Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
Dan.Wagner at datastream.net
Fri Feb 16 14:35:05 EST 2001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried at umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 13:46
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Is this a rock or not? I Would like to know
> I don't think it has been "categorically" dismissed.
Yes, you're correct for most on the list i think. I know there are various
positions, but some would like to see "Matthew" completely eliminated from
discussion. My comment was directed to them.
> As I recall, it was discussed whether Mt read the Hebrew or the LXX.
This is a worthy topic to discuss. I think he was familiar with both and
> For that matter, the LXX is even earlier than Mt,
Well, of course, sorta ... as Cross argues that proto-MT, SP, and LXX
recensions are all represented at Qumran. But obviously the extant mss. from
LXX are much earlier, so for that reason, and also because it *sometimes* is
from a different Vorlage, it's a very important ancient witness to the text.
> and there is no
> assumption that those translators got it right. Numerous examples
> to the contrary were offered. Thus, while evidence of the versions is
> certainly pertinent, it cannot be considered conclusive.
I fully agree in general; LXX has been given far too much weight for TC in
the past, but that has changed generally for the better. But in regards to
Matthew's interpretation, i think he knew and used both (LXX and whatever
Hebrew, not necessarily proto-MT), thus at least potentially eliminating the
argument of his interpretation being inferior because he depended on a
More information about the b-hebrew