09-22-2008, 09:46 PM
Shlama Mike,
It's my belief that, more likely than not, the "Greek" translators of the NT were, like the "Greek" translators of the LXX.....Jews.
You can produce a literal translation, or a liberal translation. Each method has its pros and cons. You can see that the Jews who produced the LXX sacrificed Greek grammar at times to stick very closely to the revered text in front of them. It's a problem that all translators have (trust me on this one.)
The translators of the LXX, being Jewish, revered the text in front of them. They wished to create one in Greek that remained faithful, word-for-word as much as possible, to the original text. That's why the Greek of the LXX contains so many of these Semiticisms and grammatical structures.
Yes, absolutely. They will be forthcoming.
+Shamasha
Mike Kar Wrote:...the "Greek translators" did try to stick with the Semitic originals in front of them and thus, breaking many grammatical norms in the Greek... [/b]
It's my belief that, more likely than not, the "Greek" translators of the NT were, like the "Greek" translators of the LXX.....Jews.
You can produce a literal translation, or a liberal translation. Each method has its pros and cons. You can see that the Jews who produced the LXX sacrificed Greek grammar at times to stick very closely to the revered text in front of them. It's a problem that all translators have (trust me on this one.)
The translators of the LXX, being Jewish, revered the text in front of them. They wished to create one in Greek that remained faithful, word-for-word as much as possible, to the original text. That's why the Greek of the LXX contains so many of these Semiticisms and grammatical structures.
Mike Kar Wrote:We should want more than a few examples though as a pattern of this could be very positive for Aramaic Primacists.
Yes, absolutely. They will be forthcoming.
+Shamasha