[b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
schmuel at nyc.rr.com
Fri Nov 18 07:59:07 EST 2005
Peter Kirk wrote:
>Schmuel, thank you for your excellent comments.
Your welcome and thanks.
They seemed to get a mixed reaction :-) btw, I think you may understand especially the
significance of the PS: part, which is in a sense is even more significant than the insertion
and consistency question.
> But I do want to take issue on one point, as below.
>>There is no indication whatsoever, in any book or text in any language that the Hebrew YHWH was ever used in the NT, which was most assuredly entirely or almost entirely written in Greek.
>There is a minority of scholars who hold that large parts or even all of the NT were originally composed in Hebrew or in Aramaic, and what we have is a translation.
Hi Peter, yes I am aware of the various theories in this regard, including the Peshitta Primacists
and others, and I often tussle with them. It is a good solid discussion, suffice to say for now
that I see virtually no evidence for an original Hebrew or Aramaic in any books other than
Matthew and Hebrews. And I see that both of those two situations are frequently
misrepresented in the discussions.
Also I note that the significance of the existence of the 'internal translations', where an
Aramaic or Hebrew word or phrase is translated into Greek, (and any lack of any potential
vector of text transmission to consistently create those phrases) is often overlooked entirely.
A translator of Holy Scripture would simply have no liberty to individually decide where
to add such phrases, and again, there is really no way to explain their complete 100%
consistency in the Greek and Latin texts other than a non-semitic original writing.
As an aside, there is an interesting theory of the original language of Mark,
as Latin or Graeco-Latin, per a study by Hoskier.
> Almost all scholars recognise that Jesus and most other characters in the gospels and Acts spoke in either Hebrew or Aramaic, and their recorded words, at least as far as they are genuine, are a translation.
Sure, even the New Testament itself indicates this :-)
> So there is a real issue of what divine names were used by Jesus and the apostles, when speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic.
eg. The issue of whether Jesus pronounced the Tetragrammaton is a whole nother realm
of discussion. I tend to think He did, although the evidences are obscure on both sides,
and I listen to both sides of the discussion.
>I don't think the answer is easily recoverable, and I would be very surprised if anyone called Jesus YHWH. But the issue cannot be ruled out of court by saying that only the Greek KURIOS was used.
Well we are inter-connecting Messiahology, textual theories and language theories with our knowledge of 1st century Judaism. I tend to agree with the views of Richard Bauckham in his
defence of a high Christology in the first century.
However, just to be clear, I was not ruling out any side of those discussions you are
My purpose was simply defending the New Testament text :-) from an inconsistent
translation, a doctrinal tampering. If we allow the text to be tampered, then our doctrinal
discussions will be tainted.
More information about the b-hebrew