From: Stevens, Charles C (Charles.Stevens@unisys.com)
Date: Tue Sep 07 1999 - 14:33:11 EDT
On 3 September 1999 at 10:10PM, Paul S. Dixon commented:
<< ... I knew there were discrepancies between the Masoretic Text and the
LXX, but this one seemed so bizarre. I checked Rahlfs, as well as the LXX
on Logos (Rahlfs?). They both had the same text, including PARANOMOS. The
LXX appears to be corrupt once again. ...>>
It seems to me that evidence from Qumran has given significant support for a
Hebrew original for a number of LXX differences from the MT, though it's not
clear that such Hebrew originals have (yet) been found in the case of the
passage at hand. Most of these differences were previously thought to have
been relatively late interpolations and adjustments made during the
development and transmissions of the Greek text; Qumran has shown that their
provenance is frequently much older than that.
Should all text in which the LXX differs from the MT be dismissed ab initio
as corruption? What credence should be given to a hypothetical Hebrew
original that is significantly older than our oldest MT-type text but
supports the LXX variant?
Perhaps more importantly, is the outright dismissal of such texts as
corrupt, when/if such dismissal is based solely on the texts' nonconformance
with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, appropriate to the atmosphere of B-Greek?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:38 EDT