Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Ted:

Thanks for your comments.

I offer the following response.

1. I don't see that modern english translations of the old testament
("o.t.") suffer any less credibility than ancient greek translations ("lxx")
of the o.t. The modern english translations would appear to enjoy the
benefit of equal, if not more, manuscript evidence (both greek and hebrew),
and scholarly input, on which to base a modern translation, than the ancient
greek (lxx).

2. The disruption of the nice parallelism in Isaiah 61:1 as that verse
migrates through the lxx translation, furnishes one small piece of evidence
for the hellenization of Isaiah. I agree that it represents neither "alpha"
or "omega" of the process.

3. I agree the evidence of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18 can support an original
greek Luke scroll. It can also support however, a conclusion that the greek
n.t., translation existed in parallel with a now lost hebrew original, much
as the lxx parallels the masoretic text. After all, book burnings were
popular then, as now. Witness the destruction of the library at alexandria.
Early followers of Christ experienced opposition from both roman and jewish
authorities. And books or scrolls were a relatively rare phenomenon in the
first millenium a.d., given the non-existence of the printing process.

Regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:40 PM, <TedBro AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Hi, Fred:
>
> My comments are in << brackets>> below.
>
> Peace,
> t.
>
> In a message dated 10/16/2010 9:33:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tensorpath AT gmail.com writes:
>
>  Hello Ted:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Please allow me to respond.
>
>  1. The verse in question (Isaiah 61:1) tends to prove acceptance of the
> hebrew text over the greek. All of the mainstream english language bibles
> (nkjv, niv, nasb, etc.) accept the hebrew and reject the greek version of
> this verse.
>
> <<Mainstream translators tend to default to the MT reading unless there is
> a problem with the text, in which case they will go to other Hebrew
> manuscripts and then to the versions (LXX, Vulgate, etc.). That is a most
> reasonable way to proceed, but we shouldn't decide which is text represents
> the "original" based on English translations.>>
>
> 2.  It would appear that hellenization of Isaiah occurred in the second and
> derivative greek translation that is Isaiah 61:1 quoted in Luke 4:18. The
> hebrew original begins with two couplets in parallel. The greek second
> translation ends with two single clauses sandwiching a new and imperfect
> couplet. Western greek thought tends toward the linear, whilst eastern
> hebrew thought tends toward the circular. The shift from parallel clauses in
> Isaiah 61:1 to singular clauses evidences hellenization for that reason.
>
> <<Ooo... that's a tough one. A careful study of parallelism, whether in the
> Psalms or the Prophets, doesn't show a rigid consistency. You're probably
> right that the MT reading is superior in this case, but I don't see the
> above as a good argument in its favor. There are just too many examples of
> imperfect couplets in the Tanakh.>>
>
> 3.  The faulty reproduction of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18, and the english
> language bibles' acceptance of the hebrew symmetrical version, tends to
> imply the hebrew language of the Luke autograph. That approximately two
> thirds of the n.t., refers to the o.t., and quotes liberally from the o.t.,
> gives further support to the conclusion.
>
>
> <<Since Luke 4:18 is closer to the LXX than the MT, the opposite conclusion
> would seem more appropriate, namely that Luke was written in Greek and
> quotes from a Greek text of the OT... unless I'm missing something.>>
>
>
> The n.t., could have been authored in greek. Isaiah 61:1 however, stands
> against that conclusion.
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
>