[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Wed May 19 08:01:02 EDT 2004
Dear Peter,
> Can we quit this Isaiah 53 interpretation thing? I sense that
>there are some people in the group who do not respect how ancient
>translators interpreted the passage (e.g. LXX), and how modern
>translators interpret the passage as well. A private interpretation
>that does not really consider these two aspects of scholarship needs
>to be kept private. Wow! I am not too sure that such statements will
>end this discussion, but I feel it has gone too far.
HH: I honor the fact that you want respect for the LXX to be
maintained, but the fact is that the LXX does not agree with the
Hebrew at many points. The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. The
LXX was used by the Jews as their Scriptures when they spoke Greek.
So we should respect it. It is quoted a great deal in the New
Testament. Yet the NT often goes back to the Hebrew instead of using
the Greek. They felt that a translation more closely reflecting the
Hebrew wording would better represent what God originally gave. The
original writers of Scripture wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic. That is
the language in which God gave the Scriptures. The Jewish tradition
that the LXX was inspired by God is late, artificial, and contains
mythical elements. There is widespread agreement about this among
scholars.
HH: The main point is that the Hebrew and Greek do not agree in
places. One can hide one's head in the sand and pretend that they do
agree, or one can admit that they don't. If the LXX is a translation,
then it should match the Hebrew. If it does not, then it is proper to
ask why it doesn't. It is well accepted among scholars that sometimes
the LXX translators did not know the meaning of the Hebrew. At the
verse we are discussing, Isaiah 53:9, the LXX does not match the
Hebrew. Yet it is easy to see the thinking that the translators used.
If you think it is wrong to say that the LXX does not translate a
verse of the Hebrew well, then perhaps you believe that the LXX is
independently inspired by God and so cannot fail to say well whatever
it says. But when judging it as a translation, which is what it
always was, then it either translates the Hebrew well or it does not.
Today scholars say that at places the King James Version either does
not represent the original manuscripts well or does not translate
them well. This raises the ire of people who consider the KJV to be
inspired of God. Yet knowledge of the original biblical languages has
progressed beyond what was available to the 1611 translators because
of archeological discoveries. These have also multiplied the number
of manuscripts. While we honor the KJV translation, scholars widely
agree that it has imperfections. We would hide our heads in the sand
if we did not. The same is true with the LXX. We have to hide our
heads in the sand not to see that it fails to match the Hebrew at
numerous points. Thus most scholarly treatments of the LXX speak of
the varying quality of its translation. It is praised as being very
close to the Hebrew in the Pentateuch. But the quality of its
translation of the Prophets is admitted to be lower at times.
One cannot really have an intelligent discussion of the LXX as it
compares with the Hebrew if one cannot admit that differences exist
and that these differences can show the LXX to be a poor translation
at times. This is simply a fact.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list