Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/06/2004 13:44, Philip Engmann wrote:

>  
>
> This does not follow. You have ignored the issue of the relative
>
> accuracy of transmission, and in the LXX case of translation, LXX
>
> Vorlage to attested text of LXX and proto-MT to attested text of MT.
>
> There is in fact good evidence of reliable transmission from proto-MT to
>
> attested MT but of considerable corruption, in translation or in
>
> copying, from LXX Vorlage to attested LXX.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> /How can one comment on the reliability or otherwise of the LXX 
> translation when the source text, i.e. the LXX Vorlage, is not extant?/
>
> / /
>
> /Philip Engmann /

I made it clear that we cannot now reliably distinguish between 
corruption in translation, corruption of the Vorlage, and corruption of 
the Greek text after translation. Nevertheless, there are some errors 
which are characteristic of translation (for example, translation of the 
wrong homonym), as well as some characteristic of corruption of the 
Vorlage and others of corruption of the Greek. I accept that the absence 
of the LXX Vorlage complicates the analysis, but it does not make it 
meaningless.

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