[B-Greek] Did Munnich omit and why?
Litteral John
John.Litteral at Ashland.kyschools.us
Wed Dec 12 13:06:09 EST 2007
George,
I think the page number to Mongomery that I refered to is 347, but that is based upon what Sharon Pace Jeansonne has in her index. The quote you gave me is helpful, especially since I am at the moment looking into the ULAI whereas codex 967 reads WLAM. I am wondering if the Old Greek translator was translating from a text that read Elam-AILAM instead of OULAI since Ulai is a river of Elam-AILAM. Daniel 8:2 seems to verify that since that is what codex 967 has WLAM, CODEX 88 has AILAM, and Theodotion Aquila and Symmyachus has OULAI. Maybe it is a similar technique used by the LXX translator when he translated the Hebrew SHINAR into "Babylon", which is an accurate sense translation.
Thanks again George!
John Litteral
john.litteral at ashland.kyschools.us
________________________________
From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:32 PM
To: Litteral John; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Did Munnich omit and why?
I have Rahlfs but not the Göttingen, but Rahlfs does have it. I think many don't have the LXX even in Rahlfs' edition so I doubt you will get much response (perhaps from Albert). The NETS translation seems to reflect the section you are questioning. I took a look at Montgomery's ICC commentary and didn't happen to see any comment regarding the passage having been added later to conform to the Hebrew, but I did notice a comment with regard to Dan 8.3 which might be what you are remembering
Textually our passage reads very awkwardly with its repeated ‘seeing.’ Θ om. the first clause, ‘and I saw in the vision, and it was in my seeing,’ but Θ’s notorious habit of simplification of repetitions does not corroborate his text here. Both G and Θ om. the second ‘and I saw in the vision’; the tr. above follows this double evidence in bracketing the phrase, which is unnecessary. It is easy to propose more radical changes; Jahn would elide the whole of v. b with its ref. to the Ulai, which he thinks was introduced from v. 16 (but n.b. v. 3). Classical Heb. would have expressed the visionary character of the scene much more exactly (s. Note). This spiritual transportation has its parallel in Ezekiel’s removal to Jerusalem, Eze. 8, that of the seer to the desert in Rev. 17:3. For the motive of the river cf. perhaps Gen. 41:1, Eze. 1:1 (the Chebar), inf., 9:4, 12:5. For Shushan, Greek Susa (also Neh. 1:4 and Est.), the chief capital of the Pers. empire, s. Paton on Est. 1:2 (with full bibliography), also Behr., Dr., p. 125. Acc. to Meyer, GA 3, §15, Susa was known to the Greeks as well as to the Jews as the capital of the Pers. empire. The word translated ‘burg’ is appositive to ‘Shushan,’ following a common Aramaism, does not denote a part of the city, the idiom being the same as in the following ‘Elam the province’ (so literally). The word ‘province’ need not be taken in a technical political sense, cf. 3:2. The Ulai bears the same name in the Akk., is the Classical Eulaeus; it appears in the Syr. at Judith 1:6 for Gr. Hydaspes (= Choaspes?). Among the three streams near Susa the Ulai can best be identified with an artificial canal which connected the rivers Choaspes and Coprates and ran close by Susa; s. Behr., Dr., Cheyne, s.v. in EB, who give full reff. <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=311428207&.rand=aevsfcbg3fctt#_ftn1>
<http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=311428207&.rand=aevsfcbg3fctt#_ftnref1>
Montgomery, J. A. (1927). A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel. Includes indexes. (326). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Note, however, that he is stating that some think part of Dan 8.3 was introduced FROM Dan 8.16.
There is a sometimes active textual criticism list which you could join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
If your spam filter is catching e-mail you want to receive, I suggest that you put the group in your contacts.
george
gfsomsel
Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Litteral John <John.Litteral at Ashland.kyschools.us>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:39:06 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Did Munnich omit and why?
I realize that this is not a textual criticism forum, but I am unable to
get onto a good textual criticism list due to my filter. Hopefully I
can draw a little interest to this question. In the Old Greek version
of Daniel, I think Munnich has omitted a portion of Daniel 8:16 KAI
EKALESE KAI EIPE GABRIHL SUNETISON EKEINON THN ORASIN. Or I think he at
least put them into brackets. I have Zieglers edition of the Gottingen
so I am unsure about Munnich. All MS evidence supports it, but I do
know that J.A. Montgomery claims that it was added in by a later scribe
to comply with the Hebrew. I don't understand why, other than a few
just have a gut feeling about. Does anyone have any idea why this is
thought?
Thank you!
John Litteral
john.litteral at ashland.kyschools.us
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list