I came across an interesting article that claimed that the rooster in this verse is a translation error. In this explanation, the Greek word alektor is literally translated as rooster, but was also the name for the priest who functioned as the temple crier. As proof, the article provides an interesting reference from the Jewish historian Josephus who was alive around this same time. He records that no chickens were allowed in Jerusalem because they had a habit of flying into the temple and “defiling” it. So the true translation is that right after Peter denied Jesus the third time, a temple priest proclaimed the changing of the night shift. The article concludes that the mistranslation is really inconsequential because the importance of the events are unchanged, but it does give you a sense of the details you could be missing from the original text. Does this story add something for you with Jesus' trial within earshot of the temple (commonly referred to as His Father's House)?
This is great stuff, but anyone that proposes such a drastic change to the wording of the Bible (even if it is inconsequential) requires further investigation. The authors of the article are practitioners of Messianic Judaism (a form of Christianity that includes some of the Jewish practices). While my beliefs coincide with many of theirs, they are a fundamentally different denomination. Which leads me to my conundrum. Do I trust the teachings of a different group or throw them out the window? You can take this thought experiment one step further. Can the teachings of opposing religions be beneficial? I would argue yes with a caveat. If you have a strong foundation in your own beliefs then you can distinguish between the beneficial and the detrimental aspects of other religions. For instance, Hindu practices probably won't improve your Christian faith, but you could gain insight into the nature of people. On the other hand, if you're not so sure what you believe then you're probably going to confuse yourself. It's important to note that all major religions have irreconcilable differences. It is impossible to follow the fundamentals of more than one.
This is great stuff, but anyone that proposes such a drastic change to the wording of the Bible (even if it is inconsequential) requires further investigation. The authors of the article are practitioners of Messianic Judaism (a form of Christianity that includes some of the Jewish practices). While my beliefs coincide with many of theirs, they are a fundamentally different denomination. Which leads me to my conundrum. Do I trust the teachings of a different group or throw them out the window? You can take this thought experiment one step further. Can the teachings of opposing religions be beneficial? I would argue yes with a caveat. If you have a strong foundation in your own beliefs then you can distinguish between the beneficial and the detrimental aspects of other religions. For instance, Hindu practices probably won't improve your Christian faith, but you could gain insight into the nature of people. On the other hand, if you're not so sure what you believe then you're probably going to confuse yourself. It's important to note that all major religions have irreconcilable differences. It is impossible to follow the fundamentals of more than one.
In conclusion, you may be asking what my stance is on the rooster versus temple crier? Corroborating evidence leans toward the article being correct, but as the Messianic Jews stated, the argument is inconsequential. There are much more important issues to haggle over.
If you haggle at the dollar store:
No comments:
Post a Comment