|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are there two Christs in the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Salibi does a fair job of explaining the mistranslation of Gen 14 and Psalm 110:4 (Bible came from Arabia-p143). IOW, there was no such puppy as Melchizedek. Which raises the interesting question of where the writer of Hebrews drew his information. Was the mistranslation from Sopherim or Ezra times? From the foundation of the LXX? Surely, Hebrew speakers would have known the correct translation?
On the Two Christs question, the Qumran Scrolls (notably 4Q285,4Q161 and the Damascus Document vs 4Q266 talk of two Messiahs, a kingly Davidic and an Aaronic priestly, with a hint of a third Prophetic Messiah (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English--Geza Vermes p86). Was this concept just a sectarian one (if the Scrolls are really a sectarian library), or less than mainstream?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, TL.
As for Gen 14 or Ps 110:4 being a mistranslation or unrelated, maybe you can present Salibi's argument in brief. I don't see why there's any problem that needs solving there by proposing a mistranslation.
Salibi takes a chapter to develop his proposal, so it`s difficult to sum it up in a couple of paragraphs, but here goes:
From Chap 12--Melchizedek : Clues to a Pantheon P143 'Given the unequivocal reference to a king-priest called Melchizedek in standard English versions of the Old Testament, it would seem churlish to question whether, in fact, he existed. Yet, if there was such a person, the Hebrew Bible has nothing to say about him. Now, it is true that a structure of consonants reading as mlky sdq does occur in two Biblical texts (Gen. 14:18 and Psalm 110:4), which has been translated to mean 'My King is Righteousness'. In each case, however, it seems highly unlikely that it is a personal name. In Gen 14:18, mlky sdq appears to be an idiomatic expression. In Psalm 110:4 it is almost certainly a reference to the 'kings' (mlkym, with the final m of the plural suffix dropped in the genitive structure) of a particular place.' There follows a long paragraph explaining his idea of the correct translation. P144 ' In the context of the story told in Genesis 14, the king of Salem honored 'Abram the Hebrew', who was on his way back home from a successful military venture, laden with booty. Having brought out his 'bread and wine', the king of Salem invited Abram to eat, idiomatically, he 'gave him a morsel of food' (w-ytn lw m'sr mkl, Gen. 14:20). This makes it even clearer that the mlky sdq of Gen. 14:18, like the mkl (Arabic m'kl, vocalised ma'kal) of Gen.14:20, refers to food, and is not a personal name, Melchizedek.' 'Turning to the consonantal text of Psalm 110:4, one finds the following: 'th khn l-'wlm 'l dbrty mlky sdq, tradionally vocalised to to read in translation as 'you are priest forever over the order of Melchizedek', the person addressed being presumably King David. However, consider the following: 1. The Hebrew '-'wlm can certainly mean for ever, but it can also mean 'to Olam'- the name of a god or shrine, or an epithet for Yahweh, the God of Israel, meaning 'everlasting' or 'eternal'. Considering no can be priest or anything else for that matter,--'for ever', the second possible interpretation of the Hebrew l-'wlm makes contextually better sense. 2. The Hebrew dbrty cannot mean 'order' because it is not a word in the singular. It can only be the dual of dbrh (dbrtym, as distinct from the feminine plural dbrwt), with the final m in the dual suffix dropped in the genitive structure dbrty(m) mlky(m) sdq. The Hebrew dbrh is the feminine verbal noun from dbr, here clearly in the sense of the vocalised Arabic dabara (also dbr), 'follow behind'. Thus the word must be translated as 'following' (i.e. 'area of jurisdiction', or more likely 'flock'), which would make dbrty(m) mean 'the two followings',or 'the two flocks'. The fact that there are places called sdq in two different parts of West Arabia should also be taken into account. 3. The Hebrew mlky(m) sdq, in context, stands as a genitive structure meaning 'the kings of Sedeq'. Of course, it can also be read as a personal name' Melchizedek'. Two Koranic references, however, suggest that sdq (vocalised sidq, and interpreted to mean 'righteousness'), could have actually been a place, one in which the people of Israel were made to settle (10:93); also the seat of a 'powerful king' (54:55). This strongly endorses the first interpretation. Significantly, there is no mention of Salem' or El' Elyon in the text of the Psalm. In the light of these observations, the reading of Psalm 110:4 should be corrected to yield the following sense:'you are priest to Olam over the two flocks (or two dabrahs) of the kings of Sedeq'. Here, as in Gen 14:18. there is no question of anyone called 'Melchizedek'. ' And so on. Heavy going, especially with linguistics. but in spite of the furore over Salibi`s book title, I haven`t found anyone challenge him on translation issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Tl, lots and lots more, including a chapter on metathesis, or transposition of consonants. I don`t read Hebrew, let alone Arabic, so you have to take it that a native speaker, a professor of history at the American University in Beirut (duck,incoming)would have some grounds for challenging the orthodox translation. I`ll leave it to linguists to battle it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
The second, ”Mashiac ben David,’ is named as such for two reasons. Like David of the Tenach, he will reign gloriously as a king and subjugate the gentile nations under Israel. As well, this messiah must come from the genealogical line of David. Well, since He didn`t come from the genealogical line of David, that rules out Jesus as the Messiah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
And how have you deduced that he didn't come from the line of David? Patriarchal descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I`ll surmise away. Regardless of the convoluted apologetics you use which can be attacked on several fronts, if the Messiac heritage of David was gained through Mary`s line, why bother to include Joseph`s? Wishful thinking? Scandal of birth? More of Matthew`s accretions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
The general rule at EvC is we already have a thread on that subject. Indeed. Or several.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Go preach somewhere else. Here we dissect, not waffle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Jesus is both a King of Gods Kingdom and a High Priest who has authority to take sins away from the people.
Since Jesus is NOT descended in the paternal line from either Aaron or David, how can he legitimately be high priest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Nighttrain writes:
Unless I missed something, the biological 'father' of Jesus was the Holy Ghost/Spirit.
Since Jesus is NOT descended in the paternal line from either Aaron or David, how can he legitimately be high priest? what makes you think he was not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024