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

RE: [lxx] Digest Number 393

Expand Messages
  • Chris Weimer
    The two major problems I see with scribal corrections of the LXX to match the NT is it s incompleteness and the Hebrew texts found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The two major problems I see with scribal corrections of the LXX to match
      the NT is it's incompleteness and the Hebrew texts found at the Dead Sea
      Scrolls site that matches the LXX over the MT.

      kindest regards,

      Chris Weimer
      http://www.neonostalgia.com/bible/forums
    • Schmuel
      Hi LXX, Subject brought back from: RE: [lxx] Digest Number 393 :-) Chris Weimer ... Hi Chris, My point wasn t to revisit that discussion in fullness, we
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi LXX,

        Subject brought back from: RE: [lxx] Digest Number 393 :-)

        Chris Weimer
        >The two major problems I see with scribal corrections of the LXX to match the NT is it's incompleteness and the Hebrew texts found at the Dead Sea Scrolls site that matches the LXX over the MT.

        Hi Chris,
        My point wasn't to revisit that discussion in fullness, we had some discussions here a few months ago. I was wondering if the issue is even broached and discussed or mentioned or alluded to in the Jobe/Sliva book (or other resources).

        Since the Cainan example has strong evidence of such a harmonization happening quite late, if that is accepted, then at least the principle that it *can* occur, even if only once, or only a few times, should be accepted. It should be one point for comparative analysis.

        Both of your two general counter-points are interesting, but each one has multi-layers of consideration.

        The first, incompleteness, is an "all or nothing" approach, that such revisions would have to take place everywhere if anywhere. Considering the variety of Greek OT texts, this just not seem to be a very strong presumption.

        As to the LXX and the DSS and the MT that is a super-involved issue in general, and rarely does the DSS give these particular readings support.

        Anyway, so far it seems the issue does not get broached in the texts in question. I may research it a bit more on my own initiative.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        Queens, NY
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
      • David Hindley
        ... harmonization happening quite late, if that is accepted, then at least the principle that it *can* occur, even if only once, or only a few times, should be
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Steven, Malcolm, et al:

          > Since the Cainan example has strong evidence of such a
          harmonization happening quite late, if that is accepted, then at
          least the principle that it *can* occur, even if only once, or
          only a few times, should be accepted. It should be one point
          for comparative analysis. <

          How do these redaction/correction/harmonization theories deal
          with the fact that it is not just some copies of the Lxx that
          include Cainan II in the list of patriarchs? He's in Jubilees
          (Ch 8:1-4, at least in Ethiopic and Syriac, I cannot say at the
          moment what the case was with Greek fragments). Are we to assume
          that NT citations have affected the transmission of Jubilees?

          Of course I suppose it is possible, since Christian scribes
          preserved Jubilees (except DSS fragments, of which there are
          none at this point in the text). But Christians preserved
          Josephus as well, and I do not believe this name shows up as a
          variant reading for this point in the genealogy as he presents
          it.

          Sincerely,

          David Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio USA
        • malcolm robertson
          Dear David, The point I was trying to make was: What I meant was this. The source of St.Luke s knowledge is unknown to us (remember & cf Lk 1:1-4). The MT
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear David,
             
            The point I was trying to make was:
             

            "What I meant was this. The source of St.Luke's knowledge is unknown to us (remember & cf Lk 1:1-4). The MT text does not mention Cainam. Some copies of the OT Greek do. There could be another Jewish written source - annals or birth records perhaps that include Cainam which we do not know of at this state in our knowledge. This idea is supported by the fact that we simply do not know what some references are that can be found within the OT text itself (e.g. Ezra 4:15; Dan 9:2(explicitly); 2 Chron 20:34?).

            A scribe could have (working under Steve's "scribal habits" modus) inserted Cainan based upon unknown Jewish source material - including his own general knowledge store - and not necessarily that of an OT Greek exemplar or even a Hebrew exemplar - whatever its nature - i.e.lectionary,prayer book, grammar, etc."

            If one thinks that St.Luke's dictum at Lk 3:36 needs justification it is only in the mind of a scribe or that of a present day source seeker. St. Luke's source is unknown to us - period.

            Cordially in Christ,

            Malcolm

             



            David Hindley <dhindley@...> wrote:
            Steven, Malcolm, et al:

            >    Since the Cainan example has strong evidence of such a
            harmonization happening quite late, if that is accepted, then at
            least the principle that it *can* occur, even if only once, or
            only a few times, should be accepted.   It should be one point
            for comparative analysis. <

            How do these redaction/correction/harmonization theories deal
            with the fact that it is not just some copies of the Lxx that
            include Cainan II in the list of patriarchs? He's in Jubilees
            (Ch 8:1-4, at least in Ethiopic and Syriac, I cannot say at the
            moment what the case was with Greek fragments). Are we to assume
            that NT citations have affected the transmission of Jubilees?

            Of course I suppose it is possible, since Christian scribes
            preserved Jubilees (except DSS fragments, of which there are
            none at this point in the text). But Christians preserved
            Josephus as well, and I do not believe this name shows up as a
            variant reading for this point in the genealogy as he presents
            it.

            Sincerely,

            David Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio USA





            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • Schmuel
            Hi LXX, David Hindley, ... Schmuel ... David Hindley, ... Schmuel Or that both the NT and Jubilees were working off of true auxiliary understandings. (I use
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 27, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi LXX,

              David Hindley,
              > Steven, Malcolm, et al:

              Schmuel
              >> Since the Cainan example has strong evidence of such a harmonization happening quite late, if that is accepted, then at least the principle that it *can* occur, even if only once, or only a few times, should be accepted. It should be one point for comparative analysis. <

              David Hindley,
              >How do these redaction/correction/harmonization theories deal with the fact that it is not just some copies of the Lxx that include Cainan II in the list of patriarchs? He's in Jubilees (Ch 8:1-4, at least in Ethiopic and Syriac, I cannot say at the moment what the case was with Greek fragments). Are we to assume that NT citations have affected the transmission of Jubilees?

              Schmuel
              Or that both the NT and Jubilees were working off of true auxiliary understandings.

              (I use "true" in line with my view of NT Inspiration, if one doesn't have that view,
              they could simply similarly say that the NT copied an existing tradition)

              Which has been my understanding.

              Great question, David :-)

              Now, I guess one could conjecture that the late (6th century I think) Greek OT
              also got its information from the same type of auxiliary source, and not as an
              NT smoothing. However, I don't think Occam would cut that one :-)

              btw, thanks for stepping in on that other distraction.

              David Hindley
              >Of course I suppose it is possible, since Christian scribes preserved Jubilees (except DSS fragments, of which there are none at this point in the text). But Christians preserved Josephus as well, and I do not believe this name shows up as a variant reading for this point in the genealogy as he presents it.

              Schmuel
              Right, it has been specifically stated that Josephus has no Cainan. Personally, I think it is fair to go on the presumption that both Jubilees and Josephus are properly preserved. We have no reason to place any tampering upon them here, even if one thinks the Testimonium is flavored :-)

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              Queens, NY
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
            • David Hindley
              Steven Avery says:
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 27, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Steven Avery says:

                <Now, I guess one could conjecture that the late (6th century I
                think) Greek OT also got its information from the same type of
                auxiliary source, and not as an NT smoothing. However, I don't
                think Occam would cut that one>

                Logically, if two sources present the same tradition, not only
                could one directly or indirectly derive from the other (the
                direction of influence not being easy, or nearly impossible, to
                ascertain), but can also be due to direct or indirect influence
                of a common source or tradition.

                Still, since the author of Luke 3:36-37 appears to be drawing
                his information from Genesis, I think it is more natural to
                assume that he was citing scripture as he knew it (i.e., heard
                it recited at his congregation, although he may have heard
                readings or have actually read it in more than one Greek
                translation), than to think he is freely combining that source
                with other non-scriptural traditions (such as from Jubilees,
                which I don't think was translated into Greek at this time or
                otherwise suspected to have directly influenced Christian
                traditions).

                In my opinion, one remarkable thing about those later Lxx copies
                (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus) is that they show almost no
                influence of readings that the proto-orthodox apologists
                complained the Jews had "edited out" of their versions of
                scripture. If the Christian copyists weren't going out of their
                way to "re-introduce" these obviously emotionally charged
                passages, why then introduce the obscure case of Kainam (II)?
                With all due respect, I think it overstates the case to say that
                it was because they deeply regarded Luke's sense of divine
                inspiration.

                Between the OG fragments (mainly predating the turn of the 1st
                century CE) and the earliest preserved Christian codices (4-6th
                century), we don't have much evidence. We are probably dealing
                with multiple Greek translations of one or more out of several
                Hebrew textual traditions, but all Greek translations, I
                believe, have similar variant readings on the ages of the
                patriarchs at key points of their lives. I feel that Kainam
                probably comes from the same general source.

                It is just easier for me to think that the Greek translation(s)
                of Jewish scriptures that Christian scribes/publishers used as
                the basis for their editions of the Christian "old testament"
                happened to contain these variant traditions. They may well have
                chosen these exemplars over other translations available because
                they agreed best with citations from, or details drawn from
                Jewish scripture, preserved in the NT.

                Then again, look at the Samaritan Pentateuch. In many spots it
                incorporates traditions not in the MT or LXX as expansions.
                While it does not have a Kenan II, it does have the variant ages
                of the patriarch's births, etc. It seems the traditions about
                genealogies of the patriarchs was more fluid than we give it
                credit for. Dang if I didn't once have a file where I created a
                table comparing the ages of the patriarchs found in various
                sources (MT, LXX, SP, Josephus, Jubilees) side by side, by
                patriarch, but it seems to have gone missing. I may have to
                retrieve it from a CompuServe discussion board library.

                Now that you get me thinking about it, there are quite a few
                "ifs" involved! <g>

                Sincerely,

                David Hindley
                Cleveland, Ohio USA
              • Schmuel
                Hi LXX, Oy vey is mir :-). .My question was sooooo simple when we started :-) lol I just wanted to know if theoretical NT -- GreekOT considerations were ever
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 27, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi LXX,

                  Oy vey is mir :-). .My question was sooooo simple when we started :-) lol I just wanted to know if
                  theoretical NT --> GreekOT considerations were ever even mentioned in a book like Jobe/Sliva.

                  >Steven Avery says:
                  ><Now, I guess one could conjecture that the late (6th century Ithink) Greek OT also got its information from the same type of auxiliary source, and not as an NT smoothing. However, I don't think Occam would cut that one>

                  David Hindley,
                  >Logically, if two sources present the same tradition, not only could one directly or indirectly derive from the other (the direction of influence not being easy, or nearly impossible, to ascertain), but can also be due to direct or indirect influence of a common source or tradition.

                  Schmuel
                  However, in this case, the Greek OT scribes were copying the Greek NT as well, even in the very same manuscripts ! That is why I made the Occam comment. Whether they would even know of the existence of Jubilees or other such auxiliary sources would be highly problematic.

                  David Hindley
                  >Still, since the author of Luke 3:36-37 appears to be drawing his information from Genesis, I think it is more natural to assume that he was citing scripture as he knew it (i.e., heard it recited at his congregation, although he may have heard readings or have actually read it in more than one Greek
                  >translation), than to think he is freely combining that source with other non-scriptural traditions (such as from Jubilees, which I don't think was translated into Greek at this time or otherwise suspected to have directly influenced Christian traditions).

                  Schmuel
                  Or it could have simply been by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with tactical originating provenance completely unknown and unknowable. Could be no manuscript, could be a lost Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek un-scriptural writing, could be a lost Tanach text in any language. The last one doesn't fit my theories of Inspired text, but any of these are possible.

                  David Hindley
                  >In my opinion, one remarkable thing about those later Lxx copies (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus) is that they show almost no influence of readings that the proto-orthodox apologists complained the Jews had "edited out" of their versions of scripture.

                  Schmuel
                  Agreed.
                  The Jews and Masoretes as tamperers view has many hurdles, and this is one.

                  David Hindley
                  > If the Christian copyists weren't going out of their way to "re-introduce" these obviously emotionally charged passages, why then introduce the obscure case of Kainam (II)? With all due respect, I think it overstates the case to say that it was because they deeply regarded Luke's sense of divine
                  >inspiration.

                  Schmuel
                  Well we don't have Cainan in Aleph and B anyway. The question is why it appears later in the Greek OT. We need a theory why it appears in the 6th century and (apparently) not earlier. Why would not NT/Luke inspiration respect be the best theory ? The scribes were copying both Tanach and NT. Yet apparently the best theory doesn't even make the radar of the literature.

                  David Hindley
                  >Between the OG fragments (mainly predating the turn of the 1st century CE) and the earliest preserved Christian codices (4-6th century), we don't have much evidence.

                  Schmuel
                  Agreed.
                  And we have a change of translation provenance as well.

                  David Hindley
                  >We are probably dealing with multiple Greek translations of one or more out of several Hebrew textual traditions, but all Greek translations, I believe, have similar variant readings on the ages of the
                  >patriarchs at key points of their lives. I feel that Kainam probably comes from the same general source.

                  Schmuel
                  However Cainan is lacking completely until about the 6th century, (I can't say offhand if that means 2,3 or 4 extant manuscripts, maybe others can help from an apparatus ?) while the other age differences are not. That makes it hard to clump them together. It is precisely that difference which is a major focus of this thread.

                  David Hindley
                  >It is just easier for me to think that the Greek translation(s) of Jewish scriptures that Christian scribes/publishers used as the basis for their editions of the Christian "old testament" happened to contain these variant traditions. They may well have chosen these exemplars over other translations available because they agreed best with citations from, or details drawn from Jewish scripture, preserved in the NT.
                  >
                  >Then again, look at the Samaritan Pentateuch. In many spots it incorporates traditions not in the MT or LXX as expansions. While it does not have a Kenan II, it does have the variant ages of the patriarch's births, etc. It seems the traditions about genealogies of the patriarchs was more fluid than we give it credit for. Dang if I didn't once have a file where I created a table comparing the ages of the patriarchs found in various sources (MT, LXX, SP, Josephus, Jubilees) side by side, by
                  >patriarch, but it seems to have gone missing. I may have to retrieve it from a CompuServe discussion board library.

                  Schmuel
                  There are a couple of those on the Net :-)
                  Leslie McFall, Lance Lambert, Arthur Custance, Floyd Nolan Jones, Ansley, Mauro, and Jeff
                  Jackson come to mind.

                  David,
                  > Now that you get me thinking about it, there are quite a few "ifs" involved! <g>

                  Shalom,
                  Steven Avery
                  Queens, NY
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.