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

Re: [lxx] use of LXX in NT

Expand Messages
  • Steve Puluka
    ... Steven, What you are describing is not a redaction. A redaction is the process of editing a version of a text as a whole. Jobes does review the two major
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Steven Avery wrote:
      >
      > Could you indicate whether Karen Jobes and Moises Silva give any
      > substantial consideration to theories of LXX redaction to match the NT
      > text in that section (as is often viewed to be the case in Cainan of Luke 3:36).

      Steven,

      What you are describing is not a redaction. A redaction is the process
      of editing a version of a text as a whole. Jobes does review the two
      major redaction arrangements proposed in chapter four.

      What you are discussing is part of what text criticism calls "scribal
      habits." In this case, it would be a tendancy to harmonize the texts
      you copy to be the same, using one to "correct" another. This is a
      general problem in text transmission, not something particular to LXX
      studies. This is basically a "correction" process NOT a redaction process.

      The chapter on the relationship of the LXX and the NT in Jobes is a very
      good overview of the issues and has a number of follow-up references.

      --
      Steve Puluka
      Masters Student, SS Cyril & Methodius Seminary
      Cantor, Holy Ghost Church, Mckees Rocks PA
      http://www.puluka.com
    • Schmuel
      Hi XX folks, ... Steven Puluka, ... Schmuel Thank you. I was using redact in the sense of a deliberate grouped or related set of revisions, but tis true that
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi XX folks,

        >Steven Avery wrote:
        >> Could you indicate whether Karen Jobes and Moises Silva give any
        >> substantial consideration to theories of LXX redaction to match the NT
        >> text in that section (as is often viewed to be the case in Cainan of Luke 3:36).

        Steven Puluka,
        >What you are describing is not a redaction. A redaction is the process
        >of editing a version of a text as a whole.

        Schmuel
        Thank you. I was using redact in the sense of a deliberate grouped or related
        set of revisions, but tis true that the word is usually assigned to the full revision
        process rather than elements thereof. I will be more careful in the future :-)

        My question is whether Karen Jobe and Moses Silva discuss the possibility
        that a number of verses in the Greek OT would have been edited and revised
        specifically to smooth and match the NT. As I mentioned, I have seen scholars
        discuss this with individual verses (e.g. Cainan) but generally not in the overall
        sense.

        Steven Puluka
        >Jobes does review the two major redaction arrangements proposed in chapter four.

        Schmuel
        I understand they are many texts and recensions involved in most theories of the
        Greek OT, that is somewhat of a separate question from mine.

        Steven Puluka
        >What you are discussing is part of what text criticism calls "scribal
        >habits." In this case, it would be a tendancy to harmonize the texts
        >you copy to be the same, using one to "correct" another. This is a
        >general problem in text transmission, not something particular to LXX
        >studies. This is basically a "correction" process NOT a redaction process.

        Schmuel
        I would have to disagree here. If the later Greek OT added "Cainan" because
        the NT text had the word (seeking to eliminate a supposed disharmony between
        the OT and NT) , without any earlier Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic Tanach support
        whatsoever, I feel it would be a misnomer and misleading to call this a "correction".
        It is a revision of the text, not a correction.

        Steven Puluka,
        >The chapter on the relationship of the LXX and the NT in Jobes is a very
        >good overview of the issues and has a number of follow-up references.

        Schmuel
        Thank you. My question still stands. Do they discuss in that chapter any
        theory of specific revisions of the Greek OT text to match the NT ?

        e,g. Is Cainan mentioned as possibly a revision of the later Greek OT in the Genesis 11:12
        text to match the Greek NT of Luke 3:36 ?

        e.g. John Gill says
        "it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there..... put into the Septuagint to give it authority"

        My understanding is that the early Greek OT, especially Aleph and B, do not have Cainan.
        Therefore, if Gill is correct, Cainan was inserted (not "corrected") in later Greek OT by doctrinal 'harmonistic' revision tendencies, not as a textual correction.

        Is that type of discussion, of possible Greek OT revisions to match NT,
        absent from the Jobes/Silva book ?

        And if it is included, are there other similar possible verse revisions discussed ?

        I realize I could probably run over to the Queens College library, or a local theological
        library, and peruse the book some. That may be best, but I was hoping to know if this
        question is addressed.

        Thank you.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        Queens, NY
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
      • malcolm robertson
        Greetings all, Schmuel wrote: My understanding is that the early Greek OT, especially Aleph and B, do not have Cainan.Therefore, if Gill is correct, Cainan
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings all,
           
          Schmuel wrote: "My understanding is that the early Greek OT, especially Aleph and B, do not have Cainan.Therefore, if Gill is correct, Cainan was inserted (not "corrected") in later Greek OT by doctrinal 'harmonistic' revision tendencies, not as a textual correction."
           
          See for yourself.  Jobes and Silva both would have started here.  I don't have Gill any longer and don't recall what he may have said.
           
           
          The signa are explained here.
           
           
          I don't think a doctrinal harmonization is likely here. Although the Penteteuch was more carefully translated than the writings or prophets - very generally speaking - the wild antics of Aquila in his version (for example) make me incline more toward translation method than interpolation (your doctrinal harmonization). If the text is a scribal correction (as Steve prefers to lean) then again the correction would be warranted or not on the sole determination of the scribe - but not necessarily for doctinal harmonization.  The NT text has Cainan. Which OT Greek exemplar from the see of copies Luke chose to draw is uncertain.  The Vulgate omits it at Gen 11:12.
           
          There is evidence - in a different context - were interpolations (supposedly by Christians) were placed into pagan literary texts (P. Vergilius Maro's works) to support Christ's advent.
           
          I think the assumption that Luke may have had this particular passage in mind is the logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
           
          At any rate I hope this helps.
           
          Cordially in Christ,
           
          Malcolm
           
           

           




          Schmuel <schmuel@...> wrote:
          Hi XX folks,

          >Steven Avery wrote:
          >>   Could you indicate whether Karen Jobes and Moises Silva give any
          >> substantial consideration to theories of LXX redaction to match the NT
          >> text in that section (as is often viewed to be the case in Cainan of Luke 3:36). 

          Steven Puluka,
          >What you are describing is not a redaction.  A redaction is the process
          >of editing a version of a text as a whole. 

          Schmuel
          Thank you.  I was using redact in the sense of a deliberate grouped or related
          set of  revisions, but tis true that the word is usually assigned to the full revision
          process rather than elements thereof.  I will be more careful in the future :-)

          My question is whether Karen Jobe and Moses Silva discuss the possibility
          that a number of verses in the Greek OT would have been edited and revised
          specifically to smooth and match the NT.  As I mentioned, I have seen scholars
          discuss this with individual verses (e.g. Cainan) but generally not in the overall
          sense.

          Steven Puluka
          >Jobes does review the two major redaction arrangements proposed in chapter four.

          Schmuel
          I understand they are many texts and recensions involved in most theories of the
          Greek OT, that is somewhat of a separate question from mine.

          Steven Puluka
          >What you are discussing is part of what text criticism calls "scribal
          >habits."  In this case, it would be a tendancy to harmonize the texts
          >you copy to be the same, using one to "correct" another.  This is a
          >general problem in text transmission, not something particular to LXX
          >studies.  This is basically a "correction" process NOT a redaction process.

          Schmuel
          I would have to disagree here.  If the later Greek OT added "Cainan" because
          the NT text had the word (seeking to eliminate a supposed disharmony between
          the OT and NT) , without any earlier Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic Tanach support
          whatsoever, I feel it would be a misnomer and misleading to call this a "correction". 
          It is a revision of the text, not a correction.

          Steven Puluka,
          >The chapter on the relationship of the LXX and the NT in Jobes is a very
          >good overview of the issues and has a number of follow-up references.

          Schmuel
          Thank you.  My question still stands. Do they discuss in that chapter any
          theory of specific revisions of the Greek OT text to match the NT ?

          e,g. Is Cainan mentioned as possibly a revision of the later Greek OT in the Genesis 11:12
          text to match the Greek NT of Luke 3:36 ?  

          e.g. John Gill says
          "it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there.....  put into the Septuagint to give it authority" 

          My understanding is that the early Greek OT, especially Aleph and B, do not have Cainan.
          Therefore, if Gill is correct, Cainan was inserted (not "corrected") in later Greek OT by doctrinal 'harmonistic' revision tendencies, not as a textual correction.

          Is that type of discussion, of possible Greek OT revisions to match NT,
             absent from the Jobes/Silva book ?

          And if it is included, are there other similar possible verse revisions discussed ?

          I realize I could probably run over to the Queens College library, or a local theological
          library, and peruse the book some.  That may be best, but I was hoping to know if this
          question is addressed.

          Thank you.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/ 





          Do you Yahoo!?
          Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

        • David Hindley
          Codex_z, ... the New Testament? Is the LXX an invention and creation of Origen? Who would make such a ridiculous claim? The fact that you felt you needed to
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Codex_z,

            >>Well, Mr Avery! Exacrly when was the LXX "redacted" to match
            the New Testament? Is the LXX an invention and creation of
            Origen?

            Who would make such a ridiculous claim? The fact that you felt
            you needed to ask the question says alot about you! Doesn't it?
            No doubt Professor Jobes veiwed you and your dubious question
            with some incredulity!<<

            Kindly take your confrontational, rude, mocking and insulting
            attitude and go packing. There is no place for you here.

            Joel Kalvesmaki, kindly take notice.

            Sincerely,

            David Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio USA

            Apologetics_97 September 2004: List of Known Trolls Who Harass
            Christian Discussion Boards and Groups: Screen Names Only.
            Examples of their trolling activity included:

            jcodex also known as codex_z , codex_zz , codex_bb , iam_codex,
            the_kjv_defended , dr_swete , john_codex , etc
            http://www.geocities.com/apologetics_97/examples/codex.html
          • Schmuel
            Hi LXX, Greetings Malcom, Schmuel ... Malcolm ... Gill is nicely online http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/luke/gill/luke3.htm I didn t quote his whole
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 26, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi LXX,

              Greetings Malcom,

              Schmuel
              > "My understanding is that the early Greek OT, especially Aleph and B, do not have Cainan.
              > Therefore, if Gill is correct, Cainan was inserted (not "corrected") in later Greek OT by doctrinal
              > 'harmonistic' revision tendencies, not as a textual correction."

              Malcolm
              >See for yourself. Jobes and Silva both would have started here. I don't have Gill any longer and don't recall what he may have said.

              Gill is nicely online
              http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/luke/gill/luke3.htm
              I didn't quote his whole section because I really didn't want to get into his NT
              view of Luke 3:36, with which I disagree and isn't really relevant.

              Malcom
              > <http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/FieldOrigenv1?seq=135>http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/FieldOrigenv1?seq=135
              > The signa are explained here.
              > <http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/FieldOrigenv1?seq=98>http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/FieldOrigenv1?seq=98

              Schmuel
              Password protected. I assume this would be one or two of the Greek OT texts ?

              Malcolm
              >I don't think a doctrinal harmonization is likely here. Although the Penteteuch was more carefully translated than the writings or prophets - very generally speaking - the wild antics of Aquila in his version (for example) make me incline more toward translation method than interpolation (your doctrinal harmonization). If the text is a scribal correction (as Steve prefers to lean) then again the correction would be warranted or not on the sole determination of the scribe - but not necessarily for doctinal harmonization.

              Schmuel
              You seem to be offering a trichotomy here, but you have lost me some.

              doctrinal harmonization/interpolation - my theory, per Gill
              translation method - Malcolm
              scribal correction - Steve

              When you say "translation method" I really don't know what you are referencing. Does this require a now lost earlier Hebrew text ?

              And what would be the purpose or sense of a "scribal correction" if not a doctrinal harmonization ?
              Or if the correction were from an earlier manuscript, how would it differ from a "translation method".

              Malcolm
              >The NT text has Cainan. Which OT Greek exemplar from the see of copies Luke chose to draw is uncertain.

              Schmuel
              There are multiple theories as to why the NT would have Cainan in here, and many do not require a Greek or Hebrew exemplar. I even put together a post with eight such theories, but it could take us afield here :-)

              We are going around in circles if you feel that Luke's "Cainan" requires a Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) OT exemplar. Perhaps Luke simply gave a Holy Spirit inspired reading (if you believe that way, as I) or an errant NT reading (if you believe that way) ---

              My question is about what is strongly evidentiary, the later smoothing, in the 6th century, in the Greek OT. Apparently this type of text change in the Greek OT is not discussed in the Jobe/Sliva book, my original question.

              Malcolm
              > The Vulgate omits it at Gen 11:12.

              Schmuel
              As far as I know, everybody omits "Cainan" in Tanach -- DSS, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate, Josephus, Aleph and B -- all Tanach witnesses bar none, until the 5th or 6th century. That is precisely why the evidence for later Greek OT smoothing is extremely strong, especially as even the earlier Greek texts do not have the reading. -- On top of all this, there is also the parallel reading in 1 Chronicles 1.

              Malcolm
              > There is evidence - in a different context - were interpolations (supposedly by Christians) were placed into pagan literary texts (P. Vergilius Maro's works) to support Christ's advent.

              >I think the assumption that Luke may have had this particular passage in mind is the logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

              Schmuel
              We can't get around the fact that the Luke chronology appears strongly to be about the persons in
              Genesis 11:12 , also the same personages of 1 Chronicles 1:24. If you feel Luke was simply
              working off of some other now lost material, then the "post hoc" theory might be feasible,
              albeit not comfortable.

              Even so, that still does not address my question of the later Greek OT texts adding in Cainan
              to match the Greek NT, which the evidence strongly suggests.

              > At any rate I hope this helps.

              Appreciate the feedback :-)

              It may be that my question really cannot be addressed due to different paradigmic glasses.

              >Cordially in Christ,
              >Malcolm

              Shalom :-)
              Steven Avery
              Queens, NY
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
            • Tyler Williams
              A good article on the Christian transmission of the LXX was written by one of our very own list-members: Kraft, Robert A. Christian Transmission of Greek
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 27, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                A good article on the Christian transmission of the LXX was written by one of our very own list-members:

                Kraft, Robert A. "Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe." In Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences Et Affrontements Dans Le Monde Antique, edited by Marcel Simon, Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1978. Pp. 207-226.

                -Tyler
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Tyler F. Williams
                Chair, Religion & Theology Department
                Assistant Professor of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible
                Taylor University College
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              • David Hindley
                Tyler Williams says:
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 27, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tyler Williams says:

                  <A good article on the Christian transmission of the LXX was
                  written by one of our very own list-members:

                  Kraft, Robert A. "Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish
                  Scriptures: A Methodological Probe." In Paganisme, Judaïsme,
                  Christianisme: Influences Et Affrontements Dans Le Monde
                  Antique, edited by Marcel Simon, Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard,
                  1978. Pp. 207-226.>

                  The draft version (marked for the typesetter, it looks like) is
                  available online at:

                  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Transmi
                  ssion%20of%20Gk-Jewish%20Scriptures

                  Sincerely,

                  David Hindley
                  Cleveland, Ohio USA
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.