Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 01-03-2004, 02:20 PM

Well the same considerations drive/drove translations of non-biblical classical works as well. I wish I could remember the source, but there are some Greek commentaries on Homer that were "unhappy" with some of the things in the Iliad which resulted in tortured interpretation worthy of your best theological apologist.

Nevertheless, as a better example, check most modern versions of the Oath of Hippocrates. The text specifically forbids abortions. Many modern versions soften this by forbidding "illegal procedures"--if abortion is not illegal, then, by extension, it becomes acceptable to the Oath!

--J.D.

tracer · 01-05-2004, 10:46 AM

Ooh! Dig how Young's Literal Translation (YLT) renders 1 Kings 16:11 :

Quote:

and it cometh to pass in his reigning, at his sitting on his throne, he hath smitten the whole house of Baasha; he hath not left to him any sitting on the wall, and of his redeemers, and of his friends.

I thouught males didn't need to sit down when they peed.

Doctor X · 01-05-2004, 10:49 AM

They forgot an "h"?

--J.D.

CJD · 01-07-2004, 08:13 AM

We have thus far failed to mention that the LXX often rendered other texts that employ the word shathan with "against the wall" as "one male." In the case of 1Kgs. 16:11(12), the translators just remark that Zimri smote all the household of Baasa and leave it at that. Being a language that speaks in concrete, picturesque images, unlike Greek, the translators were doing their job: making the text understandable to their audience. Insofar as not everybody was called to be a scribe (or "scholar"), and conjoined with the fact that those ancient scribes beheld the text as living, translation (and consequently, accommodation) became a very important endeavor.

Is the LXX bowdlerized? Do you dare speak for the entire ancient world?

Regards,

CJD

spin · 01-07-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD
We have thus far failed to mention that the LXX often rendered other texts that employ the word shathan with "against the wall" as "one male." In the case of 1Kgs. 16:11(12), the translators just remark that Zimri smote all the household of Baasa and leave it at that. Being a language that speaks in concrete, picturesque images, unlike Greek, the translators were doing their job: making the text understandable to their audience. Insofar as not everybody was called to be a scribe (or "scholar"), and conjoined with the fact that those ancient scribes beheld the text as living, translation (and consequently, accommodation) became a very important endeavor.

Is the LXX bowdlerized? Do you dare speak for the entire ancient world?

The translators of the English version had the Hebrew at hand. While you're right about the LXX, it doesn't change the fact that modern translators are forced to deal with the Hebrew first of all. They also know why, just as you do, the LXX differs from the Hebrew. While the LXX isn't bowdlerized, those who refuse to give the text as it is in Hebrew, if they see that it is the underlying form, are clearly bowdlerizing it.

sp[in

ozone cowboy · 01-07-2004, 09:15 AM

I have to agree with you on some words in passages were changed. I think that it was to clean up the language for the delicate ears of the women during the King James era. It wouldn't do to have women swooning all over the church. Paul's reference to street dogs marking their spots is one.

spin · 01-07-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ozone cowboy
I have to agree with you on some words in passages were changed. I think that it was to clean up the language for the delicate ears of the women during the King James era. It wouldn't do to have women swooning all over the church. Paul's reference to street dogs marking their spots is one.

The funny thing is as I pointed out in the first message in this thread the KJV has it right on the specific example!

spin

Jogyo · 01-07-2004, 10:40 AM

Excuse me...I'll be right back...I have to go find a wall.

ozone cowboy · 01-07-2004, 11:46 AM

Not many sermons preached on that passage.

01-07-2004, 12:10 PM

'bout time somebody threw the book at those public urinators!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2004, 02:20 PM	#11
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well the same considerations drive/drove translations of non-biblical classical works as well. I wish I could remember the source, but there are some Greek commentaries on Homer that were "unhappy" with some of the things in the Iliad which resulted in tortured interpretation worthy of your best theological apologist. Nevertheless, as a better example, check most modern versions of the Oath of Hippocrates. The text specifically forbids abortions. Many modern versions soften this by forbidding "illegal procedures"--if abortion is not illegal, then, by extension, it becomes acceptable to the Oath! --J.D.

01-05-2004, 10:49 AM	#13
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	They forgot an "h"? --J.D.

01-07-2004, 08:13 AM	#14
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	We have thus far failed to mention that the LXX often rendered other texts that employ the word shathan with "against the wall" as "one male." In the case of 1Kgs. 16:11(12), the translators just remark that Zimri smote all the household of Baasa and leave it at that. Being a language that speaks in concrete, picturesque images, unlike Greek, the translators were doing their job: making the text understandable to their audience. Insofar as not everybody was called to be a scribe (or "scholar"), and conjoined with the fact that those ancient scribes beheld the text as living, translation (and consequently, accommodation) became a very important endeavor. Is the LXX bowdlerized? Do you dare speak for the entire ancient world? Regards, CJD

01-07-2004, 09:15 AM	#16
ozone cowboy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: third rock from the sun Posts: 13	I have to agree with you on some words in passages were changed. I think that it was to clean up the language for the delicate ears of the women during the King James era. It wouldn't do to have women swooning all over the church. Paul's reference to street dogs marking their spots is one.

01-07-2004, 10:40 AM	#18
Jogyo Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Monroe, NC Posts: 184	Excuse me...I'll be right back...I have to go find a wall.

01-07-2004, 11:46 AM	#19
ozone cowboy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: third rock from the sun Posts: 13	Not many sermons preached on that passage.

01-07-2004, 12:10 PM	#20
Abalone Guest Posts: n/a	'bout time somebody threw the book at those public urinators!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.