Jim West wrote:
Tendentiousness can only be asserted where we have firm evidence that Paul
had a particular version of the LXX. If we don't know what he's quoting,
its a bit presumptuous to call his quote tendentious.
That's an interesting point, Jim, but similarly inconclusive. Is it more
likely that Paul was walking and sailing around the Mediterranean with
chests-full or buckets-full of books from which he would pick and choose the
precise version of a verse or phrase that was most germane to his argument?
Or that he was altering a remembered verse here and there to make it fit his
arguments better? I think the latter is far more likely, and so have others
on Paul, though I'd have to dig to find them; it might have been in one of
the Donfried volumes. "Tendentious" does have perhaps too negative a
connotation. "Adaptive" would be more neutral.
It's exactly related to the practice of patristic citations. See Carroll
Osburn's "Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual
Criticism" (NovTest 47.4 (2005): 313-343. If you don't have it, let me
know. I just read it this last week or so. It's great at setting out
examples, and explaining just how really tricky it is to use patristic
citations for NT textual criticism. The same, I would say, applies to
establishing "the" OT text Paul was using based on Paul's citations.
Anyhow, have a read.
Kevin P. Edgecomb