b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Re: [b-hebrew] aph

From: Jonathan Walther <krooger AT debian.org>
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] aph
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:29:58 -0800

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 04:03:03PM -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:

Only one LXX, or the majority of extant LXX? Have any Hebrew
manuscripts of the scriptures (besides the Qumran) been found yet that
predate the earliest copies of LXX?

There are no older MSS (besides the ones which are older). So don't try to use this as an argument for the priority of the LXX.

I didn't make that argument, and didn't intend to. I honestly want to
know, are there any Hebrew mss of equal antiquity to the LXX, that are
more supportive of the Masoretic than of the LXX translation? The
Qumran mss are reputed by some scholars to agree with LXX ten times more
often than with the Masoretic. Are those scholars wrong?

Jonathan

--
Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)
Website: http://reactor-core.org

[b-hebrew] aph, Rudy Ruiz, 02/21/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Harold R. Holmyard III, 02/21/2004
  - Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Jonathan Walther, 02/21/2004
    - [b-hebrew] aph, Harold R. Holmyard III, 02/21/2004
    - Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Peter Kirk, 02/21/2004
      - Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Jonathan Walther, 02/22/2004
        
        [b-hebrew] Qumran agreement with LXX and MT, was: aph, Peter Kirk, 02/22/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Yigal Levin, 02/21/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Ben and Jo Crick, 02/21/2004
  - Re: [b-hebrew] aph, Yigal Levin, 02/22/2004