Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Hark the Herrell Angel

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
  • To: lizfried AT umich.edu, krooger AT debian.org, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Hark the Herrell Angel
  • Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:29:13 EST

In a message dated 2/25/2004 7:09:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lizfried AT umich.edu writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:28:09PM -0600, Charles David Isbell wrote:
> >Now, dear Jonathan, please remember that the LXX itself was a translation
> >done by JEWS.
>
> Please accept my humble apologies. Through lack of experience, I had
> assumed the LXX was translated by Israelites of the Dispersion. This
> new information alters things considerably.
_________

Don't "cop out" on us now. I would tend to agree with Charles that Herrell
sounds like a first class bigot if he is suggesting that the Massoretes
changed
the Hebrew text. It is a well-known fact that they were very scrupulous in
the transmission of the text. Unfortunately, even with the greatest of care,
it is possible for errors to creep in as seems to have occurred in a number
of
places. It is also true, however, that some translations were made into
Greek
other than the LXX which seem to have been partly motivated by a desire to
deprive the Christians of their proof-texts. This, however, is a matter of
translation, not transmission, and it can and has been argued that these were
more
literal than the LXX. Therefore, it would be hard to argue that they somehow
were only trying to cut the ground out from under the church since there are
legitimate grounds for the translations. I would be very careful about
ascribing motives to the transmission or even the translation of passages
unless
there is a consistent pattern which is only explicable on the basis of such a
motive. This is probably the biggest factor which would lead me to condemn
as
bigotry any statement that the Massoretes changed the text. As has been
noted
in another thread, the DSS, which must be considered as pre-Christian or
contemporary with the inception of Christianity, mostly agree with the MT to
a
greater degree than with the LXX. Offhand I don't recall that the agreements
with
the LXX to any great extent involve what might be considered theologically
charged passages from a Christian standpoint. Therefore, the oldest Hebrew
witness we have would not indicate a wilful alteration of the text. The fact
is
that some of the canonical writers of the NT books used a translation which
served their purposes in setting forth the teaching of the church. Sometimes
the
translation was not the most correct, but since it served their purpose it
was
used as though it were correct. I remember a professor (whom I shall not
name) berateing the RSV for its use of "young woman" in Is 7.14. Even as a
student I knew enough to realize that he was taking this position on purely
theological grounds, not linguistic. If one bothers to read the text, it is
obvious
that "virgin" could not have been intended unless one takes one of two
positions (1) There were 2 virgin births OR (2) This "sign" to Ahaz could not
have
been any sign at all since he would never witness it.

gfsomsel



  • Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Hark the Herrell Angel, Polycarp66, 02/25/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page