[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #856
b-greek-digest Monday, 11 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 856
In this issue:
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: Translating XRISTOS
N-A text
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: N-A text
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: Translating XRISTOS
re: Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: Thiede on Magdalen papyrus fragment
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: Translating XRISTOS
re: Re: Translating XRISTOS
re: Re: Translating XRISTOS (fwd)
Re: Translating XRISTOS
Re: N-A text
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 06:04:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
At 11:35 PM 9/10/95, David Moore wrote:
> When one considers the commonly understood meaning of the word
>"Christ" in contemporary English, it seems questionable whether this word
>adequately translates the Greek term XRISTOS in all contexts. For many
>moderns, "Christ" is understood as something like the surname of Jesus.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Of course, if one were contemplating changes in a published
>translation, the sensibilities of its readers should be taken into
>account; it would be necessary to consider whether some of them might not
>easily adapt to what they saw as new terminology. It may also be that the
>marginal notes with the alternate translation "Messiah", as one finds in
>the NIV especially in the Gospels, are sufficient to meet the need. But I
>am wondering if "Messiah" might be the better translation in some
>cases.
In the first place, thanks to David for breaking the long weekend silence
that was punctuated only by a note noting the silence!
Secondly, I have long felt that "Messiah" OUGHT to be used to translate
XRISTOS in every NT text. I can't think offhand of an exception, although
that may be a matter of my typical rushing to judgment.
I'm sure that there must be one or more catalogues of instances of XRISTOS
used with and without the article, and that might be helpful if one were to
make a distinction, but one would have to be careful, inasmuch as Greek
regularly used the article with a proper name where we would use it with a
title.
I'm thinking of the numerous instances of XRISTOS IHSOUS and somewhat less
numerous instances (I think they are fewer, but may be wrong) of IHSOUS
XRISTOS and it strikes me that this is very close to normal pagan use of
"proper" epithet with the proper name of a god as FOIBOS APOLLWN. One might
use FOIBOS by itself and anyone would know that Apollo is being referred
to. Here it might be worth noting that Latin usage may exemplify some of
our experience with the word "Christ"; Ovid, for instance, uses PHOEBUS
more often than PHOEBUS APOLLO or APOLLO, although part of the problem may
be metrical convenience.
As for sensibilities of the modern reader, I would expect these to be
strongest in the "King James Only" type of whom it used to be said, "If the
King James Version was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me."
Those who are open to new versions and revisions of new versions really
ought to welcome any change such as this which calls attention to the fact
that we're not using a normal English word in a normal way. This is one
reason I thought the liturgical experiments with "the Human One" for "Son
of Man" and "the Sovereign One" for "Lord" were worth attempting, although
they were indeed awkward.
Another alternative which I suspect would be less appealing to most would
be to use "Anointed" or "Anointed One." At least the Greek speaker could
recognize the meaning of XRISTOS as derived from XRIW, whereas neither
"Christ" nor "Messiah" suggests anything to the English speaker other than
its cultural denotations and, for better or worse,its cultural CONNOTATIONS
(the non-Christian majority use it most for swearing, don't they?).
Interesting question, David, and although I'm sure it's come up before, a
worthwhile one, I think.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 07:42:24 -35900
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
This reminds me of part of a lecture in a New Testament class I
took. The professor started talking about how many people think that
Christ was Jesus's surname. He made his point by saying that people
expected the whole family to be named Christ: Mary Christ, Joseph Christ,
Jesus Christ, and the siblings made up the first "Christian family."
Travis Bauer
Jamestown College
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 9:05:49 -24000
Subject: N-A text
In one of his books on the NT Text, Philip Comfort gives several pages of
suggested changes to the N-A 26/UBS 3 text, based on what he argues are
earlier and better readings from the papyri. Obviously, none of his
suggested changes were made in N-A 27/UBS 4, since they use the same text as
the previous editions.
Does anyone have an opinion on Comfort's suggested changes, or what the
outlook is for changes to the N-A/UBS text? Are there any well-argued
critiques--other than by defenders of the Textus Receptus--of the N-A text,
or, conversely, good supporting arguments? I have the earlier edition of the
Aland's book on the text of the New Testament, as well as Metzger's book on
the NT text, but I'd like to read what those who were not on the N-A text
committee have to say about the text.
On another note, I think I'm in the minority, but I don't find the thinner
italicized font of UBS 4 that bad when compared to UBS 3, although I wouldn't
mind a return to the older, easier-to-read font. Has UBS received or
responded to this often-heard criticism? I noticed that the interlinears and
parallel bibles published with the UBS 4 text use the new font as well. Does
anyone know why they chose this new font which so many have criticized, or
whether UBS 5 will revert to the earlier font?
------------------------------
From: "James M. Macleod" <jmac@loc.gov>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Travis Bauer wrote:
>
> This reminds me of part of a lecture in a New Testament class I
> took. The professor started talking about how many people think that
> Christ was Jesus's surname. He made his point by saying that people
> expected the whole family to be named Christ: Mary Christ, Joseph Christ,
> Jesus Christ, and the siblings made up the first "Christian family."
Siblings? What siblings? ;-)
Jim MacLeod jmac@loc.gov
My opinions are my own, not those of the Library of Congress.
------------------------------
From: John Baima <jbaima@onramp.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 09:08:22 -0500
Subject: Re: N-A text
At 09:05 AM 9/11/95 -24000, Eric Weiss wrote:
>On another note, I think I'm in the minority, but I don't find the thinner
>italicized font of UBS 4 that bad when compared to UBS 3, although I wouldn't
>mind a return to the older, easier-to-read font. Has UBS received or
>responded to this often-heard criticism? I noticed that the interlinears and
>parallel bibles published with the UBS 4 text use the new font as well. Does
>anyone know why they chose this new font which so many have criticized, or
>whether UBS 5 will revert to the earlier font?
>
They may change fonts, I don't know, but they will not go back to UBS3
because that was set in hot lead! I believe that UBS4 was typeset on a Mac
with Linguist's Software's fonts. I think that font is a good compromise for
screen/laser printers, but there are real commercial Greek fonts for
typesetting which are better at high resolution.
- -John Baima
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:28:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad) wrote:
>I have long felt that "Messiah" OUGHT to be used to translate
>XRISTOS in every NT text. I can't think offhand of an exception, although
>that may be a matter of my typical rushing to judgment.
I admit that I was of the same opinion when I began the post on
XRISTOS, but when I began to look at specific passages in the Epistles, I
felt that a wholesale change to "Messiah" would be too radical. Certain
passages, like 1Cor. 1:23 would probably come across with more impact:
"But we preach the crucified Messiah...." Nevertheless, when I considered
how often XRISTOS is used in many passages in Paul, I felt that the
constant repetition of the Hebrew term would sound dissonant in the
context of Paul's rhetoric. Is this a legitimate consideration?
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 09:32:19 CST
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
Original message sent on Sun, Sep 10 6:35 PM by
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (David Moore) :
<snip>
> Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most
> contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old
> Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it.
> Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English
> from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the
> meaning which XRISTOS had for 1st-century readers of Greek is not
> necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us.
You raise an interesting point. Don't we also run into the same sort of
problems with a term like "baptism" as well?
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:20:47 CST
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
On Mon, 11 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>Original message sent on Sun, Sep 10 6:35 PM by
>dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (David Moore) :
>
><snip>
>
>> Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most
>> contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old
>> Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it.
>> Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English
>> from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the
>> meaning which XRISTOS had for 1st-century readers of Greek is not
>> necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us.
>
>You raise an interesting point. Don't we also run into the same sort of
>problems with a term like "baptism" as well?
And "deacon" and "bishop"! Dare I mention "church," "sin," "faith," and
"repentance," which although not from Greek roots, are sometimes misunderstood
by many readers?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date:
Subject: re: Re: Translating XRISTOS
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
THE JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT by David Stern uses Messiah instead of Christ, and
also, if I recall correctly, uses other Jewish terms in place of "Christian"
ones where possible.
The argument could be extended beyond whether or not one should translate
Christos as "Christ" or "Messiah" to whether or not one should translate all
"Jewish" terms in the New Testament in as Jewish a way as possible:
Should nomos be translated as "law" or as "Torah"?
Should persons' names (including Jesus') be transliterated Hebrew forms,
rather than anglicized Latin/Greek forms, so the readers will be properly
reminded that they're reading JEWISH documents?
Should wordplays which are only apparent in the Greek be transliterated,
rather than translated (e.g., Jesus' calling Peter "Rock" and Nicodemus'
confusion over Jesus saying one must be born "anwthen")?
If you're going to say "Jesus the Messiah" rather than "Jesus Christ," why
not say "Y'shua the Messiah" (or better yet, "Mashiach")?
Should English names that use a soft "C" be rewritten with "K" to more
properly reflect the pronunciation of the Greek (e.g., Acts 8:27
"Kandake" rather than "Candace") and to remind one that these are
documents from another time and place?
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:25:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Thiede on Magdalen papyrus fragment
Perhaps this has lost interest by this point, but the question was raised
earlier and I sought permission from Sigrid Peterson and Stuart Pickering
to reproduce their Ioudaios-L posts on the subject to b-greek. I have only
just gotten permission from Stuart Pickering, has been out of touch from
his e-mail, and so I'll go ahead and post this item of his from last March.
He adds:
"Some points in the note will require some modification, but the essential
arguments remain valid.
"I understand that an important note by T.C. Skeat on the connection between
P4 and P64+67 will soon appear, or it may have appeared recently."
- ------------------------------------------------
Sender: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
From: Stuart Pickering <spickg@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: Magdalen College Matthew
X-Comment: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 20:54:26 EST
SOME NOTES ON THE MAGDALEN COLLEGE MATTHEW (P64)
This note is drawn up in the hope of dispelling some of the
confusion caused by a recent article which proposes a first-century
dating for P64.
A. FRAGMENTS CONCERNED
1) P64+67.
[van Haelst, Catalogue, no. 336]
Literature includes:
P64. Ed. C.H. Roberts, 'An Early Papyrus of the First Gospel',
Harvard Theological Review 46, 1953, 233-237, pl. (between pp.234-
235).
P67. R. Roca-Puig, Un papiro griego del Evangelio de San Mateo, con
una Note de Colin Roberts, Barcelona, 1962, 3 pll. (showing the
Barcelona fragments).
Recently: C.P. Thiede, 'Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland
P64). A Reappraisal', ZPE 105, 1995, 13-20, pl. IX.
2) P4.
[van Haelst, Catalogue, no. 403]
This may be from the same papyrus. It is similar in script and
format (two-columned; surviving page dimensions close to
reconstructed dimensions for P64+67). It is from the binding of a
codex of Philo from Coptus.
3) Note that fragments from the binding include:
Unidentified fragments and fragment with heading of Gospel of
Matthew.
4) Thiede gives the impression that the connection of P4 with P64+67
has been universally abandoned. This is not so.
B. TRANSCRIPTION (remarks based on plate in HThR 46, 1953; plate in
ZPE 105, 1995, pl. IX less clear, and photos are enlarged).
1) Verse 32. Spelling of 'Galilee'. Transcribe galeilaian. Supposed
gamma before second lambda (Roberts, Thiede) is an iota followed by
superfluous stroke too low for bar of gamma. The correct reading is
suggested in the apparatus of Roberts' 'Complementary Note' (1962)
(but dot not needed for iota).
2) Verse 22. Transcribe mu not nu, and a punctuation point before
it. Plate supports Roberts' au]tw. m[hti, rules out Thiede's
au]twn[mhti.
3) Verse 14. Roberts: [o] legomenos. Thiede: no room for restoring
[o]. A reasonable observation. Omicron is almost always large in
these fragments. But a small omicron in fragment (c) back line 2 (if
I correctly read it), so that the matter is perhaps not quite beyond
doubt.
4) Verses 22-23. Fragment (c) back line 2. Neither Roberts nor
Thiede can be completely correct. Plate does not support a delta.
Check original here and earlier in line, where the letters are
abraded and unclear from plate.
C. DATING (suggestion: try late [i.e. second half] third century)
1) Roberts correctly associated the script with the style called
biblical uncial or biblical majuscule. The essential question is to
analyse the development of this style and locate P64 within the
development.
Roberts regarded the hand as 'an early predecessor' of the biblical
uncial style (HThR, p.235). We may question whether it was an early
predecessor or whether it belongs within the fuller development of
the style.
2) In his approach to handwriting analysis, Thiede relies on
individual letter forms, without identifying and analysing the
handwriting styles of P64 and of examples he adduces for comparison.
The same mistake of method was made by Y.K. Kim, 'Palaeographical
Dating of P46 to the Later First Century', Biblica 69, 1988, 248-
257, figg. 1-3 (between pp.256 and 257), who failed to assess the
Chester Beatty - Michigan hand in relation to the style called by
Cavallo the Alexandrian majuscule. Both Kim and Thiede have gone
badly astray because of this error of method.
3) Thiede has not adequately re-evaluated the palaeographical basis
for dating P64 to the second, third or fourth century. He cannot
successfully challenge Roberts and others without doing this.
4) The evidence of P4 needs to be taken into account.
Note E.G. Turner's different datings:
P64+67. Typology, p.149: second century.
P4. Typology, p.145: third or third/fourth century.
Palaeographical judgment is affected differently by large and small
amounts of handwriting. There is more of P4 to see.
5) I have not yet sighted all the examples for comparison used by
Thiede. When time and resources permit, it will be useful to discuss
some details of letter forms in relation to the wider development of
Greek handwritings. If Thiede wishes to claim that any of his
examples are precursors of the biblical majuscule, the debate will
enter a new phase.
D. CONCLUSIONS
1) The main conclusion, in relation to Thiede's article, is that a
first-century dating is definitively ruled out by the association of
the hand of P64 with the biblical majuscule style.
2) Roberts' first edition and revised edition were evidently hurried
and left room for improvements (palaeographical, codicological,
text-critical).
3) Thiede shows up some (not all) of the faults in the earlier
editions, but also continues or introduces some errors.
4) In relation to the question of dating, Thiede makes two main
errors of method:
(i) He makes comparisons based on individual letter forms, without
assessing the overall style of the hands in which the letters occur.
(ii) He does not draw relevant evidence into consideration, in
particular:
(a) the association of the hand of P64 with the biblical majuscule
style;
(b) the evidence of P4.
E. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
1) Check original at various points to verify readings.
2) Clarify the connections between P64+67 and P4 (and associated
fragments). Consider implications of the archaeological context of
P4.
3) Analyse the development of the biblical majuscule style and
locate P64 within the development. Draw the hand of P4 into
consideration. Consider codicological and text-critical aspects.
Identify examples of biblical and other papyri in the biblical
majuscule style and establish so far as possible scribal connections
and relative dates.
On the biblical majuscule style cf. G. Cavallo, Ricerche sulla
maiuscola biblica, 2 vols. (Studi e testi di papirologia, 2),
Florence, Le Monnier, 1967 (2nd vol.: 1 case containing 115 plates);
G. Cavallo, and H. Maehler, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine
Period, A.D. 300 - 800 (Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin
Supplement 47), London, 1987.
The biblical majuscule style - not limited to biblical texts -
begins to emerge in the second century, reaches its definitive form
by the third century, and appears to have been the most common
formal script from the fourth to the eighth centuries. (Cf. Cavallo
and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, introd.)
4) Assess the relevance of the styles of the Herculaneum and Judaean
Desert scripts which have been referred to by Thiede.
For help with Herculaneum hands (including mention of the question
of 'regional particularism') cf. E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of
the Ancient World, 2nd ed., rev. by P.J. Parsons (Institute of
Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement 46), London, 1987, no. 78
(pp.134-135).
5) A full text-critical analysis of P64+67 and P4 is needed.
On P4 cf. T. Hirunuma, The Papyri Bearing the New Testament Text,
vol. I, Osaka, 1994, pp.18-43, including 7 plates for P4 (pp.20, 24,
26, 28, 32, 36, 40) (commentary in Japanese).
This note is based on an article in preparation, in which
acknowledgments will be made.
Corrections of any errors in this note are welcome. I could amend
this note as necessary and circulate an amended version or - if it
is too long - amended sections.
I thank the Ioudaios discussion list for providing a forum for this
note.
Stuart R. Pickering
School of History, Philosophy and Politics
Macquarie University
Sydney NSW 2109
Australia
e-mail: Stuart.Pickering@mq.edu.au or spickg@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
- --------------------------------------------
end of cited post
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:52:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
At 9:28 AM 9/11/95, David Moore wrote:
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad) wrote:
>
>>I have long felt that "Messiah" OUGHT to be used to translate
>>XRISTOS in every NT text. I can't think offhand of an exception, although
>>that may be a matter of my typical rushing to judgment.
>
> I admit that I was of the same opinion when I began the post on
>XRISTOS, but when I began to look at specific passages in the Epistles, I
>felt that a wholesale change to "Messiah" would be too radical. Certain
>passages, like 1Cor. 1:23 would probably come across with more impact:
>"But we preach the crucified Messiah...." Nevertheless, when I considered
>how often XRISTOS is used in many passages in Paul, I felt that the
>constant repetition of the Hebrew term would sound dissonant in the
>context of Paul's rhetoric. Is this a legitimate consideration?
David, I think that the dissonance is precisely what is required to give
these texts the freshness and the sense that the term had for the original
readers, except, as I mentioned before, they at least had (presumably) a
recognition of the relationship between the title XRISTOS and the verb
XRIW, "anoint."
In 1 Cor 1:23, as the text reads 'hHMEIS DE KHRUSSOMEN XRISTON
ESTAURWMENON,' I think it's all the more powerful: "But we proclaim Messiah
crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block [why not say, "scandal"?], to the
Gentiles foolishness ..."
Curiouser and curiouser!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>
> Original message sent on Sun, Sep 10 6:35 PM by
> dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (David Moore) :
>
> <snip>
>
> > Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most
> > contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old
> > Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it.
> > Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English
> > from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the
> > meaning which XRISTOS had for 1st-century readers of Greek is not
> > necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us.
>
> You raise an interesting point. Don't we also run into the same sort of
> problems with a term like "baptism" as well?
>
> Mark O'Brien
>
Yes, definitely! But, IMO, BAPTIZW and related cognates present a
somewhat more complex problem for the translator.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 11:05:16 -0500
Subject: re: Re: Translating XRISTOS
At 10:32 AM 9/11/95, Eric Weiss wrote:
>Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
> cc:
>Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
>
> -------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
>
>THE JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT by David Stern uses Messiah instead of Christ, and
>also, if I recall correctly, uses other Jewish terms in place of "Christian"
>ones where possible.
>
>The argument could be extended beyond whether or not one should translate
>Christos as "Christ" or "Messiah" to whether or not one should translate all
>"Jewish" terms in the New Testament in as Jewish a way as possible:
>
> Should nomos be translated as "law" or as "Torah"?
>
> Should persons' names (including Jesus') be transliterated Hebrew forms,
> rather than anglicized Latin/Greek forms, so the readers will be properly
> reminded that they're reading JEWISH documents?
>
> Should wordplays which are only apparent in the Greek be transliterated,
> rather than translated (e.g., Jesus' calling Peter "Rock" and Nicodemus'
> confusion over Jesus saying one must be born "anwthen")?
>
> If you're going to say "Jesus the Messiah" rather than "Jesus Christ," why
> not say "Y'shua the Messiah" (or better yet, "Mashiach")?
>
> Should English names that use a soft "C" be rewritten with "K" to more
> properly reflect the pronunciation of the Greek (e.g., Acts 8:27
> "Kandake" rather than "Candace") and to remind one that these are
> documents from another time and place?
There's surely no single right answer here, but I might just note that in
Classics what Eric notes in his last paragraph is definitely taking place:
the new orthodoxy transliterates the Greek to yield as nearly as possible a
transliteration of the sound of the Greek: AISXULOS is "Aiskhulos,"
OIDIPOUS is "Oidipous," SWKRATHS is "Sokrates." I've no objection to this
on principle, but it seems to me that the Latinized forms of quite a few
ancient names have stabilized themselves in English as standard. On the
other hand, the upcoming generation doesn't encounter those in school
anymore, anyhow ... But that, of course, is not quite altogether true.
As to Eric's first question, however, I'm all for translating any of these
terms in a way that will raise the consciousness of a cultural distinction
that the reader should be conscious of in reading the NT text.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 12:09:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: Re: Translating XRISTOS (fwd)
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> THE JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT by David Stern uses Messiah instead of Christ, and
> also, if I recall correctly, uses other Jewish terms in place of "Christian"
> ones where possible.
>
> The argument could be extended beyond whether or not one should translate
> Christos as "Christ" or "Messiah" to whether or not one should translate all
> "Jewish" terms in the New Testament in as Jewish a way as possible:
>
> Should nomos be translated as "law" or as "Torah"?
>
> Should persons' names (including Jesus') be transliterated Hebrew forms,
> rather than anglicized Latin/Greek forms, so the readers will be properly
> reminded that they're reading JEWISH documents?
>
> Should wordplays which are only apparent in the Greek be transliterated,
> rather than translated (e.g., Jesus' calling Peter "Rock" and Nicodemus'
> confusion over Jesus saying one must be born "anwthen")?
>
> If you're going to say "Jesus the Messiah" rather than "Jesus Christ," why
> not say "Y'shua the Messiah" (or better yet, "Mashiach")?
>
> Should English names that use a soft "C" be rewritten with "K" to more
> properly reflect the pronunciation of the Greek (e.g., Acts 8:27
> "Kandake" rather than "Candace") and to remind one that these are
> documents from another time and place?
>
I would think that some of the measures you mention in the first
part of your message would be helpful in translations for readers within
a strongly Jewish context.
What I think the translator should aim for, in general, is to
make the meaning of the original as accessible and as readily understood
as possible. That was what I felt the use of "Messiah" in some passages
in the Gospels and Acts might achieve. My suggestion had the general
reader in mind, not specifically someone from a Jewish background.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 12:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translating XRISTOS
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>
> >Original message sent on Sun, Sep 10 6:35 PM by
> >dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (David Moore) :
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Although most dictionaries define "Christ" as "Messiah", in most
> >> contexts and for most contemporary readers, "Christ" lacks the Old
> >> Testament connotations that "Messiah" legitimately brings with it.
> >> Part of this problem stems from "Christ" having come into English
> >> from Greek as a transliterated word. The problem is that the
> >> meaning which XRISTOS had for 1st-century readers of Greek is not
> >> necessarily that which the word "Christ" has for us.
> >
> >You raise an interesting point. Don't we also run into the same sort of
> >problems with a term like "baptism" as well?
>
> And "deacon" and "bishop"! Dare I mention "church," "sin," "faith," and
> "repentance," which although not from Greek roots, are sometimes misunderstood
> by many readers?
>
I agree, there could be lots of spin-offs from this thread. It
could be legitimate to reconsider the translation of many of these, since
the reading public of our generation is, for the most part, far removed
from things specifically religious. One would need to use care, however,
not to redefine such crucial terms incorrectly.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 10:52:06 PDT
Subject: Re: N-A text
eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov asked:
> Does anyone have an opinion on Comfort's suggested changes [to NA26]?
The general tenor of Comfort's argument was to say that the text
attested by the earliest greek MSS is almost always best, i.e.
just go with the Egyptian papyri or Vaticanus. Since the Nestle-Aland
committee doesn't seem to agree with that theory, they probably
won't follow his suggestions directly. Some who prefer NA25 to NA26
might think well of his suggestions.
> Are there any well-argued
> critiques--other than by defenders of the Textus Receptus--of the N-A text,
> or, conversely, good supporting arguments?
Metzger's Textual Commentary on the GNT is the supporting argument
for the NA-26/27-UBS-3/4. It reveals, unfortunately, that the edition
is not the product of one cohesive theory, which could be criticised
as a whole, but of a series of votes. The Alands' book, The Text of the
New Testament, tries to present a historical theory justifying
the collection of methods they use in text criticism, with very mixed success.
Beyond the occasional articles one sees arguing about this or that individual
variant, fundamental criticisms have come from eclectics like Elliott
and Kilpatrick, who think that nearly all the variants seen in the fourth
century existed in the second century and therefore internal evidences
are the only tool available to choose between such early variants.
They have tried to demonstrate by examples that the original text should
be sought from among all the text types.
Bover edited a GNT on principles not radically different from the NA26
committee, but with substantially less emphasis on Vaticanus. He
generally published in Spanish, but Metzger wrote a summary article
on Bover's contributions to text criticism.
Harry Sturz's (nonreactionary) book "The Byzantine Text in NTTC"
presents some cogent criticisms of the consensus views undergirding
the NA26 text, along with a not-entirely-convincing listing of papyrus
evidence for the early existence of some "Byzantine" readings.
Royce wrote a good article criticizing the treatment of scribal leaps
(parablepsis or hom) by the editors of NA26. His complaints of
inconsistency seem well-founded to me.
Someone (not too many years ago, but I'd have to dig deep to refind it)
wrote an interesting critique of the mistakes he sees made in detecting
synoptic harmonizations between the Gospels. The biggest example
he analyzed was with the divorce logia, but that wasn't the only one.
Zane Hodges et al (not TR supporters exactly, but close enough to get tarred
by the same brush) edited a GNT presenting (overall) a Majority Text.
They have published critical arguments supporting their approach
against that used in NA26, but... the really interesting stuff in their
explanatory introduction was the stemmatic reconstructions of the text
of the Pericope Adulterae and of the Apocalypse. The results from this
stemmatic theory differ significantly from the NA26 Apocalypse.
This is off the top of my head. If you need references, you'll have
to ask me to find them at home.
Vincent Broman, code 786 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #856
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu