Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Orion List Owner <msorion AT mscc.huji.ac.il>]

I would like to suggest that there are a number of instances in which the
text of the LXX is prefered (and dare I even say "superior") to the
readings in MT. The instances of which I speak do not imply an alternative
reading but suggest that the MT reading is erroneous (thus I dare say
"superior").

Off the top of my head I can think of Gen 47:21 where MT uses
"h(byr" [he moved], as opposed to the LXX "KATEDOULWSATO" which when
retroverted becomes "h(byd" [he enslaved]. If I am not mistaken the
Samatiran Pent also reflects the LXX rendition. In addition to this the
interchange between the "resh" and "daleth" is not uncommon in Hebrew as
the letters are very similar. The idea of Joseph enslaving the people
contextualy is also preferable to MT (this by the way produces a nice
literary twist where the Israelites first enslave the Egyptions before
becoming slaves themselves).

Though retroverting Greek texts into Hebrew in order to create prefered
readings seems like a precarious undertaking, you will find that using the
correct guidelines and caution will yield extremly
convincing results. Emanuel Tov's "Text Critical Use of the Septuagint in
Biblical Studies" is full of examples (more convincing than what I have
attempted above) of retroverted Greek text being superiour to MT.


.....D.Emanuel ;)  


On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 Numberup AT worldnet.att.net wrote:

> I would not think that any translation could better establish the original 
> text than
> Hebrew ones such as the MT and Isaiah Scroll.What the translations can show 
> is that
> there were some variations in ancient Hebrew texts (or text families) 
> accepted as
> authentic by certain groups at certain times.This does not necessarily make 
> such
> readings "superior" to the traditional or standard readings, just 
> alternatives.
> Sometimes, interesting alternatives.
> 
> You might find _The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, 
> and Eugene
> Ulrich to be helpful.
> 
> Solomon Landers
> 
> "Kevin L. Barney" wrote:
> 
> > I understand that the LXX of Isaiah is considered to be rather
> > periphrastic and developed; that it is largely concerned with adapting
> > Isaiah to issues and concerns of the translator's own time.My question
> > is, is it sufficient to deal only with Hebrew sources to establish the
> > text of Isaiah (esp. MT and 1QIsa(a))?Or are there places where the LXX
> > or other ancient versions do seem to establish the original text?Can
> > anyone give specific examples where the LXX or other ancient versional
> > evidence seems to be superior to the Hebrew?
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [msorion AT mscc.huji.ac.il]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>