Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

Translation of Hebrew Text The Hebrew text of Jer. 31:31-34 (Jer. 31:30-33 Masoretic) states, לא הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם יַהְוֶה וְכָרַתִּי אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוּדָה בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה לב לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי וְאָנֹכִי ...


1

Clearly this question is expansive, so forgive me if I do not give direct support or citation for everything. Rather I want to put forward the basic idea of an interpretation and would love to continue in conversation. Question 1. What is this new covenant that is forged with Jews/Israel but not with non-Jews/non-Israel? It is actually quite ...


0

Perhaps this should have been a comment, but, as the previous answer commented that the superscript usually follows the א, but in the NET version appears to preceed it. I just ran across this today, and remembered this question. This is likely due to renders automatically detecting unicode Hebrews as an LTR font (Left-To-Right) font, and if the unicode ...


5

First, let me put into context that "new covenant" as used in Jeremiah does not mean a covenant that replaces an "old covenant." When we speak of "the Covenant" we are usually talking about the one between the Jewish people and God made at Mt. Sinai. But that covenant was not the first, nor the last covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. See, e.g. ...


5

Indisputable? I agree with Frank Luke's comment, further adding that using such a term does technically make the question unanswerable (because, as Frank noted, people dispute things that ought not be). Probable Testimony Circa 60-70 A.D. The earliest probable reference to Luke's gospel is by the apostle Paul himself in 1 Tim 5:18, circa mid 60's A.D. ...


5

Verse 33 explains what’s going on: ולא ילמדו עוד איש את־רעהו ואיש את־אחיו לאמר דעו את־ה׳; כי־כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד־גדולם נאם-ה׳ כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃ and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, ...


2

The Idea in Brief The New Covenant is extended to all nations of the world, because those people who accept this New Covenant are fused (or baptized) into the mystical Body of the Christ. That is, his blood of Jesus Christ is the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). In this respect, then, the New Covenant is not an extension of the Old Covenant but of both the ...


1

• What is this new covenant that is forged with Jews/Israel but not with non-Jews/non-Israel? The covenant with Jeremiah is an expansion of the covenant with Abraham. With Abraham, God’s covenant has three aspects to it to be expanded by the latter covenants: Land: Expanded By Mosaic Covenant {Ex. 19 - Lev. 27; Deut.} Seed: Expanded by Davidic Covenant ...


6

Analysis of Sinaiticus (yes, א is the symbol) has led to the conclusion that there are three general periods of additional editing. So the symbols represent information about these periods. Per the NA28 Introductory material on the critical apparatus: א by itself means the only reading present. א* Is a notation for the original reading when a later ...


7

Another addendum to Susan's fine answer and ScottS's alternative account. All manuscripts are not the same, which is why the text critic's job is not simply that of counting noses. We have two possible scenarios an original shorter reading, which was subsequently expanded in transmission by the addition of "+ and fasting" after "prayer"; an original ...


9

A Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular translation in question is following determines the omission or ...


11

This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. The NA28 includes the text similar to the GNT you quote: . . . τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ (NA28) . . . this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer (ESV) The apparatus notes the variant you ask about (the ...


4

You're not alone in having noticed this repetition. Various hypotheses have been proposed for its existence, from those suggesting it is a thematic choice by the narrator to highlight Elijah's change in character, to a more critical position that there was an intentional addition (perhaps from an alternate tradition of the same story). While in the process ...


6

The Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 is fairly controversial and (like many questions on BH.SE, it seems) has generated a healthy specialist bibliography.1 The translation alone is disputed (or at least discussed!); the one provided by OP is that of Thomas Lambdin (a very fine scholar). OP: What reasons are there to think that it is or is not an addition? ...


2

After reading through the few books I have on the Apocryphal Gospels, I was unable to find any direct evidence for logion 114 being a later addition. I also am unaware of any Greek fragments of 114, so as far as I know, we only have this in the Coptic text. The closest Greek fragment is logion 77, so we cannot say for sure it is not in the Greek text. The ...


3

The problem occurs in v. 10 as well, where variant readings between "Amos" and "Amon" occur. That is, like "Asaph" and "Asa," the words are near homonyms with the respective psalmist Asaph and prophet Amos. In this regard, the late Bruce Metzger (1994) comments as follows on these verses: 1:7–8 Ἀσάφ, Ἀσάφ {B} It is clear that the name ...



Top 50 recent answers are included