tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post9152926732847206046..comments2024-03-24T20:54:32.756-07:00Comments on OTTC: A Blog for Old Testament Textual Criticism: Conjectural Emendations in the Older CommentariesDrew Longacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17654439701997039055noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post-20500720268092995292012-01-18T14:30:24.732-08:002012-01-18T14:30:24.732-08:00Interesting post! :) I definitely agree with Joshu...Interesting post! :) I definitely agree with Joshua 18:30. I argued the same in my thesis.<br /><br />2 Kings 9:4 is a much more difficult passage. Its text is definitely suspicious. Perhaps the LXX actually read a different Vorlage here, rather than simply being a translational attempt to remove the difficulty. It is possible (as per the NET Bible and NIV) that the second הנער arose by dittography. A good parallel difficulty would then be Jeremiah 51:3, which is clearly dittography. I don't think there would necessarily be a problem with an original apposition clarifying that the young man was the prophet, since Elisha is clearly sending a prophet.<br /><br />That said, I think you may be on to something. It is definitely the kind of text that would be glossed (the subject הנער almost begs further clarification). And it is most unlikely that the original would have such an expansive identification.Drew Longacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654439701997039055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7929925658996324223.post-10550878913607312892012-01-18T10:46:44.713-08:002012-01-18T10:46:44.713-08:00I propose a rather obviously needed emendation her...I propose a rather obviously needed emendation here:<br />http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-1-corinthians-1434-35-interpolation_17.htmlThe White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.com