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

Re: tc-list The LXX

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Apr 26, 1998
      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 2 of 13 , Apr 26, 1998
        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 3 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
          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 4 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
            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 5 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
              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 6 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
                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 7 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
                  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 8 of 13 , Apr 27, 1998
                    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 9 of 13 , Apr 29, 1998
                      > 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 10 of 13 , Apr 30, 1998
                        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 11 of 13 , May 1, 1998
                          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.