[b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX

Philip phil-eng at ighmail.com
Wed Oct 1 08:04:48 EDT 2003


"This is not a "strong text critical argument."  "Read any book on textual
criticism" and then go do some textual criticism and you will discover that
single word variants are ubiquitous".

1. DO YOU HAVE ANY SUCH EXAMPLES OF UBIQUITOUS LXX/MT SINGLE WORD VARIANTS?

"The reason that m )lhyM par aggelous in Psalms 8:6 is probably NOT a
textual variant is theological. What you are calling a "strong text critical
argument" is based on the probability, i.e., that in a string of clean
looking text we will not find an isolated variant. This sort of argument can
be proven wrong by thousands of examples".

2. DO YOU HAVE ANY SUCH EXAMPLES?

THANKS,

PHILIP

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of CS Bartholomew
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:21 PM
To: BIblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX

On 9/27/03 11:03 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:

> We don't know. But we can make a strong text critical argument, which
> Philip summarised as follows:
>
>> In view of the word-for-word verbatim presentation of the MT and
>> LXX, it is highly likely that the LXX was translated verbatim from the MT
>> vorlage, i.e. the unpointed MT consonantal text.
>>

This is not a "strong text critical argument."  "Read any book on textual
criticism" and then go do some textual criticism and you will discover that
single word variants are ubiquitous.

The reason that m )lhyM par aggelous in Psalms 8:6 is probably NOT a textual
variant is theological. What you are calling a "strong text critical
argument" is based on the probability, i.e., that in a string of clean
looking text we will not find an isolated variant. This sort of argument can
be proven wrong by thousands of examples.

However rendering  m )lhyM as par aggelous in Psalms 8:6 makes theological
sense. This is a semantic argument and differs significantly from a
probability argument:

>> In view of the word-for-word verbatim presentation of the MT and
>> LXX, it is highly likely that the LXX was translated verbatim from the MT
>> vorlage, i.e. the unpointed MT consonantal text.






greetings,
Clay Bartholomew



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list