Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Karl:

Thanks for your clarification.

Are you suggesting that in your consideration of the masoretic text, by
comparison with the septuagint, you take care not to cross the rubicon to
that section of the septuagint codices vaticanus, sinaiticus, etc., known as
the "new testament?" ....

Plenty, plenty hebrew words in the masoretic text are used in that other
portion of the septuagint. ... :)

regards,

fred burlingame

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:59 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
>  On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:39 PM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello Karl:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> Far be it from me to know the boundaries of discussion here. The second
>> post in this thread indicated the dead sea scrolls do not become discussed
>> here because of their mishnaic hebrew content. Apparently, a change in this
>> position has occurred since that post.
>>
>
> Oh no, no change in position. The DSS Biblical texts are discussed, but not
> the non-Biblical texts due to their Mishnaic Hebrew content.
>
>>
>> I would also think that the septuagint, widely accepted in academic
>> circles, would commonly become invoked here as a "rubbing stone" to test or
>> try ( נסה ) the masoretic text (its words, phrases, paragraphs, etc.). But
>> apparently, that is not the case.
>>
>
> The Septuagint is mentioned, mainly where it has a different meaning from
> the Masoretic text or where the reading can help elucidate the Hebrew text.
> But in general, I included, give greater weight to the Hebrew text than to
> any translation.
>
>>
>> I am, in any event, happy to follow the guidelines of the forum
>> moderators.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>