:םיהלאל וידי ץירת שוכ םירצמ ינמ םינמשח ויתאי
ἥξουσιν πρέσβεις ἐξ Αἰγύπτου Αἰθιοπία προφθάσει χεῖρα αὐτῆς τῷ θεῷ
For readers keeping up with the commentary on Psalm 68, Suzanne McCarthy has written her Part 6: The heavens dripped (where she also kindly references the latest posts of others). I want to return to her Part 5: The barren woman, where Suzanne writes that “the psalmist” is a “she.”
Now Aristotle writes Psalm 68 in this way. We track his hand (through Alexander) and those (Greeks-and-Jews) re-forming Aristotle(-with-Moses-back-in-
1) for Aristotelianism (and likely for Aristotle himself):
- woman is a "botched" man
- rhetoric is "botched" logic
- translation is "botched" authority
but Aristotle cannot get around the rhetorical Helen, Hellenistic rhetoric, or their translation.
2) Is this too much of a stretch?
a) Why do the LXX translators begin Psalm 68 "with the finish" as with the final utterance (by the disciples' Hellenistic translation) on the cross?
b) Why do the LXX translators begin verse 2 with "ἀναστήτω" an imperative form of a verb used by Μωυσῆς (the alleged author of the book of Ἰησοῦς in Joshua 1 verse 2) for Moses and much more often for Joshua (i.e., Ἰησοῦς)? And why do the following disciples writing the New Testament use ἀναστὰς of Ἰησοῦς (i.e., resurrection of Jesus)?
c) Why do the LXX translators in Exodus 6:20 reference Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron, when the Masoretic Text omits her altogether? Could that name Μαριαμ hold significance for the later disciples translating into Hellenism the Aramaic Hebrew words of their master and the names of the women he was around, even the one he came from?