Subject: tc-list The LXX

From: "Matthew Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:11:52 +0100

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:26:05 -0500

On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, "Matthew Bell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[ ... ]
 
>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
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: "Perry L. Stepp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:11:31 -0400

> 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

*****************************************************************

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:03:33 -0500

>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.

>(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
                     [email-masked]

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)

---

From: Kenneth Litwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:48:51 -0700

I was reading Metzger's book on the Canon of the New Testament today,
and he said that the Western text was probably the most widespread and
popular text form of the 2nd Century.  He didn't provide any footnote
for this,k so I'm wondering how one can determien this, given that 
a)the Alexandrian, I thought, was considered generally the earliest 
identifiable text type and b) there are hardly any MSS from the 2nd
century.  How would we know what text type was most popular?  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
University of Bristol
Bristol, ENgland
(and software engineer in California)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:09:14 -0500

>century.  How would we know what text type was most popular?  Thanks.

I think Metzger is following Hort in this. In any case, the basis
of the argument is the Fathers. The most important second century
fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin) are regarded as having
"Western" texts. (Of course, it should be pointed out that the
works of Tertullian are in Latin, and don't agree with the others
all that closely, and Irenaeus wrote in Greek but survives largely
in Latin -- so the "Western" nature of their text may be determined
in part by their language.)

Even though I am offering caution about the Hort/Metzger assessment,
I agree that it is the correct *method*. Since all early manuscripts
are from Egypt, their testimony tells us nothing about the second
century text except that the Alexandrian text existed. We need
information from many places. So we have to use the testimony of
the Fathers. We just have to be careful with it. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Apr 1998 16:10:32 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] wondered about Metzger's opinion:
> he said that the Western text was probably the most widespread and
> popular text form of the 2nd Century.

[email-masked] responded:
>                                 the basis
> of the argument is the Fathers.

The other source is the versions, particularly the Old Latin and Old Syriac,
both of which are thought to trace back to the late second century.
And remember that the Old Latin tradition comes not from a single translation
but from many.  While the MSS, versions, and patres associated with Egypt
hang together pretty well as a text type, all the other extant 2nd-3rd century
witnesses, which are usually called "Western", form a much less cohesive
group, one for which many doubt it is appropriate to apply the label
of "text type".

Vincent Broman                                       San Diego, California, USA
Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home)       or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work)
Phone: +1 619 284 3775                       Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W
=== PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil ===

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:57:09 -0500

On 28 Apr 1998, Vincent Broman <[email-masked]> offered the useful

>group, one for which many doubt it is appropriate to apply the label

As note, e.g, the proposal that we recognize a "syriac" text-type.
But even if we ignore the Syriac witnesses, there are defects in
the "Western" type. Tertullian and Irenaeus, or the Old Latins b
and k, are too different. They represent the same *style* of text
(just as an author may write in the style of another), but are not
necessarily the same text.

The other important point is that Codex Bezae stands clearly apart from
*all* of these. We really need to define our terms in talking about
the "Western" text.

The tendency has sometimes been to define the "Western" text as
anything non-Byzantine and non-Alexandrian. By this definition,
all fathers outside Egypt seem to be "Western." But it is bad
methodology.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]