Epistle to the Ephesians 6.13-17

[M. Demetrius]

Agreed on the weapon part. Since he didn't use "scutum" and "gladius", "lorica x-ata" we can't really say what sort of shield and/or armor was in Paul's mind. He'd probably think us a little strange to be quibbling over details anyway, since the greater meaning is that of the analogy: "there is a spiritual war, and those who hope to do well must enter the battle fully prepared".

The early translators changed pomegranate to apple so that they'd have to stop explaining to Europeans what a pomegranate was. Eve handed Adam a pomegranate. Yet modern translations with all the info they have and claims of trying to translate accurately still leave in "apple" because they believe that the species of fruit isn't important

But you said quite a bit more than that, unless it's been edited out, and I was only questioning your sources for your Biblical interpretations and statements you made as if they were factual above, since I don't seem to have any texts or references that support your view, but I have a teachable attitude about it...elucidate, please?

About that fruit, all we really know is
1) it grew in that unique garden/forest, and was the fruit of a single, specific tree
2) reentry to the forest is now impossible to find it (if it still exists, I'm not sure anybody's scutum is good enough to defend against an angelic flaming sword that turns in all directions....) hock:
3) it was good to eat
4) the inhabitants had been forbidden to eat it, but they did anyway

We don't know what it was, and following the narrative, it would have been destroyed in the flood of a few chapters later anyway, so finding that particular tree would be problematic anyway.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

In my worldview of Biblical interpretation, at least, the writers (assuming what we have now is exactly what they wrote, in accurately translated form) knew what they were writing, and the people that first received the epistles, etc., knew exactly what that meant.

I would doubt both assumptions. When you write, do you always have a clear understanding of the subject? And even if you do, are you always capable of communicating your thoughts exactly in writing? When you read, can you always be sure that you understand what has been written exactly as does the writer? (I would presume, the answer is No) NT texts themselves disagree with your assumptions. Does a NT writer ever accuse his audience in lack of understanding? Do the readers ever complain that it is hard to understand a certain writer? (the answer is Yes :wink: )

All I'm getting at is that using any translation to determine, as per this thread, what kind of armor or shield is referenced is impossible.

The terminology used in the passage is general, but you are asking for specifics.

[M. Demetrius]

Hibernicus, well, I was just trying to find out where your source info came from for your pomegranite statements. I don't know for sure about then, but pomegranites grow nowadays in southern, Mediterranean Europe. I don't know when they were brought from the Middle East. They grew in the Eastern Med area back in Biblical days, as they are mentioned in various places in the Bible.

If I were to make similar claims about Vegetius, dozens of people, including yourself, most likely, would expect no less documentable support for my assertions. If you were trying to make some broader point, seems like casting doubt on the accuracy of the source document might not be the most effective method? The point here is that I couldn't find any modern translation that uses the word you claimed was generally used, and wondered if perhaps there was a source of information that I'd missed.

Cvrivs, no one ever communicates 100% from thought to pen to reader, naturally. What I am saying is that when Paul wrote the analogy that this thread is about, he knew what he meant: he wasn't speaking as a military archeology expert, he was writing an illustration to help explain his main point. He knew what he meant, and the readers weren't (I believe) confused by the choice of panoply he mentioned, more likely, they knew he was speaking metaphorically, and took the point.

Peter (a poorly educated fisherman) wrote elsewhere that Paul (a highly educated, perhaps scholarly man) had some teachings that were hard to understand. I do not believe that he meant Paul was obscure or confusing, but rather, that Peter's own lack of schooling gave him trouble in understanding some of the complex sentences and very well laid out, long arguments that Paul presented. When Paul writes that the reader is to put on the whole armor of God to engage in the battle against a spiritual enemy, he's not expecting the readers to line up at the heavenly quartermaster to receive their weapons. It seems plain enough that they would understand that the elements in his extended metaphor are defenses that one needs to combat the spiritual attacks, just as the metal weapons and armor are needful in a physical battle.

In my opinion, the lack of specificity in his choice of words demonstrates the main point of the comparison mentioned above is the important part, not the exact inventory of the military gear. Have I missed something again? That wouldn't be news. :lol:

[Jona Lendering]

Peter (a poorly educated fisherman) wrote elsewhere that Paul (a highly educated, perhaps scholarly man) had some teachings that were hard to understand. I do not believe that he meant Paul was obscure or confusing, but rather, that Peter's own lack of schooling gave him trouble in understanding some of the complex sentences and very well laid out, long arguments that Paul presented.

Peter was not poorly educated; the word for fisherman -I've forgotten it- means that he could lease the right to fish in the Sea of Galilee. He had people working for him, and could spend some time away from business, following a charismatic religious teacher. I think that the difference with Paul was a different one: Peter and Jesus spoke the language of the Henochite literature and Apocalypticism, whereas Paul was a trained Pharisee.

For your argument, this does not really matter; you are right that Peter did not mean that Paul was obscure or confusing.

[M. Demetrius]

Thank you, Jona, for that correction. I really ought to stop being so lazy and take a course or two in New Testament Greek.

[M. Demetrius]

Jona, is there a special meaning for the word "agrammatoi" used in Acts 4:13 that makes a difference about the education level of Peter (and John)? I can't make Greek letters on this computer, but the word is translated "unlettered" or "ignorant" or "uneducated" in various English Bibles. (All those words can mean pretty much the same thing, in certain contexts.)

I think all Jewish men were somewhat educated in the basics of reading and writing and a certain amount of other "elementary education", as a matter or course. However, I don't have any real basis to disagree with what's said in that verse.

[Jona Lendering]

is there a special meaning for the word "agrammatoi" used in Acts 4:13 that makes a difference about the education level of Peter (and John)?

Peter has been accused by the Sadducees, and now has to explain himself to an audience of "the leaders, the elders, the teachers of the Law of Moses," the high priest and several members of the high priest's family. I think that "unlettered" here is relative to their own education. Peter claims that he is supported by the Spirit, mentions the Messiah as source of his authority, but does not refer to any specific interpretation of the Law. In other words, they discover that Peter is inspired by a charismatic teacher and not by some formalized teaching.

[M. Demetrius]

I'm in full agreement with that, as the Sanhedrin had been to "the university" of their day, but doesn't their observation kind of fall into line with what I said earlier, that Peter was "uneducated"?

Just asking. Education, after all, is a fairly intangible thing, and schooling isn't the only factor. I know some people who dropped out of school early that are very smart and well informed, and some people with PhD degrees who don't have a clue as to how things work in the world.

[Jona Lendering]

I'm in full agreement with that, as the Sanhedrin had been to "the university" of their day, but doesn't their observation kind of fall into line with what I said earlier, that Peter was "uneducated"?

Yes; from a point of view of formally recognized theological teaching, Peter was untrained, while the Sanhedrin members were the educated guys. The same goes for Paul, who was a Pharisee - although a very strange one, owning Roman citizenship, speaking and writing Greek, and assertively organizing an anti-Christian persecution.

I think that within the spectrum of possible educations, the people of the "Jesus movement" were influenced by texts that were not recognized by the Sadducees and Pharisees, such as the [url-http://www.livius.org/ei-er/enoch/enoch.htm]Henochite literature[/url]. From a Sadducee and Pharisee point of view, this made the Jesus people some sort of uneducated obscurantists - and worse, because they venerated a criminal. They looked a lot like those half-educated rebels who had created so much trouble in 6.

[M. Demetrius]

So, Hibernicus, could you share your reference source for the "apple" quote? I'm interested because I'd like to know the name of the version(s) that use that word, to steer people away from erroneous translations of that sort. If it has one that obvious, it's likely there would be many others in other texts. I'd like to check that out..

Even the Latin Vulgate translation calls the fruit mentioned in Genesis chapter 3 fructu, not pomum (apple) or malum Punicum (Carthagenian apple! pomegranite).

Or perhaps, were you making up a hypothetical translation error case to make a point? Could you clarify? It almost sounded like you were relating a factual statement.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Hmmmm have I stumbled on a RE thread? hock:
Where isa the Roman army in alla this?

[M. Demetrius]

Not much Roman Army here, maybe this should move to OT?

Originally, it was a little Roman Armyish, with the talk about armor in the passage of the title.

What's RE in this context?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Religious education... :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

Thanks. I didn't get the acronym. I'm now informed.

I thought of another connection. Paulus was a natural born Roman citizen, and wrote the document in question in the middle 1st Cent AD, some say while he was a prisoner in Rome (awaiting a trial/hearing with Caesar), under house arrest with a Roman soldier guarding him constantly.

Would it feel different if it were a discussion of a document written by a Roman senator (or priest) about the impact of worship of Mars or Mithras on the future of Rome?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Now that is a thought.....Sol invictus is a possibility I stumbled on in earlier days.....it is intriguing to know there were so many religions worshiping the sun. Mithras was actualy Athena was it not?