From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Nov 11 1999 - 01:20:31 EST
>From: "clayton stirling bartholomew"
> Ex 15:11 a & b,
> TIS hOMOIOS SOI EN QEOIS, KURIE;
> TIS hOMOIOS SOI, DEDOXASMENOS IN hAGIOIS,
> The MT has baqodesh (singular) for IN hAGIOIS. This leads a lot of
> translators and some commentators to ignore the LXX reading which I
> think is a mistake. Frank Moore Cross states "qds is to be taken as a
> collective as suggested by J. T. Milik" and he sees support for this in
> the plural rendering hAGIOIS of the LXX.
> These two lines in the LXX give evidence that the Hebrew vorlage of the
> LXX was intended to be read as a parallel structure here. So rather than
> "majestic in holiness" (NIV, U. Cassuto) we might translate the MT
> "Majestic among the holy ones" (Everett Fox) or "terrible among the
> holy ones" (F.M. Cross).
There are other scholars who translate the MT here as "holy ones" and
uses the LXX as evidence for doing this.
I failed to mention C. Kloos' comments on this (Kloos, Carola. YhwhÕs
Combat with the Sea, E.J. Brill, 1986 page 129 n11) "The LXX and the
Syrohexapla have the plural 'holy ones'. E. Lipinski remarks that the
scribes must have suppressed the plural ending -m of qdsm, for
theological reasons. This seems a likely explanation -- although the
word 'lm which has been kept in the MT must have been just as
Kloos' last point is a good one. Those who have good memories might
recall that I was leveling a similar accusation at U. Cassuto in my
first post on this topic be later retracted it for several reasons. One
reason is that:
TIS hOMOIOS SOI EN QEOIS, KURIE;
is just as likely to be read with polytheistic overtones as
TIS hOMOIOS SOI, DEDOXASMENOS IN hAGIOIS
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:45 EDT