I was wondering if anyone had thoughts regarding the ambiguity of the
different translations of saying 70. I compiled a few versions (below)
and found that the one that might have been the most widespread
previously (Pagels which she takes from the 1977 edition of
seems to be the deviant one. Was there ever a specific occasion when
the standpoint shifted from the one to the others or was there a
steady trickle of new ones, all leading in the same direction?
I assume (and please correct me if you disagree) that the implications
of these differences in translation are clear, at least from a
psychological viewpoint. In the one case the saying implies that we
all have something in us (which might be "The world", "Jesus", "A
godlike nature", et.c.) which, if not brought out and utilized, will
go sour and kill us. In the other cases considerable room is left to
argue that the saying could imply that, well, you might not have what
it takes (to become one of the chosen ones et.c.), in which case you
die. A world of difference to me
Does anyone have a different take on this one?
Pagels (Ref NHL 1977)
Jesus said: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring
forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you,
what you do not bring forth will destroy you".
Jesus said: "If you have gained this within you, what you have will
save you. If you do not have this in [you], what you do not have in
you [will] kill you".
Jesus said, "If you (plur.) produce what is in you, what you have will
save you. If you do not have what is in you, what you do not have
[will] kill you."
Jesus says: "When you have something left to share among you, what you
possess will save you. But if you cannot share [among you], that which
you have not among you, that [ ... ? ... will ...] you.
Jesus said, "That which you have will save you, if you bring it forth
from yourselves. That which you do not have within you [will] kill you
if you do not have it within you".