Wed Aug 7 15:17:35 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Aug  7 15:17:35 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA11107; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:15:32 -0400
Message-Id: <199608071814.MAA01562@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "Dave Washburn" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:11:12 -7
Subject: Re: Is 1:25
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1366

Tim McLay wrote in part:
> E. Tov wrote The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research as
> an introduction to this process. The work of Soisalon-Soininen, Anneli
> Aejmelaeus, Raija Sollamo, Tov, Ulrich, Greenspoon and others is providing
> the basis for using the LXX as a text-critical tool with confidence.  Others
> are working with other versions towards the same ends.  
> 
> So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a
> retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted
> variant rests on a solid reconstruction.  

I just finished reviewing Sollamo's "Repetition of the Possessive 
Pronoun in the Septuagint" for the online journal TC, and it seems to 
me that in the majority of cases in that book she says we can't know 
for sure whether the translator took some liberties or had a 
different vorlage.  I was quite impressed with her tentativeness at 
saying "this is what the translator's Hebrew text said;" in most 
cases it appears to be pretty much of an open question (I make this 
statement only regarding the specific passages in the Pentateuch that 
she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization).

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
I realize the beans have to be counted.  I just wish the
bean counters would quit counting their beans in my pocket.

Back