- ... From: Dave Washburn To: email@example.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic RecensionMessage 1 of 11 , Oct 27, 2004View Source----- Original Message -----From: Dave WashburnSent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:54 AMSubject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic Recension
The strongest argument I have seen against the idea that a recension by Lucian
became the "official" text of the Byzantine era is that Lucian was an Arian
in an Athanasian age. Like some others I have read, I find it doubtful that
a recension by an Arian would have caught on under such circumstances.Lucian died as a martyr in c 312The Arian controversy begins around 318Arius appealed to his status as a pupil of Lucian in defence ofhis (Arius's) ideas and the Dedication Creed of Antioch in 341(which was intended as a replacement of the creed of Nicaea 325and is at least more sympathetic to Arian ideas than is the Nicenecreed) was claimed to be based on a creed of Lucian.The real teaching of Lucian is extremely obscure although almostcertainly unorthodox by later standards of orthodoxy (Lucian wasalmost certainly in later categories 'Apollinarian' whether or not hewas 'Arian')Hostility to a NT edition attributed to Lucian on the ground ofLucian's heterodoxy would not be expected IMO before the late4th century if at all.Andrew Criddle
- The (so-called) Lucianic recension (which certainly exists as a distinct text-type in the LXX prophets, whether or not Lucian himself was involved/responsible)Message 2 of 11 , Oct 27, 2004View SourceThe (so-called) Lucianic recension (which certainly exists as a distinct text-type in the LXX prophets, whether or not Lucian himself was involved/responsible) was used by various church fathers. I can't give other details off the top of my head, but I came across this clearly in John of Damascus recently in connection with a small fragment of Jeremiah in Greek, which is clearly aligned to the 'Lucianic' Recension group.
For Metzger see:
B.M. Metzger, 'The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible', Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTS 4; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1-41.
For the Jeremiah fragment see:
�A New Manuscript of Jeremiah in Greek according to the Lucianic Recension (de Hamel MS 391; Rahlfs 897)� Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 36 (2003), 27-37.
At 08:51 AM 10/27/04 +1000, you wrote:
Wieland Willker wrote:
>- Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
I thought Lucian's LXX did have wide acceptance.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Peter M. Head, PhD
Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223 566607
Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
- My view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed churches to compare stuff, including the text. Before, there was frequent persecutionMessage 3 of 11 , Oct 29, 2004View SourceMy view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed
churches to compare stuff, including the text. Before, there was frequent
persecution and less communication, resulting in the chaos that is obvious
in the extant papyri. The communication finally allowed a correction of the
text, and that not just by one group of churches. If this is considered a
recension, I believe there was one. I consider it only a correction, an
effort that would continue for centuries.
Prof. Ron Minton
Capital Bible Seminary
6511 Princess Garden Pkwy
Lanham, MD 20706
From: Wieland Willker [mailto:willker@...-bremen.de]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:46 PM
To: Textualcriticism List
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Lucianic Recension
> Is it the idea of a Lucianic recensionNo.
> going the way of the dinosaur?
> 3. Has Metzger ever believed in -- and if so, does he stillCertainly yes.
> believe in -- a Lucianic recension?
1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the
name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the
four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death. There
was a recension of the Old and New testament which passed under the name
This stated, we can come to the more difficult problem:
2. Is the Lucianic recension the predecessor of the Byzantine text?
Arguments in favor:
- Jerome mentions that it was approved from Constantinopel to Antioch.
- the time of its creation fits.
- the recensional activity which we know from Lucianic LXX MSS is
exactly of the kind which we also know from the Byz text: lucidity and
- Why did Lucian's LXX recension fail to gain the same acceptance?
Although portions esp. the Psalter became the official text of the
- Jerome speaks unfavorable about it, but this could be explained.
I invite list members to add more items to the list.
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
Yahoo! Groups Links
- Hi textualcriticism, Wieland ... Jeffrey ... Schmuel Hi Jeffrey, here are the Preface words, first with the Philip Schaff footnote, which also alludes to theMessage 4 of 11 , Nov 1, 2004View SourceHi textualcriticism,
>>1. It is pretty clear that there was a recension of the NT under the name of Lucian. Jerome mentions it around 383 CE in his preface to the four Gospels and this is only about 70 years after Lucian's death.Jeffrey
>Can you give me the details of this this passage in Jerome? Where within his preface may it be found?Schmuel
Hi Jeffrey, here are the Preface words, first with the Philip Schaff footnote,
which also alludes to the Preface to Chronicles. The Lucian reference there
is a tad terse and crytpic from our perspective.
"we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons" .(7)
"It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false.
Following the Schaaf footnote above
 Lucian in Syria and Hesychius in Egypt attempted their recensions about the middle of the third century, the time when Origen also began to labour in the same direction. Lucian's recension, also called the Constantinopolitan, and to which the Slavonian and Gothic versions belong, spread over Asia Minor and Thrace. See the Preface to the Chronicles. It was decreed by a council held under Pope Gelasius in 494, that "the Gospels which Lucian and Hesychius falsified are apocryphal."
Fountainhead = Greek manuscripts
Lucian and Hesychius are also referenced there in regard to the GOT
The Preface to the Chronicles are mentioned
The only quote I have found is ..Denny Diehl on b-Greek
Jerome makes mention of three different versions of the Septuagint in Preface To Chronicles:
"Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the MSS which were promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilius on the basis of Origen's
labors, and the whole world is divided among these three varieties of texts."
Some differences in translation of the Preface - Kevin P. Edgecomb,
it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.
A more traditional earlier textcrit Lucian Recension view is given online in some depth in
THE FOUR GOSPELS A STUDY OF ORIGINS THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION, SOURCES, AUTHORSHIP, & DATES BY BURNETT HILLMAN STREETER - 1924.
.....It is stated in the Menologiesshort accounts of a Saint for reading on his daythat Lucian bequeathed his pupils a copy of the Old and New Testaments written in three columns in his own hand. .... Jerome, who had himself studied in both these cities before 380, expressly says that these Churches used the revised text of Lucian, (reference to Antioch and Constantinople)....The contention that the Byzantine text is an essentially revised textfollowing sometimes one, sometimes another of the earlier textsmade in or near Antioch about 300, was the foundation-stone of Westcott and Hort's theory of the textual criticism of the New Testament.
> My view is that the freedom to communicate after Constantine, allowed churches to compare stuff,Schmuel
> including the text. Before, there was frequent persecution and less communication, resulting in the
> chaos that is obvious in the extant papyri. The communication finally allowed a correction of the
> text, and that not just by one group of churches. If this is considered a recension, I believe there
> was one. I consider it only a correction, an effort that would continue for centuries.
While I am not sure if this can be taken as a carte blanche understanding of the extent of persecution (outside of Jewish first century persecution, was persecution particularly wide-ranging ? -- how wide were even the Diocletian persecutions?) the basic point seems very strong. Especially since the 'proto-Byzantine' readings are now acknowledged, which was apparently not acknowledged or fully known when the recenscion theory was first promulgated.
One could also point to Jerome's work as being possible due to the same relative calm and improved communication -- of course we do not necessarily have to consider every attempt at correction as being equally well done :-) In Jerome's case there were other factors, eg. while the OT was a fairly independent work, the NT was done specifically for the Bishop of Rome.