see alsoThis is an interesting paper. But in the first part there does seem to be one big assumption, that 2 Samuel 22 || Psalm 18 is a text "where the variants seem to be wholly or almost wholly due to the usual processes of scribal transmission." This is probably true of some of the variants e.g. the "was seen"/"flew" variant in v.11. But there is no argument at all to reject the alternative hypothesis, that most of these variants are due to deliberate editorial changes made when the psalm was incorporated into its current contexts. The DSS evidence reveals one more variant in v.49 (the one in v.48 is insignificant as a vowel mater is dropped), and the LXX evidence suggests simply that LXX L was translated carelessly or from a damaged text. And I assume that Clines has put his strongest examples in the main text. So the number of transmission variants worth considering falls from 177 to 2 - quite a significant improvement in the reliability of the text!
http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/biblst/DJACcurrres/WhatRemains.pdf
David J.A. Clines, What Remains of the Old Testament?Its Text and Language in a Postmodern Age
p. 18 B. The Language of the Hebrew Bible
p. 23 c. The Language of the Hebrew Bible in a Postmodern Age
At 14.42 01/10/03 -0400, you wrote:
>Why is it that Dahood's work on Psalms (Anchor, 1965!) is not impacting
>recent translations, commentaries, lexicons?
Elio Jucci
SETH - Semitica et Theologica
http://dobc.unipv.it/SETH/index.htm
"Ex magno amoris incendio tantus uirtutis decor in animo crescit ..."
(Richard Rolle, Incendium Amoris)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.