[b-hebrew] Are Ancient OT Translations Cited Complete?

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Thu Apr 26 08:23:28 EDT 2007


On 26/04/2007 12:48, Philip wrote:
> Dear Peter, (2 years later),  Are the other translations that you cite below complete manuscripts? or only fragments?
>    
> ... If we are looking at translations, why is only the LXX mentioned? It is   not the only ancient translation, although it may be the oldest. There   are for example a variety of Aramaic (= Targums) and Syriac versions, as   well as variant Greek texts, which deserve mention alongside the LXX.   The Latin Vulgate is also an important witness because it is known to   have been translated from the Hebrew long before the existing MT MSS.   There are also Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic etc translations to be   considered.      --   Peter Kirk
>
>   
Philip, I don't know if all of these ancient translations are complete 
for the whole Hebrew Bible. I'm not sure that there is a complete 
ancient Arabic translation, and I don't think there are complete Greek 
texts apart from what we know as LXX. But I understand Latin (Vulgate), 
Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian to be complete or 
essentially so, preserved by religious communities which continue to use 
them. None of these are "only fragments". Maybe others know the details 
better than me.

-- 
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter at qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list