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

Re: [lxx] DSS LXX fragments

Expand Messages
  • Sigrid Peterson
    ܻDear All-- Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll. It is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 22, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      ܻDear All--
      Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll. It
      is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from the
      area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d
      century CE.

      ܻFor a little more web-accessible information about the Greek Minor Prophets
      Scroll, see the page at
      http://variantsproject.info/aboutmss/minor-prophets-page/
      where I have roughly reproduced Table 11 from the DJD Edition of the Minor
      Prophets. Although I also provide an ewindow on the Biblica Qumranica
      material layout and material, for sampling, I was mostly interested in
      whether the GrMinorProphets Scroll included all of the Minor Prophets we
      know today. That is, did the scroll have seven of the 12 prophets we know
      (or 8 or 3), without our being able to know that the entire scroll,
      fragmentary or not, had more. This question was addressed by the team at
      Penn, in Kraft's section on Description of the MS, in Tov's overall edition
      of the scroll.

      I have added the notes I took from the Google Books online reproductions of
      the relevant pages of DJD VII.

      The larger question goes back to James Miller's overall question about the
      more or less fragmentary nature of the Old Greek manuscripts we have, using
      manuscripts to describe the subclassifications of UNCIALS, minuscules, and
      papyri, any of which may have used codex rather than scroll technology.

      Best,
      Sigrid Peterson
      petersig@...

      On 7/22/07, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Gene,
      > Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr), 1990
      > and
      > Biblia Qumranica 3b: Minor Prophets, Brill 2005. From what I understand,
      > they did all the work on the scroll around a table at Penn.
      > Andrew Fincke
      >
      >
      > >From: "g_gardner1234" <g_gardner1234@...>
      > >Reply-To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      > >To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
      > >Subject: [lxx] DSS LXX fragments
      > >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:43:25 -0000
      > >
      > >Does anyone on the list have a study of how the LXX fragments found at
      > >Qumran align with the current LXX mss that we have today? Also, has
      > >anyone translated those fragments into English anywhere on the net?
      > >
      > >Thanks
      > >
      > >Gene Gardner
      > >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • andrew fincke
      Dear Gene, It s really not as confusing as Sigrid makes it. Altogether, for hand A 37 columns are calculated, to which 18 columns are added for hand B. This
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Gene,
        It's really not as confusing as Sigrid makes it.
        "Altogether, for hand A 37 columns are calculated, to which 18 columns are
        added for hand B. This brings the tentative calculation of the scroll to at
        least 55 columns. This calculation is based on the assumptions that scribe B
        started to write exactly in the first column preserved in his handwriting,
        that is in Za 8... Returning now to the width of the preserved columns, the
        length of the scroll can be calculated on the basis of the assumption that
        it contained all the books of the Minor Prophets. The data provided in
        Tables 4 and 6 point to an averageof 8.9 cm for each column [based on
        17columns totalling 151 cm) and to and average of 1.7 cm for the margins
        between the columns. The average column with margin is thus 10.6 cm which
        would yield a scroll of either 9.64 meters (based on 91 columns) or 10.07
        meters (based on 95 columns)."
        Somehow we got from 55 columns to 100 columns! Furthermore the "ewindow"
        about Biblica Qumranica didn't come through, at least not in my hotmail
        edition of the message. I measure 1QIsa-a column 11 at 15.8 cm wide from
        the right margin to the right margin of column 12 (measuring from the Parry,
        Qimroan edition). There are 54 columns in all. That makes 853cm total
        length. I measure 4QSam-a column 9 at 13cm from the right margin to the
        right margin of column 10. The scroll was about 54 or 55 columns (we're
        missing fragments for 7 columns in 1 Samuel, and at column 36 there's some
        uncertainty. In 4QSam-a the columns vary in width from about 9cm (column 2)
        to about 15.5cm (column 54). Hope this is coherent, since my head is still
        in Ljubljana, where they speak Slovenian.
        Andrew Fincke


        >From: "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@...>
        >Reply-To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        >To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [lxx] DSS LXX fragments
        >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:32:07 -0400
        >
        >��Dear All--
        >Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll. It
        >is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from the
        >area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d
        >century CE.
        >
        >��For a little more web-accessible information about the Greek Minor
        >Prophets
        >Scroll, see the page at
        >http://variantsproject.info/aboutmss/minor-prophets-page/
        >where I have roughly reproduced Table 11 from the DJD Edition of the Minor
        >Prophets. Although I also provide an ewindow on the Biblica Qumranica
        >material layout and material, for sampling, I was mostly interested in
        >whether the GrMinorProphets Scroll included all of the Minor Prophets we
        >know today. That is, did the scroll have seven of the 12 prophets we know
        >(or 8 or 3), without our being able to know that the entire scroll,
        >fragmentary or not, had more. This question was addressed by the team at
        >Penn, in Kraft's section on Description of the MS, in Tov's overall edition
        >of the scroll.
        >
        >I have added the notes I took from the Google Books online reproductions of
        >the relevant pages of DJD VII.
        >
        >The larger question goes back to James Miller's overall question about the
        >more or less fragmentary nature of the Old Greek manuscripts we have, using
        >manuscripts to describe the subclassifications of UNCIALS, minuscules, and
        >papyri, any of which may have used codex rather than scroll technology.
        >
        >Best,
        > Sigrid Peterson
        >petersig@...
        >
        >On 7/22/07, andrew fincke <finckea@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Gene,
        > > Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr), 1990
        > > and
        > > Biblia Qumranica 3b: Minor Prophets, Brill 2005. From what I
        >understand,
        > > they did all the work on the scroll around a table at Penn.
        > > Andrew Fincke
        > >
        > >
        > > >From: "g_gardner1234" <g_gardner1234@...>
        > > >Reply-To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        > > >To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        > > >Subject: [lxx] DSS LXX fragments
        > > >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:43:25 -0000
        > > >
        > > >Does anyone on the list have a study of how the LXX fragments found at
        > > >Qumran align with the current LXX mss that we have today? Also, has
        > > >anyone translated those fragments into English anywhere on the net?
        > > >
        > > >Thanks
        > > >
        > > >Gene Gardner
        > > >
        > >
        > > _________________________________________________________________
        > > http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
      • g_gardner1234
        ... Scroll. It ... Sigrid, Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we have
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 23, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@...> wrote:
          >
          > ܻDear All--
          > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
          Scroll. It
          > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from the
          > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d
          > century CE.
          >

          Sigrid,

          Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
          fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we have now,
          how do they align?

          Thanks

          Gene Gardner
        • Sigrid Peterson
          Gene, I ll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for an afternoon of other stuff. If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 23, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Gene,
            I'll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for an
            afternoon of other stuff.
            If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek from Qumran (or
            any other Dead Sea location) that corresponds to Torah in Greek. Hebrew is a
            different story.

            Best,
            Sigrid Peterson
            petersig@...

            On 7/23/07, g_gardner1234 <g_gardner1234@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > ܻDear All--
            > > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
            > Scroll. It
            > > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from the
            > > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d
            > > century CE.
            > >
            >
            > Sigrid,
            >
            > Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
            > fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we have now,
            > how do they align?
            >
            > Thanks
            >
            > Gene Gardner
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robert Kraft
            I m back from a conference in Italy (on Jubilees) and a reunion week in the Colorado Rockies (lovely), getting ready for the Papyrology Congress in Ann Arbor
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 23, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm back from a conference in Italy (on Jubilees) and a reunion week in the Colorado Rockies
              (lovely), getting ready for the Papyrology Congress in Ann Arbor MI. So very quickly, a few
              comments:

              The Qumran Greek materials have received quite a bit of attention (as old scriptural fragments
              tend to do!) and you can see images and find some introductory information (in the last half
              of the file) at

              http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html

              The problem of defining "Septuagint" is, as Sigrid has commented, quite complex and can be very
              confusing since it seems to impart concreteness and homogeneity to what only became a fairly
              clearly defined larger collection rather late in the historical process. Thus for my work on
              the early period, I use "LXX/OG" for a general term (to alert the reader to the problems), and
              "LXX" only for the old Greek Pentateuch, which does seem to have some signs of homogeneity (or
              maybe homoiogeneity) in the earliest recoverable forms of the books/scrolls. Apart from the
              Pentateuch, the OG materials are extremely diverse, and probably originated at widely different
              times and places, under divergent translation "philosophies" and procedures.

              The problem of scope is especially difficult in the period before "maxi-codex" technology was
              developed around the 4th century CE. In the world of scrolls and "mini-codices," we seldom find
              more than two books the length of a Genesis or a Matthew together, and more usually only one or
              even less (the evidence from Samuel-Kings, for example, supports the idea that the divisions of
              scrolls or mini-codices reflected in the textual prehistory of those books did not necessarily
              coincide with our current book divisions). Thus to speak of "the LXX" as a unit, even with
              reference to the pentateuch, almost certainly means a cabinet or a book-box (capsa) containing
              the multiple scrolls, not a single scroll containing all the books. This technological
              situation surely contributed to much early confusion of "text-types" and the like. By the time
              that technology (and economics) produced the maxi-codices capable of holding everything judged
              to be "scriptural" (yet another problematic concept with its own history), the textcritical
              situation was confused beyond repair, as can be seen even in the earliest such codices
              (B/Vaticanus, S/Sinaiticus, A/Alexandrinus, etc.).

              Recognition of such problems makes the textcritical task all the more difficult, since any
              perceived alignment of a Qumran Greek fragment with a 4th or 5th century CE codex such as
              Vaticanus tells us little about the larger picture (i.e. a Qumran fragment that aligns more
              closely with Vaticanus in Leviticus does not ipso facto strengthen confidence that Vaticanus
              preserves "ancient" readings elsewhere, even elsewhere in the pentateuch). Unless we can
              hypothesize that some sort of official standard Greek text was kept somewhere (in the Jerusalem
              Temple? in synagogue archives that were centrally controlled? in booksellers copy rooms, again
              centrally coordinated?!), textual variation and diversity is to be expected from the beginning
              of circulation of these materials, and textual intermixing as collections came to be made and
              then preserved in longer scrolls and increasingly larger codices. For some further thoughts on
              these problems, see my recent "paramania" address (with pictures) at

              http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new2/sblpres2006-all.html

              The Nahal Hever Minor Prophets materials (not from Qumran, but probably from around the turn of
              the era) shed little light on what became the OG/LXX version of that anthology, but do reveal a
              rather wooden/mechanical translation technique close to what became the MT Hebrew of the Minor
              Prophets. Whether this Greek rendering (which seems to have been known to Justin Martyr, who
              probably would have considered it to be "Septuagintal") was independent of our OG/LXX text, or
              was a development from our OG/LXX text, or even preceded our OG/LXX text, remains to be
              explored in detail (rather than determined by unexamined assumptions). If all the Greek Minor
              Prophets fragments from Nahal Hever come from the same scroll, as Tov thinks, it was a scroll
              that changed its format radically somewhere between "scribe A" and "scribe B." I prefer to
              think that the fragments represent two scrolls, although I can't determine whether each scroll
              held the entire anthology of the 12 prophets, or only a portion. It is not impossible that for
              those who deposited these materials in the Nahal Hever cave, two scrolls were used to record
              the entire Minor Prophets library; the same translation technique is reflected in "hand A" and
              in "hand B," while format and depiction of the tetragrammaton differ.

              For a fairly complete chart of the earliest fragments of LXX/OG, see also Emanuel Tov's
              masterful study Scribal Habits and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert
              (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004) -- "Appendix 5: Scribal Features of Early Witnesses
              to Greek Scripture."

              Now back to getting a paper ready for the papyrology meetings!

              Bob

              >
              > Gene,
              > I'll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for an
              > afternoon of other stuff.
              > If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek from Qumran (or
              > any other Dead Sea location) that corresponds to Torah in Greek. Hebrew is a
              > different story.
              >
              > Best,
              > Sigrid Peterson
              > petersig@...
              >
              > On 7/23/07, g_gardner1234 <g_gardner1234@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > ��Dear All--
              > > > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
              > > Scroll. It
              > > > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek materials from the
              > > > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to the 2d
              > > > century CE.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Sigrid,
              > >
              > > Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
              > > fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we have now,
              > > how do they align?
              > >
              > > Thanks
              > >
              > > Gene Gardner
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > 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
            • g_gardner1234
              Thank you all for your answers. So to recap what I perceive has been stated, is that there is no solid substantiated proof from early Greek mss (Qumran etc)
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 29, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Thank you all for your answers. So to recap what I perceive has been
                stated, is that there is no solid substantiated proof from early Greek
                mss (Qumran etc) that testifies to the accuracy of todays LXX
                Pentateuch in reference to the original translation of the Hebrew
                Torah dated approx 3-2 bce. Is that correct?

                Thank you

                Gene Gardner




                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@...> wrote:
                >
                > I'm back from a conference in Italy (on Jubilees) and a reunion week
                in the Colorado Rockies
                > (lovely), getting ready for the Papyrology Congress in Ann Arbor MI.
                So very quickly, a few
                > comments:
                >
                > The Qumran Greek materials have received quite a bit of attention
                (as old scriptural fragments
                > tend to do!) and you can see images and find some introductory
                information (in the last half
                > of the file) at
                >
                > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html
                >
                > The problem of defining "Septuagint" is, as Sigrid has commented,
                quite complex and can be very
                > confusing since it seems to impart concreteness and homogeneity to
                what only became a fairly
                > clearly defined larger collection rather late in the historical
                process. Thus for my work on
                > the early period, I use "LXX/OG" for a general term (to alert the
                reader to the problems), and
                > "LXX" only for the old Greek Pentateuch, which does seem to have
                some signs of homogeneity (or
                > maybe homoiogeneity) in the earliest recoverable forms of the
                books/scrolls. Apart from the
                > Pentateuch, the OG materials are extremely diverse, and probably
                originated at widely different
                > times and places, under divergent translation "philosophies" and
                procedures.
                >
                > The problem of scope is especially difficult in the period before
                "maxi-codex" technology was
                > developed around the 4th century CE. In the world of scrolls and
                "mini-codices," we seldom find
                > more than two books the length of a Genesis or a Matthew together,
                and more usually only one or
                > even less (the evidence from Samuel-Kings, for example, supports the
                idea that the divisions of
                > scrolls or mini-codices reflected in the textual prehistory of those
                books did not necessarily
                > coincide with our current book divisions). Thus to speak of "the
                LXX" as a unit, even with
                > reference to the pentateuch, almost certainly means a cabinet or a
                book-box (capsa) containing
                > the multiple scrolls, not a single scroll containing all the books.
                This technological
                > situation surely contributed to much early confusion of "text-types"
                and the like. By the time
                > that technology (and economics) produced the maxi-codices capable of
                holding everything judged
                > to be "scriptural" (yet another problematic concept with its own
                history), the textcritical
                > situation was confused beyond repair, as can be seen even in the
                earliest such codices
                > (B/Vaticanus, S/Sinaiticus, A/Alexandrinus, etc.).
                >
                > Recognition of such problems makes the textcritical task all the
                more difficult, since any
                > perceived alignment of a Qumran Greek fragment with a 4th or 5th
                century CE codex such as
                > Vaticanus tells us little about the larger picture (i.e. a Qumran
                fragment that aligns more
                > closely with Vaticanus in Leviticus does not ipso facto strengthen
                confidence that Vaticanus
                > preserves "ancient" readings elsewhere, even elsewhere in the
                pentateuch). Unless we can
                > hypothesize that some sort of official standard Greek text was kept
                somewhere (in the Jerusalem
                > Temple? in synagogue archives that were centrally controlled? in
                booksellers copy rooms, again
                > centrally coordinated?!), textual variation and diversity is to be
                expected from the beginning
                > of circulation of these materials, and textual intermixing as
                collections came to be made and
                > then preserved in longer scrolls and increasingly larger codices.
                For some further thoughts on
                > these problems, see my recent "paramania" address (with pictures) at
                >
                > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new2/sblpres2006-all.html
                >
                > The Nahal Hever Minor Prophets materials (not from Qumran, but
                probably from around the turn of
                > the era) shed little light on what became the OG/LXX version of that
                anthology, but do reveal a
                > rather wooden/mechanical translation technique close to what became
                the MT Hebrew of the Minor
                > Prophets. Whether this Greek rendering (which seems to have been
                known to Justin Martyr, who
                > probably would have considered it to be "Septuagintal") was
                independent of our OG/LXX text, or
                > was a development from our OG/LXX text, or even preceded our OG/LXX
                text, remains to be
                > explored in detail (rather than determined by unexamined
                assumptions). If all the Greek Minor
                > Prophets fragments from Nahal Hever come from the same scroll, as
                Tov thinks, it was a scroll
                > that changed its format radically somewhere between "scribe A" and
                "scribe B." I prefer to
                > think that the fragments represent two scrolls, although I can't
                determine whether each scroll
                > held the entire anthology of the 12 prophets, or only a portion. It
                is not impossible that for
                > those who deposited these materials in the Nahal Hever cave, two
                scrolls were used to record
                > the entire Minor Prophets library; the same translation technique is
                reflected in "hand A" and
                > in "hand B," while format and depiction of the tetragrammaton differ.
                >
                > For a fairly complete chart of the earliest fragments of LXX/OG, see
                also Emanuel Tov's
                > masterful study Scribal Habits and Approaches Reflected in the Texts
                Found in the Judean Desert
                > (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004) -- "Appendix 5: Scribal
                Features of Early Witnesses
                > to Greek Scripture."
                >
                > Now back to getting a paper ready for the papyrology meetings!
                >
                > Bob
                >
                > >
                > > Gene,
                > > I'll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for an
                > > afternoon of other stuff.
                > > If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek from
                Qumran (or
                > > any other Dead Sea location) that corresponds to Torah in Greek.
                Hebrew is a
                > > different story.
                > >
                > > Best,
                > > Sigrid Peterson
                > > petersig@...
                > >
                > > On 7/23/07, g_gardner1234 <g_gardner1234@...> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > ܻDear All--
                > > > > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
                > > > Scroll. It
                > > > > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek
                materials from the
                > > > > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to
                the 2d
                > > > > century CE.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > Sigrid,
                > > >
                > > > Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
                > > > fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we
                have now,
                > > > how do they align?
                > > >
                > > > Thanks
                > > >
                > > > Gene Gardner
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > 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
                >
              • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                Dear Gene, If you refer strictly to the recovered ancient Greek texts, the issue is still more complicated than one simple question and answer can cover.
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 29, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Gene,
                  If you refer strictly to the recovered ancient Greek texts, the issue is
                  still more complicated than one simple question and answer can cover.
                  Reconstruction of the ancient LXX/OG text continues apace, particularly in
                  the Septuaginta-Unternehmen at Goettingen. Similar to the eclectic NT text
                  produced by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart, the likelihood that
                  the reconstructed text approaches the original is high, very likely
                  differing from that original in only a very low percentage of readings. The
                  vivacity of the LXX/OG textual tradition is extraordinary, and really
                  somewhat bewildering. Take a look at the apparatus in any of the
                  Goettingen Septuaginta volumes on that score. But the reconstruction is
                  based upon many manuscripts and fragments, both early and late. To
                  arbitrarily limit consideration of the evidence to only "early" (by which I
                  presume you mean 1st century AD and earlier) realia is too limiting by far.
                  One wouldn't be able to reconstruct much of anything that way.

                  There is also the issue of readings in early Hebrew evidence which represent
                  in several cases readings in the LXX/OG which differ from the
                  (proto-)Masoretic Text. Though the early Greek evidence may not exist
                  representing the later Greek readings, it would be a mistake to ignore the
                  undisputed Hebrew evidence for these later readings.

                  So, in a way, your question is not quite phrased to address the complexity
                  of the evidence, which requires inclusion of both Greek and Hebrew evidence.
                  If it were rephrased to include both the Greek and the Hebrew evidence,the
                  answer to your question would be, "No."

                  I hope that helps.

                  Regards,
                  Kevin P. Edgecomb
                  Berkeley, California

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  g_gardner1234
                  Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:31 AM
                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [lxx] Re: DSS LXX fragments (The historicity of todays LXX Torah)

                  Thank you all for your answers. So to recap what I perceive has been stated,
                  is that there is no solid substantiated proof from early Greek mss (Qumran
                  etc) that testifies to the accuracy of todays LXX Pentateuch in reference to
                  the original translation of the Hebrew Torah dated approx 3-2 bce. Is that
                  correct?

                  Thank you

                  Gene Gardner




                  --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'm back from a conference in Italy (on Jubilees) and a reunion week
                  in the Colorado Rockies
                  > (lovely), getting ready for the Papyrology Congress in Ann Arbor MI.
                  So very quickly, a few
                  > comments:
                  >
                  > The Qumran Greek materials have received quite a bit of attention
                  (as old scriptural fragments
                  > tend to do!) and you can see images and find some introductory
                  information (in the last half
                  > of the file) at
                  >
                  > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html
                  >
                  > The problem of defining "Septuagint" is, as Sigrid has commented,
                  quite complex and can be very
                  > confusing since it seems to impart concreteness and homogeneity to
                  what only became a fairly
                  > clearly defined larger collection rather late in the historical
                  process. Thus for my work on
                  > the early period, I use "LXX/OG" for a general term (to alert the
                  reader to the problems), and
                  > "LXX" only for the old Greek Pentateuch, which does seem to have
                  some signs of homogeneity (or
                  > maybe homoiogeneity) in the earliest recoverable forms of the
                  books/scrolls. Apart from the
                  > Pentateuch, the OG materials are extremely diverse, and probably
                  originated at widely different
                  > times and places, under divergent translation "philosophies" and
                  procedures.
                  >
                  > The problem of scope is especially difficult in the period before
                  "maxi-codex" technology was
                  > developed around the 4th century CE. In the world of scrolls and
                  "mini-codices," we seldom find
                  > more than two books the length of a Genesis or a Matthew together,
                  and more usually only one or
                  > even less (the evidence from Samuel-Kings, for example, supports the
                  idea that the divisions of
                  > scrolls or mini-codices reflected in the textual prehistory of those
                  books did not necessarily
                  > coincide with our current book divisions). Thus to speak of "the
                  LXX" as a unit, even with
                  > reference to the pentateuch, almost certainly means a cabinet or a
                  book-box (capsa) containing
                  > the multiple scrolls, not a single scroll containing all the books.
                  This technological
                  > situation surely contributed to much early confusion of "text-types"
                  and the like. By the time
                  > that technology (and economics) produced the maxi-codices capable of
                  holding everything judged
                  > to be "scriptural" (yet another problematic concept with its own
                  history), the textcritical
                  > situation was confused beyond repair, as can be seen even in the
                  earliest such codices
                  > (B/Vaticanus, S/Sinaiticus, A/Alexandrinus, etc.).
                  >
                  > Recognition of such problems makes the textcritical task all the
                  more difficult, since any
                  > perceived alignment of a Qumran Greek fragment with a 4th or 5th
                  century CE codex such as
                  > Vaticanus tells us little about the larger picture (i.e. a Qumran
                  fragment that aligns more
                  > closely with Vaticanus in Leviticus does not ipso facto strengthen
                  confidence that Vaticanus
                  > preserves "ancient" readings elsewhere, even elsewhere in the
                  pentateuch). Unless we can
                  > hypothesize that some sort of official standard Greek text was kept
                  somewhere (in the Jerusalem
                  > Temple? in synagogue archives that were centrally controlled? in
                  booksellers copy rooms, again
                  > centrally coordinated?!), textual variation and diversity is to be
                  expected from the beginning
                  > of circulation of these materials, and textual intermixing as
                  collections came to be made and
                  > then preserved in longer scrolls and increasingly larger codices.
                  For some further thoughts on
                  > these problems, see my recent "paramania" address (with pictures) at
                  >
                  > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new2/sblpres2006-all.html
                  >
                  > The Nahal Hever Minor Prophets materials (not from Qumran, but
                  probably from around the turn of
                  > the era) shed little light on what became the OG/LXX version of that
                  anthology, but do reveal a
                  > rather wooden/mechanical translation technique close to what became
                  the MT Hebrew of the Minor
                  > Prophets. Whether this Greek rendering (which seems to have been
                  known to Justin Martyr, who
                  > probably would have considered it to be "Septuagintal") was
                  independent of our OG/LXX text, or
                  > was a development from our OG/LXX text, or even preceded our OG/LXX
                  text, remains to be
                  > explored in detail (rather than determined by unexamined
                  assumptions). If all the Greek Minor
                  > Prophets fragments from Nahal Hever come from the same scroll, as
                  Tov thinks, it was a scroll
                  > that changed its format radically somewhere between "scribe A" and
                  "scribe B." I prefer to
                  > think that the fragments represent two scrolls, although I can't
                  determine whether each scroll
                  > held the entire anthology of the 12 prophets, or only a portion. It
                  is not impossible that for
                  > those who deposited these materials in the Nahal Hever cave, two
                  scrolls were used to record
                  > the entire Minor Prophets library; the same translation technique is
                  reflected in "hand A" and
                  > in "hand B," while format and depiction of the tetragrammaton differ.
                  >
                  > For a fairly complete chart of the earliest fragments of LXX/OG, see
                  also Emanuel Tov's
                  > masterful study Scribal Habits and Approaches Reflected in the Texts
                  Found in the Judean Desert
                  > (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004) -- "Appendix 5: Scribal
                  Features of Early Witnesses
                  > to Greek Scripture."
                  >
                  > Now back to getting a paper ready for the papyrology meetings!
                  >
                  > Bob
                  >
                  > >
                  > > Gene,
                  > > I'll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for
                  > > an afternoon of other stuff.
                  > > If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek from
                  Qumran (or
                  > > any other Dead Sea location) that corresponds to Torah in Greek.
                  Hebrew is a
                  > > different story.
                  > >
                  > > Best,
                  > > Sigrid Peterson
                  > > petersig@...
                  > >
                  > > On 7/23/07, g_gardner1234 <g_gardner1234@...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ܻDear All--
                  > > > > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
                  > > > Scroll. It
                  > > > > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek
                  materials from the
                  > > > > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to
                  the 2d
                  > > > > century CE.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Sigrid,
                  > > >
                  > > > Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
                  > > > fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we
                  have now,
                  > > > how do they align?
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks
                  > > >
                  > > > Gene Gardner
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 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
                • g_gardner1234
                  Since the Torah is reported as being the earliest books of the LXX that were translated from Hebrew to Greek, lets focus on them for now. Emmanuel Tov did a
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 29, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Since the Torah is reported as being the earliest books of the LXX
                    that were translated from Hebrew to Greek, lets focus on them for now.
                    Emmanuel Tov did a survey of the the Hebrew Torah mss/fragments found
                    at Qumran. There were forty six books of Torah related manuscripts
                    which were used for this particular comparison. Of the forty six,
                    twenty four (52%) were aligned with the Masoretic textual family.
                    Seventeen of the forty six (37%) did not align to the MT, the LXX, or
                    the Samaritan Pentateuch. Three manuscripts (6.5%) were aligned to the
                    Samaritan Pentateuch, and two manuscripts (4.5%) aligned with the LXX.
                    If this information in incorrect, please advise. If you have any
                    additional information, I would appreciate it if you would post it.

                    Thank you

                    Gene Gardner






                    --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin P. Edgecomb" <kevin@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear Gene,
                    > If you refer strictly to the recovered ancient Greek texts, the issue is
                    > still more complicated than one simple question and answer can cover.
                    > Reconstruction of the ancient LXX/OG text continues apace,
                    particularly in
                    > the Septuaginta-Unternehmen at Goettingen. Similar to the eclectic
                    NT text
                    > produced by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart, the
                    likelihood that
                    > the reconstructed text approaches the original is high, very likely
                    > differing from that original in only a very low percentage of
                    readings. The
                    > vivacity of the LXX/OG textual tradition is extraordinary, and really
                    > somewhat bewildering. Take a look at the apparatus in any of the
                    > Goettingen Septuaginta volumes on that score. But the reconstruction is
                    > based upon many manuscripts and fragments, both early and late. To
                    > arbitrarily limit consideration of the evidence to only "early" (by
                    which I
                    > presume you mean 1st century AD and earlier) realia is too limiting
                    by far.
                    > One wouldn't be able to reconstruct much of anything that way.
                    >
                    > There is also the issue of readings in early Hebrew evidence which
                    represent
                    > in several cases readings in the LXX/OG which differ from the
                    > (proto-)Masoretic Text. Though the early Greek evidence may not exist
                    > representing the later Greek readings, it would be a mistake to
                    ignore the
                    > undisputed Hebrew evidence for these later readings.
                    >
                    > So, in a way, your question is not quite phrased to address the
                    complexity
                    > of the evidence, which requires inclusion of both Greek and Hebrew
                    evidence.
                    > If it were rephrased to include both the Greek and the Hebrew
                    evidence,the
                    > answer to your question would be, "No."
                    >
                    > I hope that helps.
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Kevin P. Edgecomb
                    > Berkeley, California
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: lxx@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lxx@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    > g_gardner1234
                    > Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:31 AM
                    > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [lxx] Re: DSS LXX fragments (The historicity of todays LXX
                    Torah)
                    >
                    > Thank you all for your answers. So to recap what I perceive has been
                    stated,
                    > is that there is no solid substantiated proof from early Greek mss
                    (Qumran
                    > etc) that testifies to the accuracy of todays LXX Pentateuch in
                    reference to
                    > the original translation of the Hebrew Torah dated approx 3-2 bce.
                    Is that
                    > correct?
                    >
                    > Thank you
                    >
                    > Gene Gardner
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I'm back from a conference in Italy (on Jubilees) and a reunion week
                    > in the Colorado Rockies
                    > > (lovely), getting ready for the Papyrology Congress in Ann Arbor MI.
                    > So very quickly, a few
                    > > comments:
                    > >
                    > > The Qumran Greek materials have received quite a bit of attention
                    > (as old scriptural fragments
                    > > tend to do!) and you can see images and find some introductory
                    > information (in the last half
                    > > of the file) at
                    > >
                    > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html
                    > >
                    > > The problem of defining "Septuagint" is, as Sigrid has commented,
                    > quite complex and can be very
                    > > confusing since it seems to impart concreteness and homogeneity to
                    > what only became a fairly
                    > > clearly defined larger collection rather late in the historical
                    > process. Thus for my work on
                    > > the early period, I use "LXX/OG" for a general term (to alert the
                    > reader to the problems), and
                    > > "LXX" only for the old Greek Pentateuch, which does seem to have
                    > some signs of homogeneity (or
                    > > maybe homoiogeneity) in the earliest recoverable forms of the
                    > books/scrolls. Apart from the
                    > > Pentateuch, the OG materials are extremely diverse, and probably
                    > originated at widely different
                    > > times and places, under divergent translation "philosophies" and
                    > procedures.
                    > >
                    > > The problem of scope is especially difficult in the period before
                    > "maxi-codex" technology was
                    > > developed around the 4th century CE. In the world of scrolls and
                    > "mini-codices," we seldom find
                    > > more than two books the length of a Genesis or a Matthew together,
                    > and more usually only one or
                    > > even less (the evidence from Samuel-Kings, for example, supports the
                    > idea that the divisions of
                    > > scrolls or mini-codices reflected in the textual prehistory of those
                    > books did not necessarily
                    > > coincide with our current book divisions). Thus to speak of "the
                    > LXX" as a unit, even with
                    > > reference to the pentateuch, almost certainly means a cabinet or a
                    > book-box (capsa) containing
                    > > the multiple scrolls, not a single scroll containing all the books.
                    > This technological
                    > > situation surely contributed to much early confusion of "text-types"
                    > and the like. By the time
                    > > that technology (and economics) produced the maxi-codices capable of
                    > holding everything judged
                    > > to be "scriptural" (yet another problematic concept with its own
                    > history), the textcritical
                    > > situation was confused beyond repair, as can be seen even in the
                    > earliest such codices
                    > > (B/Vaticanus, S/Sinaiticus, A/Alexandrinus, etc.).
                    > >
                    > > Recognition of such problems makes the textcritical task all the
                    > more difficult, since any
                    > > perceived alignment of a Qumran Greek fragment with a 4th or 5th
                    > century CE codex such as
                    > > Vaticanus tells us little about the larger picture (i.e. a Qumran
                    > fragment that aligns more
                    > > closely with Vaticanus in Leviticus does not ipso facto strengthen
                    > confidence that Vaticanus
                    > > preserves "ancient" readings elsewhere, even elsewhere in the
                    > pentateuch). Unless we can
                    > > hypothesize that some sort of official standard Greek text was kept
                    > somewhere (in the Jerusalem
                    > > Temple? in synagogue archives that were centrally controlled? in
                    > booksellers copy rooms, again
                    > > centrally coordinated?!), textual variation and diversity is to be
                    > expected from the beginning
                    > > of circulation of these materials, and textual intermixing as
                    > collections came to be made and
                    > > then preserved in longer scrolls and increasingly larger codices.
                    > For some further thoughts on
                    > > these problems, see my recent "paramania" address (with pictures) at
                    > >
                    > > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new2/sblpres2006-all.html
                    > >
                    > > The Nahal Hever Minor Prophets materials (not from Qumran, but
                    > probably from around the turn of
                    > > the era) shed little light on what became the OG/LXX version of that
                    > anthology, but do reveal a
                    > > rather wooden/mechanical translation technique close to what became
                    > the MT Hebrew of the Minor
                    > > Prophets. Whether this Greek rendering (which seems to have been
                    > known to Justin Martyr, who
                    > > probably would have considered it to be "Septuagintal") was
                    > independent of our OG/LXX text, or
                    > > was a development from our OG/LXX text, or even preceded our OG/LXX
                    > text, remains to be
                    > > explored in detail (rather than determined by unexamined
                    > assumptions). If all the Greek Minor
                    > > Prophets fragments from Nahal Hever come from the same scroll, as
                    > Tov thinks, it was a scroll
                    > > that changed its format radically somewhere between "scribe A" and
                    > "scribe B." I prefer to
                    > > think that the fragments represent two scrolls, although I can't
                    > determine whether each scroll
                    > > held the entire anthology of the 12 prophets, or only a portion. It
                    > is not impossible that for
                    > > those who deposited these materials in the Nahal Hever cave, two
                    > scrolls were used to record
                    > > the entire Minor Prophets library; the same translation technique is
                    > reflected in "hand A" and
                    > > in "hand B," while format and depiction of the tetragrammaton differ.
                    > >
                    > > For a fairly complete chart of the earliest fragments of LXX/OG, see
                    > also Emanuel Tov's
                    > > masterful study Scribal Habits and Approaches Reflected in the Texts
                    > Found in the Judean Desert
                    > > (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004) -- "Appendix 5: Scribal
                    > Features of Early Witnesses
                    > > to Greek Scripture."
                    > >
                    > > Now back to getting a paper ready for the papyrology meetings!
                    > >
                    > > Bob
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Gene,
                    > > > I'll have to get back to you on this a bit later. I am late for
                    > > > an afternoon of other stuff.
                    > > > If I recall correctly, though, there is very little in Greek from
                    > Qumran (or
                    > > > any other Dead Sea location) that corresponds to Torah in Greek.
                    > Hebrew is a
                    > > > different story.
                    > > >
                    > > > Best,
                    > > > Sigrid Peterson
                    > > > petersig@
                    > > >
                    > > > On 7/23/07, g_gardner1234 <g_gardner1234@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Sigrid Peterson" <petersig@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > ܻDear All--
                    > > > > > Andrew is correct about the editions of the Greek Minor Prophets
                    > > > > Scroll. It
                    > > > > > is the largest, and most easily matched, of any Greek
                    > materials from the
                    > > > > > area of the Dead Sea and the period from the 2d century BCE to
                    > the 2d
                    > > > > > century CE.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Sigrid,
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Let me ask you another question. If you compare all of the Torah
                    > > > > fragments from Qumran to the current LXX manuscripts that we
                    > have now,
                    > > > > how do they align?
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Thanks
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Gene Gardner
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > 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.