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

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Sat Sep 27 17:36:45 EDT 2003


On 27/09/2003 12:52, CS Bartholomew wrote:

>Just fixed a minor typo in the first line, I should read It.
>
>On 9/27/03 11:03 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a classic straw man argument. It assumes a particular text critical
>scenario that I never suggested nor was it even in the perimeter of my
>thinking. You are assuming that the variant is a transmission error not an
>intentional change. Based on the theological significance of the variant I
>would be looking for an intentional change not a scribal error.
>  
>
Thanks for the clarification. I must say a five times repeated 
deliberate theological change is less improbable than a five times 
repeated triple corruption of the same word in otherwise well 
transmitted passages. But does that mean it is probable? Do we have any 
evidence that these kinds of theological changes were ever made in the 
LXX Vorlage, or maybe in the more LXX text type Hebrew texts among the 
DSS? If so, you may be on to something. If not, what we are arguing over 
is empty speculation as we have no way of knowing whether these changes 
were made before, during or after translation into Greek. (Yes, after is 
a real possibility in this case - the change could have been made by the 
author of Hebrews and the LXX text conformed to Hebrews - or is there 
DSS etc evidence against this one?) And so it is a waste of time to 
speculate about the exact form of the LXX Vorlage.

>Who are you arguing with Peter? Not me. ...
>
I was defending poor Philip, a comparative newcomer to this list, from 
your over the top "It isn't valid" attack on his perfectly good, though 
not totally spelled out, argument.

>... I never suggested anything like this
>took place. There are a score of other text critical scenarios which you are
>just ignoring. According to Hatch/Redpath aggelos in the LXX renders 15 or
>more different hebrew lexemes.
>  
>
Thanks for this. Are any of those other lexemes more probable as 
accidental corruptions of ):ELOHIYM?

>
>
>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