Subject: RE: Hos. 11:1

From: Curt Niccum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:47:24 -0500

Unfortunately this verse is not preserved in the extant, identified
manuscripts found at Qumran (both biblical mss and pesharim). 4QXII-g
contains a good portion of chapter 11 of Hosea but not this verse. The
manuscript is so poorly preserved (most of the text is illegible to the
naked eye). It is possible that with new photographing and imaging
techniques additional text will be deciphered. 

Jimmy's explanation involving palaeography and orthography is most plausible.

Curt Niccum

---

From: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:51:31 -0700

I've been working on a paper on Paul's use of Scripture, and his
apparent divergences from the known LXX text has come up in several
wriers, such as Koch and Stanley.  What I'm wondering about is this.  I
know from reading that there are actually multiple Old Greek
translations (Lucian, Symmachus, etc.).  What i'd like to know is, do
the differences, so far as they can be established ( a tricky business
in itself) suggest anything theologically?  Where I'm going with this is
I'm wondering (a non-TC issue) whether the choice of a given form of the
LXX, say by Paul, of proto-Lucianic (Cross) over Symmachus, or whatever,
cuold have been based on the theological tendenz of the translation.  

   I don't know if anyone has looked at this or if there's even enough
data to form a tentative opinion, but I thoght I'd ask.  I realize that
even establishing the text for one of these translators may be quite
difficult, and I'm not suggesting that choice explains all there is to
know about NT citation techniques (I actually find Stanley's conclusions
fairly compelling).  I'd be most interested vis-a-vis Luke-Acts, since
Luke-Acts and Scripture is the area of my dissertation.  Thanks.

Ken Litwak