tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5068058014830393344..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Sated, or Sated with years?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90944354687441964632010-11-01T19:26:12.420-04:002010-11-01T19:26:12.420-04:00thanks. yes, that is more along the lines of what ...thanks. yes, that is more along the lines of what i meant.<br /><br />what i am imagining is a text *derived* in places from the Samaritan readings. not in its entirety, but in a number of sections or places. though not that careless duplicated the error, though this is something that could also occur.<br /><br />in other words, when making a copy of a text, a scribe seized one several vulgar texts that were floating around. and thus eventually there was a Hebrew text which stood behind the LXX which was derived, in all these places, eventually from a Samaritan text.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78877200089618696572010-11-01T19:17:34.672-04:002010-11-01T19:17:34.672-04:00>This means that the Hebrew text which stood be...>This means that the Hebrew text which stood behind the Greek LXX translation could well have been the Samaritan<br /><br />No, not the <i>Samaritan</i>. There's no Greek text with Har Gerizim. A Jewish text that agreed with the Samaritan. Although you can still posit that this text too was changed, by careless Jews, it wasn't by the Samaritans.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com