Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 02-12-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

"by the first century A.D. there were at least three different versions of the whole Septuagint. Only one [i.e. one version] survives to the present day"

Please, Richard. It is your staccato writing style combined with your
inaccurate and confusing factoids that leave us the mess to be cleaned
up here.

Now, please us who are the three 1st century versions.
Remember that Aquila, Theodotian and Symmacheus are dated later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodotion
Theodotion (mid- 2nd century AD) contemporary to Irenaeus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_of_Sinope
Aquila of Sinope ... a 2nd Century CE native of Pontus in Anatolia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmachus_the_Ebionite
Symmachus the Ebionite (late second century CE)

So what in the world were you referencing with three versions
"by the first century A.D".

And which one survives today ?
You said one survives today, can you tell us whose or what ?

And how do you explain the great variances within the Greek
OT if only one version survives today ?

And what of the Hesychius and Lucian rescensions and Origen's efforts ?
If we have only version that "survives" then why do the texts today
and the extant texts from the 4th through 7th century have so many
radical differences ?

Since I said nothing at all about Matthew I will skip the rest of
your kvetch on that. We can return to that after we get the
basics of the Greek OT straightened out.

Here is a question for you, Richard, that may help us look at Matthew.
Do you claim that the Romans 14 Greek OT text that fits with Romans 3
was an ancient reading used by Paul. That Paul was actually quoting
Psalms 14 verbatim from a Greek text and not taking from from the
scriptures in Isaiah, Proverbs and Psalms ? Or do you view that as a later
'smoothing' or tampering to the Greek OT text.

It has to be one or the other.
Which one do you see as the truth, or most likely ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jgibson000 · 02-12-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Jeffrey,

I am not sure I understand your question properly.

However, Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp) mentions three recensions of the text of the Septuagint.
The texts are listed here.

Bible Research > Ancient Versions > Septuagint > ISBE Article > Part 2

Is that the info you were asking for?

No. None of these are in existence "by the 1st cent AD".

Quote:

IYO, the info on that link correct? If not, what is correct?

The info about what Jerome said is correct. But it is not relevant -- and it certainly does not confirm RC's claim -- for the reason stated above. Besides, what Jerome refers to are Christian recensions of the LXX, yes?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000 · 02-12-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

[COLOR="Blue"] Please, Richard. It is your staccato writing style combined with your
inaccurate and confusing factoids that leave us the mess to be cleaned
up here.

Now, please us who are the three 1st century versions.
Remember that Aquila, Theodotian and Symmacheus are dated later.

And Symmachus' Greek OT (made c. 170 CE) is not a version of the LXX. It is a fresh translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek.

BTW, what's with the blue colouring?

JG

Toto · 02-12-2007, 02:56 PM

Richard Carrier does not hang out here or engage in extended discussions. If you want him to answer a question, you need to email him and let him know that you have a question about his claim of at least 3 different versions of the LXX in the first century.

I would note that the original quote was a rather brief aside in response to a question, and was not in a scholarly paper where an extended discussion with footnotes might be expected.

Steven Avery · 02-12-2007, 03:05 PM

Hi Folks,

Richard Carrier would clearly do better to accept the correction
to his error, by finishing the discussion here and also correcting
the mistake in his article.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nprophecy.html
The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy

This was not a brief aside to a question, this error is on an article
that Richard has had up on the web, with footnotes, as a
'professional historian', since 2003.

Jeffrey, up above you might note that I did not call the Symmacheus
version the LXX. However others do use the phrase loosely.

As an example.

http://www.sots.ac.uk/conferences2004.html
Dr Alison Salvesen (Oxford), ‘The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Philological Commentaries on the Bible’: The Palestinian Jewish Greek revisions of the Septuagint known as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (the ‘Three’) have survived only in fragmentary readings.

Notice also that Dr. Salveson does not say that one of these
2nd-century versions survived, simply that all that has survived
from any of them is fragmentary readings. Again contradicting
the claims of Richard Carrier.

Note also that Richard's wording "by the 1st century" was in the
context of Matthew, falsely giving the reader the impression
that these various versions were circulating even when
Matthew was writing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Casper · 02-12-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

[COLOR="Blue"]
Note also that Richard's wording "by the 1st century" was in the
context of Matthew, falsely giving the reader the impression
that these various versions were circulating even when
Matthew was writing.

What exactly was available in the 1st century for gospel authors to reference? Not taking sides, just wondering.

jgibson000 · 02-12-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

[COLOR="Blue"]Hi Folks,

Jeffrey, up above you might note that I did not call the Symmacheus (sic)
version the LXX.

Never said you did. For a change, I was actually backing up something you said by noting that there's no way that Symmachus (not Symmacheus) could be a "version" of the LXX.

But still, what's with the blue colouring of your messages?

JG

Toto · 02-12-2007, 03:31 PM

I take it that Carrier thought that the question was whether he claimed to have a copy of a 1st century Septuagint, which he thought was ridiculous. Nothing before that indicated that anyone had a question about the existence of more than 3 versions of the Septuagint in the first century, nor does that seem to be central to the question on this thread, or the original note of Carrier's.

If you are really concerned about this, please email Carrier and wait for him to respond.

Toto · 02-12-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

What exactly was available in the 1st century for gospel authors to reference? Not taking sides, just wondering.

The Septuagint Online

Quote:

The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285–247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. ... . Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, scholars find 282 BCE an attractive date.

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy's project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.

By Philo's time the seventy-two translators enjoyed a religious cult (Philo, Life of Moses 2.25–44). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they were purported to have conducted their work. The popularity of the legend of the translation helps to explain why, when we first hear Christians explicitly mention the translation in the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, is credited to the Seventy-two. Thus, from the second century onward, Christians embraced a Septuagint that encompassed a larger body of literature than that found in the Hebrew, and they attributed it all to the work of the seventy-two ancient Jewish translators.

Casper · 02-12-2007, 03:49 PM

Thanks Toto!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2007, 02:56 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Richard Carrier does not hang out here or engage in extended discussions. If you want him to answer a question, you need to email him and let him know that you have a question about his claim of at least 3 different versions of the LXX in the first century. I would note that the original quote was a rather brief aside in response to a question, and was not in a scholarly paper where an extended discussion with footnotes might be expected.

02-12-2007, 03:05 PM	#15
Steven Avery Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 2,293	Hi Folks, Richard Carrier would clearly do better to accept the correction to his error, by finishing the discussion here and also correcting the mistake in his article. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nprophecy.html The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy This was not a brief aside to a question, this error is on an article that Richard has had up on the web, with footnotes, as a 'professional historian', since 2003. Jeffrey, up above you might note that I did not call the Symmacheus version the LXX. However others do use the phrase loosely. As an example. http://www.sots.ac.uk/conferences2004.html Dr Alison Salvesen (Oxford), ‘The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Philological Commentaries on the Bible’: The Palestinian Jewish Greek revisions of the Septuagint known as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (the ‘Three’) have survived only in fragmentary readings. Notice also that Dr. Salveson does not say that one of these 2nd-century versions survived, simply that all that has survived from any of them is fragmentary readings. Again contradicting the claims of Richard Carrier. Note also that Richard's wording "by the 1st century" was in the context of Matthew, falsely giving the reader the impression that these various versions were circulating even when Matthew was writing. Shalom, Steven Avery Queens, NY http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

02-12-2007, 03:31 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I take it that Carrier thought that the question was whether he claimed to have a copy of a 1st century Septuagint, which he thought was ridiculous. Nothing before that indicated that anyone had a question about the existence of more than 3 versions of the Septuagint in the first century, nor does that seem to be central to the question on this thread, or the original note of Carrier's. If you are really concerned about this, please email Carrier and wait for him to respond.

02-12-2007, 03:49 PM	#20
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Thanks Toto!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.