Chris Weimer

Are you sure he was referring to the history books, a distinction not made by Palestinians, and negated by Ben Sira, which also gives testimony for the rest of the books translated into Greek before Josephus.

spin

Have a look at what Josephus said for yourself and give me your reading! Remember that Ben Sira knows nothing of history books.


spin

Chris Weimer

It looks to me as if he's talking about his own works.

:huh:

spin

You have taken the novel position now that Josephus first wrote his antiquities in Hebrew?

Do you think Josephus employed the royal plural when he wrote:

as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language.

Surely he's talking of the Jews with his "our" and "our histories" are things like Sam/Kings or their Vorlage.

He then goes on to give the Aristean account of the translation of the law adding:

Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

Josephus seems to think that the LXX was "only the books of the law". This is consistent with his claim of translating the histories.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Let me first say that on the differences with Mikulski I see valid points in your argument and I also appreciate the textual and historical points brought out by Stephen and Jeffrey. I don't really ride a doctrinal horse on this as I view the whole Greek OT/parthenos view as extremely minor in the 'virgin birth' discussion.

I accept the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible (MT) as authoritative and generally do not use the Greek OT in apologetics except as a minor auxiliary evidence where the Hebrew is textually split or as one window to vocabulary on words that are uncertain. The latter is at issue here but the Greek OT is a minor aspect.

And I believe there are major errors in the general conceptions of the Greek OT. With many folks not realizing its wild and woolly textual tradition ride from the possible 200 B.C. beginnings to our extant 4th-century and later manuscripts. The unclarity of the term "LXX" has contributed to the misconceptions (better "Greek OT" and more specific version identifications). Many are not aware of the tampering of the text, where we have Psalm 14 is a smoking cannon example. Or of the huge differences between the Greek OT and the Hebrew Bible, and within the Greek OT manuscript lines, or of the errors and weaknesses of the Greek OT. And folks who are concerned about the reliability of Vaticanus on the NT may not realize it has generally been the base text for "LXX" editions (though not with the "Orthodox" Greek OT which is based on their historical church Greek OT) . From the point of view of the early church writers I believe that Jerome was excellently used to undue much of the damage of Greek OT fascination and weak apologetics that tried to use the Greek over the Hebrew in the early centuries.

Second, a little sidenote. Your use of the term "fragments" in #37 "and fragments from papyri confirm the existence" may be objected to on technical grounds. Some 2nd and 3rd century papyrus manuscripts are a good number of chapters. I have used the term and have run into the objections. Minor point, though, as many extant papyri are properly called fragments.

Third, even in your post #37

"and is not what anyone believes was completed under Ptolemy Philadelphus"

we have confusions vis a vis the context of simply the Penteteuch, verses the whole Tanach. A distinction you yourself had just emphasized.

Fourth, one problem is the issue of trying to make the "critical texts" as the barometer of "the Septuagint" as opposed to the "many different 'Septuagints' " that we actually have. A view you are expressing in #37. Generally I discuss the deficiency of critical texts in the context of the NT but with the Greek OT the problems are far more severe. Referring to (various and differing) critical text(s) as "the Septuagint" fosters much of the same confusion you are trying to unravel. I am curious as to whether this is common praxis outside of those actually working on a critical text, and if so, where.

Now to the quote above. In this post I only am going to look at the factual issues, not the other valid questions about how it pieces together into your whole argument.

"the first century A.D. the Septuagint had already split into several different manuscript traditions"

This is essentially a return to "versions". And the evidence is simply not strong enough to support the statement. We know so little about the actual Greek texts of the time, a small amount of DSS, attempts to determine from Philo and Josepshus, and other various back-reconstructions from the later Greek and Latin sources. Often these sources are after the various translations and editions (2nd through 4th century) so the reconstruction process will be more an exercise, a game, an attempt, rather than a science.

As you put it in #37..

"from evidence in papyri and Origen, besides additional evidence from Philo and others".

However the papyri is most all 2nd century and later and rarely overlaps with other papyri on the same chapter and verse. Nor is there significant overlap with other extant pre-4th century Greek OT. Where the papyri differs with the 4th-century and later manuscripts one can hardly use that as a case for multiple 1st-century manuscript traditions.

And Philo rarely goes outside the Penteteuch, severely limiting his usage in this discussion. And Philo has his own special situations. There is even a debate as to his Hebrew competence. Which could allow for access and use of the Hebrew Torah as well as the Greek OT, making usage of his writings for Greek OT reconstruction even more problematic.

On Origen your argument basically boiled down to ..

"In his critical apparatus, Origen revealed the existence of multiple, disagreeing versions of what he was calling the LXX ... we have Origen aware of at least two "versions" of the LXX"

It is a far cry from Origen noting manuscript variants to either your earlier "versions" or the current "manuscript traditions". Do you have any quotes from Origen that really indicate that these variants represented competing textual traditions rather than simply individual manuscript variations ?

If not, your basic premise falls, and you have an extrapolatation which is far too expansive.

There is one other point to note.

"even besides the variant manuscripts that survive to the present day"

The problem with this is than any variants that arose after the 1st century (and the list of translators and recension-makers and editions is long) is simply irrelevant to the whole question. Your "even besides...." is essentially like saying -

"even besides Churchill's great speech with the landing fields, Lincoln may also have been influenced by the textual tradition of Walt Whitman in preparing the Gettysburg address".

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

PS.
The real "critical edition".
Switched to "Navy" .. the true "Blue" here has a bit of a glare.
Jeffrey's comment on changeover welcome.

jgibson000

It's easier to read than the previous colour. But not as easy as the standard black is. And it's still an annoying and distracting affectation that, without continual reminder in each of your posts of why you are using colours, does not convey any of the things you think it does or intend it to do.

Jeffrey Gibson

Apikorus

The prologue to Sirach states,

For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.

This seems in keeping with the traditional Jewish tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible into Torah, Prophets, and Writings. The "prophecies" or prophetic books would include the Deuteronomistic History. They are "prophetic" in that they are traditionally ascribed to prophets (Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah).

While the attribution of Kings to Jeremiah is first stated in the Talmud, it seems likely that some tradition of authorship of the historical books was in place during the late Second Temple period. At any rate, Sirach's grandson does seem to invoke the division into torah, nevi'im, and ketuvim already in the late 2nd century BCE.

Richard Carrier

I just submitted a more substantial revision of my Virgin essay for the editors, taking into account a lot of what has been said here (even beyond the main issue I've discussed), and revising more than just section 1. I thank everyone for their contributions.

I have no control over when the revision will replace the current version, but when it does this will be announced on What's New--for which see the link in the IIDB footer.

I'm signing out now. I see nothing else here that requires my attention. Any remaining criticisms of what I've said are already answered in the revision or not substantial enough to warrant a response. You can all continue debating amongst yourselves as you were before.

When the revision appears, if there are still criticisms of that (and please take care to re-read it, since context matters), I recommend starting a new thread in the Feedback Forums with those new criticisms. For I am always informed by the Feedback editor of Feedback threads pertaining to my work, so you will automatically get my attention there.

Otherwise, I'm not returning here. Please assume I will not be seeing anything else added here nor responding to anything else that already has been said here.

Party on.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The Antiquities Preface is fascinating.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm

Is it possible that Josephus, earlier, when he wrote "Jewish Wars",
did do some translating from Aramaic or Hebrew ? He says he struggled
with Greek and Jewish Wars was shortly after he left Israel and was in his
freshly painted turncoat. By the time of Antiquities his ability to write
straitaway in Greek would be vastly improved.

"Our history" would not be a 'royal plural', our history, the history of the
Jews. The phrase flows easier than "my history" (which sounds a bit like
Nimzovich's "My System" or Adolf's "My Struggle").

The alternative that he translated sections of the Greek OT is interesting
as well.

Your thoughts ?

Any good writings on this? My understanding is that you can't tell too
much from his actual scripture references since he does a lot of paraphrasing.
That would seem to militate against the idea that Josephus was referring
to translating scripture.

Bye, Richard.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000

FWIW, I hope that among the changes you have made in your revision of your essay (is this then a whole new textual tradition?) will be/have been your dropping of the claims

(1) "that in fact Matthew's quotation at 1:22 of of Isaiah 7:14 is either

(a) not from the extant Septuagint, or

(b) he took substantial liberties with the text, since

(c) he uses an entirely different verb and subject"; and

(2) that Raymond Brown can be adduced in support of of what you say (cf. your ""Brown discusses this fact in § 5B3 of Birth of the Messiah, though he argues for Matthew changing the text rather than using a different version")

Brown does not say that Matthew took substantial liberties with the LXX text of Is. 7:14. In fact, he does not recognize that Matthew "took liberties" (i.e. to be deliberately inaccurate when dealing with fact) at all or that any changes Matthew may have made to subject of the third verb that appears in the Isaian text (you give the impression that there is only one verb used) are major or in violation of the sense of the text, let alone an actual change (note Brown's "In this instance [i.e. "in the use of 'they will call' rather than 'you will call'"] there is a greater possibility that Matthew used a Greek translation that varied from the LXX, for the LXX is a mistranslation [of the Hebrew text]." p. 151).

Nor, as we have seen, are claims (a), (b), and (c) above true.

Matthew's quotation is from the LXX.

Matthew does not use an entirely different verb for any of the three verbs that appear in the Isaian text.

And Matthew's "subject substitution", if such it is, of "they" (καλeσουσιν) for the "you" (καλeσεις) of B A or the "she" (καλeσει) of א -- which is apparently (contra Gundry and Brown) the only real difference between the text of Matt. 1:22 and the LXX of Is. 7:14 -- is hardly "taking a liberty" with the Greek text of Isaiah 7, let alone a "substantial" one.

I hope that you have (or will have) dropped these claims. For if you do/have not, you have/ will open(ed) yourself up to being justly accused not only of bad writing (cf. the "entirely different verb and subject" statement), but of sloppy and misleading scholarship.

Jeffrey Gibson