Dan.Wagner at datastream.net
Tue Feb 13 17:03:29 EST 2001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:Peter_Kirk at sil.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 09:58
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Goliath
> PK: We still have to explain the existence of the 2 Samuel
> text of this
> verse as we have it now. This is clearly corrupt. Do you have
> any other
> hypothesis for how this occurred except for copyists' errors?
> I accept that
> the Chronicles text may be a separate tidying up of a corrupt
> text rather
> than a witness to the pre-corruption original. But I very
> much doubt that
> the 2 Samuel text can be what the author originally intended.
This is probably the essence of why Ian's argument does not stand. Samuel is
well-known for pre-LXX (and post) problems with its transmission and
experienced significant lacuna, etc (the worst book of MT). I'm astounded
that discussion would continue, but perhaps some have not carefully examined
the problems in Samuel's text.
I don't have time to go through all the details of Ian's post now. Maybe
later (but i doubt it!).
More information about the b-hebrew