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: 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 14:36:45 -0700

On 27/09/2003 12:52, CS Bartholomew wrote:

Just fixed a minor typo in the first line, I should read It.

On 9/27/03 11:03 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:


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.


This is a classic straw man argument. It assumes a particular text critical
scenario that I never suggested nor was it even in the perimeter of my
thinking. You are assuming that the variant is a transmission error not an
intentional change. Based on the theological significance of the variant I
would be looking for an intentional change not a scribal error.

Thanks for the clarification. I must say a five times repeated deliberate theological change is less improbable than a five times repeated triple corruption of the same word in otherwise well transmitted passages. But does that mean it is probable? Do we have any evidence that these kinds of theological changes were ever made in the LXX Vorlage, or maybe in the more LXX text type Hebrew texts among the DSS? If so, you may be on to something. If not, what we are arguing over is empty speculation as we have no way of knowing whether these changes were made before, during or after translation into Greek. (Yes, after is a real possibility in this case - the change could have been made by the author of Hebrews and the LXX text conformed to Hebrews - or is there DSS etc evidence against this one?) And so it is a waste of time to speculate about the exact form of the LXX Vorlage.

Who are you arguing with Peter? Not me. ...

I was defending poor Philip, a comparative newcomer to this list, from your over the top "It isn't valid" attack on his perfectly good, though not totally spelled out, argument.

... I never suggested anything like this
took place. There are a score of other text critical scenarios which you are
just ignoring. According to Hatch/Redpath aggelos in the LXX renders 15 or
more different hebrew lexemes.

Thanks for this. Are any of those other lexemes more probable as accidental corruptions of ):ELOHIYM?



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