BR)$YT, the continuing saga.

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Sun Mar 31 02:43:24 EST 2002

> > 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.  

Although my original comment was regarding LXX Hebrew texts 
of Genesis, which Dave confirms by citing only texts not 
considered to be editions of Genesis at all, one should look 
at those texts which he does mention. One 4Q364 is an 
extremely fragmented text which contains what may be three 
verses of Genesis, one is so fragmentary that it is no use 
(Gen 30:14), another which reads "]as you go towards Ashur[..
]Isaac son of Abraham [..] who Sarah his wife [bore] him ["
(Gen 25:18-19), and the third related to Gen 28:6, which 
shows a closer relation to Jubilees than anything else. 

4Q252 on the other hand is a text which goes its own way in 
its use of material from the tradition which mainly concerns 
Noah as we have it now. I know Brooke found an indication of 
Samaritan tradition in one word in this text (which means 
little in itself because one cannot use one word to reflect 
a textual tradition as there was bound to be local variants 
and cross-fertilizations), but what makes anyone think that 
this text reflects LXX Hebrew?

>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.

I was talking about LXX Hebrew Vorlage. I don't know what 
this stuff has to do with anything being talked about. Dave 
should read the original post rather than someone's citation of 
it to make meaningful comments.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list