Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Schmuel wrote:

> > HH: Klein does not use the words "rigging" or
> > "smoothing,"
>
> Schmuel True. He uses the word "insertion".

HH: An insertion does not have to imply a
deliberate intention to alter the text the way the
words "rigging" and "smoothing" do.


> Either way it was a major blunder in the Greek
> OT directly related to the New Testament text, 
> which is the basic issue at hand.

HH: As I explained before, changing one hundred
verses or so in the LXX to match the NT is not a
blunder but a deliberate policy, for it calls for
too many changes to be a mere blunder, it seems.


> Your welcome.  Of course it does support direct
> NT influence on the Greek OT, as does the
> Cainan example.

HH: The example in the Psalms shows NT influence 
on the Septuagint.

> The 'massive conclusions' are
> based on a number of factor, not least of which
> is the general orphan status of the late Greek
> OT readings.

HH: What are you talking about besides this 
example? And even here in Psalm 14, the reading is 
attested in texts of other languages, so I am 
unclear about your use of the term "orphan." The 
Psalm 14 LXX plus is judged not to be the original 
reading, if that is what you mean.

>  That is a huge textual
> difficulty.  Combined with the huge
> difficulties in trying to place a Greek text in
> the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ in Israel or
> even as the basis of the apostolic writings
> about the 1st century events in Israel.  One
> problem is that you actually have to change the
> words that Jesus would have spoken, unless you
> have a theory that he read from a Greek text,
> even in the Temple !

HH: The question of whether Jesus spoke Greek is 
unsettled, but the NT is in Greek, so naturally it 
might refer to the Greek OT for Bible quotes. If 
Jesus spoke Aramaic, then none of the Greek words 
reflect his very words.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard