正文
In her defense of following verses:
一個外邦婦女求耶酥幫忙的故事，神學家們可以隨意解釋。耶酥的原話是：我奉差遣，不過是到以色列家迷失的羊那裏去。（馬太15:24）作為外邦人想得到耶酥的憐憫？先當狗吧：
馬太
15:25 那婦人來拜他，說，主啊，幫助我。
15:26 他回答說，不好拿兒女的餅，丟給狗吃。
15:27 婦人說，主啊，不錯。但是狗也吃它主人桌子上掉下來的啐渣兒。
15:28 耶穌說，婦人，你的信心是大的。照你所要的，給你成全了吧。從那時候，他女兒就好了。
she said:
答：答案其實已經在你上麵的引用裏出現了。15：28說明這個外邦婦人的信心是大的。馬太15：24耶穌的確說明了原因，他最主要的任務是在以色列人中間找尋迷失的羊，“狗”是以色列人對外邦人歧視的說法，但是這裏說的是小狗（puppies），既符合以色列人的風俗習慣，又減少了很多侮辱性的意思，比較好的翻譯版本是26，27節都翻譯成小狗，耶穌也的確是在查驗她的信心有多大才舉了一個比喻，但是婦人的信心的確是非常大的，沒有信心的人早就放棄了，這麽好的回答也隻有對耶穌有很強信心的人才可以回答出來。
She said that the correct translation should be "puppy", a less offensive and even somewhat cute word. She is right, in some versions of Bible, it is not "dog" but "puppy".
Here comes the question: which one is original? What about inerrancy of Bible? Let's take a closer look at this.
"Dog" or "puppy"? One of them has to be inauthentic. The question is, which one is it? How do you know the one you chose is faithful to the original?
The translation of "dog" is more likely to be authentic according to the principle of dissimilarity in textual criticism. The more difficult the text reads, the more likely it is authentic. Let me explain what it means: Before the invention of modern typographic printing by the German Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, most of ancient Bibles were painstakingly hand copied by scribes word by word, letter by letter. Scribal errors were inevitable. Intentional alterations, addition, deletion were also very common especially in the first 3 centuries before the establishment of the Bible canon and before Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Now lets come back to our question, which one is more likely to be the original: dog or puppy? Since "dog" is such a derogatory word to use upon a poor non-Jewish woman, it contradicts with the all loving image of Jesus that the NT was trying to portray. This translation would almost certain make a lot of late Christians uncomfortable especially after Paul turned Christianity into a non-Jewish religion. Because the majority of late followers of Jesus were not Jews, not children of Israel. If in Jesus mind, this poor woman was not one of his children but rather a "dog", then who wasn't a dog!? Thus, scribes had the motivation of all the world to change this condescending term so as to less offensive to gentiles. But it was faithfully copied and survived in most of modern Bibles in circulation. Why, because most likely, "dog" was the in the original copy. A faithful scribe would not have altered it even if it made him feel so uncomfortable. If "puppy" was the original text, who and for what reason would have changed the translation into a more demean word "dog"? This would only makes Jesus look less kind.
So it follows that "dog" is more likely to be the original text and "puppy" was an intentional or accidental alteration made by a scribe.
Conclusion: she is just trying to find a comfortable compromise between your faith and the peace of your mind.
一個外邦婦女求耶酥幫忙的故事，神學家們可以隨意解釋。耶酥的原話是：我奉差遣，不過是到以色列家迷失的羊那裏去。（馬太15:24）作為外邦人想得到耶酥的憐憫？先當狗吧：
馬太
15:25 那婦人來拜他，說，主啊，幫助我。
15:26 他回答說，不好拿兒女的餅，丟給狗吃。
15:27 婦人說，主啊，不錯。但是狗也吃它主人桌子上掉下來的啐渣兒。
15:28 耶穌說，婦人，你的信心是大的。照你所要的，給你成全了吧。從那時候，他女兒就好了。
she said:
答：答案其實已經在你上麵的引用裏出現了。15：28說明這個外邦婦人的信心是大的。馬太15：24耶穌的確說明了原因，他最主要的任務是在以色列人中間找尋迷失的羊，“狗”是以色列人對外邦人歧視的說法，但是這裏說的是小狗（puppies），既符合以色列人的風俗習慣，又減少了很多侮辱性的意思，比較好的翻譯版本是26，27節都翻譯成小狗，耶穌也的確是在查驗她的信心有多大才舉了一個比喻，但是婦人的信心的確是非常大的，沒有信心的人早就放棄了，這麽好的回答也隻有對耶穌有很強信心的人才可以回答出來。
She said that the correct translation should be "puppy", a less offensive and even somewhat cute word. She is right, in some versions of Bible, it is not "dog" but "puppy".
Here comes the question: which one is original? What about inerrancy of Bible? Let's take a closer look at this.
"Dog" or "puppy"? One of them has to be inauthentic. The question is, which one is it? How do you know the one you chose is faithful to the original?
The translation of "dog" is more likely to be authentic according to the principle of dissimilarity in textual criticism. The more difficult the text reads, the more likely it is authentic. Let me explain what it means: Before the invention of modern typographic printing by the German Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, most of ancient Bibles were painstakingly hand copied by scribes word by word, letter by letter. Scribal errors were inevitable. Intentional alterations, addition, deletion were also very common especially in the first 3 centuries before the establishment of the Bible canon and before Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Now lets come back to our question, which one is more likely to be the original: dog or puppy? Since "dog" is such a derogatory word to use upon a poor non-Jewish woman, it contradicts with the all loving image of Jesus that the NT was trying to portray. This translation would almost certain make a lot of late Christians uncomfortable especially after Paul turned Christianity into a non-Jewish religion. Because the majority of late followers of Jesus were not Jews, not children of Israel. If in Jesus mind, this poor woman was not one of his children but rather a "dog", then who wasn't a dog!? Thus, scribes had the motivation of all the world to change this condescending term so as to less offensive to gentiles. But it was faithfully copied and survived in most of modern Bibles in circulation. Why, because most likely, "dog" was the in the original copy. A faithful scribe would not have altered it even if it made him feel so uncomfortable. If "puppy" was the original text, who and for what reason would have changed the translation into a more demean word "dog"? This would only makes Jesus look less kind.
So it follows that "dog" is more likely to be the original text and "puppy" was an intentional or accidental alteration made by a scribe.
Conclusion: she is just trying to find a comfortable compromise between your faith and the peace of your mind.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
