Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: phil-eng AT ighmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations
  • Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 10:56:51 -0700

On 05/06/2004 09:39, Philip Engmann wrote:

1. Majority of bible translations use the MT as source text and
other sources (i.e. LXX, DSS, etc) where the MT seems doubtful e.g.
NIV.[1]
2. This practice is wrong because it assumes that the MT is more
accurate than the LXX (and other sources). [2] ...


You logic is faulty here. You presuppose that it is not in fact true that the MT is more accurate than the LXX. You need to demonstrate this first. And you will find it very hard, because almost all the evidence is against you.

... Furthermore, this
practice also assumes that the parent text of the MT, i.e. the Proto-MT
is more accurate or correct than the parent text of the LXX, i.e. the
LXX Vorlage. ...


This does not follow. You have ignored the issue of the relative accuracy of transmission, and in the LXX case of translation, LXX Vorlage to attested text of LXX and proto-MT to attested text of MT. There is in fact good evidence of reliable transmission from proto-MT to attested MT but of considerable corruption, in translation or in copying, from LXX Vorlage to attested LXX.

... But this assumption is false because where the LXX Vorlage
and the Proto-MT differ, there is no known way to tell which of the 2
ancient texts is correct.[3] 3. The best way to approach translation in these circumstances, I
think, is to treat the LXX and MT as equal texts as much as possible.

Where the LXX and the MT (and other sources) agree, there is no problem.

But where the LXX and the MT (and other sources) disagree, a thorough
textual critical investigation must be made into these differences
before selecting the best text.


Well, I agree that thorough investigation is good, but I expect that an unbiased approach will prefer the MT 100 times for each time it prefers the LXX.


But certainly there seems to be very little justification for assuming
that the MT is the most accurate or correct OT text.[4]

Philip Engmann


...

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page