<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: *Influence* Upon the New Testament
Review: I cannot help but recall something that Timothy McLay wrote in the conclusion of his book: Studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to "have cast a spell when it comes to understanding the background of the NT, while the LXX is too often ignored." Since I agreed with the sentiment of this, I looked forward to reading a book in which the author's intent was to show not only the use of the LXX in the NT but it's _influence_ as well. (Somewhere else I read an admonition to sell other books in order to buy a LXX. Was it Klein, 1987?)However most of McLay's book is not about LXX influence but about translation problems which he calls Translation Technique and abbreviates as TT because of his frequency of use. This is not easy reading for someone who has no interest in problems of translation. I think many readers will agree that a quote of the OG is not a sufficient proof of a citation. By the middle of the book when McLay lays the foundation of his TT, many readers may be bewildered by McLay's assertions that TT is primarily synchronic, accounts for langue and parole, is structural, and takes the source language as a point of departure. Only in a final chapter does McLay discuss use of the LXX in the NT. Here he concludes that the use of the LXX by the early church means that the LXX was recognized as Scripture, the LXX influenced the NT by giving it such terms as DOXA and KURIOS, the citation of the OG of Daniel 7.13 had an influence upon NT theology, etc. I think it is too bad that McLay did not spend more of his time on this type of subject matter rather than spending so much on problems of translation.
<< 1 >>
| 
