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

Re: tc-list priority

Expand Messages
  • John Hill
    ... Jim, I m not aware of a current scholarly debate over the whole of the MT and LXX. I can only think of the well-known issue that is alive and kicking in
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 7, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      At 12:27 07-12-97 -0500, Jim West wrote:
      >Colleagues,
      >
      >mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has anyone
      >ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually the
      >older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews in
      >Palestine?

      Jim,
      I'm not aware of a current scholarly debate over the whole of the MT and
      LXX. I can only think of the well-known issue that is alive and kicking in
      Jeremiah scholarship about the relationship between the MT and LXX textual
      traditions, where there is a school of thought that maintains a priority of
      the LXX over our MT. The thesis is that our LXX is closer to the earliest
      Hebrew Vorlage of the book than our present MT. I'm not aware of a similar
      debate over the relationship between LXX Samuel and MT Samuel. I mention
      Samuel together with Jeremiah because the differences between the MT and
      LXX traditions is quite extensive - in Jeremiah the MT is about one-eight
      longer and has a different order.
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... Sounds like an argument that would come from Copenhagen (g). I would think that the obviousness of translational over compositional Greek would make that
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 7, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim West wrote:

        > Colleagues,
        >
        > mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has
        > anyone
        > ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually
        > the
        > older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews
        > in
        > Palestine?

        Sounds like an argument that would come from Copenhagen (g).
        I would think that the obviousness of translational over compositional
        Greek would make that position very difficult.

        Jack

        --
        D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
        Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


        http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium
      • Dr Johann Cook
        ... In respect of Samuel there are indeed scholars who argue that the Vorlage of LXX is closer to some Qumran fragments and that it represents older Hebrew
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 8, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          > Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:25:41 +1100
          > To: tc-list@...
          > From: John Hill <jhill@...>
          > Subject: Re: tc-list priority
          > Reply-to: tc-list@...

          > At 12:27 07-12-97 -0500, Jim West wrote:
          > >Colleagues,
          > >
          > >mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has anyone
          > >ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually the
          > >older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews in
          > >Palestine?
          >
          > Jim,
          > I'm not aware of a current scholarly debate over the whole of the MT and
          > LXX. I can only think of the well-known issue that is alive and kicking in
          > Jeremiah scholarship about the relationship between the MT and LXX textual
          > traditions, where there is a school of thought that maintains a priority of
          > the LXX over our MT. The thesis is that our LXX is closer to the earliest
          > Hebrew Vorlage of the book than our present MT. I'm not aware of a similar
          > debate over the relationship between LXX Samuel and MT Samuel. I mention
          > Samuel together with Jeremiah because the differences between the MT and
          > LXX traditions is quite extensive - in Jeremiah the MT is about one-eight
          > longer and has a different order.

          In respect of Samuel there are indeed scholars who argue that the
          Vorlage of LXX is closer to some Qumran fragments and that it
          represents older Hebrew Vorlagen. This is obviously a difficult
          issue. The text-critical value of any given version must naturally
          first of all be determined before an answer of some value may be
          suggested. It does also pay to hold on to the given that individual
          translation units should be treated separately. What would hold for
          LXX Jeremiah needs not automatically be true of Samuel. I have just
          published a book in the series VTS no 69 at Brill concerning LXX Proverbs
          where I argue that the difference in the order of some of the final
          chapters in LXX compared to MT is the result of the translator and
          not of a deviating Hebrew parent text. I do, nevertheless, suspect
          that in LXX Jeremiah, where a more literal translation technique was
          followed by the translator, different Hebrew Vorlagen are possible.

          Johann Cook

          >
          Prof. Johann Cook
          Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
          University of Stellenbosch
          7600 Stellenbosch
          SOUTH AFRICA
          tel 22-21-8083207
          fax: 22-21-8083480
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.