1
In Luther’s 1522 Preface to the New Testament, he wrote, in a passage quoted in a scholarly discussion of Luther’s biblical interpretation:
“The epistles of St. Paul … far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.”
Google counters:
- The “Kernel and Marrow”: Luther referred to John’s Gospel, Paul’s epistles (especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians), and 1 Peter as the “true kernel and marrow of all the books” because they teach that faith in Christ brings salvation without relying on human works.
- A Theological Hierarchy: Luther constructed a functional “canon within the canon.” He evaluated the value of any biblical book by how well it “preached Christ” (was Christum treibet). Because Paul’s epistles explicitly unpack the mechanics of grace and faith, Luther ranked them as spiritually superior to the Synoptic Gospels, which focus heavily on narrative actions.
2
Yes, there is a Codex Sinaiticus in Greek and a Syriac Sinaiticus written in Syriac.
= = = = =
QUESTION: Matthew Chapter 24 vs 34 does not lead to a false prophet claim in Syriac Sinaitcus because tribe is used instead of generation?
I’m afraid I don’t follow what the question you ask in Post 1 has to do with what comes before it. I’d appreciate if you’d explain that to me.
I also don’t understand what you mean by “What is available in advance?” Do you mean scholarly works that deal with Matthew 24:34?
Finally, you seem to be saying that since Jesus said no one knows but the father that this will happen that this tribe is a better translation than this generation. Am I reading what you mean here wrong?
The Syriac word in Matthew 24:34 can mean both “generation” and “tribe.” The important distinction is that this is a matter of the word’s range of meaning, not necessarily a different reading in the manuscript.
The Syriac word is:
ܫܪܒܬܐ
Transliteration: sharbta (approximately)
Possible meanings: generation, tribe, family, stock, lineage.
Source: Dukhrana’s Syriac Peshitta analysis of Matthew 24:34.
dukhrana.com
Does that mean “this tribe will not pass away”?
It is a possible rendering of the Syriac word in isolation, but we must be careful about the conclusion.
The Peshitta reads:
ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܠܐ ܬܥܒܪ ܫܪܒܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܝܢ ܢܗܘܝܢ
The key phrase is sharbta hadē — “this generation” or, depending on context, “this tribe/lineage.”
dukhrana.com+1
However, the Syriac Sinaiticus and the Greek Codex Sinaiticus are two different manuscripts. The Greek Codex Sinaiticus reads hē genea hautē, meaning “this generation.”
greeknewtestament.net
The scholarly question is whether the Old Syriac Sinaitic manuscript’s actual wording and its context support “tribe” rather than “generation.” The fact that sharbta can mean either does not establish that the manuscript has a variant reading or that “tribe” is the intended translation.
Mt ch 24 v 36
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Steefen:
Jesus could not have claimed some standing here will see the Son of Man coming in his glory since he did not know the day and hour–only the Father knew that.
That is why it is better not to limit the appearance of the Son of Man within a generation but choose a translation that does not limit: this tribe of Jerusalem (Temple authorities and Jerusalem Church)–Jews will not pass away and Christians will not pass away until the Son of Man comes.
= = = =
It is a rebuttal against Jesus being a false prophet because the Son of Man did not come in glory with his kingdom of Hebrew Heaven. That is why it’s a better translation because Jesus is not thrown under the bus.
There is one punch thrown against the charge of false prophet.
Robert:
Better to avoid this cesspool of Christian triumphalism or anti-Semitism and accept the simplest, most obvious interpretation that Mark and Matthew still thought of the destruction of the temple as heralding the Parousia, not yet realizing that they would be memorializing Jesus’ words as betraying him as a false prophet.
Steefen:
You are saying if Jesus is using tribe (his own: Jewish, or his own: the Jerusalem Church) one not only opens the door to “The Son of Man has not come on the clouds in glory” but there is anti-Semistism attached to it.
Jews and Christians will not pass away until the Son of Man comes to bring his kingdom on earth.
Some kind of way you are squeezing Christian triumphalism and anti-Semitism in there.
Only the Father knows when this theological utopia is going to arrive.
That is just as bad as false prophet. The earth needed a theological utopia many times. The earth has problems void of Semites. One can hold the thought without the anti-Semitic implications.
But if you want to alert us to scholars not allowing that, we understand but do not give permission that that is what this thread is about. I would like to not be 100% that Jesus was a false prophet because of “generation” vs. “tribe.”
BJH1960 said
I’m afraid I don’t follow what the question you ask in Post 1 has to do with what comes before it. I’d appreciate if you’d explain that to me.
I also don’t understand what you mean by “What is available in advance?” Do you mean scholarly works that deal with Matthew 24:34?
Finally, you seem to be saying that since Jesus said no one knows but the father that this will happen that this tribe is a better translation than this generation. Am I reading what you mean here wrong?
What follows mean: some can see that the discussion could go in that direction.
If you say that Jesus meant tribe and not generation then in support of that one could say only the Father knows when the tribes will pass away.
Then what’s the point of a Kingdom of Heaven when the tribes have passed away?
Oh, what comes before it? What comes before what? What sentence in the original post are you referring to–I don’t see what you are asking about.
Your last question was answered since you asked it.
Supposedly, there was a time when people were aware of the two meanings: generation and tribe and did not have an open door to the claim that Jesus was a false prophet because of that verse.
Robert may be implying that 99% of Bible scholars used generation deciding it’s better to throw Jesus under the bus than to open the door to antisemitism. Antisemitism and the claims of antisemitism are around without that one particular verse. That’s not the only verse that can be construed by scholars as antisemitic.
That’s not the only verse that shows Jesus is not worthy of his place in history and the hype the placed him in history. There is plenty of duress that goes into Jesus’ victory in historical fame.
BJH1960 said
The long excerpt you labeled as 1. What Robert mentioned in Post 4.
There is the Martin Luther problem that came before.
First, people knew the two meanings that could be tribe or generation.
Then the powers that be decided to run with generation instead of tribe to avoid Martin Luther’s insults.
Maybe they thought, Some of you standing here will not taste death until the tribes of Jews and Christians pass away didn’t make sense because those standing there were Jews and Jesus represented Christians.
Now, we have most bibles using generation instead of tribe and scholars open the door to abandoning Christ because he was a false prophet. End Christianity, to me, is just as bad as saying delay the Kingdom of Heaven until Jewish and Christian civilization pass away. Talk about not giving the vineyard to Jews and not even giving it to Christians.
That thought doesn’t require moving the standard scholarly dating of the gospels and the Pauline Letters.
Mischaracterizing my contributions to this thread is corrupt. So many of my threads have been about recognized scholars, YouTube videos with scholars. They have also been about science and history, God, Jesus, Josephus, topics that would make a biblical critic more masterful of the subject of biblical criticism.
Besides getting laughed at for using Britannica encyclopedia didn’t earn appreciation points.
In the last 2 years I looked into the influence of Sumerian epics on the book of Genesis. That is important.
I’ve also looked at what my competition was posting about.
After more than 20 years of being serious as an author about one of the topics I’ve written a non-fiction book about after going to in-person lectures, taking writing classes, attended a journalism conference about, attended Adult Classes at a variety of churches, built a library and a bibliography, etc. if I cannot use someone’s input because after studying argumentation, debate, being a debater, and a debate judge, I’ll let you know.
Not everything reaches that high bar but higher than writing a book is why I gave up singing to be a playwright and a nonfiction author, and a YouTube content creator is being able to justify what I hold to be my roadmap to the afterlife. That adds to my seriousness. And of course, when I speak to others and when people read my writing or possibly act in my theatrical plays I’ve thought about my issues thoroughly and I can sign my name to my works of art or autograph a copy of my books.
Etcetera.
There are many people who know more than me and I have to be in their league and I have to continue to develop.
Steefen said:
It is a rebuttal against Jesus being a false prophet because the Son of Man did not come in glory with his kingdom of Hebrew Heaven. That is why it’s a better translation because Jesus is not thrown under the bus.
There is one punch thrown against the charge of false prophet.
Help me out a little bit here a little bit, please, as I’m confused. I thought from what you’ve written in the past you considered him to be a false prophet. Is this not the case?
Also, I take it you’re not actually talking about the Jesus that I believe existed historically. You are talking about a composite character. Why do you think it is important that a fictional character not be thrown under the bus?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)