This is why men don't go to church anymore

 

Men don't go to church anymore because the church is out to cancel them. That's part of it, anyway. Why go where you're not wanted or respected?

The Acts of the Apostles in The New International Version of the Bible is a good example of this.

The NIV, perhaps the best selling Bible in America, especially among Evangelicals, wants its translation to reflect gender equality, so, for example, whenever brothers appears it often adds "sisters" even though "sisters" is not even there. The NIV's gender equality ideology actually trumps the text by adding "sisters" in 124 places where the Greek New Testament doesn't have it. It also adds the singular "sister" about 26 times. I guess the feeling on the part of the women is that the sisters have been canceled long enough, but the fact is they were never there to be canceled in the first place.  

We meet up with this even more acutely, however, in Acts, which is famous for its many orations by individuals which begin "Men, brothers" or "Men and brothers" (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), but "men" in these cases are actively canceled by the NIV.

An NIV footnote to the first of these at Acts 1:16 informs us that 

The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15.

Yes, Inigo, they keep using that word but it does not mean what they think it means. If the text had meant to add "sisters" (ἀδελφαὶ) it would have. Unfortunately for the NIV, "sisters" appears just nine times (or eight) in the Greek New Testament, and this ain't one of 'em. It goes without saying that "sisters" is missing also in 6:3; 11:29; kai ta loipa (the funniest of these being Acts 6:3 where the NIV with a straight face wants us to imagine that The Twelve tell the brothers and sisters to choose seven "men").

The tell though is that the NIV manages to never translate ἄνδρες in these instances in Acts, except where it absolutely had no other choice in Acts 7:26. Otherwise the "men-ness" of the brothers is simply ignored, because it is counter evidence to the NIV's assertion that adelphoi means "brothers and sisters".

Here are all the instances of canceling ἄνδρες before ἀδελφοί in the NIV of Acts: 

The NIV has "brothers and sisters" at Acts 1:16;

"fellow Israelites" (not there at all!) at Acts 2:29;

"brothers" at Acts 2:37;

"brothers and fathers" (fathers is there) at Acts 7:2, even though it had to translate "Men you are brothers" at Acts 7:26 (the NIV shows by this that it knows it is up to no good); 

"brothers" at Acts 13:15;

"fellow children" at Acts 13:26 (ROFLMAO);

"my friends" at Acts 13:38 (even more ROFLMAO);

"brothers" at Acts 15:7, 13;

"brothers and fathers" at Acts 22:1;

and "my brothers" (!) at Acts 23:1, 6; and Acts 28:17, ending on a chummy note that isn't there either.

This is a completely disgraceful business, an indefensible slaughterhouse of "men" and the maleness of ἀδελφοί.

No wonder men don't go anymore.

The King James Version (observe "Men, brethren" as opposed to "Men and brethren" at Acts 7:2, 26 and Acts 22:1), and Young's Literal Translation both are among the translations which retain the forms of address which preserve the maleness and the dignity of the brothers as men.

The RSV was the Bible of my youth, and the KJV has been the Bible of my old age. But the NIV will never even be a Bible to me. It is literally an abomination. 

 

KJV

 

YLT

I said in my ecstasy: Every man is a liar

Hell is empty, and all the devils are here.

KJV Psalm 116.11:  I said in my haste, All men are liars.  

RSV Psalm 116.11:  I said in my consternation, "Men are all a vain hope."

LXX Psalm 115.2:   ἐγὼ εἶπα ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης

Either way, the new wine's not so hot

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

-- Luke 5:39 (KJV)

And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, The old is good.

-- Luke 5:39 (RSV)

 

 

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.  ... Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 

-- Acts 2:4, 13

The Gospel of Luke's unique use of "pestilences" (loimoi) turns Jewish apocalyptic into Greek

And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. (King James Version)

(σεισμοί τε μεγάλοι κατὰ τόπους καὶ λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοὶ ἔσονται φόβητρά τε καὶ σημεῖα ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ μεγάλα ἔσται) (Textus Receptus)

-- Luke 21:11

The parallel use of loimoi in Matthew 24:7, found in the KJV and NKJV (footnoted), is weakly attested in the manuscripts and is therefore omitted by the NIV, ESV, RSV, ASV, NET and NASB.

Luke alone in the New Testament uses the otherwise relatively rare "loimos" (see in Bruzzone, below, p. 890), and in but one other place, Acts 24:5. There Luke puts the word in the mouth of a trained orator employed by the Jews to accuse St. Paul of being a "pest", which is quite funny actually (cf. Demosthenes 25.80). It must have been the mention of "famines", "limoi", in the tradition received by Luke which probably triggered his addition of "pestilences". 

This is likely because "limoi" and "loimoi", "famines" and "pestilences", are part of a classic literary constellation of calamities, those two especially and frequently in combination with "polemos", "war" (which Luke also has in 21:9f., kicking off the list of troubles). These terms in combination reach deep into Greek memory, back to such eminences as Homer (Iliad 1.61), Hesiod (Erga 243), Aeschylus (Suppliants 659), the historian Herodotus (7.171.2; 8.115.2f.), Plato (Laws 709A), Pindar, Sophocles, and particularly to the historian Thucydides (1.23; 2.47; 2.54), whose account of the famine and plague at Athens opens his History of the Peloponnesian War. The pairing of famine and plague in particular had become a topos taught in the schools already by the time of the Attic orator Aeschines (3.135), so thoroughly ingrained in the imagination had it become by then (see now Rachel Bruzzone, "Polemos, Pathemata, and Plague: Thucydides' Narrative and the Tradition of Upheaval", Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 882-909, esp. 888ff., here).

As an obviously educated writer, Luke probably had learned the topos as a boy. 

Once this is appreciated, one can also observe and better appreciate Luke's (double) introduction of the felicitous "te...kai" construction, also in imitation of good style found in Herodotus and Thucydides in similar contexts, and how Luke uses it to pair "great earthquakes" with this topos "famines and plagues" in the first half of the sentence on the one hand, and in the second half of the sentence, the "signs from heaven" with a description of them as "both fearsome and great" on the other.

The only translation I know of which even attempts to capture this, at least in the first half of the sentence, surprisingly, is that of J. N. Darby:

there shall be both great earthquakes in different places, and famines and pestilences; and there shall be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.

Luke's is a morbidly beautiful sentence in its way, if not pulled off entirely successfully, attempting as it does to express how more or less two things of all too familiar and essentially terrestrial terror will be doubly echoed in the heavenly realm by signs at once spectacular and disturbing, confirming the gods' displeasure with men:

There shall be both great signs in place after place, as well as famines and pestilences, and signs from heaven both fearsome and great.

These "te...kai" and topos niceties are wholly lacking in Matthew 24:7 and Mark 13:8, which are artless and probably closer to the original form of the saying, omitting "pestilences" and "both...and". Hence the confusion in the manuscripts with the word order in Luke 21:11 itself, producing many variant readings, because the introduction of the terminology by Luke fought with the received elements.

It's all Luke's fault.

Smart people are frequently misunderstood.

But if one can keep from getting bogged down in all that for one moment, it points to the effort made by Luke to make the apocalyptic teaching of the Christians intelligible to Greek minds. He's trying to make it sound even more familiar to them than it already was. And this begs the question of the origin of Christian apocalyptic in the first place. Just how Hellenized was all this to begin with? It looks more plausible to me after reading Bruzzone, who, by the way, says narry a word about it. The success of the Christian movement is at least partly explained by the resonance of its message with the actual hopes and the fears shared by its hosts.

Bruzzone makes a good case that the Greek tradition is immemorially rich with suspicions of divine involvement in human ills of civil strife, war, natural calamities, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as wonders and portents in the skies, and on the earth below famine, plague, and mass death (loigos). All of these things are associated, if not always in every detail, with the gospels' memory of Jesus' apocalyptic teaching . . . and with Thucydides.

Oh my God, not Thucydides.

This unique case in Luke's Gospel involving pestilence might lead some quickly to say and too quickly to say, "See, Luke was a physician, preoccupied with 'medical' terminology. That's all this is." Well, that hardly makes Luke a physician than it makes one of Thucydides.

But maybe it makes Luke an historian, and a very Greek one at that, at least in his own imagination.

The one who gives up praying to God is faithless and is already "from evil"

 

No English translation of Luke 18:1 adequately captures the sense of μὴ ἐγκακεῖν, "don't be from evil".

Some examples:

"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;" (KJV)

"Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." (NIV)

"And he told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart." (RSV)

"Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart," (NASB)

"Then Jesus told them a parable to show them they should always pray and not lose heart." (NET).

These failures of translation are not surprising given the thoroughgoing effort to suppress the failed eschatological message of Jesus and reinterpret it from the beginning. As usual, however, Luke remains its rare honest reporter.

The translations suffer from reading into Luke's usage of the term, the only one in the gospels, the usage from Paul, which has already become patently psychological and introspective (e.g. 2 Cor.4:16). Luke's use, however, is plainly eschatological in its context (Luke 17:20ff. through Luke 18:8) and knows nothing of this later "introspective conscience of the West". It focuses on the behavior which springs from the inner man, not on the inner man itself. Yes, Scripture ought to interpret Scripture as the Lutherans insist, but it is Luke who ought to interpret Luke. 

The one who gives up praying to God in Luke is representative of the many faithless at the end of the world, who are literally "from evil" (ἐκ κακός) because they have given up believing in the very idea of justice in the first place. The many are all jaded and don't even bother asking for justice anymore. In fact, to them the seat of justice itself is so unhinged the effort would be doomed from the start. The representatives of justice have become such thoroughgoing individualists and laws unto themselves who do not see themselves as beings in relation to God or even to other men that it would be impossible even to make a case to them. So why even try?

The few who will be saved, however, are like the persistent widow of this narrative. She alone among all her peers has not given up on the idea of a justice which is outside herself and represents the ground of being. No one else but she even bothers to try anymore. No one else but she even believes that a decent case can be made for it. She is ridiculously outnumbered. The capriciousness of unjust justice she faces at the fullness of time, at the end of the world, is shown in that it is moved no longer by principles of God or man but only by its own exhaustion with this harpy. This lone defender of Absolutes wins because she is stronger and more enduring because of the Absolutes, not because of her faith in the Absolutes. She simply knows the strength of her case, and refuses to give it up. She knows it can't be beaten, and that it will win. That Jesus must admonish even his own closest disciples to be like her and not join the many in their backsliding behavior is very telling. His promises of the imminent consummation were beginning to ring hollow even in their ears.

It calls to mind Jesus' instruction to his disciples elsewhere about the paradigmatic discipleship of a widow, who put into the treasury (ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς) "her whole life" (Mark 12:44/Luke 21:4), perhaps the most important two cents in the history of the West. For whatever else might be said about the failure of the kingdom of God to appear, Christendom yet stands for that same transcendent, unshakeable moral order for which a widow sacrificed everything that she had.

The human capacity for and ubiquity of evil were taken for granted by Jesus. What remains remarkable is that he believed some could repent, and no longer "be bad".

A Roman Catholic wants you to believe "sinless Mary" is biblical

Here:

Grace is presented (esp. in Paul) as the antithesis of sin.

To be full of such grace (simple logic) is to be without sin.

Mary was proclaimed by an angel as “full of grace” (Lk 1:28); therefore, she is without sin.

You will search in vain for the translation "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 in the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New Living Translation, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Translation, the Revised Standard Version and the American Standard Version. Most of these say Mary is "highly favored".

Evidently the translators of these editions all must have been either a bunch of dummies, or a pack of anti-Catholic Protestant heretics to a man to get it so wrong, for so long.

The birth narratives of Jesus in Matthew and Luke were most likely composed to counter the calumny (to Christians) that Jesus was born of fornication (John 8:41). This became a bone of contention once Jesus' reputation had risen above mere "prophet" to deity. The solution to the charge of being a product of fornication was a miraculous birth to a virgin involving no human father at all.

But, of course, Mary then becomes the problem. She herself participated in sinful human nature, did she not, and therefore must have communicated it to her son, did she not?

So in Catholic theology a sinless Mary becomes necessary to stop the communication of sinful human nature to Jesus, based on tenous arguments such as above.

But then how did Mary escape the great chain of being? And if she did why was the birth of Jesus even necessary?

The whole thing quickly descends into more absurdity.

Believe it or not, the King James Version of the Bible remains the most read in America

The NIV is second most read version of the Bible.

It must be true. I read it here in The Washington Post, which also says 88% of Americans own at least one copy and that 40 million Bibles are sold here annually:

'The Bible business is booming. There are annual sales of 40 million Bibles — from study Bibles to family Bibles to pocket Bibles. That’s not even counting foreign markets. As journalist Daniel Radosh observed, “The familiar observation that the Bible is the best-selling book of all time obscures a more startling fact: The Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year.”'

The Feud With "The Jews" of the Fourth Gospel Was With "The Judeans" Not "The Jews"

As I have observed before, the Fourth Gospel's use of "the Jews" is so stark that on occasion it makes it look like Jesus and his disciples are outsiders and not Jews. And Paul the Jew oddly seems to blame "The Jews" for Jesus' death even though Paul in Romans thought that the gospel was for the Jew first.

An interesting story here suggests the solution is to translate differently:

One example from the New King James Version (NKJV) is instructive: “Then after this, [Jesus] said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again. The disciples said to him, ‘Rabbi, the ioudaioi [Jews] sought to stone you and are you going there again?’” (John 11:7-8) Translating “ioudaioi” above as “Jews” presents an immediate problem. It implies that Jesus – even while called “rabbi” – was not Jewish, but an outsider, along with his disciples. This would include John, despite his insider knowledge of the people and places, customs and nuances of early first-century Israel.

It obscures the fact that John is describing a family dispute – albeit a bitter one – among some of his fellow Jews on whether Jesus was Israel’s deliverer. It implies that the Jews as a people were Christ’s monolithic foe, and perhaps even collectively culpable for his mistreatment and death.

In other words, rendering “ioudaioi” as “Jews” suggests the writer drew an impassable line between Jesus and his earliest followers and “the Jews.”

Clearly he did not. The problem rests with the translation. Ioudaioi here means “Judeans,” not “Jews.”

That the solution is plausible is accepted by the translators of the New King James Version, as the article itself notes, but is not carried through in John for some reason:

Don’t translators see the problem? Actually, the New King James Version (NKJV) translators did. In I Thessalonians 2:14-16, a portion from one of Paul’s letters, they rightly rendered ioudaioi “Judeans.” With this one simple change, they transformed a passage wielded infamously for centuries against the entire people of Israel into one that criticizes a miniscule clique of individuals – likely Caiaphas and his allies – within first-century Judea.

Why no similar corrections for John’s Gospel? Why indeed.

Jesus' Warning Against Libertarianism's Apocalypticism

 

 

Increased lawlessness will cause a chilling effect on compassion for the many.

You recognize the line better, perhaps, from the King James Version, which doesn't translate it as an objective genitive:

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

-- Matthew 24:12

Who else in our time but the libertarians combine both concepts, demanding to practice every sort of vice as a consequence of being free, while disdaining the managerial state by "going Galt"?

I am not an apocalypticist, but contemporary libertarians who claim they can also be Christians don't know what they are talking about. Children, of course, don't like to be told "No", and often take the ball and go home. That such infantilism should become elevated to a philosophy is not surprising in an age when self-absorbed baby boomers have produced legions of individuals who have failed to launch.

"I I Me Me Mine" sang The Beatles. 

The Place of the Idiot: Where the Unbeliever Sits, or the Novice?

ton topon tou idiotou (Greek New Testament)

locum idiotae (Latin Vulgate)

the room of the unlearned (King James Version)

the place of the uninformed (New King James Version)

the position of an outsider (Revised Standard Version)

the place of the ungifted (New American Standard Bible)

the place of the unlearned (Authorized Standard Version)

1 Corinthians 14:16