From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:34:42 GMT
	<Bx9D4n.E98@inews.Intel.COM> <lfj34lINNdnt@news.bbn.com>
Organization: y'axe me again an i'll ta-tell ya tha same

In article <lfj34lINNdnt@news.bbn.com> 
ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Ah, well my question was why should someone use LXX in places where the
>>Hebrew *is clear* and yet claim to be an exact translation of the Hebrew?
>>Example: Genesis 1:1.
>Sigh. 
>Alright. One more time, slowly and carefully.
>1] The JPS is, without a doubt, the translation of a (i.e. one) specific
>Hebrew text (i.e. the MT).

And, there are other Hebrew texts? (Real, not virtual please)

>2] There is more than ample evidence to believe that there are passages
>where the MT is "clear" but is nonetheless corrupt.
>3] There is more than ample evidence to believe that in at least some of
>these passages sources other than the MT (e.g. the LXX _among_others_)
>better represent the original, authentic text.

How about an example of this please? Please give an example where the MT
is "clear" but the LXX actually represents the "original, authentic" text.
And please explain how one goes about proving that the LXX, in Greek, is
superior to the parts of the MT that are "clear". I'm all ears. I think
we're getting to the bottom of what it means to be "based" on the Hebrew text.
Looks to me like the issue is whether we are discusing an actual, physical
Hebrew text or a virtual "original, authentic" Hebrew text. Wee, this is fun.

>4] By "authentic text" I use the standard definition of that term: i.e.
>the original form of the Hebrew tradition, from which _all_ subsequent
>traditions (including the MT) derive.

Look, the original form of the Hebrew tradition was oral. How can you possibly
have an original-authentic text of an oral tradition? The MT represents
the compilation and redaction of all written Hebrew evidence. It is not
a derivation of Judaism, it is Judaism. If anything is a derivation, it is
the translations from Hebrew into other languages.

>Furthermore we can be fairly certain
>that the Hebrew tradition existed in this state _in_some_form_ despite your
>table-pounding claims to the contrary.

What? You deny that the original form of the Hebrew tradition was oral? I
suggest you do some research on the Septuagint, you will find what I am 
saying to be true.

>5] It may well be reasonable to argue that the MT represents a direct
>descendent of the authentic text.

Ah, I would think so, yes. Are you saying someone just made it up? Are you
saying that Judaism died and what we have today are imposters?

>Nonetheless there are other versions
>that represent views into various points throughout the history of that
>text.  In particular the LXX represents an especially valuable view in that
>it affords us a view into the state of the Hebrew text from almost 2500
>years ago.  (I.e. almost 1500 years older than the MT text.)

Ah, maybe, through a poor Alexandrian Greek filter. The Septuagint is known
to be a flawed translation and yet you say that there is ample evidence
that the Greek Septuagint better represents the "original-authentic" Hebrew
text than the Hebrew MT. Is this really your viewpoint? The Septuagint is
of course of value where the MT is not "clear", but really, to claim it
superior to the MT where the Hebrew is "clear", that is very insulting to
the followers of Judaism. Whose scriptures are they anyway? To which tribe
does the Hebrew language belong? Which religion has been practicing the
Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew from the very beginning right up to the present?

>6] With the obvious exception of the JPS and its kindred is not true that
>most modern translations "claim to be an exact translation of the Hebrew"
>in the sense that you use the term (i.e. as a translation of the MT).

What other Hebrew is there? I'm talking about real Hebrew, not virtual Hebrew.

>7] Rather what the translators do claim to attempt to do --with
>justification-- is to supply an accurate translation of the original Hebrew
>text (even when it is necessary to diverge from the MT in order to do so).

And, this so-called "original-authentic" Hebrew text does not exist and
probably never did, so the idea is a straight fabrication. Clearly I could
translate the Greek Septuagint into Hebrew and claim that to be the
so-called "original-authentic" Hebrew text, couldn't I? Don't you find this
to be a bit dishonest? When I say Hebrew text, I'm refering to real
physical text. When you say Hebrew text, you are refering to some kind
of virtual text. Just how does one prove that their virtual text is the
"original-authentic" text? Are we talking about a scholarly translation or
more religious propaganda like creationism?

>8] Obviously there are problematic points in any translation. You keep
>harping on the issue of Gen1.1.  As has been pointed out (repeatedly):
> o Most modern translations do not give the "In the beginning" version as
>   the _correct_ translation.
> o Most _do_ however include it as one (of many) variants.

I'm a little confused as to exactly what you are saying here. I believe a
prior post listed almost all modern translations as "In the beginning". Is
that wrong?

> o My feeling for why it is included is that, once again, it has a strong
>   backing of popular tradition.  For most readers that is simply how the
>   English Bible begins.  There are many examples of this.  Many (most?)
>   people are still perfectly happy to quote the Lucan passage "Peace on
>   Earth, goodwill to all men" although almost no modern translation
>   includes this rendering (and, in any case, it is incorrect).

Many Christians consider the KJV to be the direct word of God. Does this
give an scholarly value to KJV? Again, KJV claims to be based on the Hebrew
scriptures. Is this your claim also? And if so, are you refering to real,
physical Hebrew scripture or some so-called "original-authentic" virtual
Hebrew scripture?

>9] I think it would be useful if you spent some time reading up on the
>issues involved in OT textual criticism and the techniques involved
>therein, particularly matters dealing with the use of the various sources
>in the reconstruction of the Text.  Most modern "Intros" to the OT can
>provide good pointers in this respect.

OK, and will we be comparing SAT scores next?

>(Finally, a specific request.  If you are going to respond, please read the
>entire posting and then respond to its entirity.  You've begun to develop
>the somewhat annoying habit of responding to each individual point, even
>when it occurs in the middle of an intertwining arguement.  As a result you
>tend to ask the same question several times and to ask questions that are
>answered, often in detail, further along in the posting to which you are
>responding.)

Welcome to usenet.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20723 sci.skeptic:19227