Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
→Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly: new section
::It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical ''and'' Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
::It's not about a simple spelling error - there are a couple of problems with this phrase, grammatical ''and'' Biblical. So, I'll wait for Andy's correction and will give further input then. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:55, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
:::Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is ''always'' used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
:::Andy's correction substantiated my suspicion - he hasn't made himself familiar with this problem in detail. Otherwise he should have known that the phrase is ''always'' used by Jesus Christ including the leading definite article, a somewhat peculiar wording, and therefore to be quoted exactly. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:22, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
== Personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly ==
Over the last 1700 years, there has been much debate about how to interpret the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου, Son of Man, filius hominis. '''There has never been disagreement about how to translate it'''. The introduction claims that the phrase "the Son, a human being" is the most accurate translation. At the moment, this is only the personal opinion of Andrew Schlafly, which isn't shared by any Greek scholar! To give it not only equal weight to the traditional translation, but to promote over the "Son of Man", misleads the reader! Therefore, it should be clearly marked as Andrew Schlafly's idea, as it is his original work.
For me, this is just a mistranslation, a rendering of a genitive as an apposition in a case where this just doesn't work. Is my view less valid than Andrew Schlafly's? Should I put it into the introduction, too? How about:
'''''The most accurate, but wrong translation is "the Son, a human being"...'''''
No, at this moment we should at least make it clear in the article that this translation is the original work of Andrew Schlafly. IMO it would be a service to the reader to stress that this insight isn't shared by any Greek scholar (yet)...
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:15, 24 June 2014 (EDT)