Subject: Re: Is 1:25

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:11:12 -7

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.

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 16:18:27 -0400 (EDT)

> she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization).

Dave's review will appear shortly on the virtual pages of TC.  In an
article in JNSL 20 (1994) entitled "A Methodology for Using the Versions
in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," I proposed one model for
dealing with the problem of retroverting Greek and Latin texts back into
Hebrew.  In brief, I think that calling something a "literal translation" 
is not particularly helpful, since the translation can be very literal in
some regards (e.g., word order), only somewhat literal in other ways
(e.g., consistent rendering of Hebrew "stem" by a particular Greek voice),
and quite free in still other ways (e.g., the translation of
conjunctions).  It is important to determine how consistent the translator
was in rendering lexical items, word classes, grammatical categories,
segmentation (rendering compound words in the source language with
compound words in the target language), and word order.  Only then can one
judge the probability of making a valid retroversion in any specific case. 
However, I agree with Tim that a reasonably sure retroversion should be
given as much credence in text-critical decisions as a reading in the MT. 
A careful study of the translation technique of a particular version in a
particular book will help in determining which retroversions are
"reasonably sure." 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: george howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 11:09:47 EDT

In regard to LXX retroversions to Hebrew, another matter that needs to
be addressed is whether the Hebrew text we possess is corrupt. Often,
scholars turn to the Greek when the Hebrew is difficult to read or is
corrupt. But, when this happens, it is sometimes the case that the
Hebrew was difficult for the LXX translator as well. The Greek in these
instances is often little more than a guess on the part of the
translator. After all, he had to put something down for a translation.
Retroversions of the Greekin these cases are of little value in recovering
the original Hebrew text. How often does this occur? Ask yourself.  Do
you turn to the Greek  when the Hebrew is easy and good, or when it is
difficult to read or corrupt?
                                George Howard
                                UGA

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:57:46 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, george howard wrote:

> the original Hebrew text. 

This is a good point.  It is always important to ask if the reading of the
MT (or of the SP, or a Qumran scroll) could lie behind the Greek.  Tov's
discussion of these issues in _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in
Biblical Research_ is excellent.  Particularly when the Hebrew is
difficult is it pertinent to ask whether the Greek is a desperate 
attempt to render the Hebrew.  In these cases, conjecture becomes a viable 
possibility. 

> How often does this occur? Ask yourself.  Do

But should the only time we turn to the Greek be when the Hebrew is 
difficult?  A proper text-critical approach would be to read the Greek 
alongside the Hebrew all the time, not just when difficulties arise in 
the Hebrew text.  After all, Hebrew scribes could have smoothed over 
difficulties just as easily as Greek translators.

Jimmy Adair