RONALD KNOX'S NEW TESTAMENT SIR, — Your correspondent Mr. Michael Ivens begins
to convince me that the Catholics have in their possession original manuscripts of the New Testament written in Hebrew.
Ronald Knox in his famous footnote to Matthew 1, 25, justifies his translation 'he had not known her when she bore a son, her first born,' by observing that 'the Hebrew word represented by "till" does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards.' How Knox knew what this Hebrew word was, I do not know: nor, I suspect, does Mr. Ivens, since as far as I know the Hebrew version of St. Matthew which Knox supposed existed no longer does. To back up this rendering Mr. Ivens cites Knox's example from I Maccabees v, 54, and declares sternly 'the modern word "until" has a force in English that is unknown in Hebrew.' But why Hebrew? Whatever may be the case with St. Matthew, it is probable that I Maccabees was first written in Hebrew—or Aramaic. But to my know- ledge the only texts that survive are in Greek.
In both Matthew and Maccabees the word that caused all the trouble is heos (ews). I think there Ore few who would question that the force of the word is 'until,' or `up to the point that.' Arndt and'Gingrich, in their Green lexicon, offer in the third column of the article on heos, a group of twenty-three. Biblical texts, including Matthew i, 25, where in their opinion heos means 'until.'
To those who are not particularly interested in problems of the Greek language, the matter may not seem very important; but since Mr. Ivens sees fit to come to the defence of Knox and to pour learned scorn on Miss Smith's observations in your columns, I feel the true character of the Knox-Ivens position should be shown. The fact is that unless Knox could translate heos 'when,' he would find him- self 'impugning the perpetual virginity of Our Lady,' as he put it. This, I respectfully submit, was a little more important to him than getting the 'sense and meaning of verses,' in Mr. Ivens's phrase, i.e. the truth. If that is not so, why does Knox translate heos by 'when' in Matthew i, 25, where the perpetual virginity of Our Lady is at stake, and by 'till' nine verses later, in Matthew ii, 9, where it is not? Or is there some change in the mysterious Hebrew manuscript between these two points?
ROBERT CURRIE
Previous page
