We don't need no stinkin' evidence

[Finnegans Wake]

Proper translation depends on accurate recension of all available manuscripts...

I'll agree with that.

...And the best reading of the old manuscripts renders the past indicative text, not any butchered later versions that emend it to make it seem as if paul is refering to himself.  This falls under the rubric of textual criticism you mentioned in an earlier post, Finny.  There are rules to Greek grammar, as there are for English grammar.  "Had been" and "were" have different meanings in conditional clauses.

Well, I'm not going to feign familiarity with either the available manuscripts, or the translation of that passage under rules of Greek grammar.  I would certainly have to rely on translation and exegesis from theological scholars, and have not done so with this passage.  What I am dancing around is asking what your source for interpreting as cited, rather than the perhaps corrupted subjunctive, or even rather than an interpretation such as "he were [still] on earth," for one.  These are the arguments I find fascinating, so I won't make a priori conclusions as to the authenticity or inauthenticity of your claims. 

[leighclay]

I find it interesting that there's a Scientology banner at the bottom of this discussion.

[Finnegans Wake]

I find it interesting that there's a Scientology banner at the bottom of this discussion.

My banner was something about learning classical Hebrew with Israeli scholars.  Talk about the Internets pinpointing advertising to the discussion.  Sheesh. 

How long until a Flying Spaghetti Monster ad pops up?

[jonzr]

I find it interesting that there's a Scientology banner at the bottom of this discussion.

My banner was something about learning classical Hebrew with Israeli scholars.  Talk about the Internets pinpointing advertising to the discussion.  Sheesh. 

How long until a Flying Spaghetti Monster ad pops up?

I saw one with Dawkins eating Chef Boyardi.  Does that count?

[pensodyssey]

Well, I'm not going to feign familiarity with either the available manuscripts, or the translation of that passage under rules of Greek grammar.  I would certainly have to rely on translation and exegesis from theological scholars, and have not done so with this passage.  What I am dancing around is asking what your source for interpreting as cited, rather than the perhaps corrupted subjunctive, or even rather than an interpretation such as "he were [still] on earth," for one.  These are the arguments I find fascinating, so I won't make a priori conclusions as to the authenticity or inauthenticity of your claims. 

The imperfect (the past tense of the verb eimi, to be) is spelled eta nu, en (sorry, no greek keys on MGS).  The condition tenses are subjunctive eta iota-subscript and optative epsilon iota eta. Either subjunctive or optative would render the conditional contrary-to-fact sense you see in the KJV, NASB, NIV et al. translations (the ones used by mainstream christians); but none of the oldest manuscripts give such a reading, and so we cannot assume scribal error (which in fact would not be likely to change a subjunctive to an indicative, but vice versa). 

But don't take my word for it.  Compare the basic english version to other parallel translations:

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-4.htm

 

[vinman3]

Well, I'm not going to feign familiarity with either the available manuscripts, or the translation of that passage under rules of Greek grammar.  I would certainly have to rely on translation and exegesis from theological scholars, and have not done so with this passage.  What I am dancing around is asking what your source for interpreting as cited, rather than the perhaps corrupted subjunctive, or even rather than an interpretation such as "he were [still] on earth," for one.  These are the arguments I find fascinating, so I won't make a priori conclusions as to the authenticity or inauthenticity of your claims. 

The imperfect (the past tense of the verb eimi, to be) is spelled eta nu, en (sorry, no greek keys on MGS).  The condition tenses are subjunctive eta iota-subscript and optative epsilon iota eta. Either subjunctive or optative would render the conditional contrary-to-fact sense you see in the KJV, NASB, NIV et al. translations (the ones used by mainstream christians); but none of the oldest manuscripts give such a reading, and so we cannot assume scribal error (which in fact would not be likely to change a subjunctive to an indicative, but vice versa). 

But don't take my word for it.  Compare the basic english version to other parallel translations:

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-4.htm

 

Jonzr, what can be done about this glaring need? 

[Preacherman0]

Penso, if I may ask (or if you feel like sharing), what do you teach and where do you teach it?  I would think that taking a class under you would be incredible, although I doubt I could pass it  .

Sorry that I haven't had time to jump back in, and may not really have the chance until later this weekend.  I just had to add that.

Let me also say that the book of Hebrews is something of a mystery, in that it was for centuries attributed to the apostle Paul, even though I don't believe Paul wrote it.  At any rate, it is some of the best-written Greek in the New Testament.  It is unlikely that there would be a mistake in the earliest manuscripts.  However, I would also add that my faith doesn't hang on one passage of scripture.  There are many debated passages like this one, but I still find the whole of scripture to reveal valuable truth.

[Finnegans Wake]

Well, I'm not going to feign familiarity with either the available manuscripts, or the translation of that passage under rules of Greek grammar.  I would certainly have to rely on translation and exegesis from theological scholars, and have not done so with this passage.  What I am dancing around is asking what your source for interpreting as cited, rather than the perhaps corrupted subjunctive, or even rather than an interpretation such as "he were [still] on earth," for one.  These are the arguments I find fascinating, so I won't make a priori conclusions as to the authenticity or inauthenticity of your claims. 

The imperfect (the past tense of the verb eimi, to be) is spelled eta nu, en (sorry, no greek keys on MGS).  The condition tenses are subjunctive eta iota-subscript and optative epsilon iota eta. Either subjunctive or optative would render the conditional contrary-to-fact sense you see in the KJV, NASB, NIV et al. translations (the ones used by mainstream christians); but none of the oldest manuscripts give such a reading, and so we cannot assume scribal error (which in fact would not be likely to change a subjunctive to an indicative, but vice versa). 

But don't take my word for it.  Compare the basic english version to other parallel translations:

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-4.htm

 

Link isn't working for me, but I'll check it later.  As the saying goes...

[jonzr]

Well, I'm not going to feign familiarity with either the available manuscripts, or the translation of that passage under rules of Greek grammar.  I would certainly have to rely on translation and exegesis from theological scholars, and have not done so with this passage.  What I am dancing around is asking what your source for interpreting as cited, rather than the perhaps corrupted subjunctive, or even rather than an interpretation such as "he were [still] on earth," for one.  These are the arguments I find fascinating, so I won't make a priori conclusions as to the authenticity or inauthenticity of your claims. 

The imperfect (the past tense of the verb eimi, to be) is spelled eta nu, en (sorry, no greek keys on MGS).  The condition tenses are subjunctive eta iota-subscript and optative epsilon iota eta. Either subjunctive or optative would render the conditional contrary-to-fact sense you see in the KJV, NASB, NIV et al. translations (the ones used by mainstream christians); but none of the oldest manuscripts give such a reading, and so we cannot assume scribal error (which in fact would not be likely to change a subjunctive to an indicative, but vice versa). 

But don't take my word for it.  Compare the basic english version to other parallel translations:

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-4.htm

 

Jonzr, what can be done about this glaring need? 

Somehow, we're gonna have to find a way to live with it.

[vinman3]

Jonzr, what can be done about this glaring need?

Somehow, we're gonna have to find a way to live with it.

Well, it's all Greek to me anyways.

wocka wocka wocka

 

Thank you. I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your servers.