Lxx

[av1611jim]

Discussion in another thread brought this to mind.

IF translating into a foreign tongue is to be desired to reach a group of people who have no Scripture in their tongue:

AND IF it is asserted that the 'original' languages are what is to be used when translating:

AND IF it is wrong to use a translation to translate into the receptor language:

Why on earth would any 'committee' use the LXX since it is JUST a translation?

 

[Gold Dragon]

AND IF it is wrong to use a translation to translate into the receptor language:

Your misunderstanding is with this statement. It isn't wrong to use a translation to translate into a receptor language. It is simply preferable to use the original language. However there are other factors such as the age of a manuscript that may overcome this preference.

For example, say we are trying to accurately represent a chinese poem written in 2000 BC in english. We have the following manuscripts available.

A) A japanese translation of that poem done in 1500 BC
B) A chinese copy of the poem from 1000 AD
C) A japanese translation of the poem done in 950AD

Which manuscripts would be more useful to acurately represent the original?

B may be preferrable to C because it is in chinese. But A might be preferrable to B because it is much closer to the original date of the poem and not have some of the later transcription errors that crept in over the centuries into B and C.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Why on earth would any 'committee' use the LXX since it is JUST a translation?

The LXX greek manuscripts that we have date to the 4th century while the MT hebrew manuscripts date more than 500 years later in the 9th century. So while the LXX is a translation, its age gives insight into what the hebrew originals were that the MT cannot. And the DSS being both Hebrew and older than both, have even more value.

 

[Gold Dragon]

In Erasmus' first edition of his 1516 Greek NT (later this manuscript and its decendents were given the name Textus Receptus in 1633), Erasmus used this technique in his compilation when he could not find a greek manuscript to reference for the last parts of Revelation. He used a translation, the Latin Vulgate to fill in the missing parts.

Later in his second edition, he was able to find a greek manuscript for those verses.

 

[John of Japan]

Your misunderstanding is with this statement. It isn't wrong to use a translation to translate into a receptor language. It is simply preferable to use the original language. However there are other factors such as the age of a manuscript that may overcome this preference.

For example, say we are trying to accurately represent a chinese poem written in 2000 BC in english. We have the following manuscripts available.

A) A japanese translation of that poem done in 1500 BC
B) A chinese copy of the poem from 1000 AD
C) A japanese translation of the poem done in 950AD

Which manuscripts would be more useful to acurately represent the original?

B may be preferrable to C because it is in chinese. But A might be preferrable to B because it is much closer to the original date of the poem and not have some of the later transcription errors that crept in over the centuries into B and C.

Forget for the moment that none of the three languages were written down in 2000 BC--or even 1000 BC (except for those Chinese doodles on turtle shells!)--or even 700 AD for English and Japanese! :tongue3: :smilewinkgrin:

Anyway, we don't have enough information. What was the 950 A. D. version translated from? It could have been from an older version than the 1500 BC translation!

 

[John of Japan]

Discussion in another thread brought this to mind.

IF translating into a foreign tongue is to be desired to reach a group of people who have no Scripture in their tongue:

AND IF it is asserted that the 'original' languages are what is to be used when translating:

AND IF it is wrong to use a translation to translate into the receptor language:

Why on earth would any 'committee' use the LXX since it is JUST a translation?

The problem is usually not the availability of the LXX, TR, UBS or any other text. It is the ability of the translator. If the translator knows nothing but English and the receptor language, than he must translate from English. There are many examples of this in history, including the first complete Bible in Japanese, the Moto Yaku ("Original Translation"), which was a very poor translation from the KJV. (Imagine having your Bible tell you to use sake (sah-keh) rice wine for the Lord's Supper!)

All things being equal, though, the original language should be used. Meaning is lost in any translation. Meaning is further lost in a double translation.

Side note: there is a new OT translation of the LXX into Japanese, but it is extremely expensive and aimed mainly at Bible scholars--of which there are few enough in Japan.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Forget for the moment that none of the three languages were written down in 2000 BC--or even 1000 BC (except for those Chinese doodles on turtle shells!)--or even 700 AD for English and Japanese! :tongue3: :smilewinkgrin:

I was going to preface this but I didn't expect anyone to comment on that. Should have known better with you around JoJ.

Anyway, we don't have enough information. What was the 950 A. D. version translated from? It could have been from an older version than the 1500 BC translation!

Agreed. That is why I used the term 'may'.

 

[John of Japan]

I was going to preface this but I didn't expect anyone to comment on that. Should have known better with you around JoJ.

Sorry! I just couldn't resist. :wavey: