Greek and Matthew 27:54 question

[Qnts2]

I saw a question on Matthew 27:54 concerning translations.

From NASB.

^{Matt 27:54} Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was ^[a]the Son of God!”

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 27:54 Or a son of God or a son of a god
   

Apparently different translations will translate this verse differently. The statement from another person was essentially to reject any translation which use 'a son of God' over 'the Son of God'.

My responses are as follows, but since I do not know Greek and can't read Greek, are my answers reasonable?

------------------------

> This got me curious. Unfortunately I do not read Greek so can not read it for

myself.

>

> I looked at Youngs literal translation, but found they sidestepped the issue

by using 'God's Son'.

>

> I also looked at the Orthodox Jewish Bible, which uses some Yiddish and was

translated in 1902 using Yinglish (combination of English and Yiddish the way

Orthodox or Chassidics would speak), and they bypass the issue also. 'God's

Son'.

>

> I finally found additional comments on the verse. Apparently in the orginal

Greek, the article 'the' is not there. So 'a Son of God' is a legitimate

translation.

>

> It was also mentioned that the statement is a quote of what the Roman guard

said. The Roman guard would have come from the Roman pagan religions which

believe the gods could have sons and daughters, so he realized Yeshua was a Son

of God, but not The Son of The God. The expression would be something said by a

pagan Roman guard from his understanding.

>

>

>

I found another internet article which discusses Greek grammar and the definite

article at the end.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/answer-frame-john1_1.htm

Apparently Greek does not have an indefinite article, and also does not always

insert the definite article in the same way English does. It can be assumed or

not.

So for the verse in question, I guess it could be translated both ways which is

what is indicated by various translaters. Either 'The Son of God' or 'a Son of

God'. This becomes a choice of interpretation by the translators. Do they

translate based on Theology knowing Jesus is God, or as the pagan Roman guard

would have said it.

[gdemoss]

To help you study this out a bit, I took the liberty of selecting some other verses where the Greek is exactly the same as it is found in the passage in question. It does appear as actual in other places in Matthew even where it says 'o huios tou theou' which is the son of God. Whereas in our verse it is 'huios theou'. It is interesting to note the differences in the texts but one must seek to understand what is being leveraged doctrinally by seeking to have a different reading? Therein lies the rub. Many who argue for 'a son of God' instead of 'the Son of God' are seeking to argue against Jesus being actually born of God rather than simply a created being.

As for our verse in question, it was a Roman Centurian saying something. It doesn't matter what his witness was. You don't believe everything that is said in the bible do you? Let me remind you that the Pharisees said the following which is written in the bible when they testified of Jesus:

Jhn 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

So a Roman Centurian believed Jesus was 'a son of a god' or 'a son of God' or 'The Son of God' or 'The Pink Panther', how much does it really matter?

[Qnts2]

_{The basis of my question is; do we dismiss a translation based on differences from another translation. If one translation chooses a different word does that mean the translation is wrong. In this case, the Complete Jewish Bible translates Matthew 27:54 'Truly this was a son of God!'. The person I am talking to claims that the CJB translation has corrupted this verse and is therefore a corrupt translation.}

_{The CJB has a single translator for the Greek, which I personally do not care for. I understand the reason for a team of translators and concur with that method. The translator does believe in the Deity of Jesus, so would not be swayed by an agenda. So, I was curious if 'a son of God' can be supported. But, I do not know Greek.}

_{I am familiar with Hebrew and I have looked at some variations in translations and generally found the differences to be within the bounds of a reasonable translation on the generally accepted translations, but from that, I am aware that there can be some variations. In the OT, there are a couple of verses which are disputed between Judaism and Christianity. I have looked at them and found the reason for the dispute. Although the translation by Judaism can be supported, Christianity has the better translation and I believe is more accurate.}

_{I have heard Greek is a more exacting language then Hebrew. So, with a translation being challenged, and my lack of ability to read Greek, I was wondering are both translations a potential. From my brief reading on the internet, it appears both are possible, but again, I am not at all knowledgable.}

_{Maybe I am too detail oriented}

Edited April 9, 2013 by Qnts2

[Qnts2]

To help you study this out a bit, I took the liberty of selecting some other verses where the Greek is exactly the same as it is found in the passage in question. It does appear as actual in other places in Matthew even where it says 'o huios tou theou' which is the son of God. Whereas in our verse it is 'huios theou'. It is interesting to note the differences in the texts but one must seek to understand what is being leveraged doctrinally by seeking to have a different reading? Therein lies the rub. Many who argue for 'a son of God' instead of 'the Son of God' are seeking to argue against Jesus being actually born of God rather than simply a created being.

As for our verse in question, it was a Roman Centurian saying something. It doesn't matter what his witness was. You don't believe everything that is said in the bible do you? Let me remind you that the Pharisees said the following which is written in the bible when they testified of Jesus:

Jhn 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

So a Roman Centurian believed Jesus was 'a son of a god' or 'a son of God' or 'The Son of God' or 'The Pink Panther', how much does it really matter?

Thanks.

I learned something about Greek.

[His_disciple3]

_{The basis of my question is; do we dismiss a translation based on differences from another translation. If one translation chooses a different word does that mean the translation is wrong. In this case, the Complete Jewish Bible translates Matthew 27:54 'Truly this was a son of God!'. The person I am talking to claims that the CJB translation has corrupted this verse and is therefore a corrupt translation.}

_{The CJB has a single translator for the Greek, which I personally do not care for. I understand the reason for a team of translators and concur with that method. The translator does believe in the Deity of Jesus, so would not be swayed by an agenda. So, I was curious if 'a son of God' can be supported. But, I do not know Greek.}

_{I am familiar with Hebrew and I have looked at some variations in translations and generally found the differences to be within the bounds of a reasonable translation on the generally accepted translations, but from that, I am aware that there can be some variations. In the OT, there are a couple of verses which are disputed between Judaism and Christianity. I have looked at them and found the reason for the dispute. Although the translation by Judaism can be supported, Christianity has the better translation and I believe is more accurate.}

_{I have heard Greek is a more exacting language then Hebrew. So, with a translation being challenged, and my lack of ability to read Greek, I was wondering are both translations a potential. From my brief reading on the internet, it appears both are possible, but again, I am not at all knowledgable.}

_{Maybe I am too detail oriented}

no not at all can we be too detailed oriented, when it comes to the Word of God, after all we must live by every Word, and every Word should be the true Word of God, for a little leaven will leaven the whole lump. Although the greek and Hebrew manuscripts are considered the orginal, actually there is no orginal manuscript for the Hebrew, and seeing that God divided the people with different languages in Gensis at the tower of Babel. is there an orginal manuscript? and even in Greek (New Testament) Did Jesus use Greek as His native tongue? so are the greek manuscripts the orginal language? so to believe that God can inspired the orginal Authors( hebrew and greek), But can't inspire translators is a Lie staight out of Hell only to cause division concerning the Holy Word of God. How did Satan strike in the Garden, by calling the Word of God a lie, How Did he try to strike at Jesus in His temptations, By twisting the Word of God, then as many Hebrew and greek manuscripts that are out there, so many Bible scholars of Old, have tagged some hebrew and Greek manuscripts as corrupt manuscripts. sure we lose words is the translational process, such as a toothbrush one compound word in the english language, is a brush of the teeth in Spanish, Wine in the Hebrew is three types: juice, new wine and strong wine but in Greek it is all just wine. when Jesus used wine at the last supper it had to be juice, for Bishops are not to be given to wine but a deacon can have a little wine( 1 timothy 3) , so if this last supper wine was wine instead of juice, Bishops couldn't have partaken in the Lord's supper, for they can't have any Wine, and the Bishops that uses fermented wines at the Lord's supper disqualifies themselves as Bishops. so we had an orginal( authorized ) translation in english and anything that contradicts that translation, should be held as corrupt not glorified as the Holy Word of God, if one is not For God or His word then they are against Him or his Word.

Edited April 10, 2013 by His_disciple3

[His_disciple3]

maybe I should start a new thread with this but as it pertains to the Nasb, I will post here John 4:29 says or implies that Jesus is the Christ in most or should I say the majority of English translation, however the Nasb goes against the others and implies that He is not the Christ, I will use only the KJV , vs. the Nasb but you can check with the other to see that the Nasb goes against the majority also concerning John 4:29

John 4:29

King James Version (KJV)

²⁹ Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

John 4:29

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²⁹ “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not ^[a]the Christ, is it?”

Footnotes:

1. John 4:29 I.e. the Messiah
   

so with this verse alone I write off the NASB as a corrupt translation

[OneLight]

If you would like to see an online interlinear, here is Matthew 27 in pdf form.

http://www.scripture...NTpdf/mat27.pdf

[BlessedByTheBest]

_____Strongs_____

G2316 theos theh'-os

of uncertain affinity;

a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very.

KJV: X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

------------------------------

G3588 ho ho, including the feminine he hay, and the neuter to to

in all their inflections;

the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom).

KJV: the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

------------------------------

G3778 houtos hoo'-tos, including nominative masculine plural houtoi hoo'-toy, nominative feminine singular haute how'-tay, and nominative feminine plural hautai how'-tahee

from the article G3588 and G846;

the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated).

KJV: he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

------------------------------

i think 'a' son or Son of God is slightly erroneous. it appears it should be the definite article; THE son or Son of God, if the THE should be there at all..not that i am sure or anything..

here is the concordant literal version compared to the authorized version:

AV Mt 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

CLV Mt 27:54 Now the centurion and *those with him who are keeping *Jesus, perceiving the quake and the |occurrences, were tremendously afraid, saying, "Truly this was God's Son!"

hope this helps.

[gdemoss]

I didn't clearly understand that the question was revolving around whether one translation ought to be discarded due to not aligning itself with another. If you take this position then the whole New Testament is a farce as the writers of the New Testament quote the Septuagint that does not agree exactly in wording with the original Hebrew.

Our problem comes in from not trusting God to guide us through the Holy Spirit and allowing ourselves to be guided by our carnal minds as we seek to know the truth. We end up in grave error due to human reasoning that could be avoided if we put our trust and reliance upon God alone. My method of receiving understanding involves confessing what I cannot know for myself unto God our Father and then being still and waiting for him to guide me into the truth.

He has plainly shown me that I have condemned different translations in the past out of ignorance and fear. I was admonished not to speak evil about things that I may not understand.

I do not have any input on the particular translation in question.

Peace.

[Qnts2]

I actually did not clearly state what the discussion elsewhere involved.

I agree with you that it is the Holy Spirit who teaches us and leads us to the truth. I know of a person who accepted Jesus by watching the rock opera, Jesus Christ Superstar. I would say there was a fair amount of poor theology in that movie/play, but apparently there was enough truth so that the Holy Spirit could use it to reveal Jesus.

Of the generally accepted translations, I have been impressed by the teams of translators, the checks and balances to avoid a theologyically driven translation, and the desire of the translators to give an accurate translation. Since scripture is to be used for teaching, correction, etc, and we do tend to want to insert our own understanding into scripture, I do rely on the Holy Spirit and believe that should come first as the Holy Spirit knows what is being said, but if I have a personal investment in a particular translation, I will also double check with a more indepth look to make sure I am getting my beliefs from scripture and not inserting my preferred beliefs into my interpretation of what scripture is saying.

I also agree, I use different translations at times and don't reject a honestly translated version. In this case, a person was rejecting a translation because the wording was a little different. It was causing others to question in the same way, so if there was a reason for the difference, I wanted to put it out for everyone to consider. I wanted to do what I did not have the skills to do.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Qnts2