stephan huller

Yes I acknowledge all of that but if you are interested in the early heretical traditions as I am it can't be coincidental that Marcion et al understood the redemption as a slave liberation from the god of this age, the lord of the Law and prophets.

avi

My knowledge of DSS is nearly nil, so I do not offer this solitary link as an argument to refute spin's opinion, but here is at least one image of DSS (Psalms 119:59-64), which shows yahweh just as it had been written for many centuries. Yahweh alone, on this document, appears with the traditional symbols, all the remaining text on the papyrus, employs the more "modern" script, i.e. this word would not have been pronounced "adonai" by someone reading aloud from this document.

http://www.yahweh.com/images/yahweh/UntitHE2.JPG


After their return to Jerusalem, from Babylon, according to that web site, the Jews still used the word yahweh, exclusively. Something happened in the mid third century BCE to cause the change in behaviour.....

I wonder if that "something" could have been the intrusion of the Greek/Macedonian army? Did they bring some Greek gods with them? Did their superior military force compel a change in Jewish customs? Was there, at that time, but one name, Alexander, considered appropriate to utter in public? Would there perhaps have been forcible executions of public figures who dared defy the Greek rulers, by saying the name yahweh, instead of the name Alexander? Unlike yahweh, Alexander was a true adonai.

Since, however, the thread is concerned with WRITTEN, not spoken text, in my opinion, the issue is whether or not "lord" is a satisfactory, sufficient, or superior translation of yahweh. In my opinion, "lord" is an unsatisfactory translation, (of the written Hebrew) and of interest, in terms of the OP, one finds several translations of Joel 2:32, for example, in which "lord" appears for yahweh, and two or three with "yahweh", or "jehovah".

avi

JoeWallack

JW:
My own favorite is:

Mark 7:3 Should Christianable Guesses Be Included In Lexicon Definitions?

The underlieing Greek for "diligently" is:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-3.htm

Per LSJ:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...ugmh/-contents

JW:
Note that all meanings are "fist". Except for the use in Mark 7:3 which has its own unique Lexicon entry! Holy sonofbatman, it's a Cathechism-22. The same is true of every Lexicon I've seen.

Move on to the (mis)translations where no one uses "fist" even though every commentary confesses "fist":

http://bible.cc/mark/7-3.htm [Parallels]

Note all the variation for the offending word. Obviously the translators are rejecting the meaning of the Greek word and there is than little agreement because there is no original word to use.

Also note that some scribes changed the offending word to a closely spelled word to avoid the meaning (let he who has a sense of Irony consider the related "Mark's" Jesus' message is about Scribes changing The Word).

In addition to the offending word always meaning "fist" outside of Christian LexiCons the related context of Chapter 7 is about the figurative lesson of being concerned about keeping what's on the inside clean rather than the outside. Washing hands with fists fits this theme perfectly as in the process you would only clean the outside and not the inside (lots more irony here when you consider the real history of Christians creating plague by not washing their hands and than blaming it on the Jews who did, all inspired by the fiction of 7:3).

A fine example of Christians mistranslating because they have no conception that "Mark's" Jesus may have been figurative at times.

I have a separate Category for Transmission errors at my ErrancyWiki here:

Transmission

Keep em coming gals.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

Two important codices, Sinaiticus and Washingtoniensis supply πυκνα, "often", so there was a problem in the transmission of the verse. However, I can't see bias or tendentiousness in translation. I don't know where "diligently" comes from, though it may have been an attempt to deal with the divergent indications of πυκνα and πυγμη "fist" (understood to be in the dative, ie "to the fist"). The latter apparently indicating all the hand gets washed.

What I'm fishing for here is attempts to make religious brownie points through tendentious, or perhaps even dishonest, translation.

hjalti

Or, ie "with the fist" (I mastered dative when I was 4 year old! )

spin

While "to the fist" is straight untinged dative, how would you justify "with the fist" (seemingly instrumental, an idiomatic use of the dative) in the particular instance?

hjalti

Darn you spin and your linguistic skills! Some day I will beat you to my intelligence! :Cheeky:

vid

I remember reading about quite opposite case: Translations ignoring LXX version of Hosea 11:1 in favor of Hebrew version, because it was used by Matthew.

Not exactly what you asked for, I know, but shows criteria for preferences of LXX vs. MT in some cases.

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tendentious

I think my example fits the definition of "tendentious" in that the Christians are trying to avoid having Jesus say anything that could be considered false in some way. Properly translating as "fist" has Jesus make a false description of the Jewish practice of hand washing at the time in order to make a figurative point. As a side note this is also an excellent example of anachronism, as ritual hand washing became common Jewish practice after the Temple was destroyed.

I normally try to follow the wishes of the OP (unless the Creator is a real closet-case, like Fred). You appear to be interested here in a more limited category of "tendentious", the offensive type, where the emphasis is what was translated to as opposed to what was avoided. At my ErrancyWiki we are inclusive and ALL types of errors are welcome. I'll try to come up with an offensive error.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

Properly translated, it is not "fist" but "to the fist" if the dative reading for πυγμη is correct. Those who translate πυγμη, such as YLT ("to the wrist") and the WEB ("and forearms") give dynamic equivalents. Others work from πυκνα and translate it transparently, "often" (Webster, Douay, KJV). Yet others work from both notions and derive "diligently" or "with care".

I do not see any tendentiousness using any definition of the word.