lol @ Schizm. You can fix this bible thing. You can! Now go!
Why Jehovah is not included in some Bible.
by homme perdu 55 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
So what I think you're saying, is that the NT writers were quoting from imperfect manuscripts in which God's name had been removed for one reason or another. Well, then, doesn't common sense dictate that modern translators ought to resort to more ancient sources which are now accessable?... sources that show all the places in the Hebrew text where the tetragrammaton appears. Would not doing so justify the altering of the NT so as to bring it into conformity with the original Hebrew text, and thus maintain the integrity of the Scriptures? It appears to me that THAT is what the WTS has attempted to do, at least with regards to the quoted texts that we're referring to. So what is so fradulent about that?
I love that: this would imply completely rewriting the New Testament. The Septuagint was wrong to translate alma by parthenos (Matthew)? Zap, no more virgin birth. It was wrong to translate emuna by pistis, allowing Paul to oppose "faith" to "works"? No more Gentile Christianity.
Oh no, wait a minute. The Old Testament also is "imperfect". Why not substitute the Chronicles with Samuel-Kings (OK, we have them already)? Or the Flood story with the Gilgamesh Epic? Or the Atrahasis Epic which is even older?
I don't know exactly what "imperfection" is, but I know it is part of the process of storytelling / writing / copying / translating from the very beginning. Plus there is no beginning, for scripture is not before the text, it is the very weaving of the text with all its errors, misunderstandings, and so on.
But (seriously) you convinced me of one thing. Perhaps in the mind of Fred Franz it was no fraud. Perhaps it was just the autistic development of his own line of reasoning, and in the end he believed it was plain "common sense"...
-
-
-
City Fan
Schizm,
Narkissos' personal beliefs don't invalidate his argument, that any personal name for god reveals a polytheistic origin. He is arguing that monotheism caused Yahweh to eventually mean 'Lord' or 'God' just as the personal name El became the noun 'god'.
If we take your argument one step further then bible translations should also have El in place of God, El Shadday for 'God Almighty' and El Elyon in place of 'Most High God' etc.
-
jgnat
Thank you, Narkissos, for arguing for me far more effectively than I could.
Schizm, it does not go well for you to resort to personal attack when argument fails. Narkissos is obviously a competent and thorough translator.
If YHWH is all consonants, how would Jesus have SAID it?
If the oldest manuscripts available are Greek, the oldest manuscripts use greek words for God, and Jesus spoke Aramaic, am I right to presume that the source manuscripts/oral traditions are NOT available to modern scholars? (i.e. Peter is not around so we can ask him).
-
Narkissos
If the oldest manuscripts available are Greek, the oldest manuscripts use greek words for God, and Jesus spoke Aramaic, am I right to presume that the source manuscripts/oral traditions are NOT available to modern scholars? (i.e. Peter is not around so we can ask him).
Right. We have no Aramaic written sources for the Gospel traditions,
- either because (according to some) they were lost
- or because (according to the vast majority of scholars) they never existed and the Gospels are originally Greek compositions (sprinkled with a few "Aramaic in the text" formulae for the flavour of authenticity).
-
LittleToe
I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread.
...the Gospels are originally Greek compositions (sprinkled with a few "Aramaic in the text" formulae for the flavour of authenticity).
I just want to add a sidebar on this comment, Didier.
You know as well as I that when your mother tongue differs from the common tongue that you are working in, that there are phrases that you just don't want to drop because to your mind they convey the meaning better. For that reason I would argue against the necessity to call into question the intellectual honesty of the authors.I would suggest this may have been a reason for such inclusions.
This would then give a little more information about the authors, than merely their having cobbled together a story. They were raised in a Greco-Aramaic culture, where certain turns of phrase were intermingled with the common tongue, Greek.I would support my hypothesis with a local contemporary example.
Here, where I live, there are a number of Indian families who are now into the second and third generations of immigration. The children are often heard speaking Urdu, Gaelic and English in the same sentence (!!!). They have picked up certain local phrases, also. There are certain regionalised comments and stories that just don't translate well, especially not out of the culture in which they were formed. -
Narkissos
Hello Ross,
I didn't mean to suggest intellectual dishonesty. In the Ancient East telling a good, colourful story would seldom be "bad" anyway.
However, I doubt whether the example of bilinguism (or multilinguism) applies to the Gospel writers. I don't think they invented the Aramaic phrases, rather they received them from judeo-christian traditions. And they didn't seem to understand them very accurately. Just an example which comes to mind: Talitha qoum (Mark 5:41, according to the most probable reading) is actually a masculine form which would apply to a boy or a man rather than a girl.
But why preserve the "original", then translate it? In addition to the "flavour of authenticity" one could think of liturgical or magical uses (the frontier being hard to draw). Several Aramaic phrases are linked with miracles (Talitha qoum, Ephphatha), others to early church liturgy (Maranatha, also the originally Hebrew Hosanna which was not understood anymore). Strange words are more powerful. (Once again, there is nothing pejorative in this.) Think of the conservation of the Greek Kyrie Eleison in the Latin Mass...
-
LittleToe
Didier:
In the Ancient East telling a good, colourful story would seldom be "bad" anyway.
Aye. The same can be said for the culture that I live in, though I rarely allow myself the luxury...
I don't think they invented the Aramaic phrases, rather they received them from judeo-christian traditions.
I agree with your conclusion. I wasn't trying to imply that they invented anything, they just used that which was in the common venacular.
And they didn't seem to understand them very accurately. Just an example which comes to mind: Talitha qoum (Mark 5:41, according to the most probable reading) is actually a masculine form which would apply to a boy or a man rather than a girl.
That kind of mistake isn't unusual in the telling of a tale, either. I'm still unconvinced that it's a clear indication of a lack of authenticity
Surely if they were intent on deception they would have been a little more correct with their sources?
It's not as if their work was done on WordProcessors, after all.But why preserve the "original", then translate it?
You don't do that?
Quoting a more accurate "mother tongue" phrase, then presenting a fast and loose translation?
I know you doI see it only as adding, rather than detracting, from the point being made.
Strange words are more powerful. (Once again, there is nothing pejorative in this.)
Oh, I agree, for sure. I just question whether or not that was the sole reason for their inclusion.
Think of the conservation of the Greek Kyrie Eleison in the Latin Mass...
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
Sorry if I've distracted from the original intent of the thread. It's becoming a bit of a habit, sorry
As I said before, I'm enjoying the comments made on this thread about the name "YHWH".