Talk:Biblical Studies/Christianity/John 3

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

   Parallel version columns 1 and 3 use word wrap, 2 and 4 require one * plus string of spaces to maintain width.

[edit] Re: Comfortable Words

I haven't even finished the page with the link back to {{Christianity]] the Wikibook I am spearheading and you already put it up for Speedy Deletion, what gives? - Athrash | {Talk) 8 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

If it's not a book in its own right, but a subpage of an existing book, it should either be named bookname:subpagename or bookname/subpagename in accordance with Wikibooks:Naming_conventions. Otherwise, how is a user subsequently going to be able to write a book entitled "Comfortable Words". Please don't pollute the main namespace, it's bad enough already, but people are slowing converting older books to more recent conventions. - Aya 8 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Update: Also note that using the bookname/subpagename convention will automatically add a link to the subpage which leads back to the main book. - Aya 8 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Sorry, then it's an issue of non-conformity. If I try subpage Christianity/The Comfortable Words then you delete the other, is that preferable. Or should I or you use redirect? - Athrash | {Talk) 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Saw your vote on John 2, thanks. I will redirect all pages to Christianity/... That was the problem and this is the solution, I think. - Athrash | {Talk) 8 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Update: I've moved all the offending pages, and updated the links on the main page. I'll note it in Wikibooks:Votes for deletion. - Aya 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Thank you again, when I got back to it, you did all the work. The move function, not redirect, worked for a remaining page Palestine map and now I understand the naming convention. What a switch, to say, you may have saved Christianity (the book). - Athrash | {Talk) 9 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Update as of September 5 − Christianity: The Book became The Appendix as calmer influences have the last word. Others may talk til they are green in the face. - Athrash | (Talk) 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finalized

Findings: ευρεσις

• God so loved the world.
• Start with only a few versions of the Bible, various household references, some ancient manuscripts now available on the Internet and a Wikipedia link. So, begin a new translation with no preconceived notions. The progression is steady just like the early church, in fact parallel. Aramaic and its oral tradition are the backbone. Evidence, the earliest persecutions by Saul of Tarsus were in Damascus, they spoke Aramaic. The Syrian tradition spreads to Egypt, Modernity picks up the earliest Coptic Gospel of John on papyrus which may have come from a trilingual. To Koin a phrase, early Christianity is to Greek as Shakespeare is to English, making Greek the expansive written language of choice, but something must be said for Latin which would emanate from Caesarea early on. Thus Modernity speaks through Codex D or Bezae of the bilingual Greek-Latin, which some (incl. F.H. Chase) have called Western Syro-Latin text. The introductory Latin Word Picture comes in v. 20 where something was hidden from the light, ironic. The exemplar for the Sub-Achmimic Coptic version would have been 2nd century and for the Codex D, probably 3rd century. Evidence, the Coptic Codex Q (Qua) incorporating the Greek alphabet omits Eccehomo of John 19, but Codex D and Codex B include it, a Latin addition.

Reference: The Gospel of John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript and Translation by Sir Herbert Thompson, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. 1923. (Introductory Conclusion, pp. 28-30).

• The conversion of Cephas in Chapter 1 to a tiny wikified image of the screenshot Aramaic rather than ISO numbers which were read differently in different browsers, opened the door to small inline facsimiles of phrasing from ancient manuscripts, a unique placement of Coptic and Latin with the enlargement and more information behind the image link.
• Something about the laborious method proscribed to recording the Greek Word Pictures and weighing the possibilities for that concise spacing redeems the effort, deepening the thought process. The wordplay seems inevitable.
• Would it be presumptuous to say, if the translator emulates the early church and writes the Word, that such a person becomes possessed and God takes over, setting the rules. Yeshua (Ezra 3: 8) is the simplest Aramism and the name by which the early church would remember Jesus. Every chapter could mention Yeshua in the margin at least once beginning with Chapter 5, only taking liberties in Chapter 15, following the lead of Chapter 1 verse 12 by substituting “name of Jesus” for “name.” This allows the column heading Aramism to stand as a logical extension even when one Latin phrase is cited per chapter, thus bringing to bear the nomina sacra and monumental Latin like pastor for shepherd, paracletus for Comforter, proverbus for figure of speech, yet, confirming the language of Rome plays a minor part overall. Messiah remains the most elevated term, see Chapter 1 and 4 for the only mention of the original word in the N.T. “The Christ” alone is described everywhere else as the Messiah, an Aramism.
• The transition from Latin to Old English is a natural, thus the transition of Iesous from Greek to Latin to O.E. to English reaches an interesting juncture in Chapter 4. Jesus had foreign relations. Modernity opts for universal language at that point. The Coptic version only starts in Chapter 2, first viable sacred name is a preview in 3: 10, unavoidably (the abbreviation IHC represents the unpronounceable name of God already) this shows a mixture of Greek and English translation, an awkward moment, but one of the earliest examples of superlineation and an Aramism of redundant verbage, all in three words, altogether fascinating since the Greek would have required four words adding και in between. Latin makes it easier, Codex D starts at John 3: 16, first viable sacred name John 4: 1. The last leaves or pages in both codices are missing bringing the Latin phrases to a dramatic conclusion in Chapter 20 and 21, even more so the Aramaic in Chapter 20.
• Gender issue, double entendre in v. 6 comment. Issue, whether to pursue gender neutral at all? Why tick some people off, because the clock has been ticking long enough and, God willing, the time may have arrived. Issue (meaning, definition number 30 in the Random House, offspring), the birth itself is to issue forth and all human offspring are the bodily issue of a woman. The alternative, flesh, is only skin deep, yet beauty is … This too, a mind, body, and spirit exercise as in v. 9. If the process becomes at all cumbersome then a retraction can be issued. She/he designation (v. 5) is not appropriate for these times, but see nothing wrong with an occasional his/her. The Wikipedia article on the NRSV is of interest, commenting:

Gender-inclusive language does represent a change from the traditional translations, however, in many cases, the original language, Koine Greek, is gender ambiguous. For example, adelphoi, can be translated as either "brothers" or "brothers and sisters."

- Athrash | ^Talk 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)