Its an interpretation given to prove an already set belief.
And so it is that atheists and agnostics who can read are the Green Team's nightmare.
Now hear this: My personal best guess is that Jesus is not God, so I agree with you on this point. With that out of the way, what does John
17 actually say?
It will not do to pass off Young's self-described "literal" translation as a reliable guide to the underlying Greek, as babloyi
hoped he would
get away with. You need something like:
And even that is going to be inadequate taken uncritically, because the story is that Jesus is a Jewish preacher, so he quotes the Hebrew Bible a lot,
and doesn't usually say "I'm quoting the Jewish Bible now" when he does so. So, the reader needs to pay attention to that. Moreover, the author of
was especially taken with Ruth
, and so whenever Jesus says something from there, John is sure to include it, and even shape the
telling of the scene around it.
Oh, speaking of getting things out of the way, just as Luke
includes a statement of its human authorship and authorial selection, so does
, at 21: 25, the very end of the Gospel,
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the
books that would be written.
By the way, Scorpie
note that the objective of the Gospel is to describe
what Jesus did - not only to quote him, but to describe. So,
yes, all of the text counts, not just the quotes.
proposes that the end of John 20: 17 be rendered (Jesus is speaking according to the verse, quotation marks are in the
"Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and
your Father, and to my God, and to your God."
Even without looking at the source text, we know that that is not literal, because there are no quotation marks in the orginal text. That piece of
punctuation hadn't been invented yet. But we know that in an English-language (something else that hadn't been invented yet) translation, there must
be quotation marks, because Jesus is speaking. So, we have to decide where they go.
The lack of punctuation in the source that must
be provided in the target means that we cannot
translate the passage "literally" and
also convey the meaning of what is written. We must interpret it, just as a native speaker of the source language needed to interpret it to read it
with comprehension when it first appeared.
We know that Jesus is quoting from Jewish scripture in the last few words, Ruth
1: 16, a situationally appropriate allusion. That, then, must
be rendered in single quotes within Jesus' overall speech. Accepting the words chosen by Young, and punctuating according to the sense of the scene
being translated, we have:
"Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your
Father, and 'to my God, and to your God.'"
With all respect to adj
, while the reference to "my Father and your Father" can be viewed as a valid source of theological information under
the revelatory assumptions of your faith, the allusion to Ruth
heightens and clarifies the human dimensions of this scene which, in my opinion,
is a gem of First Century Hellenistic literature, whether sacred or secular.
The scene isn't about some church's doctrinal needs, it is about a woman encountering a man about to embark on a hero's journey, who has waited
especially for her, who must leave beloved friends behind, because the object of his journey is to resume his necessary place in the Universe, as its
Jesus, the man, is reluctant to leave. Take away the key allusion, and it is ambiguous whether he is impatient with Mary's detaining him or reluctant
to leave her. Add the allusion, and the human
meaning becomes as clear as that poignant scene in Ruth
to which he alludes.
Good writing is wasted on both teams. Thank God I am an agnostic.
edit on 24-3-2013 by eight bits because: Out, out damned jot.