In a message dated 2/8/2003 1:09:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
osbo AT hn.ozemail.com.au writes:
Yes we do get into theology. Regretably theology has influenced the
translators to too great an extent. A symple example is the statement found
in the preface to the RSV page 9 where the transdlators make the remarkable
statement that to translate the words God LORD Lord etc "is entirely
inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church" (preface
page 9)"
Now to translate these words is inappropriate?
I ask you!!!!!
I assume this is the passage to which you refer
A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the
rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard
Version used the term ÄúJehovahÄù; the King James Version had
employed this in
four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed
as part of a proper name, used the English word LORD (or in certain cases
GOD) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of
the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and
Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the
Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain
that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not
indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew
text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded
as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in
its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim
meaning "God"). The ancient Greek translators substituted the word Kyrios
(Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The
form ÄúJehovahÄù is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the
consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes
but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by
J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has
returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1)
the word Äú
JehovahÄù does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in
Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as
though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was
discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely
inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.
I find nothing so extraordinary here. Names are not usually ** translated **
but are transliterated. In this case we don't know what the original
pronunciation was (for sure). I find to reason to be concerned about this.
As the preface points out, to render it as a name would be to somehow
indicate that the one named was somehow one among others of the same type to
be distinguished by a name. Since Judaism and it's child, Christianity, to
whom these texts are sacred do not acknowledge "other gods", is it really
necessary to provide a name?
gfsomsel
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.