From: Trevor Jenkins (Trevor.Jenkins@suneidesis.com)
Date: Tue Dec 29 1998 - 11:51:25 EST
Thanks to you all for your suggestions and comments. I realise that some of
my original comments were not on-topic for the list so my follow-up here is
to you each personally.
yochanan bitan <ButhFam@compuserve.com> comments:
> (trevor jenkins wrote:}
> >As I progress in my study of New Testament Greek I am sure other
> >infrequent words will confuse me. So in conclusion I'd like advice upon
> >is what other references can I check that would resolve my problem.
>
> in every language, the language interprets itself.
That's what had me puzzled about the "politically correct" translation of
MAGOS of the nativity account in the KJV and RSV as "Wise Men" but obvious
pejorative use of sorcerer/magician in Acts. If I follow your suggestions
for reading extra-biblical sources (and here I *DO* agree with Wenham) then
I'm going to end up with the same question why the P.C. translation in
Matthew and not in Acts?
Ron Rhoades <rrhoades@jps.net> comments:
> Very little here on grammar, but, sticking to the word used, the "magi"
> were not held in honor by the writer of Matthew or the first century
> Christians. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian, when reading Matthew
> 2:1, thought of magi as astrologers. The name Magi became current as a
> generic term for astrologers in the East with all its negative
> connotations.
My problem is that the KJV/RSV (and by cop-out NIV) translsators have toned
down the negative aspects of these magi. I've just checked my copy of the
Good News Bible in which the translators say "...men who studied the
stars...", which today is ambiguous as it could be taken to be astronomers
not astrologers. (As an aside to Randall the GNB uses an English vocabulary
of only 2,000 words!)
> So the evidence is strong that the magi who visited the infant Jesus
> were astrologers not "wise men" in a positive sense. Correctly, then,
> many modern English translations read "astrologers" at Matthew 2:1.
The only modern translations I have to hand NIV being the most recent do
not say "astrologers" but various P.C. and acceptable nouns. Although J B
Phillips in his translation from the 1950s does say "a party of
astrologers".
Carl W Conrad:
> ... Herodotus tells of the MAGOI in the original sense as Zoroastrian
> priests in Persia, but in the syncretist climate of the Hellenistic era
> associations of any one national religion came readily to be linked up to
> each other in various combinations.
Syncretism is still a problem today so perhaps my questioning has more
merit than I though.
> I think the association with astrology
> is clearly there in Matthew's birth narrative, but in Acts I think the
> association is rather with sorcery: Simon Magos endeavors to learn from
> Peter how to exploit the phenomena associated with the Holy Spirit to
> work magic--and MAGIKH (TECNH) surely derives from MAGOS bearing this
> sense.
Which backs up randall buth's assertion on the language (i.e. context)
interpreting itself. But I still feel that we are being short-changed by
the translators. It appears to me that they wish to dilute the force of the
original in an effort not to annoy anyone. Maybe that is harsh but as an
author myself I know how important it is to select the best word. I fear
that the use of wise men (or even Magi as Conrad himself would use) is to
side-step the issue that believers from a false religion came and
worshipped Jesus that first Christmas.
> for translation, I rather think using the Latin plural form "Magi" is a
> reasonable expedient precisely because it will send the reader who really
> cares to know to reference works to sort out what sort of persons may be
> described in these passages.
The sort of people that I deal with, who although highly intelligent and
sophisticated, will just accept the Magi or Wise Men appelation and accept
the suspect traditions that those descriptions embody. In my opinion the
use of any term other than astrologer or socerer obfuscates the text for
the non-professional.
> Finally, and very briefly,since this is not the forum proper for
> discussion of theological interpretation of these passages
I was aware that my original posting could be a vechile for such
sectarianism but I was worried about my evangelical conjecture rather than
the theology of these men, which is why I stated my presuppositions
clearly.
> to translate MAGOS, my own vote would probably be for "wizard" with that
> word's broad range of positive and negative connotations and denotations
> as interpreters of signs ...
Maybe we have a British English v American English difference here. But
this side of the pond a wizard is a male witch, i.e. a follow of Wichen.
Though popular parlance has it as some benificent figure.
As someone who is just commencing his (NT) Greek studies I hope that there
won't be too many of these seemingly simple words that occasion such deep
discussions.
Regards, Trevor
--<>< Re: deemed!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:12 EDT