Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] LXX Vorlage (was OT Translations)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] LXX Vorlage (was OT Translations)
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:22:30 -0700

Philip Engmann wrote (partly quoting me):

1) 2 Samuel 8:12,13: MT 'RM, LXX IDUMAIA. (In this case there is some Hebrew MSS support for 'DM, plus Syriac support). The LXX reading is clearly based on a Vorlage 'DM, and confusion between dalet and resh is a well attested process.

So the LXX Vorlage has 'DM, and the Proto-MT has 'RM. But which one is
correct? In this case there is some Hebrew MSS support for the LXX
Vorlage, 'DM, plus Syriac support. So which reading is more likely to be
correct?


In this case, probably the LXX Vorlage. But my point is that we know that this is a Vorlage issue and not a translation issue.


2) Genesis 1:9: MT MQWM, pointed MAQOWM, LXX SUNAGWGHN. The easiest reconstruction here (as in BHS) is that the LXX Vorlage was MQWH, MIQWEH, which also makes sense in the context and is used in the next verse. MQWM and MQWH are plausible corruptions of one another, and we cannot be sure which was original.

Precisely my point. We have two ancient witnesses, the LXX Vorlage and
the Proto-MT; and where they disagree, we cannot be sure which was
original.


We have the LXX Vorlage in these two cases only because the nature of the difference between LXX and MT implies that the Vorlage can be reconstructed reliably. This is quite different from the Jonah 4:6,7,9,10 case (the one which *I* numbered (2), but you have ignored), where the error is clearly in translation, not in the Vorlage, and we cannot reconstruct the Vorlage except that we have no reason to think that it differs from MT.

So let's go back to your earlier questions:

1. How can one determine a corruption of the LXX Vorlage when it (the
LXX Vorlage) is not extant?


In the two cases above the LXX Vorlage is not extant, but it can be reliably reconstructed, and so the issue is the same as if it were extant.

2. Determining a corruption in translation is not clear to me when the
LXX Vorlage is not extant.


In the Jonah case the LXX Vorlage is again not extant, but it is clear that the error is in translation. Other cases of this would be where LXX has a proper name, properly transliterated from the Hebrew, where the Hebrew is not a proper name; or where the LXX has translated what could be a valid Hebrew word but is in fact being used in the Hebrew as a proper name. Again, the LXX Vorlage is demonstrably the same as MT, but the error is in translation.

As an example which cuts both ways, consider Hebrew (MT) L:BO' XAMAT, translated either "Lebo-Hamath" or "the entrance of Hamath". LXX sometimes transliterates in Judges 3:3, LOBWHMAQ or LABWEMAQ (Q = theta), but elsewhere translates in various ways e.g. Numbers 13:21 EISPOREUOMENWN EFAAQ cf. 34:8, Joshua 13:5 EISODOU EMAQ. It is obvious that the LXX Vorlage in each case is very similar to MT, and the difference between LXX renderings is because of different translation choices. We can tell this although the LXX Vorlage is not extant.

Of course there are cases which do not fall clearly into either of these categories, and a third category which I mentioned before of errors in transmission of the Greek. But it is useful to recognise that these categories exist and can sometimes be distinguished, when seeking to understand more complex situations.

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




  • [b-hebrew] LXX Vorlage (was OT Translations), Peter Kirk, 06/19/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page