discordant

After reading a bit more on this, the strongest evidence for dating the LXX appears to be linguistic. I've found a blog post that is informative (link). Here's the part that seems relevant:

John Lee has cautiously concluded his study of the vocabulary of the Septuagintal Pentateuch with the observation that, “our text is probably older than the middle of the second century B.C.” His work has supported the A. Deissmann understanding that the lexicography of the LXX should be categorized as reflecting a Koine that was used as a vernacular in Ptolemaic Egypt. T. V. Evans focused his study of the Greek Pentateuch on verbal syntax. He concludes that, “the features analysed in detail, as well as the general structural similarity of the Pentateuchal verbal system to that of the Attic system, are strongly suggestive of production early (probably very early) in the post-Classical period. They are thus consistent with the consensus view of a date of c. 280-250 BC.”

I haven't heard of any linguistic expert who allows for the species of Greek used in the Pentateuch to be dated to the Common Era. Unless such a person exists, I personally won't be persuaded by arguments over Aristeas or the date of the earliest citations.

mountainman

Thanks for all these references. Here is another one:

The Dead Sea scrolls and the origins of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Eugene Charles Ulrich

via googlebooks

Page 209: Septuagint Origins: Hypothesis

discordant

I don't know what you mean by quoting that. Kahle's "diametrically opposed theory" still involves a date in the late 2nd century BCE. The point of contention was this:

Thus, Largarde saw an original single translation gradually branching out both chronologically and geographically, whereas Kahle saw many targumim being displaced by a single standard translation.

There's also a rather important caveat:

Lagarde's veiw, however, appears confirmed by nearly a century of multifaceted research by a wide spectrum of Septugintal specialists and by the data available from the Qumran and other very early manuscripts, whereas Kahle's view finds no support in detailed research by Septuagintalists.

mountainman

Hi Discordant,

I had not before seen mention of either theory, and mentioned them in passing. I agree that it appears obvious that the current theory for the appearance of the Greek LXX follows the "legend".

What I am more interested in here is to examine the evidence by which this theory appears to have been supported in the last 100 years.

Here is a brief summary gathered to date:

Evidence for the Greek LXX

281-246 BCE Rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus Letter of Aristeas

170-130 BCE Estimated forgery of the Letter of Aristeas

2nd Cen BCE Papyrus Rylands 458 (assigned palaeographically)

1st/2nd BCE Greek papyri in the Qumran (LXX translations?)

--------------------------

050 CE P.Oxy 3522 - Job 42.11,12 (assigned palaeographically)

037-100 CE Titus Flavius Josephus aka Joseph ben Mattathias

100 CE P.Oxy 4443 - Esther 6,7 (assigned palaeographically)

150 CE P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21-23; 15:5-9; 19:32-20:11;24:28-47; 27:32-33, 40-41 (assigned palaeographically)

185-254 CE Origen and the Hexapla

312-339 CE Eusebius got most, if not all, of his information about what Christian writings
were accepted by the various churches from the writings and library of Origen

discordant

You seem to have overlooked the linguistic argument.

mountainman

The linguistic analysis must be based on the evidence itself, and as such can it be listed as primary evidence? It can be seen certainly as secondary evidence. I was sketching the primary evidence as the first step.

The legend of the LXX would have it that in the 3rd century BCE there were created 70 Greek LXX's. The evidence for the proliferation and copying of these 70 Greek LXX's appears from the above list to be quite fragmentary. As you can see, the earliest datings on the list of evidence are only there because their dates were assigned palaeographically. On the surface, there appears no securely dated evidence before the work of Origen.

The linguistic analysis mentioned in the blog places an emphasis on Attic Greek, which AFAIK also flourished during the epoch known as the Second Sophistic, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the common era. This period also sees Origen's work on the Hexapla.

In fact it appears also to be a valid question to ask at which time did the first "Christianized Greek LXX's" commence to appear in association with the used of specially reserved "nomina sacra", or whether these codes are conjectured to have been written by the legendary 70 Greek translators in the 2nd century BCE.

discordant

(link)

On several occasions we have attempted to demonstrate the significance of a certain type of linguistic analysis, for discussing biblical texts whose date of composition is questionable. The main advantage of this analysis lies in the fact, that, being an autonomous and independent criterion, one may use it without subscribing to any particular theory prevailing in biblical Higher Criticism. Most of the complicated and unresolved problems of Higher Criticism – literary, historical and theological – simply have no bearing upon its procedures.

It is only dependent on textual criticism, and is certainly more primary than the Letter of Aristeas.

If linguistic analysis can't say that a text was more likely written several hundred years BCE than several hundred years CE, then a lot of people are wasting their time with it. Who would cite these studies if the passage of 400 years or more is imperceptible to an expert in the language?

I simply cannot believe this is the state of the linguistic art. I've heard that the Book of Mormon can be shown to be imitating KJV-era English, rather than employing it authentically. If that is true, then it should be equally possible to expose imitations of the classical Greek style that were written during the post-classical period.

mountainman

I'd like to see a sample of this linguistic analysis based on the evidence in our possession.

For example what is being used as the basis of the physical evidence for the Greek LXX (out of which the linguistic analysis is being drawn), and is it the Vaticanus codex version or earlier?

The Second Sophistic is seen as an epoch in the revival of Greek literature, probably nurtured during the rule of Marcus Aurelius, and possibly extending passed Philostratus in the early to mid 3rd century. This needs to be taken into account imo.

discordant

So would I. But since we don't get to start with the assumption that it fails, and likely wouldn't be in a position to evaluate it anyway, in my view it continues to stand as evidence.

I don't see why this should matter.

I have no reason to believe it isn't already taken into account by the experts, and neither do you.

mountainman

Well at least we appear to agree on something.

What do you mean by that? We are not talking about Rocket Science here we are talking about something called linguistic analysis. If there is a case for the dating by linguistic analysis then it should be clearly stated somewhere and amenable for discussion.

You are entitled to your view. My view is that the linguistic analysis must by necessity be derived from the evidence itself, and we have a right to know what that evidence is which is being used for this analysis.

I am not prepared to accept an argument from authority in 2011. I would like to see the actual linguistic analysis argument and the evidence it is based upon.


Until I examine the arguments of the experts I dont know one way or the other, and I am not prepared to accept an unexamined conclusion when the conclusion is capable of being examined.

So what summaries of the "linguistic arguments" by which the Greek LXX is dated to the 2nd century BCE are available for examination?