Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?
Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 15:37:11 EST 2000
In a message dated 00-01-04 12:45:10 EST, scmiller at www.plantnet.com writes:
<< to place the term "Yahweh" into Matthew's text
at Mt 4:4 appears unconscionable. One is NO LONGER translating, rather one
is doing very speculative historical reconstruction. Even if we knew for a
fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew and not Greek (which we don't), we
don't even know for a fact that Jesus would have spoken the word "Yahweh"
(or anything similar; as opposed to using "Adonai" or something similar).
Introducing "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" into a translation of the Greek text of
the NT seems to me to be a gross violation of any reasonable norms of
translation.>>
Personally I think you're being a little hard on Solomon here. I fail to see
how putting the Tetragrammaton or the word Yahweh in a text like Mt 4:4 can
be classified as a "very speculative historical reconstruction." I think it
is a red herring to try and figure out what language Jesus spoke in. The
important point for me is--which version of Scripture did Jesus use? The
answer: IMHO Jesus probably used the Palestinian version of the LXX. I cannot
say for sure, but there is certainly scholarly evidence that supports such a
notion. If Jesus did in fact use the LXX, and the early copies of the LXX had
the consonants YHWH in them, it is a travesty if a translation does NOT
include them. George Howard has also done work on this issue, and can
delineate the problems and issues better than I can. I just wanted to show
why I do not think including YHWH in the NT is an example of speculative
historic reconstruction.
Sincerely,
Edgar Foster
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list