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

Deut 32:41 variant question

Expand Messages
  • James Miller
    In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we see that Wevers
    Message 1 of 8 , May 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
      ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we
      see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
      variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witness
      (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,
      Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
      corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
      text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the
      Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but this
      time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Greek
      Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collection
      of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me
      is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant
      ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidence
      in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
      Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its
      purpose? Input will be appreciated.

      Thanks, James
    • Kevin P. Edgecomb
      James, I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d= eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being
      Message 2 of 8 , May 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        James,
        I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
        eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
        from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
        Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
        age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
        not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
        His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.

        Regards,
        Kevin P. Edgecomb
        Berkeley, California

        ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        >
        > In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
        > ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=

        > see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
        > variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
        s
        > (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=

        > Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
        > corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
        > text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=

        > Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
        s
        > time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
        k
        > Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
        n
        > of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=

        > is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=

        > ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
        e
        > in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
        > Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=

        > purpose? Input will be appreciated.
        >
        > Thanks, James
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=

        > You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
        .
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=

        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Bill Ross
        Is this a reference to antipods - people suspected to be living on the opposite side of the Earth? Bill Ross ... we= ... witnes= s ... i.e.,= ... the=
        Message 3 of 8 , May 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          <Bill>
          Is this a reference to "antipods" - people suspected to be living on the
          opposite side of the Earth?

          Bill Ross

          > In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading

          > ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus,
          we=

          > see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
          > variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic
          witnes=
          s
          > (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume,
          i.e.,=

          > Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
          > corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
          > text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to
          the=

          > Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but
          thi=
          s
          > time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a
          Gree=
          k
          > Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its
          collectio=
          n
          > of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for
          me=

          > is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the
          variant=

          > ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible
          evidenc=
          e
          > in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
          > Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and
          its=

          > purpose? Input will be appreciated.
          >
          > Thanks, James
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          --------------------~-->=

          > You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See
          how=
          .
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
          >
          --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=

          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • James Miller
          Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn t shed any further light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are considered in the
          Message 4 of 8 , May 16, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn't shed any further
            light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are
            considered in the hand edition for 32:41 (Wevers also, of course, notes
            B's readings). My understanding of the way sources are used for variant
            attestation is, in order of priority: 1) Greek Bible readings; 2)
            versional evidence; 3) patristic citation/allusion. Maybe what's at stake
            here is that the Odes evidence from Codex A is considered on an even lower
            level, such that it's not even considered? I kind of doubt that: in both
            of Wevers' Exod and Deut volumes he discusses the testimony of Odes mss to
            relevant passages (Exod 15, Deut 32) and notes some witnesses he has taken
            into consideration. Some even in translation--see pp 31 and ff from the
            Exodus volume and pp 27 ff from the Deuteronomy volume. He consults the
            7th c. Verona codex, a Gk/Latin Pss/Odes witness also used by Rahlfs in
            his Psalmi cum Odis. He even consults Verecundus, a Latin commentator on
            the Odes from the 6th c. When you get at your books, please see if you
            can dig up anything further on this. I'd be interested to hear it.

            Thanks, James

            On Tue, 16 May 2006, Kevin P. Edgecomb wrote:

            > James,
            > I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
            > eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
            > from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
            > Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
            > age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
            > not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
            > His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Kevin P. Edgecomb
            > Berkeley, California
            >
            > ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            >>
            >> In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
            >> ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=
            >
            >> see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
            >> variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
            > s
            >> (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=
            >
            >> Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
            >> corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
            >> text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=
            >
            >> Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
            > s
            >> time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
            > k
            >> Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
            > n
            >> of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=
            >
            >> is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=
            >
            >> ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
            > e
            >> in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
            >> Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=
            >
            >> purpose? Input will be appreciated.
            >>
            >> Thanks, James
            >>
            >>
            >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=
            >
            >> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
            > .
            >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
            >> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=
            >
            >>
            >>
            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • James Miller
            Just a bump on this post to see if maybe Bob Kraft would offer some input on the matter. Are you reading, Bob? Thanks, James
            Message 5 of 8 , May 17, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Just a bump on this post to see if maybe Bob Kraft would offer some input
              on the matter. Are you reading, Bob?

              Thanks, James

              On Tue, 16 May 2006, James Miller wrote:

              > Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn't shed any further
              > light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are
              > considered in the hand edition for 32:41 (Wevers also, of course, notes
              > B's readings). My understanding of the way sources are used for variant
              > attestation is, in order of priority: 1) Greek Bible readings; 2)
              > versional evidence; 3) patristic citation/allusion. Maybe what's at stake
              > here is that the Odes evidence from Codex A is considered on an even lower
              > level, such that it's not even considered? I kind of doubt that: in both
              > of Wevers' Exod and Deut volumes he discusses the testimony of Odes mss to
              > relevant passages (Exod 15, Deut 32) and notes some witnesses he has taken
              > into consideration. Some even in translation--see pp 31 and ff from the
              > Exodus volume and pp 27 ff from the Deuteronomy volume. He consults the
              > 7th c. Verona codex, a Gk/Latin Pss/Odes witness also used by Rahlfs in
              > his Psalmi cum Odis. He even consults Verecundus, a Latin commentator on
              > the Odes from the 6th c. When you get at your books, please see if you
              > can dig up anything further on this. I'd be interested to hear it.
              >
              > Thanks, James
              >
              > On Tue, 16 May 2006, Kevin P. Edgecomb wrote:
              >
              >> James,
              >> I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
              >> eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
              >> from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
              >> Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
              >> age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
              >> not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
              >> His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.
              >>
              >> Regards,
              >> Kevin P. Edgecomb
              >> Berkeley, California
              >>
              >> ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              >>>
              >>> In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
              >>> ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=
              >>
              >>> see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
              >>> variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
              >> s
              >>> (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=
              >>
              >>> Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
              >>> corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
              >>> text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=
              >>
              >>> Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
              >> s
              >>> time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
              >> k
              >>> Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
              >> n
              >>> of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=
              >>
              >>> is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=
              >>
              >>> ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
              >> e
              >>> in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
              >>> Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=
              >>
              >>> purpose? Input will be appreciated.
              >>>
              >>> Thanks, James
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=
              >>
              >>> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
              >> .
              >>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
              >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=
              >>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Robert Kraft
              Funny you should ask! Since I ve been in contact with John Wevers about publishing English versions of his introductions to the Goettingen editions, and since
              Message 6 of 8 , May 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Funny you should ask!

                Since I've been in contact with John Wevers about publishing English versions of
                his introductions to the Goettingen editions, and since his diskette for the
                Genesis Introduction arrived this morning, I've forwarded the query to him rather
                than trying myself to second guess the situation (although I suspect Kevin is
                right about textcritical priorities here). I've promised John that I'll make sure
                his English introductions are made available on the net, whether they also appear
                in hard copy or not. I'll try to keep you informed about the progress -- his files
                are in Nota Bene, and I don't know whether there will be problems moving them into
                html (suggestions are most welcome).

                Bob

                > Just a bump on this post to see if maybe Bob Kraft would offer some input
                > on the matter. Are you reading, Bob?
                >
                > Thanks, James
                >
                > On Tue, 16 May 2006, James Miller wrote:
                >
                > > Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn't shed any further
                > > light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are
                > > considered in the hand edition for 32:41 (Wevers also, of course, notes
                > > B's readings). My understanding of the way sources are used for variant
                > > attestation is, in order of priority: 1) Greek Bible readings; 2)
                > > versional evidence; 3) patristic citation/allusion. Maybe what's at stake
                > > here is that the Odes evidence from Codex A is considered on an even lower
                > > level, such that it's not even considered? I kind of doubt that: in both
                > > of Wevers' Exod and Deut volumes he discusses the testimony of Odes mss to
                > > relevant passages (Exod 15, Deut 32) and notes some witnesses he has taken
                > > into consideration. Some even in translation--see pp 31 and ff from the
                > > Exodus volume and pp 27 ff from the Deuteronomy volume. He consults the
                > > 7th c. Verona codex, a Gk/Latin Pss/Odes witness also used by Rahlfs in
                > > his Psalmi cum Odis. He even consults Verecundus, a Latin commentator on
                > > the Odes from the 6th c. When you get at your books, please see if you
                > > can dig up anything further on this. I'd be interested to hear it.
                > >
                > > Thanks, James
                > >
                > > On Tue, 16 May 2006, Kevin P. Edgecomb wrote:
                > >
                > >> James,
                > >> I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
                > >> eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
                > >> from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
                > >> Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
                > >> age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
                > >> not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
                > >> His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.
                > >>
                > >> Regards,
                > >> Kevin P. Edgecomb
                > >> Berkeley, California
                > >>
                > >> ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                > >>>
                > >>> In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
                > >>> ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=
                > >>
                > >>> see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
                > >>> variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
                > >> s
                > >>> (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=
                > >>
                > >>> Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
                > >>> corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
                > >>> text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=
                > >>
                > >>> Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
                > >> s
                > >>> time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
                > >> k
                > >>> Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
                > >> n
                > >>> of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=
                > >>
                > >>> is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=
                > >>
                > >>> ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
                > >> e
                > >>> in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
                > >>> Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=
                > >>
                > >>> purpose? Input will be appreciated.
                > >>>
                > >>> Thanks, James
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=
                > >>
                > >>> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
                > >> .
                > >>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
                > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=
                > >>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                --
                Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                kraft@...
                http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
              • Robert Kraft
                While we wait for Dr. Wevers response, if he gives one, here is the relevant passage from Procopius, Comm. on Isaiah, Page 2668 lines 24 ff [to Isa 63.4], ala
                Message 7 of 8 , May 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  While we wait for Dr. Wevers response, if he gives one, here is the relevant
                  passage from Procopius, Comm. on Isaiah, Page 2668 lines 24 ff [to Isa 63.4], ala
                  TLG:

                  *EI)=TA PA/LIN H(ME/RAS A)NTAPODW/SEWS KAI\ E)NIAUTOU= LUTRW/SEWS ME/MNHTAI,
                  W(S E)PI\ TW=N XRHSTOTE/RWN E)LE/GETO,
                  *KHRU/CAI E)NIAUTO\N *KURI/OU DEKTO\N, KAI\ H(ME/RAN A)NTAPODO/SEWS.
                  *DIO\ NU=N PROSE/QHKE KAI\ E)NIAUTO\S LUTRW/SEWS,
                  O(MOU= GA\R TOU\S ME\N SW/SEI, TOI=S DE\ A)NTAPODW/SEI,
                  KAQA/ FHSI *MWSH=S:
                  �*KAI\ A)NTAPODW/SEI DI/KHN TOI=S E)XQROI=S,
                  KAI\ TOI=S MISOU=SIN AU)TO\N A)NTAPODW/SEI.�

                  (Roughly translated:
                  Then again he calls to mind a day of payback and a year of redemption [Isa 63.4],
                  as was said of/to those more worthy ones,
                  to preach an acceptable year of the Lord, and a day of payback [Isa 61.2; cf Lk
                  4.19].
                  Wherefore now he offers also a year of redemption,
                  for just as he saves some, he paysback others,
                  as Moses said:
                  "and he paysback judgment to the enemies,
                  and paysback those who hate him" [Deut 32.43b])

                  It seems to be a quotation not of Deut 32.41b (in the first person), but of 32.43b
                  where the same words are used in the third person in all witnesses and in Odes.
                  Wevers should not have used Procopius with reference to 32.41b, I think. And
                  32.43b fits nicely with Procopius' flow of thought -- not quoting the LORD -- "I
                  payback... those who hate me" -- but citing Moses as referring to what the LORD
                  does ("he paysback... those who hate him"). Of course, Procopius might be
                  depending on some intermediate source as well, such as an earlier commentator or
                  an anthology dealing with "payback" or a liturgical recitation, or the like. In
                  any event, this passage doesn't seem to be evidence for a textual variant
                  in Deut 32.41b.

                  As for MS A in Odes, the situation is strange and apparently intentional since A
                  also lacks the "me" in "those who hate me." But in the next verse, A reverts to
                  first person speech (MEWUSW ... MOU ... MOU). Then in the final verse, as in the
                  Deut parallel/source, all witnesses seem to have a third person concluding paean
                  in which "he paysback judgment to the enemies and paysback those who hate [him]"
                  -- note that Procopius makes that final "him" explicit, as do many other MSS and
                  secondary witnesses to the Deut text. Parts of verse 43 are somewhat problematic
                  in relation to preserved Hebrew witnesses (MT and DSS). There seems to have been
                  early confusion (expansion, contraction, doublets, or whatever ??) already in the
                  pre-Greek and/or non-Greek development.

                  That's more than I intended to say. Bottom line: Wevers shouldn't have cited
                  Procopius as a witness to Deut 32.41b, but he might have cited MS A of Odes, which
                  probably has been affected (directly or indirectly) by the parallel material in
                  verse 43b.

                  Bob

                  > Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn't shed any further
                  > light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are
                  > considered in the hand edition for 32:41 (Wevers also, of course, notes
                  > B's readings). My understanding of the way sources are used for variant
                  > attestation is, in order of priority: 1) Greek Bible readings; 2)
                  > versional evidence; 3) patristic citation/allusion. Maybe what's at stake
                  > here is that the Odes evidence from Codex A is considered on an even lower
                  > level, such that it's not even considered? I kind of doubt that: in both
                  > of Wevers' Exod and Deut volumes he discusses the testimony of Odes mss to
                  > relevant passages (Exod 15, Deut 32) and notes some witnesses he has taken
                  > into consideration. Some even in translation--see pp 31 and ff from the
                  > Exodus volume and pp 27 ff from the Deuteronomy volume. He consults the
                  > 7th c. Verona codex, a Gk/Latin Pss/Odes witness also used by Rahlfs in
                  > his Psalmi cum Odis. He even consults Verecundus, a Latin commentator on
                  > the Odes from the 6th c. When you get at your books, please see if you
                  > can dig up anything further on this. I'd be interested to hear it.
                  >
                  > Thanks, James
                  >
                  > On Tue, 16 May 2006, Kevin P. Edgecomb wrote:
                  >
                  > > James,
                  > > I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
                  > > eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
                  > > from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
                  > > Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
                  > > age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
                  > > not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
                  > > His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.
                  > >
                  > > Regards,
                  > > Kevin P. Edgecomb
                  > > Berkeley, California
                  > >
                  > > ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
                  > >> ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=
                  > >
                  > >> see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
                  > >> variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
                  > > s
                  > >> (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=
                  > >
                  > >> Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
                  > >> corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
                  > >> text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=
                  > >
                  > >> Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
                  > > s
                  > >> time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
                  > > k
                  > >> Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
                  > > n
                  > >> of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=
                  > >
                  > >> is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=
                  > >
                  > >> ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
                  > > e
                  > >> in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
                  > >> Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=
                  > >
                  > >> purpose? Input will be appreciated.
                  > >>
                  > >> Thanks, James
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=
                  > >
                  > >> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
                  > > .
                  > >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
                  > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=
                  > >
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                  227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                  kraft@...
                  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                • James Miller
                  Thanks much for offering these additional clarifications, Bob. Especially seeing the full citation from Procopius is helpful in understanding his testimony. I
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks much for offering these additional clarifications, Bob.
                    Especially seeing the full citation from Procopius is helpful in
                    understanding his testimony. I spent a little time on this passage in my
                    dissertation, in which I focused on the Odes of Codex A and tried to prove
                    (successfully, in my view) that they stem from a ms tradition separate
                    from that of the corresponding books from throughout the larger corpus of
                    A. Heinrich Schneider suggested this some decades ago, i.e., that
                    differing Vorlagen must be supposed for the differences in reading, and I
                    attempted to prove he must be right.

                    It will be interesting to see what Dr. Wevers says about the passage in
                    question. In Procopius the third person entity does clearly seem to be
                    the Lord, which does make it seem as though he's relying on 32:43b. With
                    respect to A's Ode reading at vs. 41b, I see the antecedent of ANTAPODWSEI
                    not as the Lord ("he [the Lord] paysback") but as CEIR, i.e., the Lord's
                    hand: "my hand will take hold of justice; it will payback judgment . . .
                    and payback those who hate" (KAI ANQEXETAI KRIMATOS H CEIR MOU . . .
                    ANTAPODWSEI DIKHN TOIS ECQPOIS . . . TOIS MISOUSIN ANTAPODWSEI). Note
                    that Ode 2 of A has an additional third person singular verb in this midst
                    of all this: (KAI) EKDIKHSEI after CEIR MOU and that at Deut 32:41 in A an
                    early corrector (DIORQWTHS?) has added the phrase where it seemed to
                    originally be lacking (correction toward Ode 2 reading?). The same phrase
                    is seen in this position at 32:43b, so a transposition of that later verse
                    to an earlier point or influence from the later verse on the preceding one
                    does seem likely here, as you suggest. Please keep us posted on any
                    response Dr. Wevers might offer.

                    Thanks, James

                    On Thu, 18 May 2006, Robert Kraft wrote:

                    > While we wait for Dr. Wevers response, if he gives one, here is the relevant
                    > passage from Procopius, Comm. on Isaiah, Page 2668 lines 24 ff [to Isa 63.4], ala
                    > TLG:
                    >
                    > *EI)=TA PA/LIN H(ME/RAS A)NTAPODW/SEWS KAI\ E)NIAUTOU= LUTRW/SEWS ME/MNHTAI,
                    > W(S E)PI\ TW=N XRHSTOTE/RWN E)LE/GETO,
                    > *KHRU/CAI E)NIAUTO\N *KURI/OU DEKTO\N, KAI\ H(ME/RAN A)NTAPODO/SEWS.
                    > *DIO\ NU=N PROSE/QHKE KAI\ E)NIAUTO\S LUTRW/SEWS,
                    > O(MOU= GA\R TOU\S ME\N SW/SEI, TOI=S DE\ A)NTAPODW/SEI,
                    > KAQA/ FHSI *MWSH=S:
                    > «*KAI\ A)NTAPODW/SEI DI/KHN TOI=S E)XQROI=S,
                    > KAI\ TOI=S MISOU=SIN AU)TO\N A)NTAPODW/SEI.»
                    >
                    > (Roughly translated:
                    > Then again he calls to mind a day of payback and a year of redemption [Isa 63.4],
                    > as was said of/to those more worthy ones,
                    > to preach an acceptable year of the Lord, and a day of payback [Isa 61.2; cf Lk
                    > 4.19].
                    > Wherefore now he offers also a year of redemption,
                    > for just as he saves some, he paysback others,
                    > as Moses said:
                    > "and he paysback judgment to the enemies,
                    > and paysback those who hate him" [Deut 32.43b])
                    >
                    > It seems to be a quotation not of Deut 32.41b (in the first person), but of 32.43b
                    > where the same words are used in the third person in all witnesses and in Odes.
                    > Wevers should not have used Procopius with reference to 32.41b, I think. And
                    > 32.43b fits nicely with Procopius' flow of thought -- not quoting the LORD -- "I
                    > payback... those who hate me" -- but citing Moses as referring to what the LORD
                    > does ("he paysback... those who hate him"). Of course, Procopius might be
                    > depending on some intermediate source as well, such as an earlier commentator or
                    > an anthology dealing with "payback" or a liturgical recitation, or the like. In
                    > any event, this passage doesn't seem to be evidence for a textual variant
                    > in Deut 32.41b.
                    >
                    > As for MS A in Odes, the situation is strange and apparently intentional since A
                    > also lacks the "me" in "those who hate me." But in the next verse, A reverts to
                    > first person speech (MEWUSW ... MOU ... MOU). Then in the final verse, as in the
                    > Deut parallel/source, all witnesses seem to have a third person concluding paean
                    > in which "he paysback judgment to the enemies and paysback those who hate [him]"
                    > -- note that Procopius makes that final "him" explicit, as do many other MSS and
                    > secondary witnesses to the Deut text. Parts of verse 43 are somewhat problematic
                    > in relation to preserved Hebrew witnesses (MT and DSS). There seems to have been
                    > early confusion (expansion, contraction, doublets, or whatever ??) already in the
                    > pre-Greek and/or non-Greek development.
                    >
                    > That's more than I intended to say. Bottom line: Wevers shouldn't have cited
                    > Procopius as a witness to Deut 32.41b, but he might have cited MS A of Odes, which
                    > probably has been affected (directly or indirectly) by the parallel material in
                    > verse 43b.
                    >
                    > Bob
                    >
                    >> Thanks for your reply, Kevin. The hand edition doesn't shed any further
                    >> light on the readings/variants--only alternates from Codex B are
                    >> considered in the hand edition for 32:41 (Wevers also, of course, notes
                    >> B's readings). My understanding of the way sources are used for variant
                    >> attestation is, in order of priority: 1) Greek Bible readings; 2)
                    >> versional evidence; 3) patristic citation/allusion. Maybe what's at stake
                    >> here is that the Odes evidence from Codex A is considered on an even lower
                    >> level, such that it's not even considered? I kind of doubt that: in both
                    >> of Wevers' Exod and Deut volumes he discusses the testimony of Odes mss to
                    >> relevant passages (Exod 15, Deut 32) and notes some witnesses he has taken
                    >> into consideration. Some even in translation--see pp 31 and ff from the
                    >> Exodus volume and pp 27 ff from the Deuteronomy volume. He consults the
                    >> 7th c. Verona codex, a Gk/Latin Pss/Odes witness also used by Rahlfs in
                    >> his Psalmi cum Odis. He even consults Verecundus, a Latin commentator on
                    >> the Odes from the 6th c. When you get at your books, please see if you
                    >> can dig up anything further on this. I'd be interested to hear it.
                    >>
                    >> Thanks, James
                    >>
                    >> On Tue, 16 May 2006, Kevin P. Edgecomb wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> James,
                    >>> I would suppose Wevers notes it like this because typically the apparatus d=
                    >>> eals with strictly the text at hand, not usually the parallels. Being away=
                    >>> from my books (an awful state), what you describe makes it sound like the =
                    >>> Procopius evidence is an obvious quotation/allusion to the Deuteronomy pass=
                    >>> age, while the A evidence would be found strictly in the Ode in A, even if =
                    >>> not in Deut in A. That's my guess! Does Rahlfs manual LXX shed any light?=
                    >>> His textual notes are terse, but they might say something on the issue.
                    >>>
                    >>> Regards,
                    >>> Kevin P. Edgecomb
                    >>> Berkeley, California
                    >>>
                    >>> ---- <lxx@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    >>>>
                    >>>> In the Goettingen (Wevers) edition of Deut at 32:41 we see the reading
                    >>>> ANTAPODWSW twice in the second half of the verse. In the apparatus, we=
                    >>>
                    >>>> see that Wevers lists as a variant to this ANTAPODWSEI both times, a
                    >>>> variant that he seems to have found in the writings of a patristic witnes=
                    >>> s
                    >>>> (Procopius of Gaza). If we look at a different Goettingen volume, i.e.,=
                    >>>
                    >>>> Rahlfs' Psalmi cum Odis, in the Odes section, under Ode 2, which
                    >>>> corresponds to Deut 32:1-43, we also see ANTAPODWSW twice in the main
                    >>>> text--just as Wevers' Deut volume has. However, in the apparatus to the=
                    >>>
                    >>>> Psalmi cum Odis volume we also see the variant ANTAPODWSEI twice--but thi=
                    >>> s
                    >>>> time Procopius is not listed as witness to the reading, but rather a Gree=
                    >>> k
                    >>>> Bible ms., Codex A is listed. The 5th century codex, among its collectio=
                    >>> n
                    >>>> of Odes, witnesses to this variant. The question all this raises for me=
                    >>>
                    >>>> is whether Wevers made an oversight in listing testimony for the variant=
                    >>>
                    >>>> ANTAPODWSEI at Deut 32:41? Should he not have listed Greek Bible evidenc=
                    >>> e
                    >>>> in preference, or in priority to, patristic witness such as that from
                    >>>> Procopius of Gaza? Or have I somehow misunderstood the apparatus and its=
                    >>>
                    >>>> purpose? Input will be appreciated.
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Thanks, James
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=
                    >>>
                    >>>> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how=
                    >>> .
                    >>>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
                    >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->=
                    >>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                    > 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                    > kraft@...
                    > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.