BR)$YT, the continuing saga.

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Sun Mar 31 02:54:19 EST 2002

>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?


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.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list