BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
dwashbur at nyx.net
Sun Mar 31 01:05:45 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.
This is incorrect. 4Q364 is just one DSS that includes a form of text
that is more like LXX than MT; it preserves Gen 32:26-30.
4QGen(j) includes LXX readings, as does 4Q252
(4QCommentary on Genesis A). Thus we have evidence of a
Hebrew vorlage of LXX within the DSS corpus. If you're
trying to say that there were no LXX manuscripts of Genesis
found among the DSS, that really means nothing. The entire
find is in essence a happy accident, and what we possess is the
result of the luck of preservation. It is a misuse of the DSS
evidence to claim that because a Greek ms of Genesis wasn't
found, no Greek translation was made before that time. As is
so often the case, absence of evidence does not equal evidence
of absence. And the presence of LXX-type readings among
the Hebrew mss suggests just the opposite.
This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know
what to do with it.
More information about the b-hebrew