CJO,
CJO wrote:That's an awfully narrow view of the process of translation, as if it were a matter of matching up word for word into the target language.
No, it is a logical view rather than a view that acquiesces to translators/interpreters putting their own slant on a passage to sway the reader to their own doctrinal position or the popular traditional interpretation.
CJO wrote:All translation is subjective...
And logical methods should be used to minimize subjectivity in translation.
CJO wrote:Your 100% versus 16% is just silly.
Silly in the sense of absurd? If this is your meaning, please provide logical evidence that it is absurd.
CJO wrote:Differences in word count are inevitable...
That is true, but the NIV word count, in this case, is not inevitable.
CJO wrote:For a very basic example, Latin and Greek (and many other languages) use case markers and verb endings and other such grammatical entities within the word, where English has few such markers and uses words like "to" and "of" more, so a perfectly good English transdlation will often seem to "add" words to a translated phrase from such a language, where this is just a matter of conveying the same simple grammar in a slightly different way.
I am aware of these issues.
CJO wrote:...and given that this is a subjective determination
Rigorous logical methods should be used to maximize reduction of the tendency to subjective interpretation.
CJO wrote:...what you haven't shown is that one translation significantly changes the plain meaning of the text to allow us to believe that the author isn't referring to the payment to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus when he writes "the wages of injustice."
Who are "us". Atheists and Agnostics?
What you haven't shown is why anyone should be convinced that a man who was in the habit of committing unjust acts, such as theft, could not have purchased a property with ill gotten gains prior to the approximately two days (or less) in question in which it is alleged he purchased the potter's field.
What you haven't shown is why it is absolutely impossible that "wages of injustice" could mean anything other than what you believe it means.
What you haven't shown is that the expression "wages of injustice" must mean "the thirty pieces of silver Judas received from the chief priests for betraying Jesus" (or similar with the same meaning) and could not mean anything else. The evidence flows in the opposite direction but you seem to be trying to narrow the meaning of this expression (used twice elsewhere by Peter) to rescue the invalid argument that Matthew and Acts are contradictory in the passages under discussion.
CJO wrote:You may surmise that Judas, outside of his association with Jesus and the Twelve, was a criminal mastermind with a steady income of ill-gotten gains, some of which he used to buy the "field of blood" and that it had nothing to do with the betrayal. But you're going far outside the bounds of the text. We are told of one injustice that Judas commits, and we are told he received a reward for it.
Did I say or imply that Judas was a criminal mastermind? If so, please provide evidence. We are told that he was an habitual thief. Habitual thieves may or may not have a steady income. It depends upon how often they have the opportunity and inclination to steal etc.
CJO wrote:...some of which he used to buy the "field of blood" and that it had nothing to do with the betrayal. But you're going far outside the bounds of the text.
You are going outside the bounds of the text and logic. I am being logical and not imagining things into the text. I am looking at a range of possibilities and you seem to be looking at only one narrow interpretation.
We are not told that Judas bought the "agros" (field) of blood. He bought the "chOrion" of blood which was named because of events relating to his death, whereas the "agros" was named because it was bought with blood money.
CJO wrote:
We are told of one injustice that Judas commits, and we are told he received a reward for it.
Which must
logically mean...?
Paul
