Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

Rolf Furuli wrote:
>I think it is obvious for the list-members that when *the context*, i.e., 
>how the translators understand the setting in which words and clauses occur, 
>is used as a translation principle, it is no violation of this principle if 
>the translators use "Jehovah" where they believe the context suggests that 
>God is referred to. 

Schmuel
If a group inserts "Jehovah" simply to match their Christology, and omits 
it when it does not match their Christology, given an essentially identical 
Greek, it is a violation of sound translation, and it is inconsistent to the 
underlying Greek.  

However, you are right in a sense, it may not violate their principles,
if their principles are to translate to match their doctrine.

Rolf
>.. Whether "Jehovah" should be used in the New Testament at all is a 
>philological question 

No, it is a straightforward translation question.  There is no equivalent 
in the source text to match Jehovah, and one has to come up with
fanciful and even absurd textual transmission insertion and omission 
theories (see my PS.) in order to justify the insertion.  So the selective
insertion fails on common sense, it fails on sound translation, and Occam
loses his razor as well.

We may also note that the NWT translators had a real lack of original 
language expertise, making any claims made for the NWT that much 
more suspect.

I'll try to hold back and let you have the last word, so we don't get 
overly-repetitive-redundant :-) 

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic