When will you post the transcript for the paper Roland delivered in Kyoto? For that matter, when will we get a video interview with Roland? I realize he's quite busy but it would be nice to see him once in a while.
Looking forward to the conversation with McGilchrist.
Also, I just finished a work of speculative fiction which might interest you - Ray Nayler's Mountain in the Sea. Major themes include consciousness, AI, Buddhism (kind of), and cephalopods. Highly recommended.
My copy of the NT landed yesterday (I am a new reader of yours, so good timing for me with the second edition) and my wife and I had a laugh discussing what “whorishness” meant in the context of Jesus’ divorce proclamations in Matthew 19. I wonder if “fornication” tickled the ear back in 1611 in the same way!
The evangelical christians I know like to dismiss formalities in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches such as apostolic succession, real presence in the eucharist, confession to priests, sacramental authority (i.e. that not just anyone can baptize or administer communion etc). Do you think they have a point? It seems to me that the early Christians were more like the Orthodox/Catholic than the evangelicals on these sorts of things. But, the early church was over 2000 years ago and the apostolic succession and church authorities have a long history of abuse and misdirection. So part of me can certainly understand the appeal of just reading the Bible and church fathers and breaking bread with friends in the faith rather than being part of a big institution. I feel torn here.
I propose a cookbook on Mediterranean food and other matters. Phyllo and Philosophy, Gelato and Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Roland in Moonlight in Marseille—writes itself.
I have your first NT translation and may pickup the second one as well. Could you tell me which Bible translations used in churches you would consider to be relatively good? Do you have any thoughts on the NABRE?
The NABRE is far better than the NIV, obviously, but that's not saying much. Everything is better than the NIV. The Catcher in the Rye is closer to a good translation of the Bible than the NIV is. My own feeling is that the NABRE is still pretty bad and very misleading.
But for liturgical use it depends on what you're after. The KJV and RSV seem to me ideal for liturgy, if not for exegesis.
The truth is that, once you've done your own translation, all the others look wrong to you. So I can't honestly recommend any of them.
Sounds like interesting stuff to come.Congratulations on the nomination.I re read (or actually listened this time around on audio)the God:sat chit anada book a few months before reading you are gods and it reads as a great spiritual successor to that work.
I've been greatly enjoying your New Testament's Second Edition! What are your thoughts on the alternative textual tradition in Luke's Gospel concerning Christ's baptism (Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα v. υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε) and the Eucharistic institution (the Alexandrine tradition has Matthew-like verses inserted after the first cup of wine and bread, introducing a second cup)?
I am; I’ve personally not yet been convinced either way. Usually, I give priority to the Alexandrine text type, but the more adoptionistic flavor of the quotation from the Psalms and some manuscripts has left me somewhat ambivalent.
I tend to think the Alexandrian type the most reliable, but that’s a very relative judgment. If you recoil from adoptionist language on theological grounds, it would be anachronistic to base your judgment on that. Many of the early Christians were adoptionists.
Fair enough; do you lean towards the Alexandrian reading here, then, or with the adoptionistic Majority type?
Oh, no, I’m aware the early church was the Wild West; the adoptionist language is why I afford the Majority reading some real credence over the Alexandrian version. It’s much more likely, in my mind, for a legitimate adoptionist tradition to be ironed out into conformity with the other Synoptics than for other, more contrived proposals going the other way around.
Very much looking forward to the discussion with Iain McGilchrist.
Excellent news all round. I particularly look forward to the conversation with Iain McGilchrist.
When will you post the transcript for the paper Roland delivered in Kyoto? For that matter, when will we get a video interview with Roland? I realize he's quite busy but it would be nice to see him once in a while.
He has an aversion to recording his voice. Apparently one must be in the right state of consciousness to hear it properly.
The Master (Roland) and His Emissary (David)?
There's more truth to that than I care to say,.
Looking forward to the conversation with McGilchrist.
Also, I just finished a work of speculative fiction which might interest you - Ray Nayler's Mountain in the Sea. Major themes include consciousness, AI, Buddhism (kind of), and cephalopods. Highly recommended.
My copy of the NT landed yesterday (I am a new reader of yours, so good timing for me with the second edition) and my wife and I had a laugh discussing what “whorishness” meant in the context of Jesus’ divorce proclamations in Matthew 19. I wonder if “fornication” tickled the ear back in 1611 in the same way!
Congratulations on the nomination
Thanks.
There is a great lecture series by Michael Sugrue that I think folks in this forum may appreciate: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWUJzq4Xl33kxEesoegdqtT-YvtUxnZ21
The evangelical christians I know like to dismiss formalities in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches such as apostolic succession, real presence in the eucharist, confession to priests, sacramental authority (i.e. that not just anyone can baptize or administer communion etc). Do you think they have a point? It seems to me that the early Christians were more like the Orthodox/Catholic than the evangelicals on these sorts of things. But, the early church was over 2000 years ago and the apostolic succession and church authorities have a long history of abuse and misdirection. So part of me can certainly understand the appeal of just reading the Bible and church fathers and breaking bread with friends in the faith rather than being part of a big institution. I feel torn here.
I propose a cookbook on Mediterranean food and other matters. Phyllo and Philosophy, Gelato and Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Roland in Moonlight in Marseille—writes itself.
I have your first NT translation and may pickup the second one as well. Could you tell me which Bible translations used in churches you would consider to be relatively good? Do you have any thoughts on the NABRE?
The NABRE is far better than the NIV, obviously, but that's not saying much. Everything is better than the NIV. The Catcher in the Rye is closer to a good translation of the Bible than the NIV is. My own feeling is that the NABRE is still pretty bad and very misleading.
But for liturgical use it depends on what you're after. The KJV and RSV seem to me ideal for liturgy, if not for exegesis.
The truth is that, once you've done your own translation, all the others look wrong to you. So I can't honestly recommend any of them.
Sounds like interesting stuff to come.Congratulations on the nomination.I re read (or actually listened this time around on audio)the God:sat chit anada book a few months before reading you are gods and it reads as a great spiritual successor to that work.
truly grateful every verse isn’t capitalized anymore. what a wonderfully disruptive translation this is!
I’ll be honest, I find your choosing of “exogenously” a delicious rendering for the rhyming in that original Greek verse!
I've been greatly enjoying your New Testament's Second Edition! What are your thoughts on the alternative textual tradition in Luke's Gospel concerning Christ's baptism (Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα v. υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε) and the Eucharistic institution (the Alexandrine tradition has Matthew-like verses inserted after the first cup of wine and bread, introducing a second cup)?
In what particular? Are you asking whether I think the version that echoes Ps 2:7 is earlier or later than the other?
As for the eucharistic passage, the alternative looks like an accidental doubling created by a well-meant interpolation.
I am; I’ve personally not yet been convinced either way. Usually, I give priority to the Alexandrine text type, but the more adoptionistic flavor of the quotation from the Psalms and some manuscripts has left me somewhat ambivalent.
I tend to think the Alexandrian type the most reliable, but that’s a very relative judgment. If you recoil from adoptionist language on theological grounds, it would be anachronistic to base your judgment on that. Many of the early Christians were adoptionists.
Fair enough; do you lean towards the Alexandrian reading here, then, or with the adoptionistic Majority type?
Oh, no, I’m aware the early church was the Wild West; the adoptionist language is why I afford the Majority reading some real credence over the Alexandrian version. It’s much more likely, in my mind, for a legitimate adoptionist tradition to be ironed out into conformity with the other Synoptics than for other, more contrived proposals going the other way around.
Again, these are guesses. But it does seem that the more conformity there is among the synoptics, the later the text-type.
Exciting things, thank you. How is Lent going for you, Dr. Hart?
I suppose the stupid Orthodox joke would be “Lent? It’s Great!”