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

RE: [lxx] LXX versions - do they always have the second canon?

Expand Messages
  • Schmuel
    Hi Bill, There have been some interesting replies to your questions, although not always direct to what you asked. Bill Ross - ... Schmuel Vaticanus is the
    Message 1 of 75 , Jan 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bill,

      There have been some interesting replies to your questions, although not always
      direct to what you asked.

      Bill Ross -
      > Do you have any idea why the Brenton translation is based on a version (Vaticanus)
      > from the early fourth century and not one from the third century BCE?

      Schmuel
      Vaticanus is the earliest major Greek OT text. Other LXX editions are based on other
      texts, such as the historical Greek OT as kept by the Byzantine church, with many
      more manuscripts involved. The differences are major.

      Essentially anything before Vaticanus would be minor fragments, such as in the DSS
      (and that mostly Penteteuch). You could also find some Hexapla (3rd century) although
      in manuscripts that are later Syriac translation. I am curious how much material there
      actually is there. Also individual verses conjectures can be made reading Philo or
      Josephus, although that is fraught with its own difficulties.

      >Can you please confirm or deny that the only versions of the LXX that are extent included the second canon? I am under that impression but I would like to hear it officially.

      No, every early manuscript Greek OT has a different assortment of books. The best
      you can do is simply look for the list of books, especially in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
      (the two earliest) and compare them to whatever you want to compare them. If you
      don't find them, give a holler and I will check my bookmarks.

      I am not sure what is in the later Byzantine manuscript Greek OT as preserved
      and copied in the Orthodox church. Perhaps they tended later to agree with
      the Orthodox view of canon and auxiliary canon, that would not be surprising
      in manuscripts from the 5th and 6th centuries and later.

      As to the Hebrew Bible canon, there are many strong indications that it was
      fully set before Yavne. The NT is a primary evidence. As is the clear
      statement by Jospephus that all the Jewish groups agreed on the 22-book
      canon, which appears in context to equate to the Hebrew Bible canon today.
      There are other evidences from the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the best articles
      on all this was written by a Karaite, Nehemiah Gordon, last time I checked
      it was only partially on the web.

      Granted the simplicity of this position is not one to which the complexities of
      modern scholarship is attracted.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
    • fivefree@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/13/2007 12:31:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, BillRoss@norisksoftware.com writes: I am decidedly not a Marxist but I should think that
      Message 75 of 75 , Jan 18, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/13/2007 12:31:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, BillRoss@... writes:

        I am decidedly not a Marxist but I should think that you would agree that historically religion has served the interests of authorities.

        That's what Marx said. Evil uses any convenient argument to do its will. Some have done this. The parable of the wheat and the weeds.   

        While 2 Tim is disputed, note that he does not say “what is written in certain books is canon” – rather that they were profitable.

        EVERYTHING is disputed. Yes, he also said it was God breathed. Perhaps part of the statement assumes you know which ones are God breathed and what is not.   
         

        In Corinthians Paul says that the letter kills but the breath gives life. The breath is, in Biblical thought, actually that which imparts life – per the original animation of the man.

        I'm not sure where this comes from. Higher criticism? It is of course referring to the Holy Spirit (Timothy).     

         Jesus says “the words that I speak to you – they are  breath and they are life.”

        Paul and the others seemed to have a doctrine of “hearing” and “proclamation” by the witnesses.

        Actually, they worked miracles to confirm the life and mission of Jesus.  

        Second Tim may have been written later to allow for Christianity to continue after the death of Paul. If so then it was important to indicate that they were “breathed” out by the god.

         
        My my. What a dry, lifeless conclusion. You sure sound like a disciple of Marx. A typical Marxist conclusion.  

        Bill Ross

         


        Regards
        ,
        Jack Jackson
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.