Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 26/09/2003 22:54, CS Bartholomew wrote:

> On 9/26/03 9:21 PM, "CS Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > On 9/26/03 8:23 PM, "Philip" <phil-eng AT ighmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > A careful comparison of the MT against the LXX of Psalm 8:6[5] reveals an
> > > almost word-for-word verbatim presentation. It is highly unlikely that the
> > > LXX vorlage of Psalm 8:6[5] is different from the MT vorlage of Psalm
> > > 8:6[5]. 
> > >      
> > This does not follow. Two very different MSS of any ancient document can
> > vary by only one word in any line, clause, stanza. It isn't valid to draw
> > conclusions about the identity of the vorlage based on a data sample of this
> > size.
> >
> >    
>
> Lets assume, for the purpose of discussion only, that Psalm 7,8 and 9 were
> all part of the same MS used to translate the LXX. E.Tov's MT/LXX database
> doesn't report any pluses or minuses in Psalm 8, only a minor word order
> difference in Psa.8:8 eti de kai.
> ...
>  
Perhaps Philip's point is no more than Tov's, that there is no evidence 
of any differences within Psalm 8 itself. You seem to read him as making 
a stromg statement that there could not have been any. Of course we 
don't know that. We just know that there is no evidence that there was 
any. It is of course possible that the LXX Vorlage read mel'akim rather 
than 'elohim at this point, but that is an unlikely textual corruption, 
and the anomalous translation in LXX can more easily be explained in 
other ways. Perhaps Philip shouldn't have assumed that this isn't a 
textual issue, but then he may have thought that this was rather obvious.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/