Date:         Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:30:02 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Aren't recordings original sources?
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This isn't a new problem. There are passages in the Epistles of St Paul
> which seem to have been edited in the Middle Ages. And who could think
> that the Quran is an exact transcript of what Mohammed said?


Then we have the books of the Old Testament, written in Hebrew but not
thought worth preserving, possibly because the whole set had been translated
into Greek in the two or three centuries previous to the birth of Christ.
Which leaves us only with the Septuagint, meaning "translation of the
seventy-two interpreters, six from each tribe".

And 2200 years later, we see it rendered in a variety of interpretations in
English. Would Wycliffe be more believable than, say, the NAV

clark

>
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>