Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:26:55 +0100

On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, U. Schmid wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote:
>>
>> >Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the LXX is
>> >that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of Hebrew
>> >material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right."
>>
>> There is reason to doubt that the LXX, at least in pre-Christian and
>> early-Christian times ever gained the status of let's say the Latin Vulgate
>> or the King James Version to become what is considered to be "right".
>>
>> Ulrich Schmid,
>
>I give the external evidence that Matthew came out first, and was written
>in Aramaic/Hebrew, more weight than you do, Ulrich.  Thus I see the
>translator of Matthew into Greek as being another who made use of the LXX
>in his translation.

This simply has no bearing on the point I was making against your previous
suggestion regarding the LXX as something considered to be "right".
The issue of when and in which language Matthew (first) came out is not at
stake to my way of thinking.

Ulrich Schmid,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: lakr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT)

Dear TC'ers

To me, the most distinctive feature I have heard discussed concerning the
Shem Tob and the Du tillet is the use of the symbol for the divine name
in 19 locations.

Does anyone know if both manuscripts put that symbol in the same place or is
there variation ?

Concerning the theory that these manuscripts were translated from an
old latin Vorlage, how are these symbols accounted for ?  Do these
symbols appear in any Latin manuscripts ?

Sincerely,
Larry Kruper