While I think the early Judeo-Christian worldview that Jesus was Old Testament Jehovah is more rational than many of the later religious theories, I wanted to make just one specific point regarding the early Texts, specifically the phrase, “get thee behind me Satan, come follow me” and versions of the same. Part of the reason that there are so many worldviews and religious theories as to the relationship between Jesus, his Father, and the holy Spirit is that the texts were often written such that they are not absolutely clear.
For example, Deeje uses a version of Luke 4:8 to support her worldview (Jesus is not referring to himself), the same scripture existed in different versions and just as easily supports the opposite conclusion (Jesus IS referring to himself) depending upon what the original statement was and how it is interpreted.
In multiple greek manuscripts, luke reads, “Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ εἴπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ· γέγραπται, Προσκυνήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου, καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.” [(you / Satan) follow ME (Jesus)]
This version agrees better with Matthew 4:10 : τοτε λεγει αυτω ο Ιησους υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα… . “ - Then said Jesus to him, (either) “go” or “come”… “follow me satan”… (…for it is written…. )”
As textual critics and translators began to have access to increasing numbers of portions of biblical manuscripts from increasingly older time periods, they began to notice a predominance of the earliest manuscript examples said “(you) follow me satan”. Though individuals often read this as a spacial command (i.e. go “behind me”), it is also a retort that is a sequential observation. (i.e. you follow me”) That is to say, you are “less than me” [in power, in authority, in honor, etc.]
In a comparison of similar listings υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα (“follow me satan”, “go after me satan”, etc) was found in one thousand three hundred and forty eight manuscripts including C2 D L Z E M U Γ Ω 047 055 0211 33 [+1345 mss] b h l* sy-S.c.h** sa-mss bo-mss). Versus 180 opposing manuscripts that had υπαγε σατανα (“go” satan) as the textus receptus reads. The correct translation of each depends upon context and the context determines meaning.
However, what is a translator to do with the phrase : “go (or come) follow me satan” in the ages when few manuscripts were available and both manuscripts and translations were still in a somewhat “fluid stage”?
Scholars have debated WHY οπισω μου “[you] go behind me” was removed from some early texts. The conclusion is that the words of the scriptures did not make sense to early translators in their worldviews (i.e. their personal interpretation required removal of the words in order to create a better “interpretation” of the text”)
For example, J.J. Wettstein (as Jaymax claimed) demonstrates from Origens writings, that there was a common feeling that Jesus did not really say to satan, “follow me” (i.e. υπαγε οπισω μου). It was incredulous that he would have done so…. Pseudo-Ignatius felt Satan could not follow Jesus. Jerome felt that Jesus would not have used the same words to criticize Peter (matt 16:23) despite the fact that exactly the same words are used in both accounts).
Thus J.J. Wettstein theorizes this textual change (omission) was championed by Origen (who also deletes the same words in other places in some manuscripts). Matthäi’s theory on how this omission occurred, agrees with Wettstein.
Euthymius wrote that according "to the other Greek interpreters οπισω μου should be removed both in Matthew and in Luke." There are many early references to this removal and it’s justifications among influential early scholars. Matthäi reminds us that the Catena (of Mark 8:33) says: "But to Satan when he was tempting Jesus he did not say, 'Go behind me, Satan,' but 'Go, Satan;' but to Peter (Mark 8:33) while he was still a sinner, and therefore not yet behind Jesus, he said, ' Go behind me, Satan,' meaning, “I do not follow you, but rather, ‘[you] 'follow me.'
". Matthäi, the translator reasons that ”… if υπαγε οπισω μου signifies nothing but ακολουθει μοι (i.e.'follow me'), by no means would Christ have spoken such to the Devil." It is with such reasoning that such words were removed. It makes perfect sense given the theological bias of the time (Wettstein said it was ludicrous for Jesus to command Satan to follow him.”)
Though the text used as a statement by Jesus that he was greater than and had more authority than and more honor than Satan makes perfect sense in the ancient context, part of the difficulty is that the early translation did not make sense given the later theological stance of the translators.
For example, Griesbach reminds us that although "οπισω μου” "(you) follow me" IS the preferred reading, that the early translators felt that υπαγειν οπσω μου” (in his example) meant the same as , ακολουθει μου, (i.e. (you) follow me - physically). Griesbach gave us evidence that this omission started even before Origen (since Irenaeus and Tertullian do not use this quote) in speaking of this verse.
Kühnöl agrees with this base theory and it’s motive for change. Finally, in an ironic turn many of these same translators came to feel that υπαγε οπισω μου actually mean “'depart”, i.e. 'get [you] away from me'. They came to feel this, NOT because the words actually meant this, (they did not) but rather because it was uncomfortable to have the words mean what they actually said. Their personal theology drove their interpretation rather than the words of the text.
However, that leaves us with opposite meanings of similar words since in places such as Mark 8:33 οπισω μου means “follow me” (after taking up his cross. What was an ancient translator to do, but assume an error in the text? If not, how was he to translate what seemed to be an untenable statement from Christ to Satan?
As our knowledge of greek and early judeo-christianity has improved over time, different contexts arise under which this sentence to Satan can make sense. For example, οπισω (i.e. to follow) as a temporal term can make sense inside the early judeo-christian theology having a pre-creation existence. It makes sense as a term of primacy and authority. If Jesus is pointing out that he and no other, carries the authority of first born (προτοτοκον), and/or only begotten (μονογενες), then such sentences can make sense in that early context that could never have made sense outside of it.
My point is NOT to say what the text means or should mean, but rather to make the simple point that biblical manuscripts are imperfect and if the earliest Christians assumed Jesus was Jehovah, then their writings will make a different sense when read inside that worldview than outside of that ancient Christian worldview. While there are criticisms of any interpretation one adopts, I do not see any worldview that is superior to the ancient view that Jesus was the incarnated Jehovah, but not the same as his Father.
Clear[/S]
τωσινεω
and, honestly, I think ya'll saying the same thing just talking pass each other because of words.