Petergdi

Some mauscripts have τελωναι in Matt 5:47 which seems to be the result of a copyist's mistake because τελωναι properly appears in a similar phrase in verse 46. I know why the KJV uses this reading, I'm a little puzzled why any modern translation would. Preference for Byzantine texts or no, it would seem pretty obvious that ἐθνικοι is the correct reading for verse 47.

This is a test to see if I can type Greek that shows up properly.

Peter.

Jeffrey Gibson

It may be the correct reading, but (as I was trying to see if Avi actually knew) it's not what underlies the translations of Matt 5:47 that Avi pointed us to (KJV, New KJV, etc.) as evidence for his claim that ἐθνικόι is sometimes translated as as "tax collectors".

Jeffrey

avi

Matthew 5:47
Hort & Westcott:
kai oi eqnikoi to auto poiousin

avi

1. Implicit:
...without a sound knowledge...


2. Explicit:
avi

avi

Yes, you are right, but, on the other hand, (and just as tenable, it seems to me), believing that eqnikoi represents "gentiles", may be 5th century judaism talking, not Koine Greek.

Why should the Greeks care about the distinction between hebrews and "gentiles", i.e. themselves? Do you possess some evidence, that I am unaware of, regarding authorship of the Gospels? I have no notion that they were written by jews.....For all I know the Gospels were written by Chinese, who traveled the silk route, and studied the Greek language from childhood....Do you possess information about some eyewitness accounts of the authorship of the three synoptic gospels?

Jeffrey Gibson

Please show me a translation based on the Hort and Wescot critical text that translates this as "tax collectors".

Jeffrey

avi

1. I have no idea who "matthew" was, nor do I know when he wrote his Gospel. I know only that he wrote it in Greek. He may have been jewish, or non-jewish. I have no idea...

2. Yes, language determines everything in communication. One's ethnicity, however, is not dependent upon communication, for example, sign language had been employed, both by the deaf (and deaf/mute) as well as by the aboriginal inhabitants of North America, ante Columbus. Use of sign language then, is not a discriminating factor in establishing ethnicity, because sign language transcends individual cultures, rather it is one's appearance, clothing, diet, and social organization, plus spoken and written language, that distinguishes ethnic groupings.

Jeffrey Gibson

Please note that what you quote of me above has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Earl's theory is wrong.

Nice to see how you have to resort to quoting me out of context in order to make your point.

Jeffrey

avi

The translation I referred to, Young's literal translation, does not rely upon the Hort & Westcott edition of the Greek original, but rather, one of those referred to by Peter, above. Thank you, Jeffrey, for correcting my error.
1. I deny that I made that claim, for I am not the one who believes that academic qualifications, or more precisely, lack thereof, render Earl's book suspect.

2. It is ironic that in the process of complaining about my quote of your earlier post on this thread, you (probably unintentionally, I suppose) deleted the salient portion of your quote....

Here it is again, in toto:
In summary:
Jeffrey argues that Earl's book may be flawed, in view of his supposedly having inferior academic qualifications to write any book. I argue that Earl's book may or may not be flawed, but if the former, then the onus to demonstrate that possibility rests with our understanding and interpretation of his text, not Earl's academic preparation to write the text.

avi

Ok, thanks for the advice. I will follow it.

avi