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

Re: [lxx] Re: Additional 67 verses of Dan. 3

Expand Messages
  • Revdougpickrel@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/29/2008 4:49:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, mej1960@yahoo.com writes: That said, it might be even more important to give the class a
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/29/2008 4:49:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
      mej1960@... writes:

      That said, it might be even more important to give the class a chance
      to read excerpts from the one surviving manuscript of the original
      LXX/OG translation of Daniel (if memory serves, it is designated ,'O')
      in addition to parallel passages from the 'Theodotion' version that
      replaced it in all other surviving manuscripts. They will see that
      there is a good reason for the replacement;t



      Hi Matthew,

      That is the point, I am not sure that these passages are surviving
      manuscripts, where did they come from? I have two versions of LXX, and Brenton's does
      not have these passages, and none of my OT's have them. Where would
      Theodotion have gotten them? Give me a little help here and I'll be glad to add
      them to my study. I planned to share them with the class later in the study,
      just not in chapter 3.

      Doug.

      Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
      Tejas Valley
      San Antonio, Texas



      **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
      (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
      2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matthew Johnson
      ... I felt the need, in order to address this question correctly, to resort to Swete myself. Fortunately, ccel.org has made a scanned copy available online. It
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Revdougpickrel@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 2/29/2008 4:49:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
        > mej1960@... writes:
        >
        > That said, it might be even more important to give the class
        > a chance to read excerpts from the one surviving manuscript
        > of the original LXX/OG translation of Daniel
        > (if memory serves, it is designated ,'O')
        > in addition to parallel passages from the 'Theodotion' version that
        > replaced it in all other surviving manuscripts. They will see that
        > there is a good reason for the replacement;t
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Matthew,
        >
        > That is the point, I am not sure that these passages are surviving
        > manuscripts, where did they come from?

        I felt the need, in order to address this question correctly, to
        resort to Swete myself. Fortunately, ccel.org has made a scanned copy
        available online. It is at
        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_v.html.

        And that is the very page I need to refer to in order to answer this
        question: "It is well known that in Daniel the text of the LXX.[sic]
        is preserved in one MS. only, a cursive, and not earlier than the
        ninth century. Before the days of Jerome the Church had ceased to read
        the Septuagint of Daniel, its room having been filled by the version
        attributed to Theodotion".

        Now of course, Swete's understanding of just which texts/versions
        should be called 'LXX' and which 'Theodotion' is a little
        old-fashioned, but once you take that into account, his summary is
        pretty accurate, not overturned by today's scholarship.

        Now immediately after this, he says, "the LXX.[sic] version has been
        restored in Daniel to the place of honour, whilst we have placed
        opposite to it at each opening the version of Theodotion..."

        IOW, the "original LXX" of Daniel IS in Swete'e edition. I hope you
        find the PNG files readable, I haven't figured out myself how to
        expand them.

        > I have two versions of LXX, and Brenton's does
        > not have these passages, and none of my OT's have them.

        I think I was mislead by the use of the word 'version' here. Earlier,
        I thought you meant that you were giving your students the LXX itself
        to read, now it sounds like you are giving them English translations.

        > Where would
        > Theodotion have gotten them?

        Once upon a time, people believed that Theodotion himself did his own
        translation of the OT books from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. But since
        then, scholars realized that manuscripts showing evidence of his
        version date from well before his infancy! So now the more modern view
        is that he relied heavily on earlier translation work, done by persons
        now unknown.

        > Give me a little help here and I'll be glad to add
        > them to my study. I planned to share them with the
        > class later in the study, just not in chapter 3.

        Can your class handle the Greek? If so, the link I gave above has the
        two versions of Daniel (Theodotion and original LXX on alternating
        pages) starting at page 499, i.e:
        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_498.html.

        When I get a chance to look again at my paper copy, I can give you the
        selections of passages Swete himself considered typical of the
        differences between these two versions. But the online site makes that
        a difficult search.
      • Revdougpickrel@aol.com
        ... I felt the need, in order to address this question correctly, to resort to Swete myself. Fortunately, ccel.org has made a scanned copy available online.
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          > Hi Matthew,
          >
          > That is the point, I am not sure that these passages are surviving
          > manuscripts, where did they come from?

          I felt the need, in order to address this question correctly, to
          resort to Swete myself. Fortunately, ccel.org has made a scanned copy
          available online. It is at
          _http://www.ccel.http://wwhttp://www.http://www.c_
          (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_v.html.)

          Matthew, I tried your above link, and does not exist message appeared


          IOW, the "original LXX" of Daniel IS in Swete'e edition. I hope you
          find the PNG files readable, I haven't figured out myself how to
          expand them.

          > I have two versions of LXX, and Brenton's does
          > not have these passages, and none of my OT's have them.

          I think I was mislead by the use of the word 'version' here. Earlier,
          I thought you meant that you were giving your students the LXX itself
          to read, now it sounds like you are giving them English translations.

          Sorry you felt mislead. I own two versions of LXX, Gramcord's and
          Brenton's. To clearfy, I am teaching an elderly group the Book of Daniel, not the
          LXX, but from the LXX. I am translating, putting it in my own words, and then
          teaching from there. They are well versed in Scripture and understanding,
          but I am afraid if I spring those 67 verses out of the blue I would confuse
          them since their Bible don't show these.

          > Where would
          > Theodotion have gotten them?

          Once upon a time, people believed that Theodotion himself did his own
          translation of the OT books from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek. But since
          then, scholars realized that manuscripts showing evidence of his
          version date from well before his infancy! So now the more modern view
          is that he relied heavily on earlier translation work, done by persons
          now unknown.

          > Give me a little help here and I'll be glad to add
          > them to my study. I planned to share them with the
          > class later in the study, just not in chapter 3.

          Can your class handle the Greek? If so, the link I gave above has the
          two versions of Daniel (Theodotion and original LXX on alternating
          pages) starting at page 499, i.e:
          _http://www.ccel.http://wwhttp://www.http://wwhttp:_
          (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_498.html.)

          apparently this link does not work

          When I get a chance to look again at my paper copy, I can give you the
          selections of passages Swete himself considered typical of the
          differences between these two versions. But the online site makes that
          a difficult search.

          Matthew, so that you understand, I am working from a Gramcord program,
          translating, and making my own outline from LXX.

          Doug.



          Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
          Tejas Valley
          San Antonio, Texas



          **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
          (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
          2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Matthew Johnson
          ... [snip] ... Well, the link still works for me. Perhaps you forgot to delete the final . which I added for English punctuation? It is not part of the URL.
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Revdougpickrel@... wrote:

            [snip]

            > (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_v.html.)

            > Matthew, I tried your above link, and does not exist
            > message appeared

            Well, the link still works for me. Perhaps you forgot to delete the
            final '.' which I added for English punctuation? It is not part of the
            URL.

            >I am translating, putting it in my own words, and then
            > teaching from there.

            It would be very challenging to represent the differences between
            Daniel in the original LXX and in Theodotion in English translation!

            > They are well versed in Scripture and understanding,
            > but I am afraid if I spring those 67 verses out of the blue
            > I would confuse
            > them since their Bible don't show these.

            This is what surprises me. If they are so well versed in Scripture,
            why don't they already know about the Greek additions to Daniel? Why
            don't they already know that many English editions represent the
            additions in separate appendices or even in separate 'apocryphal' books?

            [snip]

            > Can your class handle the Greek? If so, the link I gave
            > above has the
            > two versions of Daniel (Theodotion and original LXX on alternating
            > pages) starting at page 499, i.e:
            > (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/lxx3/Page_498.html.)
            >
            > apparently this link does not work

            Again, this link still works for me. Drop the final '.', which was to
            complete the English sentence.



            Matthew Johnson
          • Revdougpickrel@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/3/2008 11:51:15 P.M. Central Standard Time, mej1960@yahoo.com writes: This is what surprises me. If they are so well versed in Scripture,
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/3/2008 11:51:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
              mej1960@... writes:

              This is what surprises me. If they are so well versed in Scripture,
              why don't they already know about the Greek additions to Daniel? Why
              don't they already know that many English editions represent the
              additions in separate appendices or even in separate 'apocryphal' books?



              Well, Matthew, because many Christians don't accept 'apocryphal' books.
              They look at these writings as extra biblical writings and not canon. I have
              sixteen different versions of the Bible and none have these verses. I also own
              a 'Polyglott' and it does not have these 67 verses either. I must ask,
              "Where, O where, were these lost verses.

              Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
              Tejas Valley
              San Antonio, Texas



              **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
              Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Matthew Johnson
              ... OK, but Daniel is not an apocryphal book . So to understand the LXX of Daniel, they need to know that it has differences from the MT. So also I do not
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 6, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Revdougpickrel@... wrote:

                > In a message dated 3/3/2008 11:51:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                > mej1960@... writes:

                > This is what surprises me. If they are so well
                > versed in Scripture, why don't they already know
                > about the Greek additions to Daniel? Why don't
                > they already know that many English editions
                > represent the additions in separate appendices
                > or even in separate 'apocryphal' books?

                > Well, Matthew, because many Christians don't
                > accept 'apocryphal' books.

                OK, but Daniel is not an "apocryphal book". So to
                understand the LXX of Daniel, they need to know
                that it has differences from the MT. So also I do
                not consider it unreasonable to expect out of
                basic Biblical literacy, to know that there are
                differences even in the canonical books (such as
                Daniel, Psalms & Proverbs), even if _basic_ such
                literacy does not know them in the detail
                described below.

                > They look at these writings as extra biblical
                > writings and not canon.

                Ah, but using this viewpoint as a reason to know
                _nothing_ about them already reflects a deficiency
                of their "Biblical literacy". The class you are
                teaching on the LXX is a good chance to remedy
                this deficiency. I hope you find the Swete quote
                below useful to this end.

                > I have sixteen different versions of the Bible
                > and none have these verses.

                Not even in a separate section in the same volume?
                If I pick modern editions at random off the
                shelves of a new book store, such as Borders or
                Barnes&Noble, I would be hard pressed to find that
                many without these verses at least in a separate
                section.

                So, for example, the "New Oxford Annotated Bible"
                is available now only in an edition that includes
                the 'Apocrypha'. It does, however, cost a little
                more than a comparable edition (e.g. another
                study-bible of comparable scholarship) with only
                proto-canonical books.

                Curiously enough, when it comes to the KJV, copies
                w/o 'Apocrypha' cost about $7, but a copy of the
                _original_ which _does_ include them, costs about
                $20 or more!

                BTW: does their Biblical literacy include the
                knowledge that the original KJV was published
                _only_ with the 'Apocrypha'?

                This is only one reason why, in this day and age,
                I think it _is_ fair to expect some knowledge of
                the history of the canon of someone who claims to
                be "biblically literate". That knowledge should
                include some basic knowledge of the LXX influence,
                and of why the deutero-canonical books were
                accepted w/o question for so long, and are _still_
                accepted by so many. There are other reasons, but I
                feel that would digress to far from topics
                appropriate for this forum.

                > I also own a 'Polyglott' and it does not have
                > these 67 verses either. I must ask, "Where, O
                > where, were these lost verses.

                By contrast, out of the several copies I own, 5 of
                them have this addition, and they have it right
                where Swete says it should be, after Dan 3:23. All
                my copies of the LXX and its "daughter versions"
                have it. Even my RSVA has it.

                Now here is the passage from Swete that describes
                the differences between the MT of Daniel and the
                LXX:

                "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek"
                section heading "Books of the Hebrew Canon"

                --------Begin quote-------
                DANIEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both its
                Greek forms [Vide supra p.46] contains large
                contexts which have no equivalent in M. There are
                three such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) the
                story of Susanna (SOUSANNA, SWSANNA), which in the
                version of Theodotion [On Theodotion's Bel, see
                Gaster] as given by the great uncials precedes
                Dan. i 1; (2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (BHL
                KAI DRAKWN) which follows Dan. xii 13; (3) after
                Dan. iii 23 a digression of 67 verses (iii, 24-90
                LXX., Th.) consisting of (a) the prayer of Azarias
                (24-45), (b) details as to the heating of the
                furnace and the preservation of Azarias and his
                friends (46-51), (c) the song of the three
                (52-90).
                --------End quote-------

                I have replaced his references to footnotes with
                the footnotes themselves in square brackets. I
                have also used a transcription scheme that closely
                conforms to B-GREEK where Swete used Greek.

                On the next page he says:

                the addition to iii 23 is clearly Midrashic and
                probably had a Semitic original [op. cit]

                So that answers your question "where did they come
                from". Not that I would blame you, if you think
                Swete is over-confident in proclaiming them
                Midrash;)

                Finally, by now you have noticed I use the
                terminology "proto-canonical", and
                "deutero-canonical" and I put 'Apocrypha' in
                quotes. That is because I find that these first
                two terms represent the truth of the situation
                better than 'Apocrypha', (which term I cannot
                approve of). These two terms allow the expression
                of the distinction between the two, and of the
                priority of the first, without denigrating the
                latter as completely "un-canonical", which
                denigration was completely alien to the Christian
                Tradition until Jerome's successful propagation of
                his own personal prejudice.

                PS: you can find this work by Swete at http://www.sbible.boom.ru/swete.htm
              • andrew fincke
                If - as 3:50 maintains - The flame never touched them nor caused them any aggravation , why did they give preeminence to cold and frost in their hymn of
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  If - as 3:50 maintains - "The flame never touched them nor caused them any aggravation", why did they give preeminence to "cold" and "frost" in their hymn of gratitude after leaving the place? See vv. 67-69! It must have been somewhat warm down there.
                  Andrew Fincke


                  To: lxx@yahoogroups.comFrom: mej1960@...: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:06:32 +0000Subject: [lxx] Re: Additional 67 verses of Dan. 3




                  --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Revdougpickrel@... wrote:> In a message dated 3/3/2008 11:51:15 P.M. Central Standard Time, > mej1960@... writes:> This is what surprises me. If they are so well> versed in Scripture, why don't they already know> about the Greek additions to Daniel? Why don't> they already know that many English editions> represent the additions in separate appendices> or even in separate 'apocryphal' books?> Well, Matthew, because many Christians don't> accept 'apocryphal' books.OK, but Daniel is not an "apocryphal book". So tounderstand the LXX of Daniel, they need to knowthat it has differences from the MT. So also I donot consider it unreasonable to expect out ofbasic Biblical literacy, to know that there aredifferences even in the canonical books (such asDaniel, Psalms & Proverbs), even if _basic_ suchliteracy does not know them in the detaildescribed below.> They look at these writings as extra biblical> writings and not canon.Ah, but using this viewpoint as a reason to know_nothing_ about them already reflects a deficiencyof their "Biblical literacy". The class you areteaching on the LXX is a good chance to remedythis deficiency. I hope you find the Swete quotebelow useful to this end.> I have sixteen different versions of the Bible> and none have these verses.Not even in a separate section in the same volume?If I pick modern editions at random off theshelves of a new book store, such as Borders orBarnes&Noble, I would be hard pressed to find thatmany without these verses at least in a separatesection.So, for example, the "New Oxford Annotated Bible"is available now only in an edition that includesthe 'Apocrypha'. It does, however, cost a littlemore than a comparable edition (e.g. anotherstudy-bible of comparable scholarship) with onlyproto-canonical books.Curiously enough, when it comes to the KJV, copiesw/o 'Apocrypha' cost about $7, but a copy of the_original_ which _does_ include them, costs about$20 or more!BTW: does their Biblical literacy include theknowledge that the original KJV was published_only_ with the 'Apocrypha'?This is only one reason why, in this day and age,I think it _is_ fair to expect some knowledge ofthe history of the canon of someone who claims tobe "biblically literate". That knowledge shouldinclude some basic knowledge of the LXX influence,and of why the deutero-canonical books wereaccepted w/o question for so long, and are _still_accepted by so many. There are other reasons, but Ifeel that would digress to far from topicsappropriate for this forum.> I also own a 'Polyglott' and it does not have> these 67 verses either. I must ask, "Where, O> where, were these lost verses.By contrast, out of the several copies I own, 5 ofthem have this addition, and they have it rightwhere Swete says it should be, after Dan 3:23. Allmy copies of the LXX and its "daughter versions"have it. Even my RSVA has it.Now here is the passage from Swete that describesthe differences between the MT of Daniel and theLXX:"Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek"section heading "Books of the Hebrew Canon"--------Begin quote-------DANIEL. Like Esther the Book of Daniel in both itsGreek forms [Vide supra p.46] contains largecontexts which have no equivalent in M. There arethree such passages in the Greek Daniel: (1) thestory of Susanna (SOUSANNA, SWSANNA), which in theversion of Theodotion [On Theodotion's Bel, seeGaster] as given by the great uncials precedesDan. i 1; (2) the story of Bel and the Dragon (BHLKAI DRAKWN) which follows Dan. xii 13; (3) afterDan. iii 23 a digression of 67 verses (iii, 24-90LXX., Th.) consisting of (a) the prayer of Azarias(24-45), (b) details as to the heating of thefurnace and the preservation of Azarias and hisfriends (46-51), (c) the song of the three(52-90).--------End quote-------I have replaced his references to footnotes withthe footnotes themselves in square brackets. Ihave also used a transcription scheme that closelyconforms to B-GREEK where Swete used Greek.On the next page he says:the addition to iii 23 is clearly Midrashic andprobably had a Semitic original [op. cit]So that answers your question "where did they comefrom". Not that I would blame you, if you thinkSwete is over-confident in proclaiming themMidrash;)Finally, by now you have noticed I use theterminology "proto-canonical", and"deutero-canonical" and I put 'Apocrypha' inquotes. That is because I find that these firsttwo terms represent the truth of the situationbetter than 'Apocrypha', (which term I cannotapprove of). These two terms allow the expressionof the distinction between the two, and of thepriority of the first, without denigrating thelatter as completely "un-canonical", whichdenigration was completely alien to the ChristianTradition until Jerome's successful propagation ofhis own personal prejudice.PS: you can find this work by Swete at http://www.sbible.boom.ru/swete.htm






                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
                  http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.