Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Example of Significantly Interpretive "translation"

Expand Messages
  • JavaJedi2
    I m looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly changed the meaning
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either
      a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly
      changed the meaning from the extant Hebrew textx. Long ago, I worked
      on the Fourth Servant Song and thought I'd remembered that Isa 53:7-8
      in the LXX looked to me like the translator did not understand the
      Hebrew text very well but last night in looking at the NASB of Isa
      53:7-8 and Brenton on the same passage, perhaps my original
      assessment, based upon reading the Hebrew and Greek myslf, was
      overstated. They seem pretty close in these translations at least.

      So does anyone know of a glaring example of where the translator
      not only was not woodenly literal, as in Genesis, but clearly doing
      interpretation (leaving aside the acknowledged fact that all
      translation involves interpretation)? Thanks.

      Ken Litwak
    • Robert Kraft
      How about Daniel 11.29-30, Kittim = Romans? Bob ... -- Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        How about Daniel 11.29-30, Kittim = Romans?

        Bob

        > I'm looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either
        > a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly
        > changed the meaning from the extant Hebrew textx. Long ago, I worked
        > on the Fourth Servant Song and thought I'd remembered that Isa 53:7-8
        > in the LXX looked to me like the translator did not understand the
        > Hebrew text very well but last night in looking at the NASB of Isa
        > 53:7-8 and Brenton on the same passage, perhaps my original
        > assessment, based upon reading the Hebrew and Greek myslf, was
        > overstated. They seem pretty close in these translations at least.
        >
        > So does anyone know of a glaring example of where the translator
        > not only was not woodenly literal, as in Genesis, but clearly doing
        > interpretation (leaving aside the acknowledged fact that all
        > translation involves interpretation)? Thanks.
        >
        > Ken Litwak

        --
        Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
        227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
        kraft@...
        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
      • philippe guillaume
        How about Gen 2.2 (from 7 days to 6) ? --
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 12, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          How about Gen 2.2 (from 7 days to 6) ?
           
           

          --
          Dr Philippe Guillaume
          Stelserstrasse 478A
          CH-7220 SCHIERS
          Tel. +81 330 34 37
        • philippe guillaume
          How about Jon 3.4 (40 or 3 days) ? ... -- Dr Philippe Guillaume Stelserstrasse 478A CH-7220 SCHIERS Tel. +81 330 34 37
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 13, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            How about Jon 3.4 (40 or 3 days) ?

            On 2/13/07, JavaJedi2 <javajedi2@...> wrote:

            I'm looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either
            a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly
            changed the meaning from the extant Hebrew textx. Long ago, I worked
            on the Fourth Servant Song and thought I'd remembered that Isa 53:7-8
            in the LXX looked to me like the translator did not understand the
            Hebrew text very well but last night in looking at the NASB of Isa
            53:7-8 and Brenton on the same passage, perhaps my original
            assessment, based upon reading the Hebrew and Greek myslf, was
            overstated. They seem pretty close in these translations at least.

            So does anyone know of a glaring example of where the translator
            not only was not woodenly literal, as in Genesis, but clearly doing
            interpretation (leaving aside the acknowledged fact that all
            translation involves interpretation)? Thanks.

            Ken Litwak




            --
            Dr Philippe Guillaume
            Stelserstrasse 478A
            CH-7220 SCHIERS
            Tel. +81 330 34 37
          • Sigrid Peterson
            Would the alternate versions of Judges 5 Song of Deborah qualify? Neither is a very close translation, and one greatly mangles the poetic structure of the
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 13, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Would the alternate versions of Judges 5 "Song of Deborah" qualify? Neither is a
              very close translation, and one greatly mangles the poetic structure of the ancient
              Hebrew.

              Two other examples are not exactly LXX/OG translator issues, so much as they are
              apparent editorial differences. I'm referring to Jeremiah, which Emanuel Tov has
              called a separate edition of the text, IIRC (if I remember correctly), and Proverbs,
              which treats the material after Chapter 10 very, very loosely.

              Sigrid Peterson petersig@...

              > How about Jon 3.4 (40 or 3 days) ?
              >
              > On 2/13/07, JavaJedi2 <javajedi2@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I'm looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either
              > > a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly
              > > changed the meaning from the extant Hebrew textx. Long ago, I worked
              > > on the Fourth Servant Song and thought I'd remembered that Isa 53:7-8
              > > in the LXX looked to me like the translator did not understand the
              > > Hebrew text very well but last night in looking at the NASB of Isa
              > > 53:7-8 and Brenton on the same passage, perhaps my original
              > > assessment, based upon reading the Hebrew and Greek myslf, was
              > > overstated. They seem pretty close in these translations at least.
              > >
              > > So does anyone know of a glaring example of where the translator
              > > not only was not woodenly literal, as in Genesis, but clearly doing
              > > interpretation (leaving aside the acknowledged fact that all
              > > translation involves interpretation)? Thanks.
              > >
              > > Ken Litwak
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Dr Philippe Guillaume
              > Stelserstrasse 478A
              > CH-7220 SCHIERS
              > Tel. +81 330 34 37
              >
              > ------=_Part_64797_21811173.1171369059739
              > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
              > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
              >
              > <html><body>
              >
              >
              > How about Jon 3.4 (40 or 3 days) ?<br><br>
              > <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/13/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">JavaJedi2</b> <<a href="mailto:javajedi2@...">javajedi2@...</a>> wrote:</span>
              > <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
              > <div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
              > <div style="WIDTH: 655px">
              > <div style="PADDING-RIGHT: 15px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FLOAT: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; WIDTH: 490px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
              > <div>
              > <p>I'm looking for an example in the LXX where the translator either<br>a) clearly did not understand the Hebrew, or b) better still, clearly<br>changed the meaning from the extant Hebrew textx. Long ago, I worked<br>
              > on the Fourth Servant Song and thought I'd remembered that Isa 53:7-8<br>in the LXX looked to me like the translator did not understand the<br>Hebrew text very well but last night in looking at the NASB of Isa<br>53:7-8 and Brenton on the same passage, perhaps my original
              > <br>assessment, based upon reading the Hebrew and Greek myslf, was<br>overstated. They seem pretty close in these translations at least.<br><br>So does anyone know of a glaring example of where the translator<br>not only was not woodenly literal, as in Genesis, but clearly doing
              > <br>interpretation (leaving aside the acknowledged fact that all<br>translation involves interpretation)? Thanks.<br><br>Ken Litwak<br><br></p></div><span style="COLOR: white" width="1"></span> </div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr Philippe Guillaume
              > <br>Stelserstrasse 478A<br>CH-7220 SCHIERS<br>Tel. +81 330 34 37
              >
              > <span width="1" style="color: white;"/></span>
              > </body></html>
              >
              > ------=_Part_64797_21811173.1171369059739--
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.