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

tc-list The LXX

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Bell
    Hi all If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into question
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 26 5:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all

      If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me
      privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
      question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
      writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we be
      that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.

      Thanks
      Matt Bell
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... I personally don t see how there can be any doubt about this. There are two lines of evidence: The manuscripts and the quotations. We have LXX fragments
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 26 7:14 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, "Matthew Bell" <mbkbell@...> wrote:

        >Hi all
        >
        >If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me
        >privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
        >question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
        >writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we be
        >that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.

        I personally don't see how there can be any doubt about this. There
        are two lines of evidence: The manuscripts and the quotations.

        We have LXX fragments which are dated as early as the second
        century B.C.E. So if one accepts the evidence of paleography,
        I think the matter is settled: At least part of the LXX was in
        existence by then.

        Then there are the quotations. Philo, the NT, and Josephus all
        quote the LXX. At times they quote the LXX at points where it
        differs from the MT. The obvious example of this is in Matthew:
        "Behold, a VIRGIN shall bear a son...." Since this is a mistranslation
        of the Hebrew, and since Matthew elsewhere translates the MT
        on his own, this can only have come from a copy of the LXX.

        A little comparative research will show that the correspondences
        between the NT and the LXX (usually the late LXX -- more like
        that found in A than B) are simply too great to be coincidence.
        The NT uses the LXX rendering far too often when the MT could
        be interpreted in multiple ways.

        There is a third line of evidence, which lies in the text of the
        LXX. This line of evidence is indirect but solid. The text of
        LXX often differs substantially from that of the MT. But the
        MT was already coming to be standardized by the first century
        C.E. Therefore any translation which does not conform to the
        MT must be older than that.

        I read somewhere a comment on Herodotus to the effect that the
        classics have been studied so much that the only way to produce
        a new theory was to produce a perverse theory. This sounds like
        an example of that. :-)

        Bob Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        "The one thing we learn from history --
        is that no one ever learns from history."
      • Jim West
        ... There is absolutely no doubt that the LXX existed BCE. There are fragments of it from Qumran, and Wadi Nahal Hever. Further, many of the quotations in the
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 26 9:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 01:21 PM 4/26/98 +0100, you wrote:
          >Hi all
          >
          >If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me
          >privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
          >question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
          >writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we be
          >that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.
          >
          >Thanks
          >Matt Bell

          There is absolutely no doubt that the LXX existed BCE. There are fragments
          of it from Qumran, and Wadi Nahal Hever.
          Further, many of the quotations in the NT of the Hebrew Bible are clearly
          from the LXX. See Hans Hubner's NT Theologie, vol 1 for a thorough discussion.

          Jim

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          Jim West, ThD
          Quartz Hill School of Theology

          jwest@...
        • Kevin W. Woodruff
          Matt: That theory arose because certain people are unwilling to concede that the NT writers cited a corrupt version as authorative scripture. There is
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 26 1:42 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Matt:

            That theory arose because certain people are unwilling to concede that the
            NT writers cited a "corrupt" version as authorative scripture. There is
            actually no supporting evidence in the way of hard facts to support that the
            LXX is a post New Testament creation.

            At 01:21 PM 4/26/98 +0100, you wrote:
            >Hi all
            >
            >If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me
            >privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
            >question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
            >writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we be
            >that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.
            >
            >Thanks
            >Matt Bell
            >
            >

            Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
            Library Director/Reference Librarian
            Cierpke Memorial Library
            Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
            1815 Union Ave.
            Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
            United States of America
            423/493-4252 (office)
            423/698-9447 (home)
            423/493-4497 (FAX)
            Cierpke@... (preferred)
            kwoodruf@... (alternate)
            http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
          • Professor L.W. Hurtado
            RE: the Septuagint and quotations of the OT in the NT. --Among specialists in LXX-studies, there is the view that the term *Septuagint* should be reserved for
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 27 7:07 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              RE: the Septuagint and quotations of the OT in the NT.
              --Among specialists in LXX-studies, there is the view that the term
              *Septuagint* should be reserved for the *Christian-era* Greek Bible
              texts, and that we should understand that these texts show
              recensional activities/efforts. Thus, we can differentiate between
              these Septuagint texts and "pre-LXX" texts or "Old Greek" texts,
              which are technically the pre-Christian mss of the Greek Bible. We
              do have to be aware that the Greek Bibles of the lst century readers
              were not necessarily at all points the same readings as what are
              found in the mss of the LXX upon which Ralfs etc depends. See, e.g.,
              R. W. Klein, _Textual Criticism of the OT: From the Septuagint to
              Qumran_ Fortress, 1974.
              --Citations of the OT in the NT don't always follow the LXX mss
              exactly, and there the reasons could be (a) use of a variant pre-LXX
              Greek bible ms, or (b) free/fluid citation (always a factor in
              citation of the OT), and or (c) independent Greek renderings of the
              MT (my colleague, Timothy Lim argues that Paul's citations of the OT
              suggest that at least occasionally Paul gave his own translation of
              the Hebrew [_Hebrew Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and the
              Pauline Letters_, OUP, 1997]).

              L. W. Hurtado
              University of Edinburgh,
              New College
              Mound Place
              Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
              Phone: 0131-650-8920
              Fax: 0131-650-6579
              E-mail: L.Hurtado@...
            • Matthew Bell
              Matt Bell ... me ... be ... ROBERT WALTZ ... MATT BELL Could you please specify which fragments you refer to? Thanks Matt Bell
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 27 9:11 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Matt Bell
                > >If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to
                me
                > >privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
                > >question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
                > >writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we
                be
                > >that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.
                >
                ROBERT WALTZ
                > I personally don't see how there can be any doubt about this. There
                > are two lines of evidence: The manuscripts and the quotations.
                >
                > We have LXX fragments which are dated as early as the second
                > century B.C.E. So if one accepts the evidence of paleography,
                > I think the matter is settled: At least part of the LXX was in
                > existence by then.

                MATT BELL
                Could you please specify which fragments you refer to?

                Thanks
                Matt Bell
              • Perry L. Stepp
                ... One other point. The impression that most people begin with--I certainly thought this at first--is that the Septuagint is a single Greek text of the Old
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 27 11:11 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Robert Waltz wrote:

                  > BTW -- one other note we might add on this topic: The translator
                  > of Ben Sira, writing in 132 B.C.E., referred to translations of
                  > the Law, Prophets, and "other books" in his time. We can't prove
                  > it was the LXX -- but it was a Greek translation of the Hebrew
                  > Bible. Pretty strong hint. :-)

                  One other point. The impression that most people begin with--I certainly
                  thought this at first--is that the Septuagint is a single Greek text of the
                  Old Testament, coming from a single group of translators over a short period
                  of time. My understanding (LXX specialists, please confirm/amplify/clarify)
                  is that there is in fact no single Septuagint--there is rather a *group* of
                  pre-Christian Greek translations of the Old Testament, and mss from this
                  group were popular among Hellenistic Jewish groups.

                  PLStepp

                  *****************************************************************
                  Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
                  Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
                  #1 Cowboy Fan
                  Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman

                  I know Hell is real--I've dealt with Comp USA's
                  customer service department!  So repent! 
                  (Or at least go to Best Buy.)

                  Seeing upon how slippery a place
                  Fortune for mortals and misfortune stand.
                  Therefore the man that lives at ease should look
                  For rocks ahead, and when he prospers most
                  Watch lest he suffer shipwreck unawares.
                  --Sophocles, *Philoctetes* 502-06

                  *****************************************************************
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Matthew Bell wrote: [ ... ] ... I m really not the expert on this (assuming I m expert on anything); others on the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 27 11:26 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, "Matthew Bell" <mbkbell@...> wrote:

                    [ ... ]

                    >ROBERT WALTZ
                    >> I personally don't see how there can be any doubt about this. There
                    >> are two lines of evidence: The manuscripts and the quotations.
                    >>
                    >> We have LXX fragments which are dated as early as the second
                    >> century B.C.E. So if one accepts the evidence of paleography,
                    >> I think the matter is settled: At least part of the LXX was in
                    >> existence by then.
                    >
                    >MATT BELL
                    >Could you please specify which fragments you refer to?

                    I'm really not the expert on this (assuming I'm expert on anything);
                    others on the list could doubtless tell you more.

                    I quote, however, from the description in Kenyon/Adams of the LXX
                    papyrus 957: "John Rylands Library, Papyrus Greek 458. The earliest
                    extant fragment of a Bible MS. [remember, this is written in 1958],
                    consisting of portions of four columns of a roll of papyrus extracted
                    from the cartonage of a mummy acquired in 1917 by Dr. Rendel Harris.
                    It is written in a find book hand, which can be assigned with
                    confidence to the second century B.C., and contains Deut.
                    xxiii.24-xxiv.3, xxv.1-3, xxxvi.12, 17-19, xxviii.31-33."

                    There is also Papyrus Fouad 266, of the second/first century
                    B.C.E., containing fragments of Deuteronomy.

                    According to Klein, _Textual Criticism of the Old Testament_,
                    p. 55, "[p]apyrus fragments if Exodus 28 and Leviticus 2-5 and
                    leather fragments of Leviticus 26 and Numbers 3-4 -- all dating
                    from the first century B.C. or first century A.D. -- have been
                    discovered at Qumran."

                    BTW -- one other note we might add on this topic: The translator
                    of Ben Sira, writing in 132 B.C.E., referred to translations of
                    the Law, Prophets, and "other books" in his time. We can't prove
                    it was the LXX -- but it was a Greek translation of the Hebrew
                    Bible. Pretty strong hint. :-)

                    Bob Waltz
                    waltzmn@...

                    "The one thing we learn from history --
                    is that no one ever learns from history."
                  • Robert B. Waltz
                    ... I ve already conceded that I m not a specialist on the LXX -- but I m going to amplify anyway. :-) First, it is generally conceded that there were several
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 27 1:03 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, "Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp@...> wrote:

                      >One other point. The impression that most people begin with--I certainly
                      >thought this at first--is that the Septuagint is a single Greek text of the
                      >Old Testament, coming from a single group of translators over a short period
                      >of time. My understanding (LXX specialists, please confirm/amplify/clarify)
                      >is that there is in fact no single Septuagint--there is rather a *group* of
                      >pre-Christian Greek translations of the Old Testament, and mss from this
                      >group were popular among Hellenistic Jewish groups.

                      I've already conceded that I'm not a specialist on the LXX -- but I'm
                      going to amplify anyway. :-)

                      First, it is generally conceded that there were several different
                      Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. The best-known are those
                      we call the LXX itself, plus Aquila Theodotian, and Symmachus.

                      All of these translations, except LXX, were translated from something
                      close to the MT.

                      The LXX itself went through assorted recensions. That of Origen,
                      in the Hexapla, is well-known and has survived. We also are told
                      of recensions by Lucian and Hesychius. That of Lucian is believed
                      to survive in a variety of manuscripts.

                      But there are, in fact, still other recensions. The obvious example
                      is in the Book of Judges, where Rahlfs threw up his hands and printed
                      both the text of A and that of B.

                      Some of these recensions appear to be revisions -- e.g. the text of
                      A often appears to have resulted when a text similar to that of B
                      was revised toward the Hebrew that became the MT. This process probably
                      happened several times.

                      Thus we have, for most books, an "Old Greek" stratum, translated
                      from a Hebrew original which *was not identical to the MT* (witness,
                      e.g., Samuel or Jeremiah). We also have an LXX strand which, while
                      preserving much of the Old Greek language, is textually closer to
                      the MT. (I seem to recall reading that the NT most often quotes one
                      or another of these revised, closer-to-MT versions of the LXX.)

                      But it's important to note that all this varies on a section-by-section
                      and book-by-book (and even chapter-by-chapter) basis. Some books --
                      e.g. Judges -- apparently circulated in independent translations. Others
                      went through several processes of revision, but no second recension.
                      And so forth.

                      The moral: When studying the LXX, one cannot simply reconstruct
                      "The LXX." One needs to determine what sort of text is in each
                      manuscript, and proceed from there.

                      In a way, it makes sense to refer to "the LXX" -- if by that we
                      mean the Old Greek, and not the kaige or any of the later recensions.
                      But since people often use the term "LXX" to refer to *all* these
                      translations, one should always be aware of how individual authors
                      use the term.

                      >I know Hell is real--I've dealt with Comp USA's
                      >customer service department! So repent!
                      >(Or at least go to Best Buy.)

                      Obviously, if you're quoting this, you *haven't* been to
                      Best Buy's Customer Service Department. :-)

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

                      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)
                    • Ronald L. Minton
                      I am interested in uncials 0278-0296 which in Aland s _Text_, 1989, p. 127, were newly discovered. If anyone can help with the century date and the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 27 2:03 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I am interested in uncials 0278-0296 which in Aland's _Text_, 1989, p.
                        127, were "newly discovered." If anyone can help with the century date
                        and the text-type (or Aland's I, II, III, IV, or V categories), I will
                        appreciate it.

                        century text
                        0278=
                        0279=
                        0280=
                        0281=
                        0282=
                        0283=
                        0284=
                        0285= 6 mixed
                        0286=
                        0287=
                        0288=
                        0289=
                        0290=
                        0291=
                        0292=
                        0293=
                        0294=
                        0295=
                        0296= 6

                        --
                        Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                        Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                      • dwashbur@nyx.net
                        ... Correct. I ve seen the writings and web pages that Matt mentioned, and basically their hypothesizing (dreaming) goes like this: the LXX wasn t produced
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 29 2:17 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > At 01:21 PM 4/26/98 +0100, you wrote:
                          > >Hi all
                          > >
                          > >If this is not a matter of TC then please just ignore it or respond to me
                          > >privately. I have been reading some material on the net bringing into
                          > >question the existence of a BC LXX and the accepted view that the NT
                          > >writers quote from it rather than the Masoretic. How conclusive can we be
                          > >that a BC LXX was done, completed and used by the NT writers.
                          > >
                          > >Thanks
                          > >Matt Bell
                          >
                          > There is absolutely no doubt that the LXX existed BCE. There are fragments
                          > of it from Qumran, and Wadi Nahal Hever.
                          > Further, many of the quotations in the NT of the Hebrew Bible are clearly
                          > from the LXX. See Hans Hubner's NT Theologie, vol 1 for a thorough discussion.

                          Correct. I've seen the writings and web pages that Matt mentioned,
                          and basically their hypothesizing (dreaming) goes like this: the LXX
                          wasn't produced until after NT times; subsequently, all NT copies
                          were altered in their OT quotes to bring them into line with this
                          LXX; the LXX was created by Origen when he created that column of the
                          Hexapla; therefore, NT quotes based on the LXX are unreliable because
                          they have been altered from what they originally were; we know this
                          because there are no extant B.C. copies of the LXX.

                          Obviously, this last point has been refuted by the Dead Sea
                          materials, had already been refuted by quotes that predate Origen,
                          and contradicts the uniform testimony of history, but hey, why screw
                          up a good theory with a bunch of inconvenient facts?
                          Dave Washburn
                          http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                          I don't have ADD. My brain has a multi-tasking,
                          multi-threading operating system.
                        • Ronald Minton
                          Every translation contains literal renderings, dynamic equivalency, and paraphrase. I am attempting to arrange these in order of literalness. Any suggestions
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 30 9:48 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Every translation contains literal renderings, dynamic equivalency, and
                            paraphrase. I am attempting to arrange these in order of literalness.
                            Any suggestions on this revised list are appreciated.


                            LITERAL
                            1901 American Standard Version
                            1970 New American Standard Version
                            1982 New King James Version
                            1611 King James Version

                            LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT
                            1952 Revised Standard Version
                            1978 New International Version
                            1989 New Revised Standard Version

                            DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT
                            1989 Revised English Bible
                            1995 Contemporary English Version
                            1996 New Living Translation

                            DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE
                            1976 Today' English Version
                            1995 God's Word
                            1996 New Century Version
                            1958 Phillips Version

                            PARAPHRASE
                            1993 The Message
                            1971 Living Bible

                            --
                            Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                            Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                          • Ronald Minton
                            Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp. 123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.) Does 0194 = 0124?
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 1, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Does 0149 = 0187? No note in NA27, pp. 689ff., but Aland _Text_, pp.
                              123-4 says so. (I forgot my books but, I think those are the pages.)

                              Does 0194 = 0124?

                              What is the century date of 0300?

                              Any help is appreciated.

                              --
                              Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                              Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.