Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:01:02 -0500

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page