Malachi151

Some of the new translations of the Bible, such as the NRSV, have done things such as translate the Old Testament from the oldest Hebrew texts, and indeed in some cases that have also updated the New Testament based on these translations.

The famous example of this is the changing of the word "virgin" to "young woman" in the NRSV.

The Christian Fundamentalists take issue with this and call it wrong.

I agree with them.

The NRSV actually misrepresents Christian scripture, by changing it to something that it never was, by refering to texts that were never used by Christians.

The Septuagint is what the writers of the Christian Bible used, they didn't use the Hebrew texts, so going back and putting the Christian texts more in line with the Hebrew today actually misrepresents Christian doctrine and indeed is a form of doing what they accuse the fundies of doing, changing the text to make it fit thier agenda.

By making these changes it makes the Bible appear to make more sense, instead of exposing the obvious nonsense of it (though it takes more than a few changes to achieve this task).

The NRSV has also chosen some more politically correct terms and toned a few things down a little, which also is a misrepresentation and doesn't expose the religion for the violent and hateful doctrine that it is.

What really is the best most accurate translation, the ESV (English Standard Version)? This one seems to be based only on the Greek, but also they don't fix inconsistencies like the NIV does, so I guess this is the best one.

The NRSV, seems to be hailed as better by many, but really its less accurate as a piece of Christian work because it is based on the Hebrew "OT", and harmonizes with the Hebrew "OT", which really is NOT a part of Christian history.

gstafleu

Your point about the septuagint aside, is this true for the virgin case? I always thought that the Greek word in question could just as easily be translated as "young woman" than as "virgin." If so, why prefer virgin? The case could be made that that fits in better with other myths of god-men being born from virgins, but is that really a point Christians would like to make?

Gerard

Malachi151

The Septuagint says virgin. I question the whole basis of all the Bible translations traditions, in terms of a historical-critical understanding of Christianity. Christinaity was crafted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is what the early Christian community used.

The thinking of both modernscholars, and old scholars, when they translated Old Testament from Hebrew, was they this was a way to get a close to the "true revealed word of God", but that is all nonsense of course.

For understanding Christianity, the source to use is the Septuagint, because that is what the first Christians used.

gstafleu

The word used in mat 1:23 is παρθενος. I went to the perseus project and looked it up. All sources give the meaning as varying fron "unmarried girl" via "maiden" to "virgin." So I'm not so sure you can just say the Septuagint used "virgin." It used "παρθενος."

Any Koine experts about the usage of παρθενος in Koine?

Gerard

Malachi151

I don't know Greek so I can't make an independent assessment of this, but everything that I have seen says that παρθενος (parthenos) is most widely traslated as virgin.

There is a bizarre problem going on here, where liberal Christians and skeptics are actually pushing the "young woman" translation, because they see this as undercutting the traditional view, but this is bullshit. They think that by chaning the text they can change the belief, but this is nonsense.

The text says "virgin", and there is no need to try to revise it, this just makes it obvious how nonsensical the story is, which, again is why liberal Christians want to revise it, so that it can be "made safe", instead of rejected.

http://altreligion.about.com/library...stianity17.htm

I argue that the "virgin birth" is a part of Christian theology, changing it to "young woman" because that is the correct Hebrew translation compeletly misses the point. "Young woman" was never a part of the understanding of the Greek speaking Jewish and early Christian community, nor was it part of the later Christian belief.

Gamera

An interesting thesis that the Christian bible should use a translation of the Septuagint and not the Hebrew scriptures.

Leaving aside the virgin, young woman issue, do you know if there would be other substantive differences as a result of such a substitution?

I personally find the Hebrew sciptures rather obscure, with little application to the Christian scriptures. Indeed, if the Hebrew scriptures ceased to exist, it would not alter my understanding of the gospel message in the slightest. I think the two bodies of texts are doing something totally different with totally different audiences.

The use of the Septuagint may bridge that gap since it was a translation in usage and apparently known to Paul and other NT writers. Interesting.

Aerik

I disagree with all of you. I think each and every piece of dialogue in scripture should be originally written in the language its charactures used to originally speak it, no matter how many languages and dialects that entails. And then there should only be a one-step translation into a single vernacular for creating a translated bible. And I think the original (closest equivalent ot he language the characters actually spoke in their real-time) and the modern translation (one language's worth) should be put next to each other.

Malachi151

That's the point though. The writers of the New Testament were readers of the Septuagint, not other translations, so Christianity is really rooted in the Septuagint as its "origional source".

Going back to some earlier Hebrew source, which none of the founders of Christianity ever read, does not in any way shed light on the New Testament.

If there is a difference in wording between, for example, The Dead Sea Scrolls (found in the 1940s or 60s? I forget) and the Septuagint, it really doesn't make actual sense for a Christian Bible to use the translation from The Dead Sea Scrolls, since that wording would not have been a part of the Christian community that produced and accepted the New Testament texts initially, yet, this is exactly what modern translations do.

By doing this, what they actually do is take words and meaning that have been accepted by Christians for 2,000 years, and then, based on new archeology, change it to something different, claiming that it is more authoritative because it comes from a "purer Hebrew source", but that source really has nothing to do with Christinaity, and was never in contact with it, until just recently. Its a different way of re-writing the religion.

gurugeorge

I don't think there's anything sinister behind it - after all, the OT in the Bible purports to be a translation of the Jewish OT (just as the Septuagint was) - i.e. the Jewish text is supposed to be incorporated into the Christian scripture so it's natural for translators nowadays to want a more accurate translation of that.

But I think you are right that that's not the text the early Christians would have been familiar with, so people who are interested in the formative years of Christianity should definitely be aware of that.

Malachi151

I don't think its sinister either, I think its just misrepresentative. Christian today take this approach because they think that these scriprutes are "the divine word of God", thus, of course, you want to get the oldest most "accurate" source material, so "you can see what God really said".

This approach, however, really obscures an understanding of Christianity, because Christianity ISN'T based on those those "more accurate" sources, it IS BASED on a flawed Greek translation. The Septuagint IS THE BASIS of Christianity, the Hebrew texts are not.

The myth that Christians go on is that "Jesus would have used the Hebrew texts, and plus he was God anyway", so there is a myth that says that "older Hebrew texts" are the basis of Christinaity, but in reality, they aren't, because Jesus is a myth constructed out of the Septuagint.