avi

Thank you very much for correcting my blunder.

It never occurred to me, to imagine that two different web sites would err in the numbering of the psalms.

So, do either of these two sites correspond to the original version of LXX, or, are these doctored versions?

http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/19_109.htm

109:1 τω δαυιδ ψαλμος ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εως αν θω τους εχθρους σου υποποδιον των ποδων σου

spin

The web sites have erred. The LXX has different numbers in places through the psalms, as is the case with some of the Massoretic psalms. I merely cited the English psalm number. The web sites cited the LXX number.


spin

Petergdi

It isn't an error. There are two conventions for numbering the Psalms. The LXX and Vulgate use one convention, Jewish and Protestant versions use the other. Sometimes you will see something like "Psalm 22(23)" in Roman Catholic material, giving both numbers, though much of the time modern English language RC material follows the Jewish and Protestant convention.

LXX + Vulgate --> Jewish and Protestant
1-8 --> 1-8
9 --> 9,10
10-112 --> 11-113
113 --> 114-115
114,115 --> 116
116-145 --> 117-146
146,147 --> 147
148-150 --> 148-150

spin

Petergdi made me look at my post again to notice I left out a small but necessary word.


spin

avi

Thank you Peter, Spin, and show_no_mercy, for correcting my silly mistakes.

There remain a couple of (perhaps banal) questions about this business at hand.
1. "the" Psalms. ? Where is our original source, whether Masoretic (perhaps DSS, in Hebrew?) or LXX? I am not referring here to Protestant or Jewish or Catholic or whatever, I am asking about a Greek Papyrus, if LXX, or a Hebrew inscription if Masoretic text.

2. Codex Sinaiticus:
109:1 τω δαδ ψαλμοϲ ρθ ειπεν ο κϲ τω κω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εωϲ αν θω τουϲ εχθρουϲ ϲου ϋποπο {my emphasis}

So, is this another scribal convention, like the nomina sacra? I understood that those abbreviations commenced with the Christian era? Why would grammatically distinctive abbreviations be found in Psalms, written long before the common era, i.e. before introduction of the "nomina sacra", began?

Alternatively, were these simply Koine Greek everyday abbreviations, routinely employed by all literate persons of that era? Does this convention of writing only the first and last letters of kyrios apply to other Koine Greek words, as well? (κυριος κυριω) Is this evidence that Codex Sinaiticus represents a post-Origen (edited, redacted, interpolated) edition of Psalms? If so, where is a more authentic version of LXX, to be found?

I had thought that the representation of Kyrios was ΚΣ nominative, and ΚΥ genitive--> is that convention simply a newer method of representing kyrios, one that dates from onset of Christianity? I had perhaps misunderstood this point, but I thought that writing capital letters was an indicator of an older version of Koine Greek. Somehow, it seems to me, that Codex Sinaiticus ought to have used ΚΣ, instead of κ ς since we are examining a copy of Psalms in LXX, written a couple of centuries before the CE. Is this an indication of falsification (i.e. deliberate forgery) of Sinaiticus?

3. I understand that in this particular Psalm, grammatically, the nominative form of Kyrios, "lord" refers to "god", while the genitive form of Kyrios, "lord" refers to "master", in a hierarchical fashion:
God > Master > avi. (I am accustomed to my position at the bottom of the totem pole.)

Does this distinction originate with the Hebrew, or is it unique to the Greek, i.e. Semitic origin versus Indo-European origin? I am referring here to the notion of establishing hierarchy by virtue of adjusting grammatical ending, rather than reliance upon the more secure method of applying unique vocabulary descriptors.

Specifically, do both languages, Hebrew and Greek, rely upon change of only a single, terminal phoneme, to differentiate significant regulatory functions within society? Such a convention, in a society largely dependent upon oral transmission of information, may be more error prone, than one which assigns unique vocabulary, words which clearly delineated lines of responsibility.

It is easy to imagine, with a system distinguishing functionality based upon adjustment of a single, terminal phoneme, both an increased susceptibility to societal strife due to misunderstanding, and an increased "editorial burden" on those inheriting manuscripts authored in bygone days.

avi

spin

Not sure of the significance of the question, but there are many fragmentary copies of the psalms from Qumran for the Hebrew.

Hebrew was YHWH for the first, )DNY (adonai = my lord) for the second.

It might be interesting to check other non-god uses of κυριος to make sure that they don't get the abbreviations, but I'd guess that they don't and the scribe is either extrapolating too far, made a simple error, or has a tendentious logic to the choice of nomina sacra for the second. I wouldn't think abbreviations such as these were a Koine norm.

Hebrew is not a case based language as seen in most Indo-European languages.


spin

DCHindley

avi,

Ahhh, I think you may be laboring under a few misconceptions.

The Jewish scriptures (Law, Prophets, Writings) originate in the Hebrew language (with a little Aramaic here and there) ranging from before 500 BCE to the turn of the Christian era. The DSS preserve many many fragments and even an entire roll or two of the books of Hebrew scriptures (except one book, maybe Ruth), which when compared do variate a little from one other.

The Masoretic Text of the Jewish scriptures (abbreviated MT), used by modern Jews and Protestants as foundational documents, represents the text as received in Rabbinic circles in Palestine around the 4th century CE. I understand the best manuscript of the MT is the Leningrad Codex.

There was a Greek translation of the first five books of Jewish scriptures, the Law, believed to have been commissioned by Egyptian King Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the 3rd century BCE. Ancient Jewish tradition (see the Letter of Aristeas) maintained it was translated by 72 Jewish elders conversant in both languages, and the common name for this translation of the Law of the Jews was Septuagint (the "seventy" part of "seventy two", abbreviated LXX). The Hebrew text it was translated from was a little different from the text preserved in the MT, but many of these variants were also seen in some of the biblical mss found among the DSS. This was likely done for the benefit of Jews who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic.

Later, the Hebrew/Aramaic books of the Prophets and the books of the Writings were also translated into Greek, usually called "Old Greek" (abbreviated OG). Both Christians and Jews created other translations (Theodotion, Aquila, and others unknown) over the centuries, until Jews abandoned the Greek translations altogether around the 4th century CE, and concentrated on preserving the Hebrew (see the MT above). Fragments of Jewish copied mss, almost all of it from the LXX, have survived in fragments in Egypt and among the DSS. Their most notable characteristic is that God's name, YHWH, is not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew script, regular Hebrew script, or as ciphers. I am not sure if any Jewish Greek copies of any books of Jewish scriptures uses forms of KURIOS for Hebrew YHWH, but this is possible.

Christians, hardly any of whom read Hebrew, only Greek and Latin, continued to venerate the LXX and OG translations, and from the 3rd or 4th century CE usually preserved them as follows: Law (LXX), Prophets (OG), and Writings (OG except for Daniel, where they preferred Theodotion's version). Except for a few scraps of Greek translations of scripture found among the DSS, all complete mss of Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures (they called them the Old Testament" or OT) that survived until today was copied by Christians. I believe they did use the Nomina Sacra abbreviations they used in their own Christian sacred books (the NT) - which you must understand existed in several variant forms, sometimes inconsistently used even in the same document. Christians, unlike the Jewish copyists, substituted forms of Greek KURIOS for Hebrew YHWH. Sometimes, when copying Jewish Greek mss, they did not realize that YHWH (in Hebrew block script) was in fact God's name in Hebrew, transliterated it by the Greek letters it resembled, PIPI.

Until about the 9th century CE, Greek was written in uncial letters (what we call capital letters), after which uncial letters were quickly replaced by minuscule letters (pretty much what we call lower case today). There were very little if any punctuation or accent marks in Uncial mss, and of course no capitalization of words at all. Miniscule mss were often used in worship services, but in time the miniscule letters (with accents, breathing marks and punctuation) replaced uncials, mainly because you could get more words on a page that way. With the invention of printing. all modern printed editions of the Greek OT and the NT were printed in minuscule type, using uncial letters to capitalize the first letter of a sentence and proper names. This is simply convention, but will be the way you will find all critical editions of the NT or Greek OT.

So, anytime you see the minuscule form of a Greek letter, it was written originally as an uncial letter.

Latin mss of the bible (OT & NT, called Old Latin or OL) were translations of the Greek OT (LXX, OG & Theodotion, and NOT the Hebrew), although some corrections were made from the Hebrew in the later Vulgate revision.

The Greek translator of the Hebrew Psalms did it in a way that made enumeration of individual Psalms fall differently from the way they seem most natural in the Hebrew. Since Roman Catholics used the Greek OT and Latin Vulgate, they numbered the Psalms the same way the Greek OT did when they made English translations.

Protestants, including Luther, preferred the Hebrew scriptures over the Vulgate, and adopted the Hebrew numbering of the Psalms in their translations into German and English, etc. This is also the convention used by the Greek and other Orthodox churches, sometimes even in their LXX/OG editions (such as the Apostolic Bible OT, but not the NETS, which uses the OG number).

The case endings of words in Greek make no real difference in meaning of the word itself, only indicating how it should be understood in a sentence. Koine Greek is not a font or anything like that, it was simply the "common" form of Greek that did not use the dual form of words and tended to simplify grammer from classical Attic, Ionic and Doric norms to ensure everybody understood each other all over the Greek speaking world, no matter where you resided.

That sentence in Psalm 109:1[110:1] says

Greek: EIPEN (Said) O (the) KURIOS (LORD) TW (to the) KURIW (Lord) MOU (of me) ... "The LORD said to my Lord ..."

Hebrew: nü´ùm (says/revealed) yhwh (YHWH) la|´dönî (to (my) Lord) ... "YHWH revealed to (my) Lord ..."

Enough ...

DCH

show_no_mercy

I was under the impression that the council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE) is when Jews decided to abandon the use of the LXX. Is that incorrect and/or just Rabbinic tradition?

DCHindley

The 4th century is believed to be when the MT was standardized. That 90 CE date is from some Rabbinic tradition (I believe from the Talmud), which may reflect frustration with Christians who were using the LXX to twist Jewish scripture to support Christian dogma, and it was projected back to the decision of a half-mythical "council" in Jamnia.

DCH

spamandham

From this alone, yes, but that's the whole point. When taken in the context in which Paul almost always uses brother (save 1 instance where he clarifies his intent), rather than taken alone, kinship is not a good interpretation. It's not impossible, it just isn't a good perspective, and I don't think anyone would interpret it that way if Christianity had died off before the gospels were penned.

All are spiritual brothers, but James is special. He is the head of the Jerusalem church - the cornerstone of Christianity from Paul's perspective - the guy Paul wants to please and Paul even goes as far as trying to bribe James, and the graft seems to work since the Jerusalem church gives gentiles over to him in exchange. Do you agree that such a position is worthy of a title? What is James' title?

The context of this purported persecution is the Jerusalem church, although it could instead be an anachronism from a later period when various Christian sects had been unified. If it is an anachronism, then it would be fair to say that the entire paragraph is a later insertion, making this discussion moot.

This much is almost universally accepted regardless of general position.

'brother of the lord' is Jame's title due to his role as head of the Jerusalem church (the main church) - what we would refer to these days as 'the Pope'.