Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 01/03/2004 06:59, Søren Holst wrote:

> I haven't followed this thread closely, sorry if I'm saying what's been said 
> already.
>
> The reading of kl )lhym in 4QDeut[q] is as clear as day (DJD 14, p. 141 - cf 
> plate 44).
>  

I'm glad to hear it.

> No other biblical Qumran text seems to preserve Deut 32,43, nor does it 
> (going by Dave Washburn's index) seem to be quoted in any nonbiblical text.
>
> The BHS lumps together LXX, Qumran and the epistle to the Hebrews in one note, saying that these sources add the 
> equivalent of "wehishtachawu lo (kol) 'elohim" (thus 4QDeut[j]) or "... beney 'el" (thus LXX and, 
> changing "huioi" to "angelloi", also Hebrews)
>  

Thank you. I understand better what BHS is saying, but it does confuse 
by back-translating LXX into Hebrew here against its normal practice of 
quoting the Greek.

> pardon the amateurish transcription
>
> kol tuv
> Soren, Copenhagen
>
>  


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