From: Andrew Bromage (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 20 1998 - 03:20:34 EST
This is most likely off-topic. If anyone is planning on an off-list
discussion of this, please count me in.
Jane Harper wrote:
> Surely, also, there are other discrepancies between the LXX and the MT that do
> not focus on gender inclusivity, and it would be possible to portray these in
> detail in an inclusive translation.
In principle, yes.
But I can't help thinking: If someone doesn't understand that gender of
a word does not necessarily imply denotation of sex, and if that person
doesn't understand how this works in Greek, what is this person is doing
working with textual differences in the first place? How can they weigh
up differences and their significance?
It seems like a recipe for trouble, similar in spirit to the lexicon
substitution method of eisegesis mentioned not long ago.
Indeed, I find myself wondering why we need an English translation of
the LXX _at_all_, regardless of the translation mechanisms used...
(An over-opinionated little Greek, who tends to steer clear of
studies in textual criticism for the reasons stated above.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:14 EDT