by Red Piller 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
Yes, "It's a girl"/"It's a boy," are fine. But: "It's a girl. She's playing"/"It's a boy. He's playing."
So, what if we want to translate something like, "Calling a grandparent to him, he set ___ in their midst." Him, her or it? "It" doesn't work here which is why I would opt for the way that NRSV renders Mt 18:2.
I think one should put "it" in to context. In the time period this was written children and women did not enjoy the status and privileges these individuals do currently. Children were slaves a person did not have to buy, and women were slaves you bought but could have sex with. So, contextually "it" may be correct. The Apostle Paul raised the status of women higher than probably in person in the history of the world. For children, it was this scripture. The people of this audience would have been flabbergasted by hearing these words. How dare he put a child in the place reserved for an adult. For women, it was him saying husbands be considerate of your wife. This was a brand new concept. If you were rich, you would divorce your old wife and buy a new one. If you were not rich, you would divorce her so you wouldn't have to care for her in her old age. To us these statements sound common place, but at this point in time it was an outrageous thing to say.
Thought I would add a point to this thread that was already covered by others, but just for confirmation's sake:
R. T. France, writing in the NICNT commentary on Matthew had this to say about 18:2:
First, he translates the verse this way: "Jesus called a child to him, and placed the child in the middle of them."
You'll notice, instead of "it" he has "the child."
In a footnote about this he says: Greek has the neuter pronoun auto, taking up the grammatical gender of paidion, "child," so that it is not indicated whether the child was male or female; since "it" is not appropriate for a human subject in English, I have repeated "the child."
Hi. Bobcat:
I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question definitively. I see two problems here. First, there are two parables under consideration. The one about keeping watch which is what Peter is concerned about, and second, the identity of the FDS as mentioned in vs 42. Does everyone, including unbelievers, have the responsibility to keep on the watch or is that exclusive to believers? That is what Peter wants to know.
To complicate matters, Jesus does not answer Peter directly but adds another parable, that of the FDS, asking, "Who then is the FDS...."
The second problem is determining the appropriate antecedent to verse 48. Is the part about "much is given" refer to all those willing to be on the watch, or to the FDS"? I don't know. I can only quote from a commentary I used back in the 50s when I was in school. Published in 1920 and written by W. Walsham How, it says:
"Our Lord does not answer this inquiry one way or other , but continues his discourse, leaving the Apostle to draw his own conclusion. That conclusion would be, that the lesson is for all, but for each according to the work entrusted to him by the great Master"
moggy:
In the question I posed I was wondering if perhaps Jesus' use of panti ("everyone" NWT) in verse 48 would have suggested, by means of assonance, the answer to Peter's question in verse 41 which uses pantas ("all" NWT).
The renderings "all" and "everyone," although meaning the same thing, lack the 'sound-alike' quality that might catch the questioner's ear. In contrast, the Greek pantas and panti have that type of assonance that you would also find in a wordplay or pun.
I guess an English rendering that attempted to include this would have Peter asking, 'Are you saying this to us or to all.' And then Jesus' response would be, 'Allto whom much was given . . .'
I have never see a commentary touch on this aspect of it, that is why I was wondering if the idea had any merit or if I was just reaching for straws.
Take Care
