Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

On 10/18/04 5:59 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

> I find this statement extremely surprising, almost the opposite of what
> I understood. I am away from reference books at the moment. Do you have
> any confirmation of this?
> 
> I accept that there are a few cases where LXX agrees with Sam against
> MT, but have a special significance because of their rarity, indicating
> an error in the MT. At least, that is how I understood the evidence.

Peter,

After the first complete ms. of SamPent was discovered (17th cent.) there
was some speculation that the LXX  might be a translation from the SamPent
but this idea lost favor after a more detailed examination of the data (see
H.B. Swete Intro OT Greek pp. 437-438). The SamPent and the LXX agree
against the MT in numerous* places. It is not rare.


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 
 
*I have seen the number 1900 tossed around but not from an authoritative
source. I don't have E.Tov on hand.