J11

by Mebaqqer2 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  oompa

  Slimboyfat: A couple of them, it is claimed, are descended from an original Hebrew version of Matthew.

  Wow...hard to believe you have a library with some in it...most elders dont even know what the crap they are. What is funny though about this claim you mention though is the absurd claim WT makes in the back of their own reference bible. I highlighted the red herring in red....Jerome, one of the most highly regarded historians who compiled great volumes of manuscripts and then wrote the Latin vulgate is cited by WT. This guy new a lot and respected the Tetragrammaton...and you can bet your ass that if he make a copy of the original hebrew manuscript of Mathew and it contained the divine name...he would be WAY more famous than today. Yet he obviously never found it, nor wrote about it, nor used it in the Latin Vulgate!!!!.....yet the FDS say " he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel

  "....this is just total lizzardshit...much lower that bullshit.....if "he would have been obliged faithfully to include" it, and so i agree with them for once....then where the hell is it in his writings and translations????......it aint there WT and you falsely make the statement here like he did....you damm liars....oompa

  Rbi8p.15641DTheDivineNameintheChristianGreekScriptures

  ***

  There is evidence that Jesus’ disciples used the Tetragrammaton in their writings. In his work Devirisinlustribus [ConcerningIllustriousMen], chapter III, Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote the following: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Vol. 14, Leipzig, 1896, pp. 8, 9.)

  Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. Where these quotations included the divine name he would have been obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew Gospel account. When the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was left untranslated within the Greek text according to the practice of that time.

  WTF???....they say the divine name was left untranslated and ya....it was....cause it did not appear in the Hebew writing of Mathew....idiots...but the blind sheep will question nothing....they just feel good cause WT makes them think Jerome uncovered the divine name in old manuscripts of Mathew...but he did not...oh and btw...i wrote WT about this exact same point, and asked for their evidence to support it....and of course...i got a "we have nothing further to add on this subject".........oompa
• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos,

  Shem Tov (which is called J2) and also a version from the sixteenth century by J. du Tillet. (called J1). I am not sure if the WT has picked up on J1 as reflecting an early Hebrew Matthew, but George Howard has, as have JW apologists.

  http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2203298/A-Brief-History-of-the-du--Tillet-Matthew

  but what did the Society actually claim about it (if anything)? That it was a Jewish Hebrew translation from the Greek, or a reflection of the alleged "Hebrew original" of Matthew?

  Originally they treated it like other translations, as you have discovered, but in recent years they have followed George Howard's theory that the Shem Tov version reflects an early Hebrew Matthew and suggested that it is a descendent of the 'original' Matthew since Matthew is said to have been composed in Hebrew.

  The latter would beg for the question, why does the NWT follow the critical Greek edition of Matthew in everything except the divine name?

  Two points: the NWT translator(s) were not aware that Shem Tov might reflect the original Hebrew Matthew when the version was first completed. Secondly the NWT does often cite 'J references', including Shem Tov, in the footnotes in matters unrelated to the divine name. But if asked to justify still using the Greek text of Matthew as the base text for their translation they would likely refer to their theory that the translation of the Hebrew Matthew into Greek was inspired, and probably done by Matthew himself.

  but avoids the crucial question which follows from this stance: why should Matthew be translated from the Greek at all?

  I can't find the reference for you but it has been stated in the literature that the translation of Matthew from Hebrew into Greek was inspired. In fact the phrase used is something like 'probably the only example of a Bible translation being inspired by God'.
• 

  possible-san

  Probably, it is the following phrase.

  *** it-1 p. 1213 Interpretation ***
  
  Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew, according to the ancient testimony of Jerome, Eusebius Pamphili, Origen, Irenaeus, and Papias.
  Who translated this Gospel later into Greek is not known.
  If Matthew did so himself, as some think, then it is the only known inspired translation of Scripture.

  possible
  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you mebaqqer and slimboyfat,

  As I look up the WT references with the help of your tips, one detail strikes me: The Watchtower connects the inspiration of the Greek "translation" of Matthew with the hypothesis that Matthew was the author of the translation... but it is not absolutely positive about the latter.

  ***

  WT 1950, 9/15:

  There is historical testimony that the apostle Matthew first wrote his "book of the history of Jesus Christ" in the Hebrew for Jewish readers, but that later he made his own translation of this gospel account into the common Greek to reach a larger reading public. In that way he could transfer his inspiration to his translation into Greek, so that his written translation was inspired. (Matt. 1:1, NW) But the other disciples wrote directly in the common Greek; so their writings needed translation into A·ra·ma´ic, Hebrew, Latin, etc.

  ***

  Insight, "interpretation,"

  Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew, according to the ancient testimony of Jerome, Eusebius Pamphili, Origen, Irenaeus, and Papias. Who translated this Gospel later into Greek is not known.If Matthew did so himself, as some think, then it is the only known inspired translation of Scripture.

  ***

  So there is a slight possibility that the Greek text of Matthew (which the Westcott & Hort critical edition aims at) is not inspired after all... :)

  Strangely I had forgotten about this connection of "inspiration" with "authors" rather than with (original) "texts" (as in the usual Evangelical stance). This may well be a common trend in Adventism as I have heard of a similar theory among the SDAs (which, incidentally, was used by some "liberal" SDA theologians in the sense of a less literal notion of "inspiration").
• 

  possible-san

  Hi, Mebaqqer2.

  You got the precious material.

  Please use the "collection of Web links" in my website.
  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link03.html
  http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/link/link05.html