BR)$YT, the continuing saga.

Christian M. M. Brady cbrady at tulane.edu
Sun Mar 31 00:20:18 EST 2002


On 3/30/02 2:08 PM, "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 at mclink.it> wrote:

>> Ian, I am unable to date LXX, just as you are, because I do not rely on
>> the letter of Aristeas and the dating implied there.
> 
> I am able to restrict the date because of the DSS material.
> LXX Genesis did not have a Vorlage in Hebrew while the
> other pentateuchal books did. This means that LXX Genesis
> did come from an already developed tradition, so it did not
> exist before 63 BCE.
> 
> Dating is always an important issue (I note though that you
> did avoid the subject through caution).
> 
>> My point in quoting translations is that translations are good evidence
>> for how the translators understood their Vorlage. Full stop.
> 
> This is why I brought in the DSS. There was no LXX Hebrew
> Vorlage for Genesis. All 24 fragmentary copies are
> basically MT with slight variations.

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?

Cb
cbrady @ tulane.edu
-- 
"Good artists borrow, great ones steal"
                        -- Picasso




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list