Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: CS Bartholomew <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: BIblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX
  • Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:03:47 -0700

On 27/09/2003 10:30, CS Bartholomew wrote:

Peter,

On 9/27/03 2:42 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:


Perhaps Philip's point is no more than Tov's, that there is no evidence
of any differences within Psalm 8 itself.


E.Tov isn't making any points. He is presenting evidence.

OK. So, perhaps Philip's point is no more than the logical conclusion from Tov's evidence,...


You seem to read him as making
a strong statement that there could not have been any.


Good point, his statement was ambiguous. He said:


A careful comparison of the MT against the LXX of Psalm 8:6[5] reveals an
almost word-for-word verbatim presentation. It is highly unlikely that the
LXX vorlage of Psalm 8:6[5] is different from the MT vorlage of Psalm
8:6[5].

Lets take a look at the "weak" reading of this, i.e. that the LXX vorlage of
Psalm 8:6[5] was identical in wording to the MT vorlage only in Psalm 8. Is
this not assuming what you need to prove? How do we know that the vorlage
behind aggelous reads elohim? Two very different MSS of any ancient document
can vary by only one word in any line, clause, stanza, or Psalm.

We don't know. But we can make a strong text critical argument, which Philip summarised as follows:

In view of the word-for-word verbatim presentation of the MT and
LXX, it is highly likely that the LXX was translated verbatim from the MT
vorlage, i.e. the unpointed MT consonantal text.

This could have been justified at greater length, but it is not a requirement on this list that all postings are backed by rigorous proof.


It is of course possible that the LXX Vorlage read mel'akim rather
than 'elohim at this point, but that is an unlikely textual corruption,
and the anomalous translation in LXX can more easily be explained in
other ways.

I am all ears, how are you going to explain it?

Read any book on textual criticism. The change from )LHYM to ML)KYM (or vice versa) requires one addition (or deletion), one transposition and one improbable change of a letter all within one word. Such things just don't happen. Well, just possibly once, but not five times as listed below.

Aggeloi is not a typical gloss for )lhyM in the LXX. Here is some data to
work with.

Psalms 8:6
m )lhyMpar aggelous

Psalms 97:7
)lhyM hoi aggeloi autou [96.7]

Psalms 138:1
)lhyM aggelon [137.1]

DanielLXX 2:11
)lhyN aggelos

Job 20:15
)l aggelos

Five times makes for a regular rendering, certainly not an accidental textual corruption.

My only point is that we should not short circuit the textual question based
on the fact that Psalm 8 looks "pretty good" in the MT/LXX. The textual
question isn't at all obvious. Aggelous might represent a variant.

Well, it just might do. Do you have any evidence that it did?


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew






--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page