Thu Apr 11 00:36:19 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr 11 00:36:19 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA08901; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:36:19 +0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Hebrew Bible TC
In-Reply-To: <960410113909_372721886@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1400
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> Micah 1:1 in the MT reads "devar YHWH asher hayah"; while the LXX has "kai
> egeneto logos kuriou".   Is it my imagination, or does the LXX seem to be
> stressing the idea that the word of the Lord happened, while MT seems to
> stress to whom it happened?


You are quite right in noticing the discrepency.  These represent two
common introduction formulae used for prophecies. 

For a few examples, compare the MT of Hosea 1:1, Zephaniah 1:1, and Joel
1:1, and you will see that they are all identical to Micah 1:1.  However
for each of these three, the LXX reads, "logos kuriou, hos egeneithei pros
PN". 

Now, if we look at the MT of Haggai 1:1, Ezekiel 1:3, and Ezekiel 3:16, we
see "hayah dvar YHWH" (or something close to it), and in every case it is 
rendered in LXX by "egeneto logos kuriou".

You're probably right to assume that the LXX translator had a different 
Vorlage of Micah before him than what we have in MT.

I'm not sure if I am entirely answering your question, because you also
seem to be asking whether or not these two varying formulae each had a
different force of meaning.  To be perfectly honest, I could see them 
occuring in free variation with very little difference in nuance, but I 
have not surveyed the uses of these formulae sufficiently to assert 
anything one way or the other.


Hope this helps,


andrew gross

Back