From: Ilvgrammta@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 04 2000 - 15:37:11 EST
In a message dated 00-01-04 12:45:10 EST, scmiller@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
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:53 EDT