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

1442Re: [lxx] Lucian's LXX

Expand Messages
  • Robert Kraft
    Nov 8 3:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The designations are modern and arbitrary, based primarily on studies of the NT
      texts. According to UBS\4 (2001 printing) p. 19* "Byz = The reading of the
      Byzantine witnesses, i.e. the text of the great majority of all Greek manuscripts,
      especially of the second millennium." There is also Byz\pt/ = "One part of the
      Byzantine text when its witness is divided, i.e., in contrast to another part."
      Thus even in the presumably more homogeneous NT MSS, the situation is complex since
      it is rare to find single MSS that include the entire NT (a MS is more likely to
      have only one of the sub-collections: e = gospels, a = acts, c = general epistles,
      p = Paul, r = Revelation).

      Thus in the NT, according to my Nestle\20 intro, "the socalled Koine, i.e. the
      general recension used in Antioch and later in Constantinople ... is represented in
      the gospels by MSS EFGH, in Acts and the letters by HL [that's not the same H as in
      the gospels!], in the Apocalypse/Revelation by 046, as well as by the majority of
      later MSS." These types of texts were put together in the modern editions by
      Erasmus (1516ff), Elzevier (1633), etc., and came to be called "textus receptus."

      With the even more complex LXX/OG anthology, I don't think things "gelled" in quite
      the same manner. A century ago, Swete wrote as follows in his Intro to the OT in
      Greek: "No one of the rival recensions became dominant and traditional, as in the
      case of the NT; among the later MSS groups may be discerned which answer more or
      less certainly to this recension or to that, but the greater number of the cursives
      present a text which appears to be the result of mixture rather than of any
      conscious attempt to decide between the contending types" (p. 86). As Swete
      explains before this sentence, Jerome tried to standardize things in terms of
      Origen's Hexaplaric text, but "fortunately the task was beyond his strength, and
      MSS and versions still survive which represent more or less fully the three
      recensions of the fourth century. ... A fusion of texts arose which affected the
      greater part of the copies in varying proportions." As a scholar of texts, Swete is
      pleased that more standardization did not occur. Not everyone would share that
      judgment, perhaps, but it probably fairly describes the situation even today. To an
      extent, Rahlfs becomes the "textus receptus" for academic purposes at least.


      > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Wieland Willker wrote:
      > > 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?
      > >
      > > AND
      > >
      > > > The Byzantine text of the NT really supplanted everything else and
      > > > became the dominant text of the Byzantine empire. As far as I see it,
      > > > this was not the case with Lucian's LXX text.
      > > >
      > > > My question:
      > > > If only Lucian's Psalter became the official text of the Orthodox
      > > > church, what texttype is the rest of the Orthodox LXX text?
      > AND
      > > I would like to ask this once again: What is the texttype of the
      > > Majority text LXX?
      > My ca. 10 years of serious engagement with LXX texts and scholarship do
      > not permit me to make any sense of the phrase "Majority text LXX." Anyone
      > else here capable of processing Wieland's concept of a "Majority text
      > LXX?" If so, please jump in and alleviate the confusion.
      > And, by the way, here's my question to you "once again:" how did the
      > "Majority text NT" become a majority?
      > > From what I have read ("Invitation to the Septuagint" and "The
      > > Septuagint in Context") it seems that the Majority text is a derivative
      > > of Origen's 5th column of his Hexapla. Is this correct?
      > The phrase "Majority text" does not occur in my edition of Invitation to
      > the Septuagint. I therefore conclude that you've read it into the text.
      > I suggest you either 1) point out where you find this phrase (or, more
      > likely, something you consider to have its import) or 2) adjust your
      > understanding to better fit what Jobes and Silva are really writing about.
      > James
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

      Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
      227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic