From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:33:19 GMT
	<fUMxGvx@quack.sac.ca.us> <Nov.3.20.08.19.1992.263@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Organization: now they're livin' at the same damn bus stop, they fell prey to the Hollywood paradox

In article <Nov.3.20.08.19.1992.263@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>People don't admit that translations are based on the LXX because they
>aren't.  KJV and all modern translations did translate the Hebrew
>directly into English.  None of them are really translations of the
>LXX or any other translation.  As you point out, the LXX departs
>fairly far from the Hebrew in a number of places.  To say that English
>translations are based on the LXX would mean that in places where the
>LXX and the Hebrew differ, they normally follow the LXX.

I don't think that's the case, but why follow the LXX at all if the Hebrew
can be translated? I can understand its use where the Hebrew is corrupted,
but why give it preference where the Hebrew is readily translated? For
example, Genesis 1:1?

>I'm not in a
>position to make that comparison myself, but I have read reviews of
>the major translations, and checked some passages, and unless the
>reviewers are all wet, this simply isn't true.

And, what of Genesis 1:1 for example?

>I think you're overgeneralizing from a couple of notorious errors
>(e.g. Is 7:14).  And even Is 7:14 is right in most of the major
>translations.  (Among current translations, NRSV, TEV, REB, and NJB
>all have "young woman".  NIV, NAB have "virgin".  I assume NKJV does
>as well, but that would be no surprise, since it explicitly rejects
>modern scholarship.)  Where differences exist, if you read the
>commentaries, you'll find that the arguments are all based on the
>original Hebrew, not on the LXX.

If Greek is referenced, you can be certain that LXX is involved. "Virgin"
comes from LXX, not Hebrew. "Thou shalt not murder" comes from LXX, not
Hebrew. "In the beginning" comes from LXX, not Hebrew ...

And, to be fair, I am overgeneralizing to some extent. Most modern English
translations rely on the Hebrew more often than LXX, but why should they
use LXX at all in places where the Hebrew translation is clear and yet claim
to be an exact translation of the Hebrew?

>That translations sometimes agree
>with the LXX should be no shock -- it was an influential piece of
>work.  You'll no doubt also find places where translations are
>influenced by how Rashi understood a passage.

I'm not saying that preference is always given to the Greek Septuagint
when it differs from the Hebrew, but why should preference ever be given
to the Septuagint if the Hebrew can be translated? I.e. Genesis 1:1? If
I'm not mistaken, all these English translations claim to be translations
of the Hebrew, yet we see that, on occasion, they are in fact based on
something else. Shouldn't they make this clear, as in Genesis 1:1? I see
no problem with basing a translation on whatever suits the purpose, but
why claim a precise translation of the Hebrew when that is not the case?

>I am not arguing there are no errors in any Christian translation.
>Nor am I arguing that there are no places where any Christian
>translation agrees with the LXX and disagees with the JPS Tanakh.
>However I am saying that all current translations are done from the
>Hebrew, and differences reflect differences in reconstructing and
>interpreting the original Hebrew text.  There are also remarkably few
>systematic differences left between Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant
>translations.  (However I'd prefer not to try and defend a few
>translations done by conservative Protestants, e.g. the NKJV, which
>explicitly rejects current scholarship.  That one really is based on
>the KJV, and admits it.)

All right, but you say, "differences reflect differences in reconstructing
and interpreting the original Hebrew text". I would say that differences
come from placing too much weight on the Greek Septuagint. I see no problem
with this as long as it is made clear how a particular translation is
derived, i.e. on what a translation is "based". And, to be fair, translation
from one language to another is a very difficult undertaking. Some English
translations had to make due with the time and budget they were allocated.