Subject: Re: Broad question abuot the LXX

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:07:17 -0500 (EST)

At 01:51 PM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I've been working on a paper on Paul's use of Scripture, and his
>apparent divergences from the known LXX text has come up in several
>writers, such as Koch and Stanley.  What I'm wondering about is this.  I
>know from reading that there are actually multiple Old Greek
>translations (Lucian, Symmachus, etc.).  What i'd like to know is, do
>the differences, so far as they can be established ( a tricky business
>in itself) suggest anything theologically?  

Certainly.  Every translation is an interpretation.  But when you are
dealing with Paul you must consider the possibility that his quotations of
OT texts are his own renderings (sometimes quite free) of the Hebrew text.
He was, to be sure, not bound to use any translation.  He could have easily
made his own.

>Where I'm going with this is
>I'm wondering (a non-TC issue) whether the choice of a given form of the
>LXX, say by Paul, of proto-Lucianic (Cross) over Symmachus, or whatever,
>cuold have been based on the theological tendenz of the translation.  
>

Again, every translation is an interpretation.  For instance, Theodotian is
a post Christian Jewish revision which elminated several "christian" readings.

>   I don't know if anyone has looked at this or if there's even enough
>data to form a tentative opinion, but I thoght I'd ask. 

Dozens of folks have worked on it.  One book, "Was steht geschrieben?"
discusses the whole issue; as does Dodd and others.

> I realize that
>even establishing the text for one of these translators may be quite
>difficult, and I'm not suggesting that choice explains all there is to
>know about NT citation techniques (I actually find Stanley's conclusions
>fairly compelling).  I'd be most interested vis-a-vis Luke-Acts, since
>Luke-Acts and Scripture is the area of my dissertation.  Thanks.
>

see the excellent, though now dated, work of Leonard Goppelt! "TYPOS: the
Typological Interpretation of Scripture" (or something like that).

>Ken Litwak

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm

[email-masked]

---

From: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:38:07 -0700

Actually, Jim, from what I can tell, almost no one asks the
specific question I'm asking.  KOch and Stanley seemto be abut the only
people I've encountered who take seriously the possibility tha tPaul may
have used a version of the LXX which departed from those we know of. 
You might be interested in looking at Stanley, who challenges the "Paul
freely invented his own version" viewpoint.  I can't do Stanley's close
argumentation justice in a tiny post.  You'll have to go read Paul and
the Langauge of Scritpure foryourself.    

   I'm looking for disucssions of differences between flavors of he Old
Greek translation that reflect more than "translation" practices,
andyes, I know all translations are tosome extent interpretations.  Of
course, that shouldn't necessarily be constured as a bad thing, if the
transaltor "interpreted" the source text correctly. 

Ken Litwak