Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, Josephus and Philo

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, Josephus and Philo
  • Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:58:33 -0500

Schmuel wrote:

. Philo.. The fact is that there are no actual
quotes contained in his work that are cited from a
Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Schmuel This may or may not be wrong, but you
have not given even a single
counter-verse-indication. Do you have any ?

HH: I am not going to give you any more time on
this. Jones is contradicting standard knowledge, as I have shown from several sources.

Isn't it a primary issue to find out if, in
regard to Josephus and Philo..

a) they give any support to the Greek OT
variants that are in the 4th century and later
manuscripts now called the "LXX".

HH: It is common knowledge that they do.

So far, not only do they give no support to
(b), we don't even have examples for (a). In
fact at the very least we can say that they
give much more support to the Masoretic Text
than the Greek texts (as do most of the DSS,
especially the Penteteuch and Isaiah and many,
but not all, books). You can see that yourself
by simply opening up the works of Philo and
doing your own comparisons. Imho, the lack of
a simple scholarly paper in this regard is due
to some of the blindnesses in modern
scholarship, where the arcane can trump the
simple and clear.


HH: I prefer standard scholarship to Floyd Jones.


5. Lastly, the Jewish Historian Josephus
(A.D. 37-100?) is often cited as having used
the Septuagint. However no quotes of his
having done so are ever offered to certify
such a claim. . . .

HH: However, I just cited an authority
yesterday who shows it is common knowledge
that we have many quotes of the Septuagint
from Philo and Josephus: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Judaism/Septuagint%20(Old%20Greek)
Extensive quotations and allusions in Greek
are also preserved in Philo (ca. 30 CE), Paul
(ca. 50), Josephus (ca. 80), 1 Clement (ca.
95), and a number of other Christian texts
from the early [[813]] period.

You are misreading and/or misusing this quote.

HH: I am not.

It is discussing their writing in Greek and not
directly addressing what Bible(s) they read.

HH: No, the whole passage is about material in the Old Greek Bible, so that is what he is talking about, material in Greek that reflects the Greek OT.

The earliest preserved OG materials.

HH: OG is a symbol for the Greek OT; this is the symbol now used for what used to be termed the LXX, since that symbol has gone out of favor.

</> The growing body of
relevant materials that antedate the Second Jewish Revolt (135
CE) permits a glimpse of early OG textual developments. Actual
Greek fragments include:

Approximate
Date Siglum Identification
2nd BCE 801 4 QLXX Lev\a
2nd/1st BCE 957 P.Rylands 458 Deut
805 7 QLXX Exod
804 7 QLXX Epist.Jer
1st BCE 942 P.Fouad 266 Gen
848 P.Fouad 266 Deut #1
1st BCE/1st CE 802 4 QLXX Lev\b
803 4 QLXX Num
1st CE 847 P.Fouad 266 Deut #2
1st/2nd CE 814 P.Yale 1 Gen (codex)
Early 2nd CE 963 Chester Beatty Num-Deut (codex)


Extensive quotations and allusions in Greek are also preserved in
Philo (ca. 30 CE), Paul (ca. 50), Josephus (ca. 80), 1 Clement
(ca. 95), and a number of other Christian texts from the early
[[813]] period.

HH: He is saying that Philo and Josephus present, with others, extensive quotations of and allusions to the Greek OT, the OG being a symbol now used for what used to be called the LXX.

Hebrew, Greek, Latin or some combinations.
Perhaps different for different sections,
perhaps they even made ad hoc translations to
Greek. There are many variables.

HH: No, the source is talking about Greek Old Testament materials.


Robert Kraft (an excellent scholar, very much
appreciated, unlike your earlier Richard
Anthony, whom you would do well to disown
rather than be linked) may believe that
Josephus and Philo used a Greek text but the
quote above is a cart before the horse approach
for your argumentation.

Also .. don't you see some circularity by using
Paul as a reference in this discussion ?

HH: I wasn't talking about Paul. I cited Kraft with reference to all the other materials.

This begs the question of whether 400 AD
'smoothed' passages, (e.g. the obvious changing
of Psalms to match Romans from Paul) can be
used as an evidence in reverse. Just because
some scholars don't consider the 'smoothing',
despite such clear evidences, doesn't mean that
you should adopt their lack of knowledge and/or
insight circularities as your own deliberate,
conscious circularities.

HH: All sorts of things happened to ancient texts. However, it is perfectly obvious to me that the NT borrows from the Greek OT. It is perfectly obvious that the Greek OT preceded the birth of Christ. It is perfectly obvious that the early church used the Greek OT.

What is your explanation for that ? If Philo
was using the "LXX" why are his quotes much
closer to the Hebrew MT than what is now called
the "LXX" ?

HH: Maybe he accepted the MT numbers. There are other possibilities.


HH: It is evident that Floyd Jones is
contradicting common knowledge when he
suggests that neither Philo or Josephus used
the Septuagint.

Each case is complicated. Here is an example.

Are you aware that Philo is 90%+ quoting only
the Penteteuch. And that his background in
Hebrew is a subject of much discourse. An
example.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n2_v44/ai_17379714/pg_8
Probably the most recent and extensive brief
for Philo's use of Hebrew sources for his
etymologies, is Hava Schur's recent doctorate
entitled Hebrew Names in Philo's Allegorical
Exegeses, (Heb.) (Tel-Aviv: 1991). Schur not
only recognizes the existence of a midrashic
tradition in Philo's day with which he was
familiar, but goes so far as to consider
Philo's Hebrew etymologies to be proof of his
knowledge of Hebrew.

HH: There is general scholarly recognition of Philo's use of the Greek OT, whatever knowledge of Hebrew he had.

With Jospehus we have the Aramaic component as
well, and the fact that he complained about
difficulties with Greek. And his quotes again
do not line up with what is called the "LXX"
The whole situation was dicey.

HH: It is not dicey.


http://www.nndb.com/people/631/000101328/ Sometimes, also, he gives proof of some
knowledge of Hebrew and supplements his
scriptural authorities, which include 1 Esdras,
from general Greek histories.

HH: That is to be expected.

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/1999-July/003580.html
- courtesy of Ian Hutcheson :-) I have no doubt
that both languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), plus
Greek, were in use at the time of Josephus....
I see no reason to believe that he was not a
speaker of Hebrew. In fact, given the
statements I've mentioned from his works, I
think the onus is on anyone who believes the
contrary to provide some evidence.

HH: The point is that his writings manifest use of the LXX.

Perhaps a knowledge of Hebrew by Josephus
(and/or Aramaic) would go a long way to
explaining why you have not given us any actual
statements from Josephus that line up with what
is now called the LXX, versus the Masoretic
Text.s

HH: I do not doubt that Josephus could have known Hebrew.

btw, the Ben Sira situation is interesting ..
and I may agree that it is a stronger evidence
than Floyd Jones gives credit to, for some
earlier Greek Tanach texts. I was researching
this a while back but let it drop off.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page