Hi Terry., thanks for the suggestions. I try to avoid interpretation and stick to translation but I can point out where changes in the original meaning are used to reinforce certain doctrines. However, I cannot say which doctrines are true and which are false. I have a personal belief built upon simply trusting the words of Jesus, but I do not write to promote my own view other than the idea that translation should be accurate.
One thing Jesus lacked, there may be others, but one thing lacking was “hope”. That is to say, the record we have of his vocabulary lacks elpis - curious to me. Words can be slippery things. Hope (elpis) pops up over 50 times in the rest of the new testament, but is not to be found in the gospel writings or the first chapter of Acts. Did Jesus only have pistis apart from elpis.
If mature trust (pistis), as mature confidence, lacks all uncertainty, then hope is not to be found or even needed. There is immature trust/confidence which Jesus related to those with “little faith”, but Jesus would have none of this under-developed “trust”.
Hope might suggest that there are other options available - possibilities. Perhaps in Luke 22:42 Jesus is just brushing next to a trust, for the first time, that is on the borderline of complete and mature trust. Perhaps he was having a "hope" experience. Regardless, we are not told to have “hope”, at least not by Jesus.
Since Jesus doesn't use the word, we cannot know how he saw it. His not using it, however, tells us even less. His reliance on trust may or may not explain it. However, though I haven't studied it, elpis also means "expectation" which does imply uncertainty. I do not think Jesus had "expectations" as such. According to his own words, he knew where he came from and knew where he was going (https://christswords.com/main/content/jhn-814-though-i-bear-record-myself). This seems more certain than an expectation. In my novel, I am trying to write a Jesus that secretly bears the weight of this knowledge without wanting to looks at every detail of his life but unable to escape the main outline and his eventual fate.
I should have better clarified: One thing Jesus’s message lacked was “hope”, elpis. Even though the word elpis (hope) was quite available for use in his day, somehow hope was not a word that he developed his message around, at least not as he did trust, pistis.
Yes, as you wrote, “ … he knew where he came from and knew where he was going.” His journey between “came” and “going” does not seem filled with all the certainty of pistis. Yes, he was certain about commencement and completion points - with certainty. The journey between was full of trip-stones, much similar to those that all mortals encounter as they navigate from start to finish.
When a farmer sows seed is there a hope, or an expectation, or a trust, regarding what happens next? Perhaps a hope that no weeds will sprout along with the sown crop seeds. Baring this miraculous hope, an experienced farmer will expect weeds to sprout especially if conditions are favorable enough to spout crop seeds. How does trust/pistis fit in the farmer’s experience with the sowing corp seeds?
That Jesus experienced hope/expectation (something other than trust, even momentarily) could be understood from his Gethsemane prayer effort. Be it defined as hope or expectation there seemed to be a possibility that “… if it is possible, it must away from me this cup, this one,…” (Listeners Heard). At that moment, because of other unexplained possibilities, he deals with uncertainty.
So, on the one hand he teaches a message of pistis (trust as a certainty) without ever mentioning elpis (hope as an uncertainty). On the other hand he seems to have an elpis experience in the garden which seems resolved with “… It must happen, this will of yours.” (Matthew 26:42, partial, Listeners Heard). “... this will of yours.”, is certain.
I am certainly no wordsmith and your novel sounds, to me, a formidable task. For some reason a 4th person point of view comes to mind. That is, Jesus in a collective setting. Jesus as an individual mortal among the collective of mortals having “normal” mortal experiences which most mortals can identify with or relate. At the same time he is “managing” his experiences, as varied and unique as they may be, within a context which no other mortal had - “… this son, this unique[monogenEs] one …” (John 3:16, Listeners Heard, partial, brackets added).
First, thank you for the article on 4th person point of view. Never heard of this before, but some of my novel may have accidentally stumbled upon it. The account is written from a first- POV, but she put together her account with three other people whose reports have their own separate scenes. But must of the description is from the "we" point of view, though identifying with the assembly itself rather than her three collaborators, but something to think about, perhaps in future works.
As far as hope is also thought provoking. I don't want to disagree with any part of it. However, reading it, the thought arises that Jesus surrendered his own freedom of choice, even his own words, accepting divine will and words instead. The scene in the garden of Gethsemane says that directly.
I suppose that most do cherish the idea of “freedom of choice”, even among those that choose to embrace the idea that there is no “freedom of choice”. It is with near perfect myopic hindsight that I would suggest that one particular mortal - “… this son, this unique[monogenEs] one …” (John 3:16, Listeners Heard, partial, brackets added) perilously on the fence between the two.
Jesus had about the same choice as did Adam of Genesis had in his particular garden. Two separate garden experiences, two different sons of God, two different choices with two different outcomes - but very much expected, with two different personhoods being on display for us. I merely suggest here that Jesus had an acute trust with father as unique[monogenEs] son, and father was quite agreeable - so strong is this trust-connection that neither would allow separation - hmmm, not even conceivable to either. Really, not even in the realm of possible - really, in the entire scheme of things, not even a wee consideration.
The rub. Somewhere along the line Jesus was transferred from personhood to sonhood. A sonhood that was unique compared to Adam of Genesis. In other word, the connection Jesus had with father was not that of personhood but that of sonhood. The surviving written record of Jesus’s word to us about his “personhood” is quite minimum, but his “sonhood” is abundantly displayed throughout the written record.
A Garden Affair
The exchange that Jesus had with the father in the garden of Gethsemane was loaded (Matthew 26:39-45) and quite personal, deeply personal to Jesus. As you have well noted, Jesus probably shared this garden experience with others at some point in time as there were no firsthand witnesses at that time even though we have a record of it.
In one regard there seems three wills at play in Jesus’s garden experience. There is a will of the father, there is a will that desires “the cup” to pass, and a will that desires the will of father. A tendency is to bunch two of the three wills into the One (the Jesus), leaving “two” players in the garden and indeed that does work for many different forms of Christianity.
One will desires “the cup” to pass. This will seems to convey an idea options. This opens a door for possibilities, for options other than what circumstances might be indicating. Even as we do not understand exactly the actual “contents” of the cup, this particular “will” did not want to drink of that particular cup. Let’s realize that “Jesus” would not have requested for the removal of the cup if it were not in the realm of possible. The possibility that there was a way other than “the cup” has me looking at hope (elpis) - as a possibility. Perhaps similar to the elpis as in Psalm 16:9 where the sarx relates to elpis. Suppose it was Jesus’s flesh that abhorred the offering of “the cup” and bubbled forth ideas of other options. Here’s an example of one possible option: “Okay Father, how about this. Drop me dead right here, right now, with a heart-attack. Then let them place my body in a tomb. Three days later you raise me out of tomb. Will that work for You? Would this not accomplish all things needful?” These other kinds of potential “cup” options may have been the source for the angst that “Jesus” was dealing with in the garden. Indeed, Jesus could have asked father for another option and father would have complied - really, that’s just how tight they were then, even so now. But Jesus is very careful about the father-son connection.
Then there is a will that desires the will of father. I have surmised that there is only one that desires the will of the father unequivocally - the unique son. No father, no son. No son, no father. Both are necessary if either on is existing. These “two” are connected inextricably, deeper than a mere mortal personhood thinking can sustain. As long as the son is in the household of the father the will of father is maintained - this accords with the law. Far above all personhood, sonhood maintains connection to father. It’s just that essential.
The will of father for the unique[monogenEs] son Jesus is apparent to us from the written record having been passed down to us recording what “actually” transpired for/to Jesus. The will of father is sable, without mortal waverings, working toward his end. In the garden Jesus understands “the cup” as father’s will.
There in the garden with a wee bit of Jesus’s personhood weighing in, there is apparently at least two options that father could execute. One of these options was of a different cup to drink - at least in Jesus’s hopeful contemplation.
We are mindful: sonhood is not optional, deny father and the father/son connection dissipates - vice versa as well.
In the garden, the son of the man hears the hope of the flesh to have the cup removed but the sonhood connection must be maintained. The son of the man subordinates the flesh to the undesirable will of father, thus the father/son connection remains intact. This requires trust (pistis) by the son on a level that flesh is unfamiliar. His sonhood proved beyond a doubt that nothing created can sever this connection with father - it is incorruptible, absolutely incorruptible.
Did Jesus have freedom to choose other options, oh my, yes. Even though other options could have Jesus arriving at the same “end” goal (death, rising, ascending), the journey according to the will of father was paramount. As a mortal connected in sonhood all Jesus’s flesh options were filtered to father via the son. Sonhood keeps personhood in check, if and as needed. As the unique[monogenEs] son, options required his trust and patience in accomplishing the will of father.
Perhaps there is no hope (elpis) in Jesus’ message because as the unique[monogenEs] son there is only trust (pistis) with son and father. Hope is generated from a flesh source, being sometimes contrary to son-source trust. Sons can, and do, experience hope, but sons maintain priority with the father/son connection via trust, not hope. Meanwhile, the flesh is tenting in expectation (elpis) - Psalm 16:9, Acts 2:26 - but for us, the obedience of the sonhood is the must-have connection.
Hard for me to respond to this post because its ideas come more from the Spirit than Jesus's words. Were there three "wills" involved? Though the Greek word can also mean "to desire" or wish it normally means the decision between options on the part of a decision-maker. The cup was the day of the cross. The passing of the cup was avoiding that day. Those are options, not wills. The will was the choosing between them, the preference. One was his Father's preference. The other, his own. At the beginning of his sonhood (like the term, though I think of it as Divine childhood), he chose his Father's will over his own. He spoke, not his words, but his Father's. At one point, he says to challengers what amounts to "I wish I could give you a piece of my mind, but I speak only what the Father has told me. "
"Specific verses where meaning is lost in translation" would be of interest to me.
Regarding this article, could you provide some specific comments Jesus made where your explanation of these words actually improves our understanding of what he said?
Put another way, how does the common understanding of those comments mislead us?
This is what the Christswords.com site is all about. I look at every verse in the Greek and compare it to the KJV and NIV translation in detail. Does translation mislead us? Translation is incredibly sloppy and sadly has gotten more sloppy in the 500 years since. The KJV at least tried to translate each word. Modern Bibles tend to just leave out words or add them in what Jesus says is difficult, often in the context of teaching but sometimes just because the Greek is difficult. Its taken almost 20 years of work to get some of these verses closer to what Jesus said.
But the biggest problem is that translation filters out how entertaining Jesus was as a speaker. They translate him in the blandest way possible but if we stick closer to the Greek and his oroginal word order, much of what he said was clearly meant to be humorous and dramatic. Translators don't like it when Jesus said odd things, but he does frequently to get a reaction. I find new entertaining things every day, and I have been looking at each of these verses for a long time. But it takes me about four years to revisit a verse (doing 1 or 2 a day) and I learn a lot in 4 years, mostly about the Greek.
Do translators intentionally mislead? I don't think so. I think they feel they are guided by the Holy Spirit as I do. More over they think that standard Christian dogma is from the Spirit, so promoting it over Jesus's words is acceptable to them. I am a translator first and foremost and I have no dogma except the words themselves. Its not that I don't appreciate Christian history and its two thousand year of traditions, but I am trying to get back to what made Jesus's words so exciting in the early years spread like a wildfire.
Hi Terry., thanks for the suggestions. I try to avoid interpretation and stick to translation but I can point out where changes in the original meaning are used to reinforce certain doctrines. However, I cannot say which doctrines are true and which are false. I have a personal belief built upon simply trusting the words of Jesus, but I do not write to promote my own view other than the idea that translation should be accurate.
One thing Jesus lacked, there may be others, but one thing lacking was “hope”. That is to say, the record we have of his vocabulary lacks elpis - curious to me. Words can be slippery things. Hope (elpis) pops up over 50 times in the rest of the new testament, but is not to be found in the gospel writings or the first chapter of Acts. Did Jesus only have pistis apart from elpis.
If mature trust (pistis), as mature confidence, lacks all uncertainty, then hope is not to be found or even needed. There is immature trust/confidence which Jesus related to those with “little faith”, but Jesus would have none of this under-developed “trust”.
Hope might suggest that there are other options available - possibilities. Perhaps in Luke 22:42 Jesus is just brushing next to a trust, for the first time, that is on the borderline of complete and mature trust. Perhaps he was having a "hope" experience. Regardless, we are not told to have “hope”, at least not by Jesus.
Since Jesus doesn't use the word, we cannot know how he saw it. His not using it, however, tells us even less. His reliance on trust may or may not explain it. However, though I haven't studied it, elpis also means "expectation" which does imply uncertainty. I do not think Jesus had "expectations" as such. According to his own words, he knew where he came from and knew where he was going (https://christswords.com/main/content/jhn-814-though-i-bear-record-myself). This seems more certain than an expectation. In my novel, I am trying to write a Jesus that secretly bears the weight of this knowledge without wanting to looks at every detail of his life but unable to escape the main outline and his eventual fate.
I should have better clarified: One thing Jesus’s message lacked was “hope”, elpis. Even though the word elpis (hope) was quite available for use in his day, somehow hope was not a word that he developed his message around, at least not as he did trust, pistis.
Yes, as you wrote, “ … he knew where he came from and knew where he was going.” His journey between “came” and “going” does not seem filled with all the certainty of pistis. Yes, he was certain about commencement and completion points - with certainty. The journey between was full of trip-stones, much similar to those that all mortals encounter as they navigate from start to finish.
When a farmer sows seed is there a hope, or an expectation, or a trust, regarding what happens next? Perhaps a hope that no weeds will sprout along with the sown crop seeds. Baring this miraculous hope, an experienced farmer will expect weeds to sprout especially if conditions are favorable enough to spout crop seeds. How does trust/pistis fit in the farmer’s experience with the sowing corp seeds?
That Jesus experienced hope/expectation (something other than trust, even momentarily) could be understood from his Gethsemane prayer effort. Be it defined as hope or expectation there seemed to be a possibility that “… if it is possible, it must away from me this cup, this one,…” (Listeners Heard). At that moment, because of other unexplained possibilities, he deals with uncertainty.
So, on the one hand he teaches a message of pistis (trust as a certainty) without ever mentioning elpis (hope as an uncertainty). On the other hand he seems to have an elpis experience in the garden which seems resolved with “… It must happen, this will of yours.” (Matthew 26:42, partial, Listeners Heard). “... this will of yours.”, is certain.
I am certainly no wordsmith and your novel sounds, to me, a formidable task. For some reason a 4th person point of view comes to mind. That is, Jesus in a collective setting. Jesus as an individual mortal among the collective of mortals having “normal” mortal experiences which most mortals can identify with or relate. At the same time he is “managing” his experiences, as varied and unique as they may be, within a context which no other mortal had - “… this son, this unique[monogenEs] one …” (John 3:16, Listeners Heard, partial, brackets added).
I came across this Fourth Person Point of View at : https://kindlepreneur.com/point-of-view/, https://kindlepreneur.com/fourth-person/ about seventeen months ago, about the same time your websites came across my internet browser search.
First, thank you for the article on 4th person point of view. Never heard of this before, but some of my novel may have accidentally stumbled upon it. The account is written from a first- POV, but she put together her account with three other people whose reports have their own separate scenes. But must of the description is from the "we" point of view, though identifying with the assembly itself rather than her three collaborators, but something to think about, perhaps in future works.
As far as hope is also thought provoking. I don't want to disagree with any part of it. However, reading it, the thought arises that Jesus surrendered his own freedom of choice, even his own words, accepting divine will and words instead. The scene in the garden of Gethsemane says that directly.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Gary
I suppose that most do cherish the idea of “freedom of choice”, even among those that choose to embrace the idea that there is no “freedom of choice”. It is with near perfect myopic hindsight that I would suggest that one particular mortal - “… this son, this unique[monogenEs] one …” (John 3:16, Listeners Heard, partial, brackets added) perilously on the fence between the two.
Jesus had about the same choice as did Adam of Genesis had in his particular garden. Two separate garden experiences, two different sons of God, two different choices with two different outcomes - but very much expected, with two different personhoods being on display for us. I merely suggest here that Jesus had an acute trust with father as unique[monogenEs] son, and father was quite agreeable - so strong is this trust-connection that neither would allow separation - hmmm, not even conceivable to either. Really, not even in the realm of possible - really, in the entire scheme of things, not even a wee consideration.
The rub. Somewhere along the line Jesus was transferred from personhood to sonhood. A sonhood that was unique compared to Adam of Genesis. In other word, the connection Jesus had with father was not that of personhood but that of sonhood. The surviving written record of Jesus’s word to us about his “personhood” is quite minimum, but his “sonhood” is abundantly displayed throughout the written record.
A Garden Affair
The exchange that Jesus had with the father in the garden of Gethsemane was loaded (Matthew 26:39-45) and quite personal, deeply personal to Jesus. As you have well noted, Jesus probably shared this garden experience with others at some point in time as there were no firsthand witnesses at that time even though we have a record of it.
In one regard there seems three wills at play in Jesus’s garden experience. There is a will of the father, there is a will that desires “the cup” to pass, and a will that desires the will of father. A tendency is to bunch two of the three wills into the One (the Jesus), leaving “two” players in the garden and indeed that does work for many different forms of Christianity.
One will desires “the cup” to pass. This will seems to convey an idea options. This opens a door for possibilities, for options other than what circumstances might be indicating. Even as we do not understand exactly the actual “contents” of the cup, this particular “will” did not want to drink of that particular cup. Let’s realize that “Jesus” would not have requested for the removal of the cup if it were not in the realm of possible. The possibility that there was a way other than “the cup” has me looking at hope (elpis) - as a possibility. Perhaps similar to the elpis as in Psalm 16:9 where the sarx relates to elpis. Suppose it was Jesus’s flesh that abhorred the offering of “the cup” and bubbled forth ideas of other options. Here’s an example of one possible option: “Okay Father, how about this. Drop me dead right here, right now, with a heart-attack. Then let them place my body in a tomb. Three days later you raise me out of tomb. Will that work for You? Would this not accomplish all things needful?” These other kinds of potential “cup” options may have been the source for the angst that “Jesus” was dealing with in the garden. Indeed, Jesus could have asked father for another option and father would have complied - really, that’s just how tight they were then, even so now. But Jesus is very careful about the father-son connection.
Then there is a will that desires the will of father. I have surmised that there is only one that desires the will of the father unequivocally - the unique son. No father, no son. No son, no father. Both are necessary if either on is existing. These “two” are connected inextricably, deeper than a mere mortal personhood thinking can sustain. As long as the son is in the household of the father the will of father is maintained - this accords with the law. Far above all personhood, sonhood maintains connection to father. It’s just that essential.
The will of father for the unique[monogenEs] son Jesus is apparent to us from the written record having been passed down to us recording what “actually” transpired for/to Jesus. The will of father is sable, without mortal waverings, working toward his end. In the garden Jesus understands “the cup” as father’s will.
There in the garden with a wee bit of Jesus’s personhood weighing in, there is apparently at least two options that father could execute. One of these options was of a different cup to drink - at least in Jesus’s hopeful contemplation.
We are mindful: sonhood is not optional, deny father and the father/son connection dissipates - vice versa as well.
In the garden, the son of the man hears the hope of the flesh to have the cup removed but the sonhood connection must be maintained. The son of the man subordinates the flesh to the undesirable will of father, thus the father/son connection remains intact. This requires trust (pistis) by the son on a level that flesh is unfamiliar. His sonhood proved beyond a doubt that nothing created can sever this connection with father - it is incorruptible, absolutely incorruptible.
Did Jesus have freedom to choose other options, oh my, yes. Even though other options could have Jesus arriving at the same “end” goal (death, rising, ascending), the journey according to the will of father was paramount. As a mortal connected in sonhood all Jesus’s flesh options were filtered to father via the son. Sonhood keeps personhood in check, if and as needed. As the unique[monogenEs] son, options required his trust and patience in accomplishing the will of father.
Perhaps there is no hope (elpis) in Jesus’ message because as the unique[monogenEs] son there is only trust (pistis) with son and father. Hope is generated from a flesh source, being sometimes contrary to son-source trust. Sons can, and do, experience hope, but sons maintain priority with the father/son connection via trust, not hope. Meanwhile, the flesh is tenting in expectation (elpis) - Psalm 16:9, Acts 2:26 - but for us, the obedience of the sonhood is the must-have connection.
Hard for me to respond to this post because its ideas come more from the Spirit than Jesus's words. Were there three "wills" involved? Though the Greek word can also mean "to desire" or wish it normally means the decision between options on the part of a decision-maker. The cup was the day of the cross. The passing of the cup was avoiding that day. Those are options, not wills. The will was the choosing between them, the preference. One was his Father's preference. The other, his own. At the beginning of his sonhood (like the term, though I think of it as Divine childhood), he chose his Father's will over his own. He spoke, not his words, but his Father's. At one point, he says to challengers what amounts to "I wish I could give you a piece of my mind, but I speak only what the Father has told me. "
"Specific verses where meaning is lost in translation" would be of interest to me.
Regarding this article, could you provide some specific comments Jesus made where your explanation of these words actually improves our understanding of what he said?
Put another way, how does the common understanding of those comments mislead us?
This is what the Christswords.com site is all about. I look at every verse in the Greek and compare it to the KJV and NIV translation in detail. Does translation mislead us? Translation is incredibly sloppy and sadly has gotten more sloppy in the 500 years since. The KJV at least tried to translate each word. Modern Bibles tend to just leave out words or add them in what Jesus says is difficult, often in the context of teaching but sometimes just because the Greek is difficult. Its taken almost 20 years of work to get some of these verses closer to what Jesus said.
But the biggest problem is that translation filters out how entertaining Jesus was as a speaker. They translate him in the blandest way possible but if we stick closer to the Greek and his oroginal word order, much of what he said was clearly meant to be humorous and dramatic. Translators don't like it when Jesus said odd things, but he does frequently to get a reaction. I find new entertaining things every day, and I have been looking at each of these verses for a long time. But it takes me about four years to revisit a verse (doing 1 or 2 a day) and I learn a lot in 4 years, mostly about the Greek.
Do translators intentionally mislead? I don't think so. I think they feel they are guided by the Holy Spirit as I do. More over they think that standard Christian dogma is from the Spirit, so promoting it over Jesus's words is acceptable to them. I am a translator first and foremost and I have no dogma except the words themselves. Its not that I don't appreciate Christian history and its two thousand year of traditions, but I am trying to get back to what made Jesus's words so exciting in the early years spread like a wildfire.