BR)$YT, the continuing saga.

Christian M. M. Brady cbrady at
Mon Apr 1 15:29:31 EST 2002

On 3/31/02 1:54 AM, "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 at> wrote:

>> Ian I don't understand what you are saying that "there as no LXX Hebrew
>> Vorlage for Genesis." If that were true than LXX Gen would be a new work in
>> its own right. LXX Gen is translating a Hebrew text, therefore it has a
>> Hebrew Vorlage. 
>> Or perhaps you meant that LXX Gen did not have a Hebrew Vorlage that was
>> *different* than MT?

Thanks Ian, info and a book I already know. The point is that your initial
comment was ambiguous at best. What you mean is that you do not see the
Hebrew mss at Q representing the LXX tradition of Gen.  That was not clear
in your initial statement. Thanks for clarifying.
> In the DSS there are Hebrew texts which reflect the three
> previously known traditions: MT, LXX and Samaritan. This
> means that variations between these Hebrew texts can be
> seen as the basis for the later traditions of all three,
> even LXX once it had been translated from the various
> Hebrew texts. There are Hebrew Vorlage for the LXX copies
> of the four pentateuchal books after Genesis, ie Hebrew
> texts which reflect the individual differences found in
> the LXX translations against the MT. This is not the case
> with Genesis, or at least that is what I have been saying,
> based on comments in the introductions to the individual
> books translated in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible", Abegg,
> Flint and Ulrich, HarperCollins, 1999.
> A book that is useful in understanding the state of the
> biblical texts in relation to the DSS is Eugene Ulrich,
> "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible",
> Eerdmans/Brill, 1999.

cbrady @
"Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible and suddenly
you are doing the impossible." - St. Francis of Assisi

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list