Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Documentary Hypothesis - OT translations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Joe Baker <joebaker AT cygnus.uwa.edu.au>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Documentary Hypothesis - OT translations
  • Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:33:22 -0700

On 08/06/2004 16:49, Joe Baker wrote:

Hi Peter

Yes I was rushing and made a wide generalised and a mistake in the list of
the LXX "omissions".

I should have said that the LXX "omissions" in 1 Samuel 17-18 include
smaller units that make self contained stories (but I believe they once were
part of a single whole). These units are (with the correct listing)

17:12-31
17:41, 48b, 50
17:55-58
18;30, 17-19 (21b)
18:10-11, 12b, 29b


Thank you, Joe. This corrected and reordered list makes a bit more sense.

Now I put this forward in the context of the DH. Now, as you know, one of
the main argument of the DH approach is that one can divide the narrative
into its component sources. But one of the counter arguments of the other
side is that not one of these assumed original documents (in any form)
survives as an independent testament to separate sources.

So I put forward LXX 1 Samuel 17-18 and the LXX "omissions" (as reflected in
the MT version) as just such "original" sources - or rather the ancestor
manuscripts from which MT 1 Samuel 17-18 ultimately derived - which were
combined (cut, rearranged, pasted) during the Persian period. (And no I am
not saying that, overall, LXX 1 Samuel is superior to the MT version).

Like the DH we have two sources which were combined together. The retractor
did not use the full text of the LXX "omissions". What was include and
exclude was up to redactor. For example as you point out he did not include
the meeting of Saul and David or the moving of David to the battle front
(maybe because they were already adequately covered in the existing LXX
account). But on the other hand (maybe for dramatic purposes) he did include
parallel material, one such case caused a "double" killing of Goliath.


Well, if we take any random set of short extracts from a narrative, reorder them, and add material of our own invention, we can create a meaningful story, even if it is only a copy of the original one. So this argument tells us absolutely nothing.

The people who make such speculations have failed to appreciate that Hebrew narrative style is very different from that of modern historians, or even of Greeks. It is common to say things twice, repeating them from different perspectives. This kind of structure is common in the narratives of some modern cultures as well. Such repetitions are not signs of incompetent combination of sources by a redactor, but of the skill of a narrator according to the standards of his or her language and time.

As for why there are so many differences between LXX and MT in these passages, it is certainly possible that they go back to source differences. But there are many other possible interpretations. One is that the LXX translator was working with a corrupt or damaged Hebrew text - there are known to be many textual issues in the books of Samuel. The translator may have been hurrying at this point for some reason we don't know, and so accidentally or deliberately shortened the text. Or he or she may have been sensitive to the stylistic differences between Hebrew and Greek and so reorganised the story to avoid the repetition which modern scholars also find objectionable. Or at some time in the 600+ year period from the first translation of the LXX to the earliest existing MSS of most of it the Greek text (which certainly underwent major redaction of its own) may have been corrupted or deliberately shortened. Who knows? Maybe there is some evidence to help us decide between such things, but I have not seen it.

Like the DH the redactor may rearrange the narrative sequence of one or both
sources - see the above split. And he may also add a phrase to iron out
perceived inconsistencies in the different narratives - see the note on the
valley of Elah in 17:2 and the addition of 18:21b about a second chance to
marry another daughter (no where else is it even hinted that Merab was once
promised to David).



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




  • Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Documentary Hypothesis - OT translations, Peter Kirk, 06/09/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page