Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/09/2003 10:30, CS Bartholomew wrote:

> 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.
>  
OK. So, perhaps Philip's point is no more than the logical conclusion 
from Tov's 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.
>  
We don't know. But we can make a strong text critical argument, which 
Philip summarised as follows:

> In view of the word-for-word verbatim presentation of the MT and
> LXX, it is highly likely that the LXX was translated verbatim from the MT
> vorlage, i.e. the unpointed MT consonantal text.
This could have been justified at greater length, but it is not a 
requirement on this list that all postings are backed by rigorous proof.

>  
>
> > 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?
>  
Read any book on textual criticism. The change from )LHYM to ML)KYM (or 
vice versa) requires one addition (or deletion), one transposition and 
one improbable change of a letter all within one word. Such things just 
don't happen. Well, just possibly once, but not five times as listed below.

> 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
>  
Five times makes for a regular rendering, certainly not an accidental 
textual corruption.

> 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.
>  
Well, it just might do. Do you have any evidence that it did?

> greetings,
> Clay Bartholomew 
>
>
>
>
>  


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