Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Leake <jesleake AT yahoo.co.uk>]

Sorry to ask, Bryant, but why would you expect the biblical quotes to be from the LXX? Wouldn't you expect it to depend on the NT author and on the source of his quotation (e.g. oral tradition vs. scripture as learned in youth vs. text in front of the author)? Wouldn't you expect some translation by some NT authors into Greek via some form of Aramaic targum, formal or informal? Matthew, for example. I should imagine the LXX had a different status in Judea from that it had in Alexandria - or Tarsus. Paul I might expect to be familiar with both the LXX and the Hebrew and to be able to use or not use the LXX as need be. I'm asking because I'm in a state of ignorance, not because I have a stance on this. There must be studies - does anyone know of one or two?

On a related point, has anyone read Tessa Rajek's new book on the LXX?

John Leake
----------------------------------

ان صاحب حياة هانئة لا يدونها انما يحياها

He who has a comfortable life doesn't write about it - he lives it

---------------------------------- 

On 10 Jun 2013, at 23:25, "Rev. Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net> wrote:

Dear Doug,

1.    LXX: KURIOS; NT: KURIOS; Vulgate: Deus. Remember, the LXX is important, but it is the Hebrew-Aramaic Text of the Old Testament that is important for this issue. The Greek NT would have used the LXX in most of the quotes, but not all. To argue that kurios would have replaced the Tetragrammaton in the Greek text is an argument from silence; and a poor one at that.

2.    I doubt it very much; although it is possible, but not probable.

Contstantine had 50 copies of the Bible to be copied ca. 420 AD. Of those copies, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Washingtonensis are the survivors. The compiled the LXX: Greek OT, Apocryphas and NT.

Jerome, died in 419-420 AD, wrote the Vulgate ca. 380-400 AD. He knew of 3different recensions of the LXX in his day, in Egypt (Hesychius), Syria (Lucian), and Palestine (Origen). In fact, Origen's Hexapla presented a proto-MT text with 6 columns of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX, and Theodotion was completed between 240-245 AD. Column 5 was the LXX. He did not know of any recension of the LXX before he started work. He thought that the differences between the LXX and the proto-MT were due to the corruption of the LXX and the purity of the Hebrew. Thus, he noted differences between his sources and the LXX in the 5th column. He indicated the sources from which he made omissions and additions in relation to the proto-MT. Unfortunately, only the 5th column was copied over and over, the notes were lost and, eventually, the Hexapla was lost as well (a portion of the Psalms was recently discovered). Thus, there is not Greek manuscripts available
 that preserve his careful work.

There are Greek mss available, but the quality and quantity of the work is definitely in question. Most of this is due to the accidents of history both for and against the preservation of the mss. Wars, heat, moisture, bad scribal habits, etc. have contributed to this decline or absence. I would reserve judgement until the entire process is worked out. Frequently, claims are made that when brought out into the full light of day are found to be wanting; they aren't there. You and I could name legions of claims that when later looked at were false claims.

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew