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

1903Re: LXX

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    Mar 4, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" <rminton@...> wrote:

      >I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
      >of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
      >helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
      >OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
      >However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
      >or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
      >Thanks in advance.

      Personally I found A&C rather irritating. They tried to make everything
      match the MT, and paid no attention to the variants in LXX.

      I would also observe that the Nestle apparatus isn't much help. It
      will sometimes label a citation as being from LXX -- but only where
      the LXX is distinctly different from MT. It would be helpful if it
      noted where the citation matches LXX, not where it differs from MT.

      In my ignorance, I don't know of any particular studies on this
      subject. In my own work, I find that Paul tends to follow LXX.
      I believe this is true with most NT authors (Luke in particular).
      The one major exception is Matthew, who will usually translate
      the OT himself unless the LXX has some particular reading he
      liked (e.g. the citation about the "virgin" bearing a son).

      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      Robert B. Waltz
      waltzmn@...

      Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
      Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
      (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic