From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:22:46 GMT

In article <fWVXUcK@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>Nice theory, but it has one problem. As you know, ancient texts were
>found in a cave in Qumran in 1949. ...

Actually, there are two groups of ancient manuscripts found along
the shore of Dead Sea - the Qumran manuscripts, and the manuscripts
found in the southern caves and Masada.  In terms of their
significance with regard to the subject of this thread, here I quote
Prof. Frank Moore Cross (retired from Harvard) from his article
"The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible":

	"The two groups of biblical manuscripts differ not only in
	 date.  The southern (later) group reveals a text that shows
	 no significant deviation from the archetypal Rabbinic 
	 Recension--that is, the recension that is ancestral to
	 the Masoretic text, our traditional Hebrew Bible.  This is
	 in marked contrast to the Qumran group of documents, which
	 reveals other text types."
	                      
>Nonetheless, the ancient Hebrew Isaiah manuscripts were released and it
>is rather amazing that the Masoretic text is a close as it is. There are
>only a few errors present in the Masoretic copy of Isaiah as compared to
>the ancient Qumran versions and JPS has incorporated them into the text since
>the goal of JPS was to translate the most accurate version of the Hebrew
>available, not just the Masoretic text. For example:

But the Qumran text is by no means the "one true authentic" text.
It is true that Isaiah is one of the few books (along with Ezekiel)
that they found only one text type in the Qumran manuscripts.  But
this says nothing about the "authenticity" of the Isaiah manuscripts
found at Qumran.  More details later.

>As more manuscripts are finally released from Qumran, we may in fact
>find that the Masorah has been corrupted in other books, but based on
>what has been released, it appears that the Septuagint was a translation
>of the Masorah, and not some other "more-inspired" or
>"secret-true-hidden" proto-Christian Hebrew manuscript.

I have cited my source.  Now it is your turn to do so. 
The Septuagint was translated a few centuries before there was Masorah.
As far as Isaiah is concerned, both the Septuagint and the first
century Rabbinic Recension, which started the Masorah tradition, are
based on the Palestinian text tradition (the other two text traditions
are Babylonian and Egyptian (Alexandrian).)  So it is not a surprise
that the Isaiah in the Septuagint is not that different from the Isaiah
in the Masoretic text.  The difference is that the Septuagint was based
on a much earlier version of the same text tradition, but with a poor
job in the translation effort.  The text base of the Septuagint is
certainly older than the Qumran manuscripts.  As far as Isaiah is
concerned, all three (Sepuagint, Masorah, Qumran manuscripts) are
based on the same text tradition, but with different vintages
(Septuagint's text base being the oldest).  So the Septuagint is
really a foggy window (due to the poor quality of translation) into
the precious treasure of a very ancient text which is older than
the Masorah and the Qumran manuscripts.

>Given that the former leader of the group that owns the manuscripts was
>anti-Semitic, it seems likely that if there was a smoking gun among them
>that would discredit the Masoretic tradition, it would have been
>released already.

Just for the record, there is not one conservative evangelical Christian
scholar included in that group.  It's a pretty exclusive club ...
Anyway, we are not talking about "discrediting the Masoretic tradition".
Masoretic tradition is a very valuable source, and that is why
most Christian Bible translations use the Masoretic text as the basis
of the OT text.  At the same time, everybody realizes that the Masoretic
text is not perfect, and every responsible Bible translator, including
those translating JPS, would also take other ancient text material into
consideration.  My point is that the Septuagint deserves such a
consideration, as some of the best Christian translators have realized. 

>It is rather unfortunate that we are missing so many of the early
>manuscripts.

Agreed.

> ... many
>Hebrew manuscripts were burned by Christians throughout European
>history.

Very unfortunate indeed.  During the Dark Age, not only the Hebrew
manuscripts were burn, the reading of the Christian Bible was also
considered a crime.  The Jews and the real Christians were on the same
boat during that period.  We the evangelicals have tremendous respect
toward the Hebrew manuscripts and the Jewish tradition.  Allow me
to recommend a book written from the evangelical prospective on this.
It's title is "Next Year in Jerusalem" and I believe the publisher is
Moody Press.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc