Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
  • To: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT Translations
  • Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:35:15 -0400

George,

Yes I was referring to the "Letter of Aristeas". I thought that was understood, considering the source. Refuted on what grounds?

Brian


On Sunday, June 6, 2004, at 11:30 AM, George F. Somsel wrote:

I don't know what Book XII, Chapter II, Section 'X' you are referring to,
but this sounds very much like the "Letter of Aristeas." This letter has
been categorically refuted as regards any historical accuracy. I would
not recommend reliance on it. There are other (modern) works in which
scholars who have studied the LXX draw some conclusions regarding its
translation. A good place to begin would be _Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible_ by Emanuel Tov. He also deals with the proto-Masoretic and
proto-Samaritan texts.

gfsomsel
_________

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 09:57:15 -0400 Brian Roberts
<formoria AT carolina.rr.com> writes:
Dear Listmembers,

Thank you for your help with my previous questions. I have another,

related line of thought to present to you for consideration and
comments.

The Book of the Acts of Solomon (as well as other “lost books”) was

translated into Greek and kept in the Alexandria Library beginning
in
the reign of Ptolemy I Philadelphus, during the translation of the
LXX.
To state unequivocally that this record was preserved requires one
of
two pieces of evidence:

a Extant physical manuscript or similar haghiographical evidence
that
fits the biblical description of “the book of the Acts of Solomon”;
b Undeniable evidence of the existence of this text, based on either
the
comments and/or actions of others in proceeding years.

The only reliable method by which these records could have been
preserved was through the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. That
process was a two-fold one:
1. Oral traditions were preserved among the Hebrews, describing
events
from their earliest history , were passed from father to son, from

mother to daughter, as a sign of their heritage, for centuries;
2. While the Israelites dutifully maintained records on the
activities
of their kings, royal families, and religious leaders, there was not

much attention given the knowledge they possessed as a people. The

Babylonian Captivity changed all that. In 587 BCE, the nobility,
priests, and wealthy among Israelite society were shuffled off in
multitudes to Babylon for what would be 70 years of slavery.
With the realization that they could lose their identity in
Babylonia
came a new desire to prevent that loss at all costs. The Israelite

scholars were spurred into action. “History was written, poetry was

collected, and the words of the great prophets were arranged and
preserved” (Tullock 5).
The process of canonization had begun. Of course, it took many
years
for all of the available books and manuscripts to be collected, and
it
is obvious that the source material used, including the “Book of the

Acts of Solomon” was being preserved during the Exilic Period.
After
much effort and time, there was finally composed a rudimentary
Hebrew
Bible.
After the Israelite citizens were allowed to return to their
homeland,
released by a sympathetic Persian monarch, they took their sacred
writings with them. It is actually superfluous to mention the
extreme
care that they took in preserving these manuscripts. It is a
historical
fact that many texts survived the Exile, or else there would be no
Hebrew Bible today. There are multitudinous references by the
biblical
redactors to other sources in addition to the “Book of the Acts of
Solomon”, eg., “The Book of the Kings of Judah”. The offhand manner
in
which these sources are cited suggest in the strongest manner that
they
were still available to be read in some form during the 6th
century.

The Septuagint in Alexandria

During the intervening years, from 515 BCE to the late third century

BCE, there was obviously some work done at reorganizing the material
in
the Hebrew Canon, but it wasn’t until 275 BCE that the first attempt
was
made at translating the scriptures; that task was performed at the
library in Alexandria, Egypt. The Alexandria Library was the
penultimate learning center on the African continent, indeed in the

whole Greek empire. Josephus records a significant event in the
process
of the library’s expansion which took place around 275 BCE:

The occasion was this: -Demetrius Phalerius, who was library-keeper
to
the king, was now endeavoring, if it were possible, to gather
together
all the books that were in the habitable earth, and buying
whatsoever
was anywhere valuable, or agreeable to the king’s inclination...and
when
Ptolemy asked him how many ten thousands of books he had collected,
he
replied, that he had already about twenty times ten thousand; but
that,
in a little time, he should have fifty times ten thousand. But he
said
he had been informed that there were many books of laws among the
Jews
worthy of inquiring after, and worthy of the king’s library...
(Book
XII, Chapter II, Section 1).

It was this occasion and interest that prompted the Librarian to
write a
letter to Ptolemy, which expressed his own desire to acquire the
Jewish
books (Book XII, Chapter II, section 4). After corresponding with
other
scholars, Demetrius discovered that many of the Jewish writings were

written in Hebrew, not Greek, and were considered by the Jews to be

“Holy Law”; so, the librarian suggested that the king, Ptolemy,
“...mayest write to the high priest of the Jews, to send six of the

elders out of every tribe, and those such as are most skillful of
the
laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense
of
those books...” (Book XII, Chapter II, section 4).

This series of narratives obviously describes the events which
preceded
the translation of the LXX. The relevance here is clear:
Everything,
as far as religious texts, was there in Alexandria - the laws and
prophetic writings - all came, en masse and uncontested, from
Israel.
That is an historical fact, and requires no hypothesizing at all.
From
these facts, it becomes simple and logical to conclude that the
manuscript referred to as “the Book of the Acts of Solomon” in II
Kings
11:41 was also conveyed to Egypt. In fact, it is to be expected, as

Greek interest in foreign manuscripts, especially the writings from

Israel, was not an idle one, as the king himself, Ptolemy
Philadelphus,
actively supported both this action and the library’s continued
expansion. The Hebrew texts remained in Egypt for a period of
years,
long enough to be copied, translated, and studied by Greek scholars;

then, they were returned home, along with the 70 translators. That
such
a large number of unfiltered, unedited manuscripts were removed to
Alexandria shows up clearly in the Alexandrian canon, where we find
the
dozen-plus extra books not included in the MT. This is good evidence

that the MT we have is a later version, prepared after additional
canonical considerations were made.

Any input?

Brian Roberts
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page