Thank you for notifying us of this video. I had already seen it, and left some comment, to which I have just added more. You will see that I have somewhat against the costs and design of the current fascicles : we are poorly served when it comes to the publishing of academic works.
There are at least two questionable—or at least debatable—claims in the case study. First, Moster asserts without caveat or reservation that the DSS Ruth is older than LXX Ruth. That MAY be true, but given that the translation of the LXX is generally taken to have been completed ca. 130 BCE and that 4Q104 Ruth(a) is generally dated ca. 50 BCE, it has not at all clear that DSS Ruth necessarily predates LXX Ruth. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the Vorlage of DSS104 Ruth(a) predates the translation of Ruth into Greek does not validate the claim since the DSS themselves attest to a variety of text forms in circulation being regarded as authoritative in the last centuries BCE, and LXX Ruth may simply reflect a different Vorlage than that of the proto-MT.
Second, BHQ's explanation of the LXX Ruth reading as a "harm chron" is—at best—a conjecture since it assumes that the proto-MT was LXX Ruth’s Vorlage. While Occam's Razor suggests that "harm chron" may be a more parsimonious explanation than the alternatives, the pluriformity of DSS biblical texts, which frequently confirm readings found in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch against the proto-MT, not only demonstrates that the traditions represented in the various Vorlagen were accepted as authoritative in the period contemporaneous to the composition of the DSS, but that the textual tradition was significantly more fluid (“wild,” in Tov’s terms) than Occam’s Razor would lead one to believe.
Thank you for notifying us of this video. I had already seen it, and left some comment, to which I have just added more. You will see that I have somewhat against the costs and design of the current fascicles : we are poorly served when it comes to the publishing of academic works.
ReplyDeletesorry - forgot to add my name!
ReplyDeleteThere are at least two questionable—or at least debatable—claims in the case study. First, Moster asserts without caveat or reservation that the DSS Ruth is older than LXX Ruth. That MAY be true, but given that the translation of the LXX is generally taken to have been completed ca. 130 BCE and that 4Q104 Ruth(a) is generally dated ca. 50 BCE, it has not at all clear that DSS Ruth necessarily predates LXX Ruth. Even granting, for the sake of argument, that the Vorlage of DSS104 Ruth(a) predates the translation of Ruth into Greek does not validate the claim since the DSS themselves attest to a variety of text forms in circulation being regarded as authoritative in the last centuries BCE, and LXX Ruth may simply reflect a different Vorlage than that of the proto-MT.
ReplyDeleteSecond, BHQ's explanation of the LXX Ruth reading as a "harm chron" is—at best—a conjecture since it assumes that the proto-MT was LXX Ruth’s Vorlage. While Occam's Razor suggests that "harm chron" may be a more parsimonious explanation than the alternatives, the pluriformity of DSS biblical texts, which frequently confirm readings found in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch against the proto-MT, not only demonstrates that the traditions represented in the various Vorlagen were accepted as authoritative in the period contemporaneous to the composition of the DSS, but that the textual tradition was significantly more fluid (“wild,” in Tov’s terms) than Occam’s Razor would lead one to believe.