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

Re: LXX

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 14 , 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)
    • Nichael Lynn Cramer
      ... Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to start exploring this question is Swete s _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in particular,
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 4, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        At 7:04 PM -0600 3/3/97, Ronald L. Minton 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.

        Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to
        start exploring this question is Swete's _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in
        particular, Chap II of Part 3 titled "Quotations from the LXX in the NT".

        One should turn to Swete for the details but, in short, he argues that
        "...the LXX is the principal source from which the writers of the N.T.
        derive their O.T. quotations." [p392], ranging from Acts where O.T.
        quotations "are taken from the LXX exclusively" [p398] to the Pauline
        corpus in which "more than half" [p400] come from the LXX.

        Nichael
        nichael@... "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis,
        http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..."
      • Mitchell Gray
        Hello, I don t know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not, please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of the
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 27, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          I don't know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not,
          please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
          the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
          that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible than those
          of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult to find
          any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
          possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
          translation.

          I know very little about the LXX and its relationship to the NT but is this
          a plausible theory? Would it have any support or has it been proven that
          the NT authors used the LXX when writing their letters?

          Any information would be great. Thanks in advance.

          Mitchell

          ---
          You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
          To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
        • Robert B. Waltz
          ... This is one of those cases where one is tempted to say, What was your acquaintance smoking at the time ? :-) The majority of NT quotations appear to be
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 27, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On 12/27/99, Mitchell Gray wrote:

            >Hello,
            >
            >I don't know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not,
            >please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
            >the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
            >that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible than those
            >of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult to find
            >any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
            >possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
            >translation.
            >
            >I know very little about the LXX and its relationship to the NT but is this
            >a plausible theory? Would it have any support or has it been proven that
            >the NT authors used the LXX when writing their letters?

            This is one of those cases where one is tempted to say, "What was your
            acquaintance smoking at the time"? :-)

            The majority of NT quotations appear to be from the LXX. Some, such
            as Matt. 1:23, *have* to be from LXX, because the MT doesn't mean
            the same thing as the LXX.

            Admittedly this reading from Matthew is an exception; Matthew usually
            translates on his own. But he was unusual in this; almost all of
            Paul's quotations, for instance, match one or another of the LXX textual
            strands. (For some reason, NT quotations don't seem to be used much
            in LXX textual criticism. Somebody should do something about that. :-)
            Though admittedly it's a complicated problem. :-)

            The argument about the expense of the manuscripts is, at the least,
            strange. I would guess that, in Palestine, a manuscript of the Hebrew
            would be cheaper; lots of people there capable of making one. Or you
            could get a used one.

            But elsewhere, the reverse would be true. Oh, an LXX manuscript might
            take more material (not sure about this; I haven't seen any comparisons.
            But LXX has vowels :-). But a Greek could copy an LXX manuscript. And
            a Greek could *read* an LXX manuscript. In other words, logic says
            that LXX manuscripts would be more common than Hebrew manuscripts,
            and hence probably cheaper, outside Palestine. And most of the NT,
            it is thought, was written outside Palestine. Therefore, if we trust
            logic at all, LXX manuscripts would have been more accessible.

            So both the evidence of the NT and the (much weaker) evidence of logic
            say that most of the OT quotations in the NT are from the LXX. The
            fact is, they *are*. For whatever reason. (It may be just that the
            authors felt they had to quote LXX, as that version would be familiar
            to their readers. It doesn't really matter....)

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

            Robert B. Waltz
            waltzmn@...

            Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
            Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
            (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

            ---
            You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
            To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
          • Steve Puluka
            ... I would love to see the historical documentation to support this theory! ;-) Joel Kalvesmaki has posted a lot of resources for Septuagint studies on his
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              >From: "Mitchell Gray" <kingmnky@...>

              >Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
              >the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
              >that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible
              >than those of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult
              >to find any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
              >possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
              >translation.

              I would love to see the historical documentation to support this theory! ;-)

              Joel Kalvesmaki has posted a lot of resources for Septuagint studies on his
              web site. The link below is a chart listing the quotations of scripture in
              the New Testament with the Septuagint and MT translations of each. You can
              see for yourself and judge for yourself the authors source. His main web
              page also links out to an extensive bibliography of books and periodicals
              where you can read what scholars have to say on this issue.

              http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/NTChart.htm

              Steve Puluka
              Adult Education Instructor
              Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
              http://arrive.at/byzantinecatholic

              ______________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


              ---
              You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
              To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
            • Gregory J. Woodhouse
              Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here? ... Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com /
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?

                ---
                Gregory Woodhouse
                gjw@... / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
                "An atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the
                believer caught up in his own false image of God."
                --Martin Buber


                ---
                You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
              • Robert B. Waltz
                ... It s very hard, based on what I ve seen, to correlate NT text-types with LXX readings. However, I ve read -- and what I ve seen in Paul seems to support
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 12/28/99, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:

                  >Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                  >mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?

                  It's very hard, based on what I've seen, to correlate NT text-types
                  with LXX readings.

                  However, I've read -- and what I've seen in Paul seems to support
                  this -- that the NT more often quotes the readings of the A text
                  of LXX than the B text. (This is based just on Rahlfs, I'm afraid.)
                  That is, the LXX text circulating in NT times seems not to be the
                  "Old Greek" as originally translated, but rather the somewhat
                  revised later versions.

                  Come to think of it, this *might* have been what the original
                  poster's source's original source said. Not that the NT quotes
                  the Hebrew, but that the NT quotes the LXX texts which have been
                  revised based on the Hebrew.

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

                  Robert B. Waltz
                  waltzmn@...

                  Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                  Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                  (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

                  ---
                  You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                  To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                • rlmullen@netpath.net
                  For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992). --Rod Mullen ...
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE
                    OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992).

                    --Rod Mullen

                    At 03:51 PM 12/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
                    >On 12/28/99, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:
                    >
                    >>Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                    >>mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?
                    >
                    >It's very hard, based on what I've seen, to correlate NT text-types
                    >with LXX readings.
                    >
                    >However, I've read -- and what I've seen in Paul seems to support
                    >this -- that the NT more often quotes the readings of the A text
                    >of LXX than the B text. (This is based just on Rahlfs, I'm afraid.)
                    >That is, the LXX text circulating in NT times seems not to be the
                    >"Old Greek" as originally translated, but rather the somewhat
                    >revised later versions.
                    >
                    >Come to think of it, this *might* have been what the original
                    >poster's source's original source said. Not that the NT quotes
                    >the Hebrew, but that the NT quotes the LXX texts which have been
                    >revised based on the Hebrew.
                    >
                    >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
                    >
                    > Robert B. Waltz
                    > waltzmn@...
                    >
                    >Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                    >Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                    >(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                    >
                    >---
                    >You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: rlmullen@...
                    >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
                    leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                    >


                    ---
                    You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                    To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                  • U.B.Schmid
                    ... D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstaendnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69), 1986 makes the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      rlmullen@... wrote:
                      > For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE
                      > OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992).

                      D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung
                      und zum Verstaendnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69), 1986 makes the point that
                      Pauline texts occasionally give pre-hexaplaric *Textforms*.

                      ------------------------------------------
                      Dr. Ulrich Schmid
                      U.B.Schmid@...


                      ---
                      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                    • Ron Minton
                      Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:07:53 -0800 (PST) From: Gregory J. Woodhouse To: TC-List
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 4, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:07:53 -0800 (PST)
                        From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <news1!gjw@...>
                        To: "TC-List" <tc-list@...-certr.org>
                        Subject: [tc-list] Re: LXX
                        Very interesting. What can be said about similarities between NT
                        mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here? Gregory Woodhouse
                        gjw@... / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
                        -------------------------------------
                        A few years ago, I read a paper on this at an SBL Regional
                        meeting in St. Louis (March 23, 1996). There are only 19 places in
                        the UBSGNT/NA/Maj texts where the NT has both an OT quotation
                        and a textual variant in the quoted part. These are a small number,
                        but the Maj. Text tends to quote from Hebrew more and the Cr.
                        Text tends to quote from the LXX more. The Maj. Text deviates
                        from both the Heb and LXX 26%. The Cr. Text does so 74%. I did
                        not feel that there was solid evidence that either had been modified
                        by scribes for the purpose of conforming to a certain OT text. For
                        details, see my SBL paper. The chart below is simplified from the
                        paper; it did not survive the transmission well, but is still useful.
                        Below the Scripture references is found the Maj. then the Cr. For
                        example, in the first entry, the Maj. follows the LXX and the Cr.
                        follows the Hebrew. My comments then follow.

                        NT TEXTUAL FAMILY VARIANTS
                        OF OT QUOTATIONS

                        NT/OT PASSAGE

                        BYZANTINE (MAJORITY)

                        ALEXANDRIAN (UBS4/NA27)

                        NOTES AND COMMENTS

                        

                        Mt. 2:18
                        Jer. 31:15

                        LXX

                        Hebrew

                        The Maj. mss. add "lamentation" to follow the LXX.
                        
                        Mk. 10:6-7
                        Gen. 2:24

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates 

                        UBS4 {D} text is in brackets, but clearly
                        attested in LXX, Heb, Maj.

                        

                        Mk. 12:36
                        Ps. 110:1

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates

                        See Mt. 22:44 - same Cr. deviant; UBS4 does not
                        list a variant.

                        
                        Mk. 15:34
                        Ps. 22:1

                        Hebrew

                        Hebrew

                        Minor variant; both Alex. and Byz. evidence divided.

                        

                        Lk. 4:4
                        Dt. 8:3

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates

                        Cr. here omits key phrase from OT & the Maj.

                        

                        Lk. 19:38
                        Ps. 118:26

                        Deviates
                        

                        Deviates
                        

                        Both texts add the word "king" not found in OT.
                        Actual variant is minor.

                        

                        Jn. 12:40
                        Is. 6:10

                        Hebrew

                        Hebrew

                        Minor variants in verb forms; little effect on meaning.

                        

                        Jn. 13:18
                        Ps. 41:9

                        Deviates

                        LXX/Heb

                        Maj. has "bread with me" where OT, Cr. have "my bread."

                        

                        Acts 7:32
                        Ex. 3:4-10

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates 

                        Cr. shortens quote by omitting phrase "the God of" twice.

                        

                        Rom. 3:12
                        Ps. 14:1-3
                        Ps. 53:1-3

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates 

                        UBS4 {C} text is in brackets, but clearly
                        attested reading. Slight deviation from OT.

                        

                        Rom. 9:28
                        Is. 10:22-3
                        Hos. 1:10

                        LXX

                        Deviates

                        Cr. omits LXX phrase "cut it short in righteousness."

                        

                        Rom. 10:15
                        Is. 52:7
                        Na. 1:15 

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates

                        Cr. omits OT phrase; Maj. shows some division.

                        

                        1 Cor.15:55
                        Hos. 13:14

                        Deviates

                        Deviates

                        Both texts differ from OT in verb choice; Cr. "death" for "Hades."

                        

                        Eph. 4:8
                        Ps. 68:18

                        Deviates

                        Deviates

                        Variant is minor. Both texts show intentional deviation by Paul.

                        

                        Heb. 1:8
                        Ps. 45:6-7

                        LXX/Heb

                        LXX/Heb

                        Minor variant
                        

                        

                        19Heb. 1:12
                        Ps.102:25-6

                        LXX

                        Deviates

                        Cr. has "as a garment," not found in OT.11 The New Testament
                        only quotes the last portion of thi the first part of the LXX which is
                        not being quoted (or, perhaps, reverts to the Hebrew word order)
                        
                        Heb.
                        2:7 Ps. 8:5-7

                        Deviates

                        Deviates

                        Both texts follow partial quote; part of Maj. has full quote.

                        

                        Heb. 8:11
                        Jer.31:31-4

                        LXX/Heb

                        Deviates

                        Cr. omits "of them" found in OT & Maj.

                        

                        Heb. 10:38
                        Hab. 2:3-4

                        LXX

                        Deviates

                        Cr. adds "my" not found in OT or Maj.; otherwise, LXX
                        

                        one miserable scribbler,
                        Ron Minton

                        ---
                        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.