Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 18/11/2005 18:42, Schmuel wrote:

> Hi b-hebrew,
>
>  Wow. 
>  Even I am a bit surprised by the combination of confusion and venom. 
>
> Read, James C wrote:
>  
>
> > This happens to be the single most hypocritical piece of reasoning I have 
> > ever heard.
> > In the one breath you would insist tha nephesh be translated according to 
> > context where
> > it fits your dogma but in the other you would accuse the NWT for interpreting 
> > where kurios
> > means yhwh and where it means lord.
> >    
>
> Schmuel
> Actually James, I never even discussed nephesh.  Perhaps you are confusing me
> with someone else.  You should at least have your facts accurate when you write 
> things like "the single most hypocritical piece of reasoning".
>  

Perhaps James was confusing you with me. Well, for the record, I do hold 
that nephesh should be translated according to context, and I also hold 
that kurios should be translated according to context. At some points in 
the NT it is clearly some kind of divine title. At other places like 
John 20:15, where Mary thinks she is addressing a gardener (but is in 
fact addressing Jesus), that would be absurd. But the way to distinguish 
between what is right and what is wrong is that translation according to 
context avoids, or at least tries to avoid, incorporating theological 
presuppositions and frameworks, whereas translation according to 
theological presuppositions of course does not. It should be obvious 
that there is a difference between looking at the context within a book, 
to see e.g. whether the person being addresses as kurios is presented in 
the text as divine, and looking at theological presuppositions e.g. 
whether according to one's theology that person is divine.

For this reason I object to most English translations using "Lord" as an 
address when people address Jesus in the gospels, whereas exactly the 
same Greek word is usually translated "Sir" when others are addressed. 
For the characters in the gospels did not understand Jesus as divine (at 
least before his death), and so addressed him as an ordinary respected 
man. The use here of what is understood as a divine title, "Lord", is 
justified only by the theological understanding of Jesus' divinity. 
Although I personally have this understanding, I do not think it should 
be written back into Bible translations. On the other hand, there are 
places in the NT where the risen Jesus is addressed as kurios and the 
context suggests that he was understood as divine or at least far more 
than a regular human, e.g. John 20:28, Acts 9:5, and so the translation 
"Lord" is justified.

As for whether NWT has similarly objectionable practices, I will leave 
for others to judge, as I have said enough against that translation.

James, I hope this clarifies that my position is not hypocrtical but 
consistent. Sorry that I have to use NT examples, but the principles 
apply also to translation of the Hebrew Bible.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/