Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

I should clarify. The Semitic original
from which the LXX of Esther was translated
is the MT.  My work on Esther suggests that
another Semitic version of the Esther story
circulated along with the MT. This work (Proto A)
was not the basis of the LXX, but of the Greek A-text.
The similiarities between Proto-A and the MT suggest
a single Hebrew original behind both the MT and Proto-A.
I think this has implications for the rest of the LXX.

Even texts not in the MT, which were known for a long
time only in Greek,  are found to have had a Hebrew
origin with the discovery of the DSS.

Liz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisbeth S. Fried [mailto:lizfried AT umich.edu]
> Sent: Mon, November 12, 2001 8:52 AM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: Septuagint or Hebrew Original Bible ?
>
>
> I have made a study of the origin of the book of Esther
> ("Towards the Ur-Text of Esther," JSOT, 88, 2000: 49-57).
> The LXX of Esther (except for the Additions not in the MT)
> are a translation, not a paraphrase, of a Semitic original.
> The Additions were written originally in Greek.
> The work done on Esther should be applicable to the rest
> of the LXX. I would assume that the portions of the LXX
> which are in the MT are direct translations, not
> paraphrases. The portions not in the MT, the Additions,
> are probably Greek. The methodology used in Esther
> is not difficult to apply to the rest of the LXX.
> See the work of Michael Fox,_The Redaction of the Books
> of Esther_.
> Best,
> Liz
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Niels Peter Lemche [mailto:npl AT teol.ku.dk]
> > Sent: Mon, November 12, 2001 4:52 AM
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: SV: Septuagint or Hebrew Original Bible ?
> >
> >
> > Two different, however related issues: 1) the date of the LXX as
> > compared to
> > the BH, and 2) the original version of the books of the Bible (OT).
> >
> > ad 2) no doubt that the Hebrew version -- or some Hebrew version
> > -- predates
> > the LXX, although it is not totally correct to say that the LXX
> > paraphrases
> > the BH. It translates the Hebrew books, sometimes includes different
> > material and changes--maybe because of a different Vorlage, but
> > it is not a
> > paraphrasis of the kind found e.g. in the Targumim.
> >
> > ad 1) The collection of books in the LXX could predate the
> > collection of the
> > BH--as a collection. If we accept the LXX traditrion of
> Josephus/Aristeas
> > (which I may not personally do), the LXX was translated and put
> > together as
> > a collection in the 3rd century BCE. However, was there a HB
> already then?
> > Isn't it so that discussion has been going on for quite a
> while, claiming
> > the HB to be a collection of the 1st-2nd centuries C.E.--again as a
> > collection of preexisting books? If so, i.e. if we accept both
> theses, the
> > LXX as a collection will predate the BH as a collection. However, from a
> > scholarly point of view, I see several objections to this statement,
> > objections that has to do with the LXX legend.
> >
> > NPL
> >
> >
> > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > > Fra:      Walter Mattfeld [SMTP:mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com]
> > > Sendt:    12. november 2001 06:50
> > > Til:      Biblical Hebrew
> > > Emne:     Septuagint or Hebrew Original Bible ?
> > >
> > > Dear Clay,
> > >
> > > I have the book, Did Moses Speak Attic ? It DOES NOT address the claim
> > > that
> > > the Greek written Septuagint was the first bible and that the
> > Hebrew is a
> > > later version of a Greek original.
> > >
> > > From some cursory investigations into the Septuagint on my own, I note
> > > that
> > > many professional scholars who have studied the Septuagint have
> > noted that
> > > it does differ from the Hebrew text. But careful investigations and
> > > comparisons suggest that the Septuagint is a "paraphrasing"
> of a Hebrew
> > > original and not vice-a-versa.
> > >
> > > Grabbe's book, Did Moses Speak Attic ? is addressing a
> different issue,
> > > the
> > > proposals of Professors Lemche and Thompson that the Primary History
> > > (Genesis-2 Kings) came to be put together in Hasmonean times,
> which was
> > > then
> > > under the influence of a Hellenistic world.  Grabbe presents
> views both
> > > pro
> > > and con by various scholars investigating this proposal.
> > >
> > > All the best, Walter
> > >
> > > Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
> > > Walldorf by Heidelberg
> > > Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany
> > > www.bibleorigins.net
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lizfried AT umich.edu]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [lizfried AT umich.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.