[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Re: translation central
Many thanks to those who took the time to respond to my theoretical musings.
Richard Weis, Paul Flesher and Bob Kraft's comments have been very helpful,
along with many others.
The basic problems with my theory seem to melt down to two
1- the biblical mss at Qumran show that the Hebrew text is at least as old
as the greek text.
2- the greek text shows definite signs of being a translation.
Concerning the first objection- translation of a document deemed very
significant can and often does take place within a few years. This is true
now and seems to be within the pale of reality or at least possibility for
the period BCE as well.
About the second- I simply have grave difficulties with the thesis that a
document demonstrates "characteristics of being a translation". Are we to
assume that every wooden document written in a stilted, horrid, not very
grammatical style is a translation? If so, many third graders must be
translating documents written in greek!
My point is, stilted writing styles do not a translation make.
So- despite the objections raised, I still do not think that there is
anything impossible or even necessarily unlikely about the idea that the OT
documents were orignially composed in Greek and later translated into
Hebrew. But I am very interested in learning otherwise.
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology