Subject: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1

From: "Matthew Anstey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:07:12 -0700

Gday everyone,

I am working at the moment part-time for SIL and we are using the
uncorrected proof of Ruth (BHQ) distributed at SBL last year for help with
our textual notes for a translations software package that SIL is
developing. I was curious as to why no note is attached to "peloniy
'almoniy" in Ruth 4.1 when I understand that the LXX, Targum, and Vulgate
 have quite different renderings of this phrase. If you could spare the time
to
 respond it would be much appreciated.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey
Regent College, Vancouver
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
on behalf of Summer Institute of Linguistics.
BART (Biblical Analysis and Research Tool) Software Development
Carl Follingstad, Coordinator  [[email-masked]]
Todd Hoatson, Programmer [[email-masked]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Lund, Jerome" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:54:50 -0400

The formal equivalents to the Hebrew expression reflect exegesis and do not
reflect a Hebrew variant. Thus, the editors would not record it.

> ----------
> From: 	Matthew Anstey[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Reply To: 	[email-masked]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, September 01, 1999 12:07 PM
> To: 	TC-List
> Subject: 	tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1
> 
> Gday everyone,
>