正文
In her defense of following verses:
一个外邦妇女求耶酥帮忙的故事，神学家们可以随意解释。耶酥的原话是：我奉差遣，不过是到以色列家迷失的羊那里去。（马太15:24）作为外邦人想得到耶酥的怜悯？先当狗吧：
马太
15:25 那妇人来拜他，说，主啊，帮助我。
15:26 他回答说，不好拿儿女的饼，丢给狗吃。
15:27 妇人说，主啊，不错。但是狗也吃它主人桌子上掉下来的啐渣儿。
15:28 耶稣说，妇人，你的信心是大的。照你所要的，给你成全了吧。从那时候，他女儿就好了。
she said:
答：答案其实已经在你上面的引用里出现了。15：28说明这个外邦妇人的信心是大的。马太15：24耶稣的确说明了原因，他最主要的任务是在以色列人中间找寻迷失的羊，“狗”是以色列人对外邦人歧视的说法，但是这里说的是小狗（puppies），既符合以色列人的风俗习惯，又减少了很多侮辱性的意思，比较好的翻译版本是26，27节都翻译成小狗，耶稣也的确是在查验她的信心有多大才举了一个比喻，但是妇人的信心的确是非常大的，没有信心的人早就放弃了，这么好的回答也只有对耶稣有很强信心的人才可以回答出来。
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.
一个外邦妇女求耶酥帮忙的故事，神学家们可以随意解释。耶酥的原话是：我奉差遣，不过是到以色列家迷失的羊那里去。（马太15:24）作为外邦人想得到耶酥的怜悯？先当狗吧：
马太
15:25 那妇人来拜他，说，主啊，帮助我。
15:26 他回答说，不好拿儿女的饼，丢给狗吃。
15:27 妇人说，主啊，不错。但是狗也吃它主人桌子上掉下来的啐渣儿。
15:28 耶稣说，妇人，你的信心是大的。照你所要的，给你成全了吧。从那时候，他女儿就好了。
she said:
答：答案其实已经在你上面的引用里出现了。15：28说明这个外邦妇人的信心是大的。马太15：24耶稣的确说明了原因，他最主要的任务是在以色列人中间找寻迷失的羊，“狗”是以色列人对外邦人歧视的说法，但是这里说的是小狗（puppies），既符合以色列人的风俗习惯，又减少了很多侮辱性的意思，比较好的翻译版本是26，27节都翻译成小狗，耶稣也的确是在查验她的信心有多大才举了一个比喻，但是妇人的信心的确是非常大的，没有信心的人早就放弃了，这么好的回答也只有对耶稣有很强信心的人才可以回答出来。
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.
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
