Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

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