Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1434Re: [lxx] Lucian's LXX

Expand Messages
  • Andrew
    Nov 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear Wieland,
      Your question is very difficult to be explained with a few words. But I will provide you with some rough explanation of the history of the Lucian's text, being provoked by the incorrect (for me) statement that the Lucian's LXX recension failed to gain the same acceptance as his NT text.

      The rough explanation:
      Before the invention of the printing much of the Greek texts where corrupted. (But not All). In the time of Jerome (4 century) there were mainly three recensions. 1. The recension of Lucian produced in North Syria, Asia Minor, or Greece; 2. That of Hesychius, produced in the Delta or the valley of the Nile; 3. The Origen's Hexaplaric edition produced at Jerusalem or Caesarea. Thus, as the scholar of Bethlehem complains, the Christian world was divided between three opposing texts (As it is similarly today for both the New and the Old Testaments).

      Meanwhile the rising school of Antioch was not inactive in the field of Biblical revision. An Antiochian recession had in Jerome's time come to be known by the name of its supposed author, the martyr Luciana. Syrian revision of the Old Testament, which called for a knowledge of Hebrew, may have been due more especially to the Hebraist Dorotheus. Lucian, however, has the exclusive credit of the latter, and possibly was the originator of the entire work. If we may believe certain later writers, his revision of the LXX. was on a great scale, and equivalent. If the Lucianic revision of the LXX. was made under the influences which guided the Antiochian revision of the New Testament, we may expect to find the same general principles at work, modified to some extent by the relation of the LXX, to a Hebrew original, and by the circumstance that the Hebrew text current in Syria in the third century A.D. differed considerably from the text which lay before the Alexandrian translators. Field regard codd. 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 90, 93, 144, 147, 233 308 as presenting a more or less Lucianic text in the Prophets. Meanwhile, Lagarde had independently reached nearly the same result, so far as regards the historical books. He satisfied himself that codd. r9, 82, 93, ro8, rr8a, had sprung from a common archetype, the text of which was practically identical with that of the LXX. as quoted by Chrysostom, i.e., with the Antiochian text of the fourth century, which presumably was Lucianic. Lagarde proceeded to construct from these and other sources a provisional text of Lucian, but his death intercepted the work, and only the first volume of his Lucianic LXX. has appeared. Moreover, a revision which emanated from Antioch, the "ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople," would naturally take root in the soil of the Greek East. In all dioceses which felt the influences of those two great sees, the Lucianic LXX. doubtless furnished during the fourth and fifth centuries the prevalent text of the Greek Old Testament.

      The current versions:
      One hundred years ago, it was thought that the full with fundamental errors, (and never used) fourth century uncial manuscript known as Vaticanus reflected a neutral Septuagint text - neutral in the sense that it is relatively unaffected by Origen, Lucian and Hesychius' efforts. Alexandrinus was said to show signs of both Origen and Lucian's revisions. But the frequent correspondence between Alexandrinus and the New Testament suggested that it preserved a more ancient text. At that time, no firm judgment of Sinaiticus had been formed. In terms of printed editions of the Septuagint, the Complutensian Polyglot, printed in 1517, reflects the Lucianic recension to an extent, while the Aldine edition of 1519, the Hesychian. The Septuagint text of Sir Lawrence Brenton (1851) is based on Valpy's 1819 edition, which in turn depends upon the Sixtine edition of 1587. This last corresponds roughly with Vaticanus. The Swete's edition 1887 contains and compares in the footnotes all major manuscripts known to Swete in 1887, but it is evident that Swete had not in his possession the texts and MSS on which the text of the Complutensian Polyglots is based.

      My conclusion is that Lucian's LXX does not failed to gain the same acceptance as his NT text. But presented by the Complutension Polyglots' LXX the text of so called Lucian', Byzantine, or text of the Greek East, or Receptus rules :), being the most correct complete text of the Bible.

      Best wishes
      Andrew

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 13:27
      Subject: [lxx] Lucian's LXX


      On the Textualcriticism List the question came up, why Lucian's LXX
      recension failed to gain the same acceptance as his NT text (if one
      assumes for the record that this was the Byzantine text).
      My question to the list is: How widely spread was Lucian's LXX? What
      is the history of its distribution? I have read that the Psalter
      became the official text of the Orthodox church?

      Best wishes
          Wieland
             <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic