Biblical Hebrew Forum

[CS Bartholomew <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

Peter,

On 9/27/03 2:42 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

> Perhaps Philip's point is no more than Tov's, that there is no evidence
> of any differences within Psalm 8 itself.

E.Tov isn't making any points. He is presenting evidence.

>You seem to read him as making
> a strong statement that there could not have been any.

Good point, his statement was ambiguous. He said:

>>>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]. 

Lets take a look at the "weak" reading of this, i.e. that the LXX vorlage of
Psalm 8:6[5] was identical in wording to the MT vorlage only in Psalm 8. Is
this not assuming what you need to prove? How do we know that the vorlage
behind aggelous reads elohim? Two very different MSS of any ancient document
can vary by only one word in any line, clause, stanza, or Psalm.

>  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. 

I am all ears, how are you going to explain it?

Aggeloi is not a typical gloss for )lhyM in the LXX. Here is some data to
work with. 


Psalms 8:6
m )lhyMpar aggelous

Psalms 97:7
)lhyM     hoi aggeloi autou [96.7]

Psalms 138:1
)lhyM     aggelon [137.1]

DanielLXX 2:11
)lhyN     aggelos

Job 20:15
)l aggelos

My only point is that we should not short circuit the textual question based
on the fact that Psalm 8 looks "pretty good" in the MT/LXX. The textual
question isn't at all obvious. Aggelous might represent a variant.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew