Matthew 5:1-16

[wildboar]

Here's my translation of Matthew 5:1-16. Please critique.

5But after seeing the crowds, He went up on the mountain, and after sitting down His disciples approached Him. 2 and opening His mouth, He was teaching them, saying: 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the reign of the heavens! 4 Blessed are the ones mourning, because they will be encouraged! 5 Blessed are the lowly, because they will inherit the earth! 6 Blessed are the ones hungering and thirsting for righteousness, because they will be fed their fill! 7 Blessed are the merciful, because they will be shown mercy! 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, because they will see God! 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God! 10 Blessed are the ones who have been persecuted because of righteousness, because theirs is the reign of the heavens! 11 Blessed are y o u whenever they insult y o u and persecute y o u and say every kind of evil saying against y o u, lying, because of me! 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly joyful, because y o ur reward is great in the heavens, for in this way they persecuted the prophets who were before y o u!
13 "Y o u are the salt of the earth; but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what will the earth be salted? The salt is still good for nothing except, to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people. 14 Y o u are the light of the world. A city lying over a mountain is not able to be hidden; 15 nor do people light a lamp and put it under the two-gallon basket, but rather on the lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. 16 In this way let y o ur light shine before people, in order that they may see y o ur good works and may glorify y o ur Father who is in the heavens.”

 

[cyberlizard]

I know what I do like about your translation, and it is something I was actually doing with my current working version yesterday is your use of the phrase 'the heavens' as it is more literal to the greek than most bibles. One thing I am working through now is placing either a superscript (pl) or (sg) imediately next to words to indicate whether a word is found in the plural or singular forms as occasionally a word is found in plural which when translated in english makes extremely poor grammar.

So for this I commend you.


Steve

 

[wildboar]

Probably the most significant difference in this passage from other translations is my decision to translate verse 13 as "with what will the earth be salted?" Most translations have something like "with what will the salt be resalted" but there isn't much evidence that the verb was ever used this way. Very literally it says "with what will it be salted." I believe it is better to take the "it" as referring to the earth.

 

[cyberlizard]

did you notice the bizarre usage of ochlos (crowds)... this is a stupid word in greek as in greek in this instance it is a double plural... really (in greek) means crowds of crowds.... but in rabbinic literature its hebrew equivelent means the surrounding people or better yet local people.


Steve

 

[wildboar]

It doesn't literally mean crowds of crowds but simply mulitple crowds. I don't see how this is stupid or proves any kind of Hebrew original since it is used in all of the Gospels (including Luke) and the book of Acts. The rabbinic literature that we have today did not exist at the time of Jesus.

 

[cyberlizard]

no but the underlying mentality did...

plus if you think about it, of all the verses in the bible 2/3 are OT therefore written within a hebraic mindset, then you look at the new testament factor in all the quotes from the OT, account for all the passages discussing allusions to the old testament and your led to an awful conclusion... almost 98% of the entire bible requires an hebraic understanding of things.

This is why I place so much emphasis on jewish culture. Jesus was a Jew. He spoke as a Jew mostly to other Jews from within a Jewish sociological background.

As to rabbinic literature not existing at the time of Jesus, I would have to agree somewhat, but remember that much of what is recorded in Mishnah and Talmud dates from before Jesus, and into the life of the early church and is based on a principle of oral transmission... Just like the gospels... They were originally spoken in Hebrew/Aramaic, the language of the locals... but they are recorded for us in Greek. So no matter where we stand, to understand Jesus' words we must look to the meaning of the words in Hebrew/Aramaic (the language they were delievered in) not the greek (at least for the gospels)... to this end I find the LXX extremely useful as it gives the opportunity to see which Hebrew words correspond to which Greek ones.


Steve

 

[wildboar]

I do think that an understanding of the background and culture can be helpful in interpretation. I guess I'm not sure in this instance how "crowds" or "surrounding people" would make much difference in understanding the passage.

I think verse 3 really provides the key to understanding the rest. Jesus declares that those who have no spiritual resources of their own are blessed. This theme seems to be repeated throughout Jesus' ministry where He says He did not come for the righteous but for sinners, He did not come for the healthy but the sick, etc. In reality all are "poor in spirit." The reign of heaven belongs to everyone, but many reject their need from an alien spiritual strength and lose the benefits. I do agree that an understanding of the Old Testament is also very helpful. Isaiah 61 especially is pointed to in this passage.

It is a difficult process to sort out exactly which rabbinic teachings found in the Talmud would have been around at the time of Jesus. The teachings developed over time and continue to develop. I downloaded a podcast a while ago done from some sort of Jewish University but it seemed like what they were most concerned about was what was kosher and various rulings on things that were once not kosher but now are and so forth.

I think the LXX is very interesting as well but there's not always a one to one correspondence either. The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to have disproven Christian charges of Jewish corruption of the Masoretic text as well as Jewish charges of Christian corruption of the LXX. They found Hebrew texts with readings that support the LXX as well as one's that support the Masoretic text. And so in some cases we're doing with different readings from different manuscript traditions. The LXX is very interesting too because when there is a difference between the LXX and the Masoretic text, the New Testament writers tend to favor the LXX (but not all the time). They seem comfortable quoting from either manuscript tradition as the Word of God.

I think we also have to keep in mind when reading the rabbinic material, that at the very core those writing and transmitting it do not understand the Old Testament. If they did, they would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus said all of the Old Testament is about Him. So we're dealing with the writings of a community that had a bad hermeneutic to begin with, changed significantly after the destruction of the temple, and in many ways became more anti-Christian in their interpretation.