Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

[nuclearfuels]

Why doesn't it read:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

-

I dont think the angel was teaching that the Savior may not have been the Savior for his 10th-great-grandfather. 

Perhaps the translator mistranslated the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc???

Rise up, all you linguists. Help a brother out?

[Calm]

There are a few translations that follow a more emphatic version so perhaps the option is there, though most say “a”.

https://biblehub.com/parallel/luke/2-11.htm

Quote

For today, The Savior has been born to you, who is THE LORD JEHOVAH The Messiah, in the city of David.”

Quote

This very day in David's town your Savior was born--Christ the Lord! 

Quote

Today your Savior, the Lord Messiah, was born in the City of David. 

[Calm]

Here’s an analysis, whatever it means…

https://biblehub.com/text/luke/2-11.htm

It is translated as “the” in other cases….now you have me curious why “a” was chosen in most cases as well (definite vs indefinite article).

https://biblehub.com/greek/so_te_r_4990.htm

https://www.greekgrammar.eu/pdffiles/article.pdf

Edited December 11, 2022 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why doesn't it read:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

-

I dont think the angel was teaching that the Savior may not have been the Savior for his 10th-great-grandfather. 

Perhaps the translator mistranslated the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc???

Rise up, all you linguists. Help a brother out?

Perhaps because there are other Saviors in existence, even though Jesus is the only one for us.  In my opinion it is an office.

Edited December 11, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Perhaps the translator mistranslated the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc???

Luke 2:11 doesn't have the definite article in the Greek, but some translators supply it anyway. Luke 1:47 does have the definite article.

Interestingly, Matthew and Mark never apply the term "Savior" to Jesus. John uses it just once, in John 4:42.

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why doesn't it read:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

-

I dont think the angel was teaching that the Savior may not have been the Savior for his 10th-great-grandfather. 

Perhaps the translator mistranslated the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc???

Rise up, all you linguists. Help a brother out?

If it is accuracy you are seeking, there is little doubt (I always have some) in my mind that the finest translation available today is that of the Holman Christian Standard Bible or CSB. They translate the verse in question as follows: "Today in the city of David a Savior was born for you, who is the Messiah, the Lord." We always take our CSBs to the ward and folks regularly ask us to read from our Bibles because they like how it reads, especially when a verse is hard to understand.

[Navidad]

By the way there is no definite article used in the passage with the word soter or Savior. In the absence of a definite article, the correct translation is "a savior," not 'the savior." On the other hand John 4:42 has a definite article in front of soter - so the correct translation is the Savior.

[Eschaton]

22 hours ago, Nevo said:

Luke 2:11 doesn't have the definite article in the Greek, but some translators supply it anyway. Luke 1:47 does have the definite article.

Interestingly, Matthew and Mark never apply the term "Savior" to Jesus. John uses it just once, in John 4:42.

Are the only parts of Luke that apply savior to Jesus Luke 1 and 2? I understand that Luke 1-2 are not original to Luke's gospel, but added later. 

Edit, I did some searching, that appears to be the case - it only shows up in the interpolated Luke chapters. I wonder what the significance was? Maybe it became more popular at the end of the first century and early second century to refer to Jesus as a savior. Could be a reference to the various savior passages in Isaiah, or even a reference to the practice of calling Caesar a savior.  

Edited December 12, 2022 by Eschaton

[Nevo]

42 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Are the only parts of Luke that apply savior to Jesus Luke 1 and 2? I understand that Luke 1-2 are not original to Luke's gospel, but added later. 

Edit, I did some searching, that appears to be the case - it only shows up in the interpolated Luke chapters. I wonder what the significance was? Maybe it became more popular at the end of the first century and early second century to refer to Jesus as a savior. Could be a reference to the various savior passages in Isaiah, or even a reference to the practice of calling Caesar a savior.  

For what it's worth, here is what the TDNT says about it:

Quote

The NT uses sōtḗr for God in Lk. 1:47 (cf. Jude 25) and six times in the Pastorals. It also uses sōtḗr in Lk. 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Phil. 3:20; Eph. 5:23; Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14, four times in the Pastorals, and five in 2 Peter. The general restraint and the more common use in the Pastorals need explanation.

The author goes on to note that the title is "rare in the apostolic fathers" and "does not seem to belong to Gnosticism." The article concludes:

Quote

In primitive Christianity sṓzō and sōtēría are important terms for salvation. Since Jesus brings this, it is no surprise that he is called sōtḗr, the content of the term being fixed by sṓzō and sōtēría. Restraint in the use of sōtḗr may well be due to the risk of confusion with the Jewish hope of a national liberator or with the pagan concept of a political benefactor. The apostolic fathers maintain this restraint. If the Pastorals break it, they relate the term strictly to God, using a Greek term to counter false teachings which belong to the Greek context. Not the title sōtḗr, but the content of the sōtēría that Jesus brings, raises up Jesus as sōtḗr into the divine sphere. 

— W. Foerster, "sōtḗr," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7:1023–1024 (1138–1140 in Little Kittel).

Chronologically, the reference in Philippians 3:20 is probably the earliest (early 60s?), but it seems clear that the title is used sparingly, for whatever reason, until the Pastorals (late 1st/early 2nd century?).

[Eschaton]

35 minutes ago, Nevo said:

For what it's worth, here is what the TDNT says about it:

The author goes on to note that the title is "rare in the apostolic fathers" and "does not seem to belong to Gnosticism." The article concludes:

Chronologically, the reference in Philippians 3:20 is probably the earliest (early 60s?), but it seems clear that the title is used sparingly, for whatever reason, until the Pastorals (late 1st/early 2nd century?).

Interesting stuff, thanks! Maybe it's just a term that was initially popular in only a few proto-orthodox communities. Interesting that the apostolic Fathers didn't use the term much, even though the canonical usage of the term was contemporary to many of them. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It means what the Angel said, that “The Savior”, past, their present, and all of the ages to come, was born in the City of David, or Bethlehem. He was teaches the men to who he spoke, was the long awaited Messiah had finally come to his chosen people.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It means what the Angel said, that “The Savior”, past, their present, and all of the ages to come, was born in the City of David, or Bethlehem. He was teaching the men to whom he spoke, that the long awaited Messiah had finally come to his chosen people.  

Edited December 12, 2022 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Just now, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Sorry, double post. 

 

[pogi]

I wouldn’t get hung up on the exact language.  I wouldn’t expect this to be the angel’s words verbatim.  This isn’t from Mary’s mouth and probably not from one of the apostles either, but was written decades after Christs death (which would have already been 30+ years after this incident.   I think we need to look at the scriptures in that light as oral traditions passed down and interpreted by different splinters of early Christian groups, each with their own agenda.  I think it is safe to trust general themes, but not verbatim quotes.  

[Eschaton]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I wouldn’t get hung up on the exact language.  I wouldn’t expect this to be the angel’s words verbatim.  This isn’t from Mary’s mouth and probably not from one of the apostles either, but was written decades after Christs death (which would have already been 30+ years after this incident.   I think we need to look at the scriptures in that light as oral traditions passed down and interpreted by different splinters of early Christian groups, each with their own agenda.  I think it is safe to trust general themes, but not verbatim quotes.  

Scholars don't think either of the two nativity stories has a historical core other than Jesus' parents were Mary and Joseph.  It's best to think of them both as separate, developing traditions that reflected what Jesus meant to the communities who created those traditions. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Scholars don't think either of the two nativity stories has a historical core other than Jesus' parents were Mary and Joseph.  It's best to think of them both as separate, developing traditions that reflected what Jesus meant to the communities who created those traditions. 

Depends on which scholars, Hugh Nibley on the early life of Jesus puts weight on info from the Philosopher critics from Jewish sources, that in the midst of rebuttal historical consensus certain facts. Their claims that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier would confirm even critics knew Mary had some mysterious conception. That the family were vagabonds constantly moving around, may lend credence to them fleeing to Egypt. There seem to be an historic core to the Infancy Gospel of James when the family seems to describe the area around Qumran.

Though some of the story is eerily similar to Moses' Infancy tale in the Book of Jasher, the Magi of Pharoh see a star, the Pharoh tries to stop the prophecy by killing all the first-born sons, Moses' mother has to flee into the Egyptian wilderness to give birth, Moses was a self-taught master/ prodigy. Also, other royal birth tales, and Royal Cult rebirths of kings.

[Eschaton]

3 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Depends on which scholars, Hugh Nibley on the early life of Jesus puts weight on info from the Philosopher critics from Jewish sources, that in the midst of rebuttal historical consensus certain facts. Their claims that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier would confirm even critics knew Mary had some mysterious conception. That the family were vagabonds constantly moving around, may lend credence to them fleeing to Egypt. There seem to be an historic core to the Infancy Gospel of James when the family seems to describe the area around Qumran.

Though some of the story is eerily similar to Moses' Infancy tale in the Book of Jasher, the Magi of Pharoh see a star, the Pharoh tries to stop the prophecy by killing all the first-born sons, Moses' mother has to flee into the Egyptian wilderness to give birth, Moses was a self-taught master/ prodigy. Also, other royal birth tales, and Royal Cult rebirths of kings.

Hugh Nibly wasn't a scholar specializing in this area. Even conservative scholars like NT Wright don't think either of the nativity stories (which don't seem to have anything in common other than the names of Jesus and his parents) has any historical basis. They are instead literary creations. 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unbelievable/2020/12/professor-nt-wright-on-whether-the-nativity-stories-can-be-trusted/

I've heard it speculated that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier, but that's really just speculation. Miraculous births are a very common literary trop in the ancient world - they are a way of punctuating someone's importance. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:38 AM, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps because there are other Saviors in existence, even though Jesus is the only one for us.  In my opinion it is an office.

THank you, JLHPROF. 

I am intrigued by your answer. 

Can you share sources which support your opinion?

I believe I heard a similar idea/opinion/theory from a mission companion, when I served 100 years ago.