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

From: [email-masked] (U. Schmid)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:44:33 +0100

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,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:57:27 -0700 (PDT)

> or the King James Version to become what is considered to be "right".

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.  

  JIm Deardorff