Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

I am working on the generally accepted theory that LXX was translated 
in Alexandria in 3rd-2nd century BC. I think it is generally agreed 
that the Alexandrian Jews of this period were losing their Hebrew and 
speaking mostly Greek, and that is why the LXX translation had to be 
made. There are many cases in LXX where it seems that the translator 
misunderstood the Hebrew Vorlage. Does anyone seriously dispute this 
reconstruction?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: qumran (was ruth)
Author:  anku AT CelsiusTech.com.au at internet
Date:    09/05/1999 19:29


> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG [mailto:peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

> I suspect that the LXX translators (not native speakers of Hebrew and 
> working from a consonantal text) missed the nuances and read weyiqtol 
> for wayyiqtol. As for the Qumran commentary, its writers
> reinterpreted
> the Chaldeans as the Kittim or Romans, and so they had to reinterpret 
> the Hebrew text as entirely prophetic and future from Habbakuk's
> viewpoint.

Um...How do you know who the LXX translators were? And how do you know they 
were'nt native Hebrew speakers?

cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS 
Software Engineer
Celsius
 CelsiusTech
Endeavour House, Technology Park S.A. 5095
Phone :     +61 8 8343 3837 (Direct) Fax : +61 8 8343 3778 
Email :     anku AT celsiustech.com.au

"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, 
is the destruction of the truth."
    -- President Bill Clinton, during a
       speech at the University of
       Connecticut, 1995.

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.