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

RE: [lxx] Deut 32:41 variant question

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.