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

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Sat Sep 27 14:03:47 EDT 2003


On 27/09/2003 10:30, CS Bartholomew wrote:

>Peter,
>
>On 9/27/03 2:42 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Perhaps Philip's point is no more than Tov's, that there is no evidence
>>of any differences within Psalm 8 itself.
>>    
>>
>
>E.Tov isn't making any points. He is presenting evidence.
>  
>
OK. So, perhaps Philip's point is no more than the logical conclusion 
from Tov's evidence,...

>  
>
>>You seem to read him as making
>>a strong statement that there could not have been any.
>>    
>>
>
>Good point, his statement was ambiguous. He said:
>
>  
>
>>>>A careful comparison of the MT against the LXX of Psalm 8:6[5] reveals an
>>>>almost word-for-word verbatim presentation. It is highly unlikely that the
>>>>LXX vorlage of Psalm 8:6[5] is different from the MT vorlage of Psalm
>>>>8:6[5]. 
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Lets take a look at the "weak" reading of this, i.e. that the LXX vorlage of
>Psalm 8:6[5] was identical in wording to the MT vorlage only in Psalm 8. Is
>this not assuming what you need to prove? How do we know that the vorlage
>behind aggelous reads elohim? Two very different MSS of any ancient document
>can vary by only one word in any line, clause, stanza, or Psalm.
>  
>
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 could have been justified at greater length, but it is not a 
requirement on this list that all postings are backed by rigorous proof.

>  
>
>> It is of course possible that the LXX Vorlage read mel'akim rather
>>than 'elohim at this point, but that is an unlikely textual corruption,
>>and the anomalous translation in LXX can more easily be explained in
>>other ways. 
>>    
>>
>
>I am all ears, how are you going to explain it?
>  
>
Read any book on textual criticism. The change from )LHYM to ML)KYM (or 
vice versa) requires one addition (or deletion), one transposition and 
one improbable change of a letter all within one word. Such things just 
don't happen. Well, just possibly once, but not five times as listed below.

>Aggeloi is not a typical gloss for )lhyM in the LXX. Here is some data to
>work with. 
>
>
>Psalms 8:6
>m )lhyMpar aggelous
>
>Psalms 97:7
>)lhyM     hoi aggeloi autou [96.7]
>
>Psalms 138:1
>)lhyM     aggelon [137.1]
>
>DanielLXX 2:11
>)lhyN     aggelos
>
>Job 20:15
>)l aggelos
>  
>
Five times makes for a regular rendering, certainly not an accidental 
textual corruption.

>My only point is that we should not short circuit the textual question based
>on the fact that Psalm 8 looks "pretty good" in the MT/LXX. The textual
>question isn't at all obvious. Aggelous might represent a variant.
>  
>
Well, it just might do. Do you have any evidence that it did?

>
>greetings,
>Clay Bartholomew 
> 
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list