Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3430Re: [lxx] Amos 9:11-12

Expand Messages
  • Peter Papoutsis
    Jan 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      It is my understanding that there develoved three (3) different versions of the Hebrew Bible, and that the LXX was based off of the Hebrew Bible version that was used in Alexandria, Egypt. I could be wrong. However, I remember Dr. Bart Erhman talking about thios on one of his many appearances on the History Channel discussing the development of the text of the Hebrew Bible.

      Dr. Erhman stated that there was a Hebrew Bible Developed in Alexandria, Egypt, another that developed in Jerusalem, Palestine, and another version that developed in Babylon. The Dead Sea Scroll have confirmed that that the Septuagint is based off of a Hebrew Bible text that is NOT what we have currently in the Masoretic Text-Type. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed biblical readings that are neither in the Septuagint nor in the Masoretic Text-Type.

      This begs the question: What readings didn't make the cut and why for both the LXX and the Masoretic text?
       
      Peter A. Papoutsis




      ________________________________
      From: Dale & Yvonne Ogilvie <dale@...>
      To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 10:59:05 PM
      Subject: Re: [lxx] Amos 9:11-12

       
      Perhaps marked differences are due to the addition of different vowels
      to the same Hebrew word specified using only consonants?

      I vaguely remember that the Hebrew used to not have vowels, but perhaps
      I'm wrong.

      JavaJedi2 wrote:
      >
      >
      > I'm currently reading a book that deals with several citations in Acts
      > and the author surveys views of how the LXX of Amos 9:11-12 came t5o
      > be, given its significant differences from the known Hebrew text.
      > Apparently, most authors think that the LXX translation should be
      > explained in terms of changing the Hebrew into something else. Would
      > there be other examples in the LXX where an otherwise clear Hebrew
      > t4ext was so radically altered? In spite of opinion to the contrary, I
      > have to believe that the LXX is based on an unknown Hebrew text. I
      > know there are sometimes some "interesting" translations in Greek of
      > the Hebrew text but not this different.
      >
      > Ken
      >
      > _






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic