kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 10:36 pm
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 7:58 pm
So, BHS offers nothing at all. However, BHQ has the following textual note:
וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ α'-σ'-θ' V S T | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται. G (elus) | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑετός. GMss (dbl)
This tells us that the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum all agree with the reading as it appears in 𝔐, as do the readings in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (all Greek translations). The marking “G (elus)” means that the reading in G (that is, 𝔊) is elusive—it is difficult to explain based on the Hebrew text. This is for the first reading, which is the standard reading of the 𝔊. We see here that there are also multiple manuscripts of the 𝔊 tradition that duplicate the phrase and include the expression that there will be no rain upon them.
In the explanatory notes on the text, basically mirroring what we gathered from the textual note, the BHQ has this more direct comment:
וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ It is difficult to account for G’s rendering. The suggestion that הגשׁם has been misinterpreted in terms of √נגשׁ (compare Rudolph, Haggai/Sacharja/Maleachi, 233) is unlikely, since G never otherwise renders נגשׁ by προστιθέναι. See Jansma, Inquiry, 139. GMss add the equivalent of M after this reading.
Here they would counter Karl’s position that הגשם should somehow to be read as a verb form of the root נג״שׁ. They say that this position is unlikely.
Thanks, Jason, this is exactly the sort of information for which I was looking. You have sources which I don’t have, and they show that this whole thread was based on a falsehood. Jwmealy (whoever is he, he never signed his posts) basically denied that the sources to which you just referred, exist.
I wrote in my original post,
As far as I have discovered in my attempt at exhaustive research of secondary sources on this topic, no one has given a plausible account of how the Greek came from the Hebrew. I have analyzed the proposals of Köhler, Vollers, Lowe, Jansma, and Rudolph, and none of them suggests itself as at all probable.
Yeah, that Rudolph, and that Jansma.
This comment, very early in the discussion (
viewtopic.php?p=33887#p33887), which refers to the fact that I am writing technical journal article that is based on an attempt at "exhaustive research," names and critiques every scholar who suggests that the translator of G had M in front of him but read הגשׁם as some version of the verb נגשׁ׳. A little later I said,
the fact that no scholar has been able to come up with a plausible mechanism through which the LXX reading could have come directly from the MT text as we have it, or from something nearly identical, strongly suggests that the text on his scroll differed materially from the MT. I have written a technical paper that demonstrates this in detail, and I'd be happy to share it with you. If you like you can email me and I will send it to you as an attachment. webb at selftest dot net (@ for at, . for dot). Alternatively, if there is a way to upload files to this forum I will be glad to do that.
In response, Karl said,
You don’t need to show a whole article, all you need is to quote alternate readings found in other MSS. Anything else is mere speculation.
In other words, he refused to look at my article, excluding every form of evidence but Hebrew mss as "mere speculation."
If there is any appearance of falsehood in my writing it is not there because of any design on my part.
J. Webb Mealy, PhD (Biblical Studies, Sheffield)