|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 21, 2016 0:36:39 GMT -8
I am researching a particular word in the New Testament but cannot find what I am looking for. In the Byzantine texts the word 'new' (kainos - Greek) is used. What I am looking for is to find out what word is used for 'new' in the Hebrew version of the same texts. I know what I 'want' it to be, but I cannot find any online help to tell me if I am right or not. Can anyone help please? I don't know Hebrew or Greek in the original lettering, so a transliterated version would be best.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 21, 2016 20:03:02 GMT -8
I am researching a particular word in the New Testament but cannot find what I am looking for. In the Byzantine texts the word 'new' (kainos - Greek) is used. What I am looking for is to find out what word is used for 'new' in the Hebrew version of the same texts. I know what I 'want' it to be, but I cannot find any online help to tell me if I am right or not. Can anyone help please? I don't know Hebrew or Greek in the original lettering, so a transliterated version would be best.
G2537 καινός kainos kahee-nos' Of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while G3501 is properly so with respect to age): - new.
Lukas 22:20 (OJB) And Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach took the kos (cup) similarly after they ate, saying, This kos (cup) is HaBrit HaChadasha in my dahm, being shed for you. [Ex 24:8; Isa 42:6; Jer 31:31-34; Zech 9:11; 53:10-12]The Hebrew word is PROBABLY “ chadashah,” feminine form of “ chadash” (חָדָשׁ). I say probably because we are back translating from a transliteration of a translation of the original Hebrew text into koine Greek- one of the lowest forms of Greek used most often for translations. “ Chadashah” can mean new or renewed, sometimes depending on context and sometimes simultaneously in the same context. For instance “ B’rith Milah” is the covenant of circumcision. This is a new covenant in the respect the new infant is undergoing the procedure. However it is a renewal of God’s covenant with His people every time it is done. So with the so called “ New Testament.” It is called that, which means a new Greek legal document (now who are the legalists?) because the early church fathers wanted to have their own brand new religion; one free of everything Jewish. This is why Strong’s only gives the “new” translation of the word “kainos.” I don’t speak Greek either, so I don’t know what kainos means. However I do know that the Hebrews thought in terms of covenants, not legalistic contracts. And while a contract can be nullified by a new contract, the terms of a covenant cannot be done away with until all of the covenant is fulfilled. You can add to the terms of the covenant, but the only way to remove the terms is to accomplish them all. And since this has not yet been done, this is contextually a renewed covenant. People, even Messianics, still call it a “ New Covenant” because they have not yet gotten over the brainwashing they got while still in Christianity. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by chrisg on Apr 22, 2016 0:05:43 GMT -8
I like where it says kainos means 'new (especially in freshness)'. When I wash my clothes, they are new (as in freshened), but they are not new as in I got rid of the old and went out to buy some more! This would fit with the 'renewed' meaning of chadashah.
Next question, same issue - do you know why the word 'new' is missing from some translations of Matthew 26v28? It is the same verse as Luke 22v20, but Matthew's version. I realise it is to do with the fact some texts won't have it (notably those used for more recent translations), but why would they miss it out?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Apr 22, 2016 7:40:08 GMT -8
I like where it says kainos means 'new (especially in freshness)'. When I wash my clothes, they are new (as in freshened), but they are not new as in I got rid of the old and went out to buy some more! This would fit with the 'renewed' meaning of chadashah. Next question, same issue - do you know why the word 'new' is missing from some translations of Matthew 26v28? It is the same verse as Luke 22v20, but Matthew's version. I realise it is to do with the fact some texts won't have it (notably those used for more recent translations), but why would they miss it out?
Note: footnotes to the texts are inserted in brackets.
In questions like this, I like to start with the King James Bible to see what the early Protestant take was. Finished in 1611, it retains (very) much of the Roman Catholic dogma as well as many of the prejudices of early Prods. And since many of the translators of contemporary versions grew up with the KJV, it has had a profound effect on how they translated/transliterated the texts. Note the KJV says “the new testament,” which gives the incorrect translation of both words:
Matthew 26:28 (KJV) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Then I go to the New King James Version, which according to Bible Gateway- “Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies.” They did an admirable job (and in the process put a lot of purists noses out of joint), and so give insight into some of the problems inherent with the KJV:
Matthew 26:28 (NKJV) For this is My blood of the new [Text omits new] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Stern in his Complete Jewish Bible makes the mistake of translating this as “New,” although he got the covenant part right:
Matthew 26:28 (CJB) For this is my blood, which ratifies the New Covenant, my blood shed on behalf of many, so that they may have their sins forgiven.
I like the Original Jewish Bible because they give the most likely back translation of key terms in Hebrew, as well as comparative references from the TNK. In this way you can get the full meanings and implications of the terms:
Mattityahu 26:28 (OJB) For this is my [Moshiach’s, see Isa 53:7-8] Dahm HaBrit HaChadasha [Isa 42:6; Jer 31:31-34], which is poured out LARABBIM (for many YESHAYAH 53:11-12) for the selicha (forgiveness) of chattaim (sins).
And then I like to round things off with the two most scholastically honest and accurate of the contemporary translations, the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible (which is my carry Bible, btw):
Matthew 26:28 (ESV) for this is my blood of the [Some manuscripts insert new] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28 (NASB) for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Looking at the above comparisons, and at what Yeshua was actually doing and trying to say, my guess is you can take the NASB version and bank it; “for this is My blood of the covenant.” Although it is possible He would have said "My blood of the Renewed Covenant", (Dahm HaBrit HaChadasha).
Remember too that there are over 5700 Greek text versions and fragments of their New Testament; many (most) of which disagree to varying extents. There were none of the rigorous checks in place like the Hebrew TNK had when copying these documents; which were themselves transliterations of probably Aramaic translations of the original Hebrew. Given this, it is amazing that many of the modern English translations agree on anything! But the more scholarly and honest translators worked hard to select the manuscripts that most closely matched the TNK. I actually pinned down a Wycliffe staff person on this and she agreed, they used the TNK as a base when interpreting the New testament.
That said, an unscrupulous translator has his pick of a plethora of texts from which to get whatever he wants the word to say! That is why I pretty much stay with my NASB. I know it and trust it- and in the places I find it is wrong I have notes scribbled in the margins. I never mess with text; always notes. Since I am neither scholar nor translator, I can be wrong as easily as anyone. I hate what the early catholic church did to scripture with their redactions and rewrites and insertions and lies. I will not be guilty of the same, so text just remains and I squeeze in notes I can’t read because they are too small. But at least when I see them I know something is not right. 
Also in the synoptic gospels, remember these are the recollections of different witnesses to these events. Everyone will not remember things exactly the same. In law enforcement, if they start getting exactly the same story from several witnesses, they suspect collusion. So it is with synoptic scripture. And these accounts were written down many years after the events took place as well. Inspired by God, yes; however inspired does not mean dictated verbatim. God works through men, with all our failings and individual personalities. So there are some variations between accounts. However the basic message is the same.
Dan C
edit: rereading this, it occurs to me how odd it is that those whose job it is to sort out all these documents, check their veracity and use them to translate our "New Testament" go back to the "Old Testament" as a bench mark; making those documents they select for use agree with the "Old." Then the Bible Colleges and seminaries teach pastors, modern scholars and future (and past) commentators that they should first interpret what they think (want) the New Testament to say, then make the Old Testament match the New. Just a bit backwards there. And I know for a fact this is how it is done since I was raised a PK. I also have a copy of a transcript used by one seminary that says to do exactly that! I was arguing (believe that or not  ) with a seminary student about proper exegetical methods, and he gave me a copy of their lesson on this as "proof." My point- being taught wrong by an authority in foolishness does not make one right!
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
) with a seminary student about proper exegetical methods, and he gave me a copy of their lesson on this as "proof." My point- being taught wrong by an authority in foolishness does not make one right!
