harold marcus wiener
What readers are saying
What do you think? Write your own comment on this book!
write a commentWhat readers are saying
What do you think? Write your own comment on this author!
write a commentBook list
studies in the septuagintal span classsearchtermtextsspan of leviticus
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4.5/5
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
pentateuchal studies
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4/5
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Ill THE DATlNG OF GENESlS XXll [From the i'lhliotheca Sacra, April, 1910.] One of the oldest critical arguments is furnished by the proverb in Genesis xxii. which appears to refer to the Temple mountain. If so, the chapter could not be earlier than the time of Solomon. This rests on two points " the land of Mo- riah " in verse 2, and the wording of the proverb itself in verse 14. Textual criticism disposes of both these points. The word " Moriah " is notoriously corrupt. A land of Moriah is quite unknown, and the ancient authorities all differ from the Massoretic text. The SamaVitan has nNTion, the LXX Tijv infrrjijv, Aquila rrjv Karafa.vfj, Symmachus Tt oirrafft'as, the Vulgate visionis. These variants abundantly attest corruption, but offer no help to the true text. The Syriac, however, has a much more probable reading, " the land of the Amorite," and this seems to be correct. The proverb itself is rendered by the LXX ev ry opei icvpios tof0T), which may be translated, " In the Mount the Lord was seen," though, if the aor;st is gnomic, it would be more correct to translate " is seen." Apart from the tense, which is doubtful, this rendering does not postulate a different Hebrew consonantal text from the Massoretic. It is merely a question of vowel-points. This Septuagintal reading arrests attention for two reasons. We may be sure that, however we may interpret it, the expression " the Lord was seen " would rightly or wrongly be regarded as an anthropomorphism by many readers. It is wellknown that the Septuagintal translators avoided anthropomorphisms. "A dogmatic interest," says Dr. Swete, " has been detected in some of these paraphrastic renderings, chiefly where the LXX have endeavoured to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the original; examples are most frequent in ...
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
essays in pentateuchal criticism
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4.5/5
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: or determining criterion: in xvi. the use of the Tetragrammaton in verse 2 compels Mr. Carpenter to wrench Ib and 2 from a P context and assign them to J; in xix., verse 29 is torn from a J chapter in which it fits perfectly, to be given to P; in xx. the last verse is assigned to a redactor, though all the rest of the chapter goes to E, and the verse is required for the explanation of 17; in xxii., verses 14-18 go to redactors because the story is assigned to E (a redactor being responsible for the Tetragrammaton in 11). An even more flagrant instance occurs in xxviii. 21, where Mr. Carpenter is compelled to scoop out the words " and the Lord will be my God " and assign them to J, the beginning and end of the verse going to E. What manner of man was this redactor who constructed a narrative on these strange principles? In xxxi., verse 3 has to go to a redactor because the preceding and subsequent verses belong to E; yet that gentleman actually postulates the redactor's work by referring to the statement of 3 in verse 5. However, he receives compensation in xxxii., where verse 30 is wrenched from a J context for his enrichment, though verse 31 (J) cannot be understood without it. During the later chapters there are no instances, because the Tetragrammaton occurs in Genesis only once after xxxix. 23, so that " a peculiar revision " has to be postulated to justify the analysis during the remainder of the book. It must be remembered further that we have confined ourselves to flagrant cases where the Divine appellations are the sole or determining criterion: there are others where it is one of the criteria (e.g. the assignment of v. 29, the division of the flood story). It will be felt that the critics must have been very hard up for something to believe before they credited such th... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
Book list
studies in the septuagintal span classsearchtermtextsspan of leviticus
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4.5/5
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
pentateuchal studies
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4/5
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Ill THE DATlNG OF GENESlS XXll [From the i'lhliotheca Sacra, April, 1910.] One of the oldest critical arguments is furnished by the proverb in Genesis xxii. which appears to refer to the Temple mountain. If so, the chapter could not be earlier than the time of Solomon. This rests on two points " the land of Mo- riah " in verse 2, and the wording of the proverb itself in verse 14. Textual criticism disposes of both these points. The word " Moriah " is notoriously corrupt. A land of Moriah is quite unknown, and the ancient authorities all differ from the Massoretic text. The SamaVitan has nNTion, the LXX Tijv infrrjijv, Aquila rrjv Karafa.vfj, Symmachus Tt oirrafft'as, the Vulgate visionis. These variants abundantly attest corruption, but offer no help to the true text. The Syriac, however, has a much more probable reading, " the land of the Amorite," and this seems to be correct. The proverb itself is rendered by the LXX ev ry opei icvpios tof0T), which may be translated, " In the Mount the Lord was seen," though, if the aor;st is gnomic, it would be more correct to translate " is seen." Apart from the tense, which is doubtful, this rendering does not postulate a different Hebrew consonantal text from the Massoretic. It is merely a question of vowel-points. This Septuagintal reading arrests attention for two reasons. We may be sure that, however we may interpret it, the expression " the Lord was seen " would rightly or wrongly be regarded as an anthropomorphism by many readers. It is wellknown that the Septuagintal translators avoided anthropomorphisms. "A dogmatic interest," says Dr. Swete, " has been detected in some of these paraphrastic renderings, chiefly where the LXX have endeavoured to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the original; examples are most frequent in ...
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
essays in pentateuchal criticism
Series:
Unknown
Year:
Unknown
Raiting:
4.5/5
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: or determining criterion: in xvi. the use of the Tetragrammaton in verse 2 compels Mr. Carpenter to wrench Ib and 2 from a P context and assign them to J; in xix., verse 29 is torn from a J chapter in which it fits perfectly, to be given to P; in xx. the last verse is assigned to a redactor, though all the rest of the chapter goes to E, and the verse is required for the explanation of 17; in xxii., verses 14-18 go to redactors because the story is assigned to E (a redactor being responsible for the Tetragrammaton in 11). An even more flagrant instance occurs in xxviii. 21, where Mr. Carpenter is compelled to scoop out the words " and the Lord will be my God " and assign them to J, the beginning and end of the verse going to E. What manner of man was this redactor who constructed a narrative on these strange principles? In xxxi., verse 3 has to go to a redactor because the preceding and subsequent verses belong to E; yet that gentleman actually postulates the redactor's work by referring to the statement of 3 in verse 5. However, he receives compensation in xxxii., where verse 30 is wrenched from a J context for his enrichment, though verse 31 (J) cannot be understood without it. During the later chapters there are no instances, because the Tetragrammaton occurs in Genesis only once after xxxix. 23, so that " a peculiar revision " has to be postulated to justify the analysis during the remainder of the book. It must be remembered further that we have confined ourselves to flagrant cases where the Divine appellations are the sole or determining criterion: there are others where it is one of the criteria (e.g. the assignment of v. 29, the division of the flood story). It will be felt that the critics must have been very hard up for something to believe before they credited such th... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.
Show more
add to favoritesadd In favorites
What readers are saying
What do you think? Write your own comment on this author!
write a commentif you like harold marcus wiener try:
readers also enjoyed
What readers are saying
What do you think? Write your own comment on this author!
write a commentGenre
if you like harold marcus wiener try:
readers also enjoyed
Do you want to exchange books? It’s EASY!
Get registered and find other users who want to give their favourite books to good hands!
