Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

While this discussion probably belongs more properly on the TC list, 
I'd like to toss out a couple of observations:

> A few additional comments on this.
> 
> We need to shift our focus when moving from NT Textual criticism to a
> discussion of the relationship between the MT and LXX. The traditional
> approach with the NT is to make the goal of TC the recovery of the
> autographs. If you make that your goal with a book like Daniel you are
> certainly going to end up being frustrated.

Why?

> Ted's unspoken assumption seems to be that "Authority" resides with the
> autographs. When it comes to much of the OT,  one might be better off to
> think of "Authority" residing with canonicity, the autographs being somewhat
> of an unattainable target.

Unattainable by whose definition?  This is simply not the case.  And 
in some major circles, canonicity tends to be an open question as 
well.

> The study of the LXX/MT relationships has a lot of exegetical payoff other
> than the quest for the elusive "original text." Looking at how an LXX
> translator handled a Hebrew passage is like reading an ancient commentary on
> the Hebrew.

The original text isn't nearly as elusive as suggested, but I quite 
agree about looking at how a translator handled his Hebrew text.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to 
do with it.
                  -Emerson