Date: Tue Aug 24 1999 - 19:12:29 EDT
> The Gottingen volume for Deuteronomy has hUIWN QEOU in Deut. 32:8.
Do you happen to know what the manuscript evidence is for this reading? <<
Yes. The reading hUIWN is supported by the oldest Greek witness to
Deuteronomy, P. Fuad 266 (Rahlfs 848), the Armenian version, Origen, Justin
Martyr and some late minuscules (such as 106 [16th century]). Minuscule 58
(12th century) reads hUIOUS. There are a host of late minuscules that contain
some form of "sons of Israel."
John Wevers (the editor of the Gottingen volume for Deuteronomy (and other
books), writes: "Presumably these 'sons of God' were the same as the SYNAGWGH
QEWN in whose midst God makes judgement, Ps 81:1. It is not surprising that
the tradition almost unanimously changed hUIWN to ANGELWN, but 848 does read
hUIWN, and the reading is assured" (John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text
of Deuteronomy [SBLSCSS 39; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1995], 513).
It might be useful for you and others considering this text to take note of
the LXX tradition surrounding Deut. 32:43, also.
Regarding your off-topic remarks, I have only a couple things to say, and I
will leave it at that:
On the off topic theological issue which we cannot discuss here on
b-greek, the names of P. Sanders, F.M. Cross and M. Pope . . . all
represent the same school of thought (broadly speaking) being espoused
by Hershel Shanks. These folks are going to force all this data into
their historical model and make it fit one way or another. I could
without much difficulty add another dozen well known names to this list
since this school of thought is the dominate one in the secular academy.
A list of well know scholars does not settle anything really. Just shows
you how much "group think" there is in the academic world.
If one approaches the same data with a different theoretical model then
the arguments put forth by these major scholars do not hang together at
all. It is all a matter of presuppositions which is what Carl has been
telling us all along and it is what we don't argue about metaphysics on
Thanks again for your help on this. It is appreciated.
You are welcome. My approach is to simply take notice of the arguments put
forth by those who study the issues. I do not accept what anyone says because
of what they say or because they belong to a particular school of thought. I
look at the historical, linguistic, textual, contextual and other relevant
arguments, and go from there.
The circumstances informing these arguments, to me, are really not that
important, since an analysis of the arguments themselves will tell me whether
they are right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:36 EDT