From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical Errors
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:48:52 GMT
	<fU0eU1j@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Nov9.181656.9589@engage.pko.dec.com>
Organization: justa average day on the streets of California, five-oh found a young girl shot dead 'round the corner

In article <1992Nov9.181656.9589@engage.pko.dec.com> 
pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <fU0eU1j@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>  ...Instead I'm gonna say this: Now,
>>Christianity was "based" on the Septuagint. How do we know this? The
>>writings of the NT reference the Septuagint, errors and all.
>Can you provide any proof?

Any good library should have this. Study Bibles should also. I'll decline
to try and prove it, perhaps someone else would like to.

>>>>LXX also relied on the oral tradition.
>>>Again please cite your source.
>>JPS:Tanakh:
>>"Alongside the close, literal method of Bible translation, the earliest
>>Jewish translators were also influenced by the widely held view that,
>>along with the Written Law (torah she-biktav), God had given Moses on
>>Mount Sinai an Oral Law (torah she-be'al peh) as well; so that to
>>comprehend God's Torah fully and correctly, it was essential to make use
>>of both."
>Oral Torah is a different matter altogether.  It has little to do
>with what we have been discussing here.  Neither the Masoretic text
>nor the LXX deals with the Oral Torah.

The Septuagint is one of those translations by the earliest Jewish
translators. So, in translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, both
the oral and written traditions were relied on. As I said above, LXX also
relied on the oral tradition. And next we see where they relied on the
Aramaic oral tradition as well:

>>  ...From my World Pub
>>KJV, Languages of the Bible, Rev. C.H.H Wright,D.D.,Phd.:
>>"Several portions of the books of the OT are written in a peculiar
>>Aramaic dialect,
>Book of Daniel stands out in this category.  The official inclusion of
>Daniel into the Hebrew canon probabily came later than other OT books,
>though there was never any doubt concerning its inspirational nature
>in the rabbinical writings.
>In any event, this has little to do with the subject at hand.

It does because there are parts of Daniel for which there is *NO* written
Hebrew, presumably it was lost if it was ever written down at all.
Translations instead rely on the Aramaic. At the time of the Septuagint,
the Aramaic (Targums) were not yet written down, they were Oral tradition,
hence the Septuagint team did rely on Oral tradition, in this case Aramaic.
This is a good example where material is not in the Masoretic Text because
there is no Hebrew to be found yet (the MT is pure written Hebrew only), so
when translating into another language, another source, the Aramaic Targums
must be used instead. This is what JPS did. Aramaic is a Semitic language,
so the translation is not as difficult or as error prone as trying to
translate Hebrew into Greek or English.

>>Ah, good point. Of course the Masora is not a fixed text, it is subject
>>to revision when sufficient older Hebrew texts are found.
>The translators of NIV have done a fairly good job in that direction.

And so have JPS in Tanakh. Perhaps better?

>> ... If I'm not
>>mistaken, some of Q texts have already been incorporated and in general
>>verify that the Masora was well maintained.
>Again please cite your source.

I'll decline to state a source on this one also, but if you do a literature
search I believe you will find this to be true.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc