3982RE: [lxx] Division of the books in the Septuagint
- Nov 1, 2013Dear Bob,
I won't be drawn into engaging an emeritus in argumentation. The transition from 1 to 2 Samuel is not preserved, and I rely on Cross' analysis of the handwriting, ink and leather material (and the papyrus adhering to a great deal of the 4QSama fragments) in assigning the corpus to a single work by a single hand. See DJD 17, 3 (Qumran Cave 4 12: 1-2 Samuel, Oxford, 2005 online at pluto.huji.ac.il/~tov). Furthermore, the beginning of 1 Samuel is not preserved, and a little bit of hoi polloi with the text is required to bring the beginning to the top of column 1. The end of 2 Samuel is also not preserved.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:23:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [lxx] Division of the books in the SeptuagintThank you, Andrew. I'm the one getting old (well, I guess we all are). I had forgotten the 4Q Sam\a material, which you have published in such detail (Brill, 2002). Is the transition from 1 Samuel to 2 Samuel preserved in the fragments, and if so, does it show any indication that a joining of two scrolls is being made? Is it possible to argue that the same copyist produced two scrolls, one of 1 Samuel and another in the same format of 2 Samuel? If not, would you want to argue that those "books" originated as one longish scroll in Hebrew, that was later divided? Or do you think two "original" scrolls were joined at some point very early in the transmission? (Obviously I haven't done my homework on this.) Very interesting!
On 10/31/2013 1:32 PM, andrew fincke wrote:
Forgive me, Bob!
I'm getting old. "So it is not a question of dividing -- the original productions were created in parts, each the length of the standard scroll" seems to be lacking something. Maybe the server censored some words or phrases. Furthermore, "So one might ask the question as to whether any edition of these materials ever treated the parts as a unity, abandoning the old distinctions?" is confusing. The distinctions - you said earlier - were an invention of the codex, so LATE. And I agree on the basis of the Dead Sea scroll 4QSama, which is - I assume - OLD in your frame of reference - and presents 1 and 2 Samuel as a single work. What, then, do you mean by "old distinctilons?"
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: kraft@...
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:07:03 -0400
> Subject: Re: [lxx] Division of ! the books in the Septuagint
> No, the four "books" of Samuel-Kings (aka "Kingdoms" in the Old Greek
> anthology) are not the same as the two "books" of Chronicles (aka
> "Paralipomena"). And the original question rests on a misunderstanding
> of ancient technology before the invention of the "codex" in the first
> century of the common era. The old Hebrew "books" began as scrolls, as
> did the translations into Greek. So it is not a question of dividing --
> the original productions were created in parts, each the length of the
> standard scroll. When "scriptural" scrolls were collected into the
> anthology we call Tanakh or Jewish Scriptures, or "Old Testament" or
> whatever, the old scrolls received separate names such as Samuel 1,
> Samuel 2, etc. So one might ask the question as to whether any edition
> of these materials ever treated the parts as a unity, abandoning the old
! > distinctions? I doubt it. Compare the same situation with almost any
> ancient text of any length, such as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, or
> Josephus' Antiquities and War, etc. The old scroll technology has left
> its mark, even if we fail to recognize it.
> Bob Kraft, UPenn Emeritus
> On 10/30/2013 3:59 PM, James wrote:
> > I think in the RC versions these bools are called Paralipomenon.
> > (Paraleipomenon; Libri Paralipomenon).
> > Two books of the Bible containing a summary of sacred history from Adam
> > to the end of the Captivity. The title Paralipomenon, books "of things
> > passed over", which, from the Septuagint, passed into the old Latin
> > Bible and thence into the Vulgate, is commonly taken to imply that they
> > supplement the narrative of the Books of Kings (otherwise known as I-II
> > Samuel and I-II Kings); but this explanation is hardly supported by the
> > contents! of the books, and does not account for the present participle.
> > The view of St. Jerome, who considers Paralipomenon as equivalent to
> > "epitome of the Old Testament", is probably the true one. The title
> > would accordingly denote that many things are passed over in these
> > books. The Hebrew title is Dibhere Hayyamim, "the acts of the days" or
> > "annals". In the Protestant, printed Hebrew, and many Catholic bibles,
> > they are entitled "Books of Chronicles".
> > James
> > .
> > On 10/30/2013 2:58 PM, RichardToplan@... wrote:
> >> The Hebrew bible originally had the books of Samuel I and II as one
> >> book and Kings I and II as one book. A certain Jewish custom is quoted
> >> in a work published in 1339. I saw an interesting explanation of that
> >> custom. However, it assumes the division of the book of Samuel into I> >> and II occurred after that date. I am interested if t he date the
> >> Septuagint divided it into two is known. The same question would be
> >> asked in reference to the Vulgate.
> Yahoo Groups Links
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> <*> To change settings via email:
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
> http://info.yahoo.com/leg! al/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>