K Randolph wrote:The Hebrew variant that I saw does not support the LXX reading. It
> Why all this effort to support the LXX reading?
HH: It is also the Vulgate reading, which Jerome
did from the Hebrew. And the Syriac reading
apparently agrees with the LXX. And there are
Hebrew variants that do, one as old as the Dead
Sea Scrolls.
The next colon is not necessarily a parallel. I considered that, but
> After all, was not LXX written because people were forgetting Biblical
> Hebrew? This was not only true among the Greek speaking diaspora, but
> also among the Aramaic speaking Jews of Babylon and Judea / Galilee.
> Thus it is understandable that when the translators reached Psalm
> 22:17, seeing a word that they did not recognize, tried to say that it
> was KRH with an added aleph. But there is a root K)R that is extant
> not only here, but also in Akkadian and in Amos 8:8, so why not go
> with it?
HH: In Amos 8:8 it is apparently a defective form
for KY)R, as its parallel with KY)WR MRYM in the
next colon demonstrates, as well as the repetition
of the same phrase in 9:5.
Why not go one better, check your concordance and see how the word is
> By the way, KRH in Biblical Hebrew did not mean "to dig", rather "to
> provide (for)" which was often used, particularly in Genesis, in the
> context of providing wells for watering sheep when out in the
> pastures. True, digging was the means by which wells were provided,
> but the word is "provide".
HH: Check your lexicons.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.