Ruckubersetzung kepha polysemy

[Big_Dummy]

Almost 100 years ago, the Jewish Semitic scholar D. S. Margoliouth attempted to translate the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira) back into Hebrew. He knew for a fact from the prologue to Ben Sira that it had been translated into Greek directly from a Hebrew original, and he had at his disposal not only the Greek text, but Syriac and Latin translations as well. Yet when sizable portions of a Hebrew Ben Sira were discovered in the Cairo Geniza,** it was found that he did not correctly translate even one single verse! **Back-translation (called “Ruckubersetzung” in German) is extremely touchy business, even when we are dealing with sources that are only one step removed from the original. But to postulate that accurate Ruckubersetzung can be carried out from sources four or five steps removed from the alleged original is almost unthinkable. And it is entirely out of the question to suggest that wholesale reconstruction – not just retranslation – of an alleged original text (here, the “Life of Jesus”) can be carried out from such a distance. Such an effort can only be viewed as pure conjecture. To reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic text of even the Lord’s Prayer – based on the extant witness of Matthew and Luke – is fraught with difficulty. To attempt to reconstruct the entire (alleged) original Hebrew Gospel – without access to even the supposed primary Greek sources – is nothing more than a counsel of despair.

thinkitthru.tv/recoveringtheinspiredtextPF.htm

In short, if Jesus did in fact speak Galilean Aramaic, where are the manuscripts in that dialect? if there are not enough of them ---- one is bound to make many errors related to the range of meanings of words at any given time.

The Neclected Role of Semantics in the search for the Aramaic words of Jesus by L. D. Hurst JSNT 28 (1986) Pp 63-80
jnt.sagepub.com/content/9/28/63.extract

The Current State of Research on Galilean AramaicMichael SokoloffJournal of Near Eastern Studies
Vol. 37, No. 2, Colloquium on Aramaic Studies (Apr., 1978), pp. 161-167
jstor.org/pss/545141

This may explain why Josheph Fitzmyer refuted his own Kepha Kepha reconstruction in

Biblical Archeology Review. – Queries & Comments," Biblical Archaeology Review 19.3 [1993], 70 fitzmyer refutes the kepha kepha reading based on the fact that it does not account for the greek play on words.

For those unaware,

Fitzmyer, purposed the aramaic kepha kepha reading in a few books,

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s name in the New Testament,” Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson

To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series) by Joseph A. Fitzmyer

 

[po18guy]

You are stuck on documental exactitude. You have pointed out the fallacy of the doctrine of sola scriptura - which places all bible churches in the unenviable position of having to “reverse engineer” the Gospel from later documents written about it. To a greater or lesser degree, it always fails. The Catholic Church has the Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium, both of which are employed to interpret the existing scriptures.

On a personal note. if you took even 10% of the time you spend on searching out reasons for disbelief, and devoted it to simply standing in Jesus’ presence at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you would have far fewer doubts.

 

[Sufjon]

On a personal note. if you took even 10% of the time you spend on searching out reasons for disbelief, and devoted it to simply standing in Jesus’ presence at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, you would have far fewer doubts.

Perhaps the path of disbelief is the challenge he’s been given to work with. If that’s the case, he is doing it fully, honestly and with sincere desire to sort things out. It’s his path. He’s walking it just fine, and he’ll get to where he needs to go. I think he’s anything but a Big Dummy.

On a side note, I think your statement shows a good deal of concern for others. It’s very kind of you to have concern for others.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps the path of disbelief is the challenge he’s been given to work with. If that’s the case, he is doing it fully, honestly and with sincere desire to sort things out. It’s his path. He’s walking it just fine, and he’ll get to where he needs to go. I think he’s anything but a Big Dummy.

On a side note, I think your statement shows a good deal of concern for others. It’s very kind of you to have concern for others.

Your friend
Sufjon

Thank you. I need to hear both good and bad. You are right that he is no dummy at all. He is on a faith-building mission. However, having tasted the sweetness of simply being in our Lord’s presence, I cannot recommend it enough. You are searching, as well. Give it a try: find a nearby parish which offers adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Go there - especially at night time, and just sit and gaze at Him. That’s all. Just sit. Or read. Even demand that He reveal His presence. No one has been refused. Just have patience.

Peace be with you.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Actually I think this is one of the funniest and yet deepest texts in the gospels because it spells out the true level of committment for the non-doubter and in the text, I can see Thomas using humor when saying it.

John 11:16 (New International Version, ©2010)
Then Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

 

[John7]

To reconstruct the original Hebrew or Aramaic text of even the Lord’s Prayer – based on the extant witness of Matthew and Luke – is fraught with difficulty. To attempt to reconstruct the entire (alleged) original Hebrew Gospel – without access to even the supposed primary Greek sources – is nothing more than a counsel of despair.

Here’s Mt 6 Lord’s prayer
9 לָכֵן כֹּה תִתְפַּלָּלוּ אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָׁמַיִם יִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֶךָ
10 תָּבֹּא מַלְכוּתֶךָ יֵעָשֶׂה רְצוֹנְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר בַּשָׁמַיִם גַּם בָּאָרֶץ
11 אֶת־לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ תֵּן־לָנוּ הַיּוֹם
12 וּמְחַל־לָנוּ עַל־חֹבוֹתֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר מָחַלְנוּ גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ לְחַיָּבֵינוּ
13 וְאַל־תְּבִיאֵנוּ לִידֵי נִסָּיוֹן כִּי אִם־תְּחַלְּצֵנוּ מִן־הָרָע ((כִּי לְךָ הַמַּמְלָכָה וְהַגְּבוּרָה וְהַתִּפְאֶרֶת לְעוֹלְמֵי עוֹלָמִים אָמֵן))

done by Franz Delitzsch about 100 years ago, he did the whole NT working from Westcott Hort Greek NT…used for native Hebrew speakers

If you have the Greek and want to take it to Hebrew, what’s the difference between ‘reconstruction’ and ‘retranslation’??

 

[campeador]

What this also proves, BD, is that those who try to interpret the Bible using Strong’s Concordance (or any other concordance for that matter) are way out of line.

Don’t you think?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yes, campeador using Strong’s to locate every possible meaning while ignoring the immediate context is one of the common word study fallacies that D. A. Carson pointed out in his book Exegetical Fallacies – those using Strong’s tends to do the word count fallacy.

mcmaster.ca/mjtm/documents/MJTM_12.1_BaxterFallacies_001.pdf

ntslibrary.com/Exegetical_Fallacies.pdf

studydesk.org/Hermeneutics/06%20Observation%20-%20Word%20Study%20Fallacies.htm

joeydelapaz.blogspot.com/2008/10/common-errors-in-word-study.html

dradney.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/word-study-fallacies-2/

In fact, there is a complete bible based on this fallacy
concordant.org/version/index.html
enjoyinggodministries.com/article/how-to-do-a-word-study/

amazon.com/Exegetical-Fallacies-D-Carson/dp/0801020867

tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj19a.pdf

 

[campeador]

Yes, campeador using Strong’s to locate every possible meaning while ignoring the immediate context is one of the common word study fallacies that D. A. Carson pointed out in his book Exegetical Fallacies – those using Strong’s tends to do the word count fallacy.

mcmaster.ca/mjtm/documents/MJTM_12.1_BaxterFallacies_001.pdf

ntslibrary.com/Exegetical_Fallacies.pdf

studydesk.org/Hermeneutics/06%20Observation%20-%20Word%20Study%20Fallacies.htm

joeydelapaz.blogspot.com/2008/10/common-errors-in-word-study.html

dradney.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/word-study-fallacies-2/

In fact, there is a complete bible based on this fallacy
concordant.org/version/index.html
enjoyinggodministries.com/article/how-to-do-a-word-study/

amazon.com/Exegetical-Fallacies-D-Carson/dp/0801020867

tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj19a.pdf

Whoa, thanks for the links. It’s gonna take me a while to go through these.

 

[John7]

Here’s Mt 6 Lord’s prayer
9 לָכֵן כֹּה תִתְפַּלָּלוּ אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָׁמַיִם יִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֶךָ
10 תָּבֹּא מַלְכוּתֶךָ יֵעָשֶׂה רְצוֹנְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר בַּשָׁמַיִם גַּם בָּאָרֶץ
11 אֶת־לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ תֵּן־לָנוּ הַיּוֹם
12 וּמְחַל־לָנוּ עַל־חֹבוֹתֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר מָחַלְנוּ גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ לְחַיָּבֵינוּ
13 וְאַל־תְּבִיאֵנוּ לִידֵי נִסָּיוֹן כִּי אִם־תְּחַלְּצֵנוּ מִן־הָרָע ((כִּי לְךָ הַמַּמְלָכָה וְהַגְּבוּרָה וְהַתִּפְאֶרֶת לְעוֹלְמֵי עוֹלָמִים אָמֵן))

done by Franz Delitzsch about 100 years ago, he did the whole NT working from Westcott Hort Greek NT…used for native Hebrew speakers

If you have the Greek and want to take it to Hebrew, what’s the difference between ‘reconstruction’ and ‘retranslation’??

Dummy
are you going to answer the question? or have you no answer?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Dummy
are you going to answer the question? or have you no answer?

Sorry I overlooked the question, “reconstruction”, “back translation”, “retranslation” are really the same because they all claim to be recovering the orignial text. based on the evidence related to Ruckubersetzung and polysemy one is more likely to get their reconstruction, back translation wrong.

To my knowledge Franz Delitzsch did not claim to be translating the NT into Ancient Hebrew for the puropose of recovering the orignal Hebrew of Matthew for example – he simply translated the NT in modern Hebrew.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Delitzsch

The Kepha Kepha thing is outdated. Joseph Fitzmyer who first proposed this construction, later rejected it because the construction does NOT account for the play on words in Greek.

You can find Fitzmyer’s refutation of this construction in Biblical Archeology Review.

Fitzmyer, purposed the Aramaic kepha kepha reading in a few books,

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s name in the New Testament,” Text and
Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest
Best and R. McL. Wilson

To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (The Biblical Resource Series) by Joseph A. Fitzmyer

But later in Queries & Comments," Biblical Archaeology Review 19.3 [1993], 70
Fitzmyer refutes the kepha kepha reading based on the fact that it does not account for the Greek play on words.

Years ago on either B Greek or B Hebrew someone tried to use polysemy to argue against “virgin” in favor of “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 == I am not going anywhere with this aside point. I hear that the NAB revised edition changed to “young woman”.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You are stuck on documental exactitude. You have pointed out the fallacy of the doctrine of sola scriptura - which places all bible churches in the unenviable position of having to “reverse engineer” the Gospel from later documents written about it. To a greater or lesser degree, it always fails. The Catholic Church has the Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium, both of which are employed to interpret the existing scriptures.

And what do “Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium” tell you that scripture doesn’t?

 

[po18guy]

And what do “Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium” tell you that scripture doesn’t?

First, and most important, the bible tells us that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, etc.). Take a look at the prologue to Luke: It was written to confirm the teaching that Theophilus received before there was a bible. How can we, as Christians, explain how Theophilus was taught, since there was no bible at the time? How could this have occurred?

 

[Big_Dummy]

First, and most important, the bible tells us that it is incomplete (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, etc.). Take a look at the prologue to Luke: It was written to confirm the teaching that Theophilus received before there was a bible. How can we, as Christians, explain how Theophilus was taught, since there was no bible at the time? How could this have occurred?

lol, so the book of mormon is true. Yes, you are using the same flawed logic as LDS do.

Your proof texts only indicates that more could have been written, not that the Bible lacks all that is needed to “know that you have eternal life” or that it is not “profitable” for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” so that a believer may be "complete, furnished completely unto every good work. " Your texts do not indicate that more was written in tradition.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (American Standard Version)
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

And you really did not answer Richard Kastner question, And what do “Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium” tell you that scripture doesn’t?

He is askig for postive proof of what is taught about Jesus in your Tradition or by your Magisterium that is not already known in scripture.

To answer his question, the only thing I can think of is the fact that Irenaeus claims that Jesus was 50 when he died (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 5-6) – and frankly that does not add anything theologically speaking to teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.

 

[po18guy]

lol, so the book of mormon is true. Yes, you are using the same flawed logic as LDS do.

Your proof texts only indicates that more could have been written, not that the Bible lacks all that is needed to “know that you have eternal life” or that it is not “profitable” for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” so that a believer may be "complete, furnished completely unto every good work. " Your texts do not indicate that more was written in tradition.

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (American Standard Version)
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

And you really did not answer Richard Kastner question, And what do “Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Magisterium” tell you that scripture doesn’t?

He is askig for postive proof of what is taught about Jesus in your Tradition or by your Magisterium that is not already known in scripture.

To answer his question, the only thing I can think of is the fact that Irenaeus claims that Jesus was 50 when he died (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 5-6) – and frankly that does not add anything theologically speaking to teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.

The Apostolic paradosis and the Magisterium produced the bible. It is both history and logic. The Church came first. It later produced the bible, using its God-given authority and the Apostolic oral tradition (paradosis). Paradosis. Remember that term.

It is pointless and wastes precious time to ceaselessly argue. Have a read: By What Authority? by former Evengelical Mark Shea.

 

[po18guy]

Point to ponder: The bible is essentially thee sacred Cliff’s Notes of Christ. The majority of Christ’s teaching is not recorded in the bible. Is it forever lost?

 

[hazcompat]

all of scrpture is written for me, and me alone. this does not change the reality that all of scrpture is written for you, and you alone. Can you convince another of God using words?Like the eunich who longs to steal the virgins flower, so is he who would convince another of God using words.

peace