Re: Wordplay in Genesis 2? (Hebrew)



On 2011-11-21, António Marques wrote:

Me, I'd appreciate it if translations were consistent in always using the
same translation for the same original. In the original we have the
Tetragrammaton (which yes, nobody knows how to pronounce, due to the Jewish
taboo, which in turn I don't find justified because it was to be about
unworthy using of the name, and considering the bible as unworthy sounds
like heresy to me), Adonai, Elohim, and various Aramaic and Greek versions,
and I think it wouldn't be asking too much that each of those forms had a
consistent translation (ok, where a clear correspondence exists between
forms in the different source languages, it's acceptable that the
translation uses only one; and where the naming in the LXX differs from
the MT, give precedence to the latter).

OTOH, the New Testament writers quoted from the LXX & referred to it,
and AIUI it was *the* Bible for the early Christians, whereas the
Masoretic Text was (according to Biblical scholars) edited later to
suppress textual variations. I think there's a good argument to be
made that translators working *for Christian purposes* (rather than
for Jewish purposes, for example) should give the LXX precedent over
the MT.


--
Oh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn
But it's hard to read through the rising smoke
of the books that you want to burn
[Phil Ochs]
.