in Matthew 8:19-20 ? the scribe is invited to follow Yahshua in his travels from place to place, ?Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.? I imagine this very eager scribe struggling within himself, trying not to turn back in his heart to the comfort of his cozy house, level desk, tidy scrolls, lamps, oil containers, inks, little treats in the pottery jar.
In our modern world we are tempted with a ridiculous amount of comfort, so the scribe?s calling resonates with many of us. It is written that Noah?s great grandfather was a righteous scribe. I suppose that got omitted from the movie as well? If so, the producers would at least be in agreement with the Council at Laodicea, right?
Jerry, thank you for your comment about the alternate translation of Eabra (?across?). I should have included discussion of the nuance here in my paper, so I just updated it to basically explain the following -- notice how this same phrase in John 1:28 bEabra dyurdnn is used in John 3:26 to refer to Yahshua and JB ?in the crossing of the Jordan? yet there is no mention of Bethany. The text instructs this is the same water crossing. It is tempting to refer to Eabra as ?across?, but I reason not if there is a ?bet? prefix (as in John 1:28, and John 3:26). Without the 'bet' prefix, there is a ?lamed? prefix, and for that phrase (with lamed) you find your alternate definition ("across") used consistently: John 6:1 (lEabra dyma dglyla dtbryus), John 6:17, John 6:22, John 10:40, John 18:1. So that also supports my theory and evidences consistency in the fourth gospel. Nice.
In further support, notice the use of bEaynyun in John 3:23 to refer to being literally inside the water -- this is because (1) Eaynyun is referring to a spring (just like Jordan refers to the river), (2) there is a 'bet' prefix here rather than a 'lamed' to emphasize being in the water (which is quite practical for a baptism), and (3) the author also uses a special phrase dEal gnb afterward to emphasize how the spring was next to another location -- that special phrase is not in John 1:28-29, which together with all the other evidence helps confirm that Bethany is not across from the Jordan in the literal sense being conveyed by the text. I do think "across" is conveyed in a figurative sense and through wordplay, but the wordplay should not be the primary reading.
On that other point you made about Matthew 9:18, we do see dyn used frequently throughout the gospels in the second position of a sentence (second word). I gather it is an ancient stylistic nuance of Hebrew/Aramaic because dyn (?and?) is a conjunctive word, so it is clever to say/write it in the second position. I should find a study of this type of thing in Hebrew. In any case, I see Matthew 9:18 is proper literal grammar, as the kd connects naturally to the hlyn, so the hlyn remains literal as ?these?. Really pleased to hear your thoughtful perspective, thanks again for the comment.