It’s been done with the Flood account and a few others, though I don’t know where to find those online.
I really wish I had access to my grad school notes! A few changes were obviously to reduce the text’s similarity to what Christians taught, and there were a couple that reflect shifts in acceptable doctrine otherwise as well.
From that quote of Genesis 5, it’s not a very literal translation anyway! – it messes with verb tenses.
Dynamic equivalence may be more accurate only in the sense that people can understand it better. Its dynamic meaning then has to be kept current as language evolves over time. I think its better to go back to the original Hebrew language to translate from though. Using a dynamic translation (like Septuagint) is like standing in a big circle and whispering a message to your neighbor. By the time it gets back around the room to you its a totally different message.
Actually, I was being critical of the LSV.
The information from the Septuagint is corrupted, so my theories escape the fan blades.
Actually I had already determined that the Septuagint was not authoritative based on other evidence before I even discovered (rather God lead me to) my theory. Support for the Masoretic Text can be found here:
In particular, a few things from the article that are quite telling:
Counting back in time on the lxx chronology, however, we find something remarkable: Methuselah evidently somehow survived the Flood!
The unbelievability—and stamp of artificiality—is in the unlikely uniform proximity of such advanced ages—differing only by five years, yet all within the 130s. For the mt to have three out of six individuals begetting at the age of 30, and five out of six begetting within their 30s—nothing unusual there. But for the lxx to have four out of seven begetting at the age of 130? And for all seven in a row to be within their early-to-mid 130s? The Septuagint’s graph is simply too flat, the numbers too even, for such advanced ages.
Surely, if the post-Flood lxx and sp chronologies were correct and people immediately prior to Abraham were regularly and typically begetting children in their mid-100s (130, to be precise!), there would have been no concern about Abraham producing an heir in his old age? Yet Abraham wondered in Genesis 17:17, “Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old?” The Bible highlights Abraham’s advanced age in child-begetting as a special blessing for him. (Compare also with Romans 4:19 and Hebrews 11:12.)
Put bluntly: The Septuagint, as a whole, is widely regarded as a mess in preserving the overall biblical account—hence the widespread use of the mt as the basis for translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. Some 400 lines are missing from the lxx book of Job, as well as a full 30 percent of the book of Jeremiah. Certainly, the lxx’s Torah translation is more precise compared with the later books in the canon. But there are still several glaring issues (some of which we have covered already). Are we therefore to trust it more than the mt and its renowned copying tradition when it comes to preservation of the numbers of Genesis 5 and 11?
Changes like that are concerning but sounds like they would be more recent. Looks like a real rabbit trail.
Oh, that’s good to know… so hopefully the LSV wont gain popularity! What in your view is the best modern English literal translation?
Put bluntly: The Septuagint, as a whole, is widely regarded as a mess in preserving the overall biblical account—hence the widespread use of the mt as the basis for translations of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Generally speaking, textual scholars regard the more difficult text as the more original. What then happens, is that later scribes come along and alter the text for the sake of harmonization. There are plenty of manuscripts amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, besides the proto-Masoretic manuscripts, that show clear attempts at harmonization. If the p-MT has tidied up the mess, it renders itself a candidate for the label “a harmonization”. This makes it a later manuscript because it modifies an earlier text.
The Septuagint has different content for some biblical books, and different combinations of books compared to the p-MT. Judging this as an error by comparison to the p-MT is to presume that the p-MT is the criterion against which it should be judged. But this is to assume what needs to be proven.
As an exercise in discernment compare the book of Esther in both the Septuagint and the p-MT. Esther saves the exiled people of Judah under Persian rule from annihilation. Is this act of salvation entirely accomplished by the womanly wiles of a Judahite woman, or did God have a hand in it? You will look in vain for mention of God in the p-MT tradition of Esther.
While we speak in general terms of translations of Hebrew into other languages, we have to consider what changes took place in the Hebrew language itself over centuries. For an example in English, we can read earlier forms of English in “Canterbury Tales”. While Canterbury Tales and modern English are all “English”, modern readers may well need a translation of Canterbury Tales to understand it. Modern English has been subject to many influences since the time of Canterbury Tales.
Hebrew is no different. It is a Canaanite language. But when the Judahite exiles in Mesopotamia returned to Judea, they had had years of thinking and speaking in another language - Aramaic. An indication of how pervasive this cultural influence was is found in the fact that they returned writing Hebrew in Aramaic script - a practice that continues to this day. An open question is, "to what extent was their understanding of Hebrew influenced by their own Aramaic language, and thus, to what extent did it involve a translation from an earlier form of Hebrew to their contemporary understanding of Hebrew.
I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the only manuscripts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls written in paleo-Hebrew script - the more original Hebrew script - are the pre-Samaritan scripts. The point I am making is that the p-MT manuscripts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and written in Aramaic script may have involved as much of a translation - from an older form of Hebrew to an Aramaic influenced Hebrew - as was involved in the Septuagint.
I haven’t looked at a translation except for skimming to find exactly what I’m looking for in so long I really don’t have a recommendation these days, for a “literal” or any other. Dr. Michael Heiser leans towards the ESV, but I haven’t looked at it enough to make a judgment. I think Dr. John Walton uses the NRSV; Dr. Tim Mackie generates his own as he teaches; I don’t know what Dr. Craig Keener uses – but those are all guys I respect and so would lean towards.
p-MT really isn’t a text itself, it’s a text ‘type’. FWIW, some include Qumran while others don’t.
One thing about p-MT is that there is an apparent effort to tidy up spelling, but the extant texts are so few that’s not a hard conclusion.
Scholars have a habit of falling into that trap.
There’s a thought for me to meditate on as I fall asleep tonight.
Good thought provoking response. it seems that in either scenario, whether the p-MT is unaltered from the original or it has been “tidied up”, it is the one that is most cared for, authoritative and guided by God.
No mention of God in the book of Esther is unique, but I see it as an example of God showing that He is at work though situations without needing to be mentioned. In the same way as Christians, we don’t always need to be telling others about Jesus to be a witness for Him. The references to God were most likely added later to the Septuagint rather than removed from the MT.
I don’t think it follows that the words were translated because they are in a different script (alphabet). As this source puts it:
All of these Hebrew alphabets are actually composed of the same letters, with the same names and the same sounds, but “drawn” differently.
When the writers has editors of Genesis compiled the various oral/written stories and traditions into a single document, there were bound to be disconcerting boundaries between the different narratives.
How do you think we ended up with two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation?
Maybe – but that’s just theological supposition, really.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
