Talk:Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Five chapters already done here; that's a great start!--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 3 March 2010 (EST)

13:1

I'm sure Penn was inspired by this verse, but by the original's φιλαδελφία, not the English "brotherly love." "Let brotherly love continue" is a word-for-word translation, but doesn't seem like anything a modern English speaker would say. Paul isn't just praying for some vague abstraction to continue to exist; he is exhorting the Hebrews to love in a particular way. It seems to me better to translate this with active, dynamic language. DanielPulido 21:27, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure William Penn read Greek. Most likely he read the KJV, liked the phrase, and then went back to the Greek. But I welcome any historical analysis about this.
As an aside, what makes you think Paul wrote this Epistle? It's nothing like Paul's style as far as I can tell, and I've worked on Paul's Epistles as well as this one.--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
My mistake; I've done most of my translating on First Corinthians, and just a tiny bit in Hebrews. I have Paul on the brain as if everything in Greek is all Paul to me! You're quite right; they're stylistically very different, and that was silly of me.
As for Penn, he was classically educated, so he surely wouldn't have needed to rely on the KJV, would he? DanielPulido 22:48, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
He wouldn't have needed to rely on it, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose to rely on it. SamuelC 22:49, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
Right. The KJV was widely and immensely popular. I would expect that to be the volume of first choice by Penn. I'm not sure anyone read the Greek New Testament as his volume of first choice in the English world in 1680. The primary classical text then was the Latin Vulgate, I think.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
My point isn't what his first choice would have been for daily reading, which I will readily concede he most likely did in his native language. I'm just saying it seems wrong to give the credit for Penn's choosing the name "Philadelphia" to an English translation of that exact word, (a word he was perfectly capable of reading himself) and on that basis give a privileged status to the particular wording of that translation. Your mileage may vary, of course. DanielPulido 23:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
You make a valid point. I'm open-minded about this. But if, as I suspect, William Penn liked the KJV rendition of "brotherly love" so much that he named Philadelphia after it, then that is both worth knowing and possibly worth preserving. I'll research the origin of the name "Philadelphia" further; anti-Christian bias from internet searching may make the truth harder to find than usual.--Andy Schlafly 23:18, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
I'll look as well; I look forward to seeing what we find! DanielPulido 23:35, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
I finally found the interesting answer that anti-Christians conceal, and inserted it with the citation in Philadelphia.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

οὐρανός is best translated as universe

No, it isn't: it's only part of the universe. Heaven(s) and Earth together form the universe, in a physical (all the rest vs. the planet Earth) as in a metaphysical (the spiritual vs. the mundane). Crowbarring your Biblical scientific foreknowledge into it is not only bad translating, but bad theology. You won't find any scholarly source which backs up your interpretation - as you haven't found any which showed the existence of a nuance of ἰδού meaning at that moment.

I'll revert the verse to the correct translation. AugustO 02:27, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

One of the primary meanings of οὐρανός is "universe", and that's obviously its true meaning in Hebrews 1:10. Also, "universe" today typically means the "heavens" of old. Reverting the entry back now.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
  • If "universe" is a primary meaning of οὐρανός, you shouldn't have any problem to find it in a dictionary. But you can't.
  • Obviously Hebrews 1:10 uses the pair of opposites of heavens and earth which are disjoint, but together form the universe.
  • Universe is all what is, including our solar system and our planet. That's not heavens of old.
  • Reverting the entry back now. Please provide a source before making another reversion. Thanks.
AugustO 10:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
Universe in English often means the celestial cosmos, which is what οὐρανός means. The source is any good dictionary. Or search on οὐρανός and universe and see thousands of references returned. Reverting and locking now, but feel free to discuss further.--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
Why in the world are you locking it? This isn't an English word and "universe" isn't used like this anywhere in the Bible. This is what someone at my study group taught me this morning after mass: In this context AugustO is correct. The usage Mr. Schlafly asserts doesn't appear once in the Bible and is not indicated here where the author is drawing a contrast between the earth and what is above it which is usually referred to as God's dwelling place. Also, the Conservapedia translation doesn't accurately connect God's creation of the foundation of the earth with the heavens. The letter connects them with kai (and). The KJV is awful in this regard because modern version use only a semicolon to relate the concepts and people don't always understand the grammar of how semicolons are used essentially as an "and". The Catholic Douay-Rheims gets the relationship of these concepts a lot better even though it is based on the latin Vulgate: "And: Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth: and the works of thy hands are the heavens." Nate 11:19, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

http://www.greek-dictionary.net/ouranos

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/heb1.pdf

"Heavens" is archaic - it's not used much anymore, particularly among young people. When used, people think it's referring to the spiritual heaven. English words change their meaning over time. A good Bible translation keeps up with changes in the English language, in order to convey the original meaning correctly.--Andy Schlafly 11:45, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
A slightly freer option that would preserve the earth/heavens distinction would be "and everything beyond it, too, is the work of your hands".--CPalmer 11:51, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
A good suggestion, but one that has a weaker connotation for the physical world. The meaning would be broader and less clear than what Hebrews 1:10 intended.
Archaic language and changing meanings of English words -- without properly updating biblical translations -- is a significant problem.--Andy Schlafly 12:30, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
I do not believe you have an open mind about this but suit yourself. Your translation obscures the true meaning. Nate 13:26, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
The fact remains: English words change their meaning over time, and accurate translations need to reflect that. "Heavens" is no longer commonly used to describe the cosmic galaxies. "Universe" is.--Andy Schlafly 17:17, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes you already said that. Heavens is fine. People who are inclined to read the Bible know that it refers to a holy place where God resides, not a technical description of "cosmic galaxies." The author isn't referring to the entire universe and your bogus translation isn't supported by any other use of uranos in the Bible. What is your experience with Koine Greek? Nate 17:52, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Your comment illustrates the ambiguity in the translation urged by AugustO: "heavens" in this verse (Hebrews 1:10) does not refer "to a holy place where God resides." To avoid that ambiguity, "universe" should be used instead.--Andy Schlafly 18:42, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

Authorship by Jesus

Aschlafly, you are the first (and the only one) to propose that this Epistle "was written by Jesus, or based directly on His writing". A question: when you get an insight like this one do you ever ask yourself why no one ever had a similar thought before?

The comments should make it clear that the idea of Jesu authorship is an insight of a single person - and isn't shared by any Biblical scholar. --AugustO 11:27, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

If Andrew says it, then it's as if it came from God himself, and you should never question it. Andrew's words are God's words. Andrew is never wrong. If you claim that anything he says is wrong, then you are a Kafir, and shall smother in the bottom-most pits of Hell. Even worse, you will earn yourself the label, "Liberal". FamilyJewels (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

A better translation of "δύναμις" is "perfection" rather than "power": hence "narration of his perfection"

This seems to be not true insofar as the translation of δύναμις as perfection is just made up: I couldn't find it neither in George's and Liddel's "Greek-English Lexicon" nor in Lampe's "Patristic Greek Lexicon" (and obviously not in Strong's). It is therefore more than doubtful to think that anyone who knows a little bit of Greek (including the original readers of the Epistle) would understand this word in this way. Andy, please stop making things up! --AugustO 09:19, 2 August 2014 (EDT)

Avoid monarchy-centric jargon that has long been overused in England

Unfortunately for you, Andy, this monarchy-centric jargon is used in the epistle! You omit the whole phrase θρόνος τῆς Μεγαλωσύνης (the Throne of the Majesty). If you really believe that this epistle was written by Jesus Christ Himself, who are you to accuse Him of using jargon and suppress His words? --AugustO (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy: Strong's likes to translate Μεγαλωσύνης as "Majesty" as Anglophiles prefer, but its root μέγας means "great". Yes, the root means great, but no one besides you understands the word Μεγαλωσύνης (especially when written with a capital M) other than as "Majesty". To stay in the English realm: a Highness isn't just a tall chap, though the root of Highness means high... --AugustO (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

BTW: there is a difference between "sitting at the right hand of a lord" and "sitting at the right hand of a lord's throne": the first is a position of honor, the second implies power (at least in the absence of the lord...) --AugustO (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

For the record: I think one can make a case for a translation of μεγαλωσύνη as greatness instead of majesty, but there are better reasons than latent anglophobia! And the use of something equivalent to majesty in this context seems to be common in the whole Christian world. For me personally, "majestic" evokes fewer connotations to kings and queens than "royal". --AugustO (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (EDT)

"Majesty" is monarchical term. There were no monarchies at the time of Christ, and the tendency by Anglophiles to see everything in terms of a silly monarchy should be resisted. God is not a "king"; he is far better than that.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
"There were no monarchies at the time of Christ" What an amusing counter-factual claim - and certainly news to the High Priests of Jerusalem who stated to Pontius Pilatus: "Οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα" (for you, Andy: "We have no king but Caesar") --AugustO (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
"Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory." You taught that to your pupils in World History Lecture Four#Birth of the Roman Empire! So, which statement is true, which is the lie? --AugustO (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Strong's always translates βασιλεύς as "king", more than 100 times, but that is not what the word really means. Greeks had no "king". The English had kings and queens (and still do).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Strawman (and not a good one). You claim:
  • There were no monarchies at the time of Christ
  • Augustus established a constitutional monarchy
So, which is it? --AugustO (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
I said the Greeks had no "king". Augustus (hey, no wonder you cite him, "AugustO"!) was certainly not a "king" (and he wasn't Greek either). The divine right of kings did not arise until the 1500s or so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
And before you introduced the strawman "king" (of which I haven't spoken), you spoke about monarchies. In fact, you said above:
«There were no monarchies at the time of Christ» (Andy Schlafly, above, 00:47, 21 October 2015 (EDT))
This is a direct contradiction to your lecture, in which you say:
«Augustus established a constitutional monarchy rather than a true republic, because the Senate's role became only advisory.» (Andy Schlafly, WHL4: Birth of the Roman Empire)
So, there you weren't talking about kings, but monarchs in general. Please, address this matter. Thanks --AugustO (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
Andy, at first, this is just a little problem of logic:
A Augustus established the Roman Empire as a constitutional monarchy
B The Roman Empire existed during the time of Christ. Ergo:
C There were monarchies at the time of Christ. And not:
C′ There were no monarchies at the time of Christ
For C′ to be possibly true, A or B (or both) have to be false. B is obviously correct, so one of your statements is wrong. Which one? --AugustO (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy, any comment? --AugustO (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Straw-King

The contradiction in the section above is about monarchies and monarchs in general. Andy tried to detract from his false statement by making a couple of statements about kings. On the one hand, this is a strawman, as it misstated my position, on the other hand, his statements are generally incorrect.

Strong's always translates βασιλεύς as "king", more than 100 times, but that is not what the word really means. Greeks had no "king". The English had kings and queens (and still do).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (EDT

  1. So, what does the word βᾰσῐλεύς really mean? King! In very various forms, from a simple chieftain to the head of stated of a sophisticated empire.
  2. The Greeks had dozens, hundreds of kings - just no king of Greece (until the 19th century). But you had the King of Crete, the mythological kings like Odysseus or Agamemnon, all the kings in magna Graecia, like the famous Pyrrhus of Epirus. Philip of Macedonia was a king, as was his son Alexander, etc., pp.
  3. Yes, there is a great variety of English kings (and queens): Aescwine of Essex hasn't much in common with George III.

I said the Greeks had no "king". Augustus (hey, no wonder you cite him, "AugustO"!) was certainly not a "king" (and he wasn't Greek either). The divine right of kings did not arise until the 1500s or so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

  1. Yes, you were wrong the first time. There was no king of Greece, but kings in Greece.
  2. Augustus very carefully avoided the term "rex" for political reasons: The Romans didn't like kings, so, he became king in everything but name! His genius was worshipped as a god and therefore, the High Priests rightfully identified him as (their only earthly) βασιλεύς --AugustO (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
  3. Before the 1500s, there was no problem with a divine legitimization of a monarchy: in ancients time, you (or your genius) were already a god, or some gods had established your blood-line. In the middle-ages, the Catholic Church stepped in and provided a reason for your kingship. Only the protestant kings had a problem: they were no gods and they couldn't get a blessing from the church. That's when the "divine rights" were invented. But the principle had been unchanged over millenia! --AugustO (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy, any comment? --AugustO (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Andy? --AugustO (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
...? ..AugustO (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
"King" really has no place in the Bible, because the modern meaning of a "king" did not exist (and would not have been taken seriously) then. "Dictator" or "czar" or "leader" would be closer to the biblical meaning.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
King David, King Nebuchadnezzar and King Herod have no place in the Bible, because they didn't own a bicycle like a proper Scandinavian King? Please, don't be absurd! As I said above, king encompasses a great variety of potentates: Aescwine of Essex's reign was perhaps quite similar to that of an ancient Jewish king. "Dictator" or "leader" doesn't include the aspects of succession and of Divine blessing the same way king does. --AugustO (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
I'm not concerned with a bicycle issue (?!), but with the English connotation of benevolence in a "king". Nothing benevolent about "King" Herod.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (EDT)
What is this English connotation of benevolence in a "king"? English history is full of mad kings, evil kings, insane kings - but kings, nonetheless! --AugustO (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2015 (EDT)

1:2

The Image of God.

Dr. Walter Martin noted that a king's "Word" sometimes meant representative, a good example of which is his seal-keeper. So the act of sealing and the commands in the documents it seals are representative of the king.

Now man is said to be made in the "image" of God. And the author of Hebrews says the Son of God is the image of God.

This is easier to understand with the seal imagery. The carving of the king engraved in the seal is able to represent the king and is thus the king's image. The seal is then impressed in wax, and the wax retains the image of the king and the authority of the seal. Likewise the Son of God is the Father's image and was impressed upon Christ's human nature, which retained the image, like the wax. And when we become disciples of Christ, through faith we see, through a glass, darkly, God's image in Christ and seek to become impressed with the image, after Christ. By grace, we become adopted sons and daughters of God as Christ is the natural Son of God.

VargasMilan (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

So if it is Christ speaking it could be "He [the Son of God] has spoken to us [to my human nature while present in me and to your human nature through me]." VargasMilan (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

That is a little to convoluted for my taste. But at least - I think - we can agree that "[t]his verse poses a difficulty for those who claim that this epistle was written by Jesus Christ Himself." --AugustO (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
I used a simplified figure to quickly sketch the orthodox view that Christ has two natures, Divine and human. But the harmonious consequences to understanding the Jesus-authored interpretation of the verse that follow if we assume it rather than debate it shouldn't be difficult or convoluted. VargasMilan (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2015 (EDT).
But if not difficult maybe unexpected like when John the Baptist asked if He, Jesus, was the one they had been waiting for, and Jesus didn't answer directly. VargasMilan (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
Well, John Calvin begs to differ :-)
ὁ Θεὸς ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ God has spoken to us through His Son. This son is described in the following verses as "appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they" The author elaborates how the Son differs from men - and even angels. For me, it is difficult to include Him into the "us" to whom He speaks (or, as you put it, "unexpected") --AugustO (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2015 (EDT)
Yes, the Son differs from men (because He is the Divine nature of Christ), but has adopted the human nature of Jesus Christ. Through contact with the Son through adoption, Jesus' Divine nature and His human nature by extension are the natural Son of God. This is not the only possible way to explain it, but I am using a simplified figure of adoption that took a little time to be accepted by the Christian church as not unorthodox. I don't see the connection to John Calvin. VargasMilan (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Hebrews 10:12

Andy: "the Greek means "this one" - i.e., the author is Jesus"

This isn't clear at all.

  1. οὗτος is just a demonstrative pronoun, it can be used as a empathized replacement for any subject. For me, the Greek means to show the contrast between "all priests" and "this [specific priest]" (who may or may not be the author of the text)
  2. the Queen may say: "This one isn't please: all the corgis are behaving nicely, but this one is acting up!" Then initially, she is speaking about herself in the third person - as she so often does - but is addressing another entity with the second use of "this one".

Furthermore, you find the use of οὗτος in Hebrews 7:1, where it is used to stress the mentioning of the king Melchisedek.

--AugustO (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (EST)

The Greek literally means "this one" in Hebrews 10:12, and this no context that plausibly suggests any other meaning than the author.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Quick question: which words mean literally "this one"? --AugustO (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2015 (EST)
οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one." The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Your ignorance is painful! Please, what is the casus and genus of οὗτος? What is the casus and genus of μίαν? Do you think of the author as transsexual? This isn't even a mistake, this is just wanton ignorance! The best of the public? You must be kidding! --AugustO (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (EST)

The peculiar English demonstrative pronoun

Andy, it seems that you not only have a problem with basic grammar, there is some confusion about some concepts which exist in foreign languages, too. The ESV translates something as "this one" - and it is clearly not οὗτος ... μίαν. So, what is it? It is οὗτος alone! Why do they have to do this? Because the English demonstrative pronoun doesn't work like the one in other languages (e.g., Greek, German, Latin)- you cannot use it for persons unless you identify them!

In Latin we can say hic autem unam pro peccatis offerens hostiam in sempiternum sedit in dextera Dei - and it is obvious that hic relates to someone previously mentioned.

Similarly, in German: Dieser' aber, da er hat ein Opfer für die Sünden geopfert, das ewiglich gilt, sitzt nun zur Rechten Gottes. Again, clearly a previously mentioned person is the subject (in form of the demonstrative pronoun dieser).

What about English? You cannot say: But when this had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God! You have to identify the person - in the most general this can be done using the place-holder one: But when this one had offered for all time one sacrifice.... That's a little bit clumsy, so the identification is refined: But when this High Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice... - or in case of the ESV But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins...

Only without knowledge of the original Greek use of the demonstrative pronoun you can come to the conclusion that it suddenly refers to the author of the text.

tl;dr: for a Greek (or Latin or German) reader it is obvious that οὗτος relates to a person mentioned in the previous verse.--AugustO (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Acts 7:36

In Acts 7:36, you find the same construction: οὗτος ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ποιήσας τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ... This [one] led them out, having performed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt... It is clear, that οὗτος relates to the subject of the previous sentence - Moses - and not to the author of Acts! Again, as English doesn't allow the use of a demonstrative pronoun for a person, you have to add one, or use he, or even the prophet or Moses --AugustO (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2015 (EST)

οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one."

I thought that my comment above was enough to repel (or ridicule) this notion. Obviously not. So, let's take baby-steps:

  • οὗτος is the nominative masculine singular of the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο, this [one]
  • μίαν is the accusative feminine singular of the adjective εἷς, μία, ἕν: one

Those two words cannot be attributed to each other: they have different cases and genders! (That's why I wrote "Do you think of the author as transsexual?"). οὗτος is the subject of the sentence, while μίαν is used as an attribute to the only feminine accusative object, i.e., θυσίαν! ESV and the other translations are aware of this, and it is an important point: a single sacrifice is offered! Claiming that the ESV would make your rookie mistake is just embarrassing! --AugustO (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2015 (EST)

This website is a collaborative effort to find and publish fundamental truths and insights. Comments that further this beneficial goal are welcome. I've restored the correct, informative edits to the content page.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (EST)
Unfortunately, you are just perpetuating a fundamental error which is based on ignorance! You have demonstrated this profound lack of knowledge with claims like οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one."! I have to admire your chutzpa to ignore everything above and just cling to your mistake! --AugustO (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Collaborative effort

Andy, above I see you repeating your claim twice - each time just as a in a single sentence - and then whining about others not being collaborative! I cannot detect any attempt to engage in the arguments which I brought for. Just repeating a statement doesn't make it true. --AugustO (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2015 (EST)

"I've restored the correct, informative edits to the content page." Andy, do you really think that Rev 22:18-19 doesn't apply to insights? --AugustO (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Rev 22:18-19 welcomes insights about the original meaning, and rejects distortions of it. "The one" is the original meaning of Hebrews 10:12, as ESV and another literal translation admit.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2015 (EST)
So, tell me, is Moses the author of Acts? Or is he at least Joseph? According to your "insight", he should! (see above) --AugustO (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2015 (EST)

Overview of Andrew Schlafly's arguments

On this talk-page and in the article, Andy makes the following points:

  • The Greek literally means "this one" in Hebrews 10:12, and this no context that plausibly suggests any other meaning than the author.
  • οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one." The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else!
  • Literal translations of the Greek confirm this, such as the ESV which translates the Greek for "this one" as "Christ" but clarifies in a footnote that its literal meaning is "this one."
  • This website is a collaborative effort to find and publish fundamental truths and insights. Comments that further this beneficial goal are welcome. I've restored the correct, informative edits to the content page.
  • Rev 22:18-19 welcomes insights about the original meaning, and rejects distortions of it. "The one" is the original meaning of Hebrews 10:12, as ESV and another literal translation admit.
  • key wording here that most translations deny: the Greek means "this one" - i.e., the author is Jesus. Literal translations of the Greek confirm this, such as the ESV which translates the Greek for "this one" as "Christ" but clarifies in a footnote that its literal meaning is "this one." Likewise, the Berean Literal Bible translates this verse as: "But this One, having offered one sacrifice for sins in perpetuity, sat down at the right hand of God."

I don't think that this is much of an argument, it is more like a mantra: Andy repeats his insight with slight variations, generally disregarding any input from the other side. Nevertheless, here are my answers to his talking-points:

  • οὗτος ... μίαν means "this one.": This is demonstrably wrong. Andy, do you still believe this? Perhaps for this occasion, you could deviate from your policy not to admit to an error ever? Otherwise one gets the impression that you are incorrectable, even in the face of facts.
  • The Greek literally means "this one" in Hebrews 10:12 Yes, οὗτος as a demonstrative pronoun representing a person is translated (often as a first step) as "this one/this man"
  • The ESV admits this, but then translates it as something else! Not only the ESV admits this, but also Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Wallace's Greek grammar. Why? Because ther is nothing to admit! You can find various places in the Bible where οὗτος is translated as "this one/ this man"!
  • I've restored the correct, informative edits to the content page. This boils down to "I'm right - you are wrong"....

For me it is "obvious", too, that Andy had to block the article: there is no way that his insight survives the confrontation with facts (and grammar!) So, he has to use the only resource left, the power to dictate his version...

--AugustO (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2015 (EST)

A challenge for Andrew Schlafly

Above, I have given an examples (Acts 7:36), where the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος is used as the subject of a sentence and refers to a person mentioned before, thus it is translated as "this one/man". There are many more of such examples, e.g., Matthew 26:23, Matthew 27:58, Luke 2:34, Luke 15:2, Luke 23:41, John 3:2, Acts 4:9, etc. Do you have another example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced? --AugustO (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2015 (EST)

I picked what I thought would be your most compelling example - John 3:2. There the immediately prior verse refers to the person to whom "this one" refers (Nicodemus). But in Hebrews 10:12, "this one" does not refer to the person in the immediately prior verse, "each priest." Rather, "this one" must refer to the author - Jesus himself.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2015 (EST)
So, you have no "example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced"! --AugustO (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2015 (EST)
And similarly, in Luke 23:41, "this one" refers to Jesus as he was there in the presence of the speaker.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (EST)
Likewise, in Luke 15:2, "this one" refers to Jesus in the prior verse, and he was in the presence of the speakers.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (EST)
I agree with you on Luke 23:41: here, the speaker is pointing his finger at Jesus. It somewhat different in Luke 15:2 - the muttering of the scribes and Pharisees is more of a stage grumble.. But still, I see no "example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced"! --AugustO (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2015 (EST)
That may just mean that autobiographies were rare in the ancient world. St. Augustine's Confessions is sometimes called the first Western autobiography and that was written over 360 years after the resurrection. VargasMilan (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2015 (EST)
Autobiographies may be rare, but people wrote about themselves all the time, especially in letters. So, there should be other examples of this grammatical construction. --AugustO (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2015 (EST)
As I understand it, such manuscripts are scarce. From the fact that most manuscripts from the ancient world are biblical manuscripts, so apparently even manuscripts of literary value were rare, much less private letters. And from the fact that few Greek-speakers were important enough to have their letters preserved. There's the tyrant of Corinth's letter. Were there any of Plutarch's works that were letters? There were Plato's brief ten or so letters (but thought to be forgeries) and Epicurus' fairly impersonal letters explaining his doctrine. Those are the only ones I can think of. Was Ptolemy's introduction to his Almagest a letter? I remember a letter by Archimedes introducing his "mechanical method". Some emperors' letters, but they were Latin of course. Cicero, again Latin. Finally if you look at lists of ancient authors and their works found in libraries, they are mostly literary works, again, their personal letters not significant enough to have been preserved. There doesn't seem to be a very big corpus from which to draw. VargasMilan (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2015 (EST) [I misrembered that part about the prevalence of Biblical manuscripts. I should have said a plurality of manuscripts are biblical manuscripts. I don't know whether that plurality makes up most of them. I also wanted to add there may have been some Greek letters about the schools of epicureanism in the manuscript jars discovered in a house covered by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius! VargasMilan (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2015 (EST)]
"...another example (Biblical or from general Greek literature)..." --AugustO (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (EST)
The Epistle to the Hebrews is really not a letter, so the analogy to Greek literature is not apropos. Rather, the Epistle to the Hebrews was likely spoken, and the examples from Luke do confirm that "this one" was used to refer to someone in the presence of the listeners.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2015 (EST)
  • "the Epistle to the Hebrews was likely spoken" - when? From whom? To whom? That should have made some stir! There should be something about it in the Gospels....
  • "the examples from Luke do confirm that "this one" was used to refer to someone in the presence of the listeners" indeed, just not the speaker himself
  • yes, orators often refer to themselves in the third person. Yes, it is not unheard that orators doing so quote passages of earlier works where they refer to themselves in the first person. But is it good stile (especially befitting an opus which is "perfectly written at the highest intellectual level") to switch between first and third person, not only between sections, but in sentences?
  • and still, I see no "example (Biblical or from general Greek literature) where οὗτος refers to the author of the text without him being previously introduced"!
--AugustO (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2015 (EST)
You are being non-responsive. I clearly indicated that the evidence suggests the Greek corpus of the ancient world wasn't large enough to bear many occasions of this type of construction. Then you emphasize the word "Biblical" for some reason. The New Testament is a rather short book. How does that significantly change the size of the corpus? VargasMilan (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2015 (EST)
  • I emphasized the word "Biblical" as the New Testament contains more than 20 letters itself
  • If you think of this epistle as a speech, you could look at work of the Attic Orators....
  • "many occasions" - I just asked for one other....
--AugustO (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (EST)
You are captious, AugustO, you are captious! Though there may be even be many opportunities for the construction rather than few, it may turn out that these opportunities may not be availed upon even one other time! VargasMilan (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2015 (EST)
Captious (two times!)... well, why not: I've been called nitpicking and pedantic before. I think when it comes to translating the Bible, this is preferable to a devil-may-care approach based on unprecedented insights. --AugustO (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2015 (EST)
Your portrayal of Andy's approach to biblical interpretation as bearing resemblance to Evel Knievel seems a bit forced too. VargasMilan (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2015 (EST)