Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Relative ages of LXX, DSS and proto-MT texts

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: phil-eng AT ighmail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Relative ages of LXX, DSS and proto-MT texts
  • Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 04:01:20 -0800

On 05/03/2004 23:52, Philip Engmann wrote:

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are discovered manuscripts from

Qumran, which date from around 168 BC to about 68 AD.[4]

4. So LXX is older than the DSS by about 100 years.



Date of oldest MSS: Large parts of the Hebrew Bible are preserved in the

DSS. Only a few scraps of the LXX are preserved; the earliest MSS of

substantial parts of the LXX are 4th-5th centuries CE if I remember rightly.


So the Hebrew text clearly wins on both comparisons of age, for what

it's worth.


The oldest witnesses to the LXX include a 2nd century BC fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BC fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).

http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/septuagint.html



Indeed - fragments or "scraps" as I mentioned before. Nothing to compare with the complete scrolls of biblical books in Hebrew found at Qumran.

I don't deny that LXX scrolls of complete books did exist in the last centuries BCE, and it is accidental that only fragments have been preserved. Hebrew scrolls of complete books also existed, and by accident have been better preserved. The point here is not priority but quality of evidence. I have already answered the question of priority by arguing that an original always has priority over a translation.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page