Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 2/12/05 4:12 PM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

> On 12/02/2005 21:09, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
> 
>> Job 38:26 lhm+yr (l-)rC l)-)y$ mdbr l)-)dM bw
>> 
>> Theodotian renders l)-)y$ and l)-)dM in Job 38:26 as
>> (ou ouc aner and (ou ouc anthropos.
>> 
>> I wonder if this accurately reflects an intended **semantic** distinction
>> between )y$ and )dM? ...
>> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the semantic significance in this passage, but LXX
> regularly (although  not  invariably) renders the male specific )Y$ as
> the male specific ANHR "man", and the gender generic )DM as the gender
> generic ANQRWPOS "person". So maybe the  translator is simply being
> sensibly consistent.

The text under consideration isn't found in the LXX-OG*, only in Theodotian.
Using Daniel-Theodotian as a sample I found only one )DM rendered as ANHR,
see DanielTh 8:16 and I wasn't able to find any examples of  )Y$ rendered by
ANQRWPOS.

However the LXX-OG is a different story. ANHR is used more consistently
than ANQRWPOS which is frequently found rendering )Y$. But ANQRWPOS does
favor )DM over )Y$.

Daniel-Theodotian isn't a big sample, but it does support the distinction
you point out.   

greetings,
Clay Bartholomew 

*OG (old greek)