From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:39:22 GMT
	<lffv48INNecl@news.bbn.com>
Organization: said they were producers now they work at mickyD's?

In article <lffv48INNecl@news.bbn.com> 
ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>As I said before this is, at the very least, a valuable translation to
>have.  But it also means that the Masoretic text was given precedence even
>when it did not appear to best represent the authentic text.

Authentic text? We are talking about an oral tradition which was later
writen down and codified and redacted and so on. You are implying that Moses
wrote the authentic text himself or something? What does authentic text
mean to you? Are you implying a single or small group of authors for the
Hebrew scriptures? Note the history of the Hebrew scriptures is quite
different from the history of the Christian New Testament. Judaism is an
oral Hebrew tradition later written down in Hebrew. Christianity was
originally an Aramaic oral tradition later written down in Greek.

>> ... Many other English translations are "based" on
>>KJV which is itself "based" on the Greek Septuagint.
>You keep saying this, and it keeps being pointed out that this is not true.
>But perhaps we are arguing about the phrase "based on".  

Yes, we are. That's why I quoted it.

>If "by based on", you mean that modern English translations are meant to be
>direct translations of the LXX, then this is completely and demonstrably
>false (see below)[*].

Correct. This is not what I mean by "based on".

>If, on the other hand, you mean that you mean that modern translators and
>textual critics rely on the LXX and prefer it when it more accurately
>represent the authentic text, then, yes, that certainly is true.  But in
>that case I don`t understand what the problem is.

The problem is your implication that LXX more "accurately" represents the
"original text", whatever that means. How is one to know when the LXX more
"accurately" represents than the Hebrew text? For example, Genesis 1:1?

>>> ....  The only sensible approach is to
>>>use _all_ available sources, weighted accordingly, in an attempt to
>>>reconstruct the form of the origin text.
>>That is what JPS did.
>Certainly.  _All_ serious modern translations do this.

Many weight the Septuagint more than they should. The Hebrew Masoretic should
be given most weight, (after all whose text is it?), and other sources used
when problems arise. Notes should be made where the Hebrew differs from
KJV and other English translations. This is what JPS have done.

>But, once again, there is a difference here.  The goal of the translation
>of the JPS was not neccessarily to reproduce the _authentic_ text.  It was
>to, as closely as possible, translate a specific Hebrew text.

"The _authentic_ text"? What is that exactly? Is that like "Absolute Truth"
or something?

>>>This is why your claim that modern translations are "based on the [LXX]" is
>>>simply incorrect.
>>Really? Then why the discrepancy in Genesis 1:1, for example?
>Three answers:
>1] As to why this specific translation appears: I would argue that it is
>maintained for reasons of tradition as anything else.

Tradition? Then, the Christian Old Testament is not exactly the Hebrew
scriptures, is it? I don't have a problem with that, as long as people are
willing to admit it. "Based" on tradition, not only the Hebrew scriptures.

>2] In any event, most modern translations include it as only one of many
>variants (most of which include some version of the more correct
>translation).

What more correct? If the translation it based on the Hebrew scripture, then
it is based on the Hebrew scripture. If it is based on something else, like
tradition, then it is based on something else. No need for any value
judgements, but a little honesty about what a translation is "based" on
wouldn't hurt, I don't think.

>3] But if you are correct that modern translations are slavishly following
>the LXX, then why do so many departure so radically from the LXX?  For
>instance the Psalms in LXX are notoriously different from those in the
>Hebrew tradition.  I know of _no_ English translation that follows the LXX
>in this regard.

Right, I'm not saying that anyone is "slavishly" following the Septuagint
but I think we can see where, for the most part, that most English 
translations are not entirely based on the Hebrew scriptures, but rather a
combination of other texts and tradition and who knows what else. That is my
point. JPS is based squarely, but not solely, on the Hebrew Masoretic. Other
translations seem to be based on any number of other sources, perhaps some
kind of devine inspiration of the "authentic test".

>By the authentic text, I mean that original, central, core text from which
>_all_ subsequent traditions were drawn: the LXX, other existing versions
>_and_ the existing Hebrew traditions such as the Masoretic text.

No such thing. We are dealing with an oral tradition here. An oral tradition
that has remained in practice, without interruption, from the very begining
right up to today.

>This is the crucial point.  The Masoretic text is _not_ the original
>authentic text.  It was certainly derived from the authentic text (just as
>was the LXX and the rest).  But, in its current state, it is simply one
>view of that text.

Yes, but! As I've said above. No original authentic text. Oral Hebrew tradition
in practice continuously from the very beginning to the present. As you say,
the Masora is a "view" of that oral Hebrew tradition, probably the best
you'll find.

>The fact that it is in the original language clearly grants it a special
>status in our considerations.  But that cannot, by itself, grant it
>absolute superiority.  The MT clearly contains corruptions.  Moreover, bear
>in mind that the oldest complete witnesses to the Masoretic text are close
>to three-quarters of a millenium _younger_ than our oldest complete copies
>of the LXX.

Yes. The Masora does not warrant "absolute superiority", if anything does,
but certainly staying in the original language and avoiding the translation
problems does have a lot to offer. And other sources can be used to gain
insite where MT corruptions are to be found, this is what JPS have done.

>Now, it may very well be that the MT represents our best overall view of
>the authentic text.  It does _not_ however represent our only view.  And in
>at least _some_ specific instances it clearly does not represent the best
>available view.

Right. This was the philosophy of translation at JPS. BUT, things like
Genesis 1:1 are not so easily explained. Agreed?

>    [* In point of fact, it's actually pretty hard to find a good English
>       translation of the LXX.  The only translation I've been able to find
>       at all is one by Launcelot Br[???] which was made over a century ago
>       and used a notably bad Greek text.  If anyone is aware of a good
>       translation, I'd be grateful to hear of it.]

Good question. I'd be interested too. Maybe we'll just have to learn
Hellenistic Greek.