I just wish to make a small clarification.Thank you for the clarification. I could have written "the LXX was translated from the proto-MT" - with the exceptions that I went on to note. More specifically, I could have written "the LXX was translated from a text essentially identical to the consonants of the MT". The existence of such a text is attested at least back to the 1-2 centuries BCE. Also, although the vocalisation of the MT was not written down in full detail until many centuries CE, there are good indications that that vocalisation was well known and transmitted by oral tradition from BCE times. I could even claim that the vocalised MT did exist from these times, but unwritten.
The MT was pointed from the 5th -10th Centuries AD.
The LXX was translated from its Hebrew parent text into Greek in the
period, 3 BC to 3 AD.
So the LXX was in existence before the MT by at least 200 years.
So the LXX could not have been translated from the MT.
The LXX was translated from a Hebrew parent text.
This LXX Hebrew parent text sometimes differed from the MT parent-text,
i.e. the proto-MT, and sometimes agreed with it.
Thank you.
Philip Engmann
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.