From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:05:25 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


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).

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.

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.  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.

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

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).

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).

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.
 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).

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.

(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.)

N