From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:36:21 GMT
	<Bx7yzK.79n@inews.Intel.COM> <1992Nov5.160705.23662@engage.pko.dec.com>
Organization: what goes around comes around again

In article <1992Nov5.160705.23662@engage.pko.dec.com> 
pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <Bx7yzK.79n@inews.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>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?
>When you say "Hebrew", you are actually talking about the Masoretic
>text.  The tradition of relying on the Masoretic text as the basic
>OT text in the Christian Bible translations goes back as early as 
>Vulgate.

The Vulgate (Latin) relied heavily on the Septuagint (Greek,LXX).

>But the Masoretic text is not perfect, and everybody
>realizes that.  So it is necessary to consult other text traditions
>(LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, ...) in the translation process.  LXX is
>indeed a very lousy Greek translation, as I have said many times in
>the past.  But it does give some insight into the ancient text
>tradition based on which the LXX was translated.  That ancient text

LXX also relied on the oral tradition. It is not clear how much, of the Hebrew,
was written down at the time of the Septuagint translation in Alexandria,
perhaps very little was at the time. An illustration would be the Targums,
the Aramaic translation which was an oral tradition and only latter written
down. The "written word" didn't mean then what it does now. Many people
probably didn't trust it, prefering priests who could recite from memory (oral
tradition).

>tradition was there in Judea in priestly Judaism long before the
>birth of rabbinical Judaism, which eventually gave us the Masoretic
>text.  The Masoretic text was probabily derived from an early-1st
>century rabbinical revision.  And if you believe some scholarly
>speculations, that rabbinical revision was probabily done by Hillel
>and/or his disciples.  That rabbinical revision did not achieve
>general acceptance, not even in the rabbinical circles, until after
>the destruction of the Second Temple and the rabbinical Judaism
>became the mainstream by default.  My point is that there were
>*written* text traditions before that early-1st century rabbinical
>revision.

Then where are they? Lost during the sacking of the Library of Alexandria?
The bulk of it was probably an oral tradition.

>Even if we assume that those 1st century rabbis did an
>excellent job in their effort, it is only sensible, if not necessary,
>to consult other ancient text traditions whenever we can during the
>Bible translation process.

And that is what JPS have done. JPS is based on the Hebrew and makes use of
other sources where the Hebrew is not clear and notes where the Hebrew differs
from translations. It may help to note why there are parts of the Hebrew
that are not clear. Is is because the keepers of the text felt it was their
duty to maintain the text as they had it, not to revise it to make sense,
unless there was firm proof, (older Hebrew texts), that a correction was
called for. JPS was translating into English thus they did not feel the need
to continue this tradition of strict adherence to the Hebrew and they relied
on other sources where the Hebrew is not clear.

>Hope this answers your question.

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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc