Freethought & Rationalism Archive

douglas · 02-08-2007, 07:36 AM

There's a thread in GRD regarding the virgin birth and Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as justification. I linked to an article by Rabbit Tovia that discusses the "alma" vs "parthenos" business, and in this article he makes a statement that I found interesting:

Quote:

Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone. It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah, which you asserted that Matthew quoted from.

Tovia seems to be trying to absolve early Jewish scholars of the mistake of translation, and puts the responsibility squarely on Matthew:

Quote:

Matthew's mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma was deliberate, not the result of his unwitting decision to quote from a defective Greek translation of the Bible.

I'm not sure what to make of this. How do we know that the Septuagint that Matthew was quoting from did not include Isaiah?

Apikorus · 02-08-2007, 10:38 AM

"Rabbit" Singer is wrong. We know from the prologue to the book of Ben Sira that there were Hebrew (i.e. Jewish) translations of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books" by the late second century BCE.

douglas · 02-08-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

"Rabbit" Singer is wrong. We know from the prologue to the book of Ben Sira that there were Hebrew (i.e. Jewish) translations of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books" by the late second century BCE.

Ah! That crazy wabbit! This verse from Sirach proves him wrong.

Quote:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. 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.

Thank you!

John Kesler · 02-08-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

How do we know that the Septuagint that Matthew was quoting from did not include Isaiah?

The following is from an article by Richard Carrier, emphasis mine:

Quote:

The Septuagint translated around 250 B.C. was originally just the Torah. The book of Isaiah wasn't in it. The translation of Isaiah into Greek was added to the Septuagint a century or so later (as with other OT books, including several that were not accepted into the Christian OT canon). Moreover, by the first century A.D. there were at least three different versions of the whole Septuagint. Only one survives to the present day--though we have fragments of the others, and in fact Matthew's quotation is either not from the extant Septuagint, or he took substantial liberties with the text, since he uses an entirely different verb and subject.

Steven Avery · 02-09-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler quoting Richard Carrier

"Moreover, by the first century A.D. there were at least three different versions of the whole Septuagint. Only one survives to the present day"

Hi John,

Wow.. if Richard has a 1st-century Greek OT, the whole Septuagint, this will revolutionize scholarship. He may be able to become rich or famous and it can help get that elusive PhD. Maybe you can check and let us know what you find out. From pre-Carrier reckoining that is about 300 years earlier than any complete (or reasonably complete) Greek OT manuscripts that I ever heard of. Although there are a number of chapters and fragments and such, mostly from the third century, a bit from the second, and a smidgen earlier.

And if Richard does have access to such an early Greek OT we could also easily then check if there was a 1st-century Greek text where the quotations are close to the NT. (Rather than being 'smoothed' in reverse as in Psalm 14.)

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

John Kesler · 02-10-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

<sarcastic comments snipped>
Maybe you can check and let us know what you find out.

I e-mailed Carrier about this thread.

Richard Carrier · 02-12-2007, 01:17 PM

Okay, just a quick one-time stop-by to give a 2nd grade lesson in English comprehension:

"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"

It seems as if Steven Avery can't read English. He asks "if Richard has a 1st-century Greek OT, the whole Septuagint, this will revolutionize scholarship" etc., etc. Now, boys and girls, who knows how to read the sentences above? Did I say I had a manuscript of the Septuagint dating to the 1st century? Is it even remotely possible to think I meant any such thing?

As for the point being made with this quotation, that's John Kesler's look out. If Avery wants to propose the hypothesis that the current text of the Septuagint deviates from its ancestors, and does so in exactly those ways that explain Matthew's text, there is nothing illigitimate about proposing such a hypothesis. Defending that hypotheses, even to the level of plausibility much less acceptable fact, is another story. I wish Avery luck with that. That indeed would be a great boon to the field and would be publishable in a peer reviewed journal in biblical studies. Unless he has no convincing or competent case to make. In which case he's just MSU...making shit up.

jgibson000 · 02-12-2007, 02:09 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"

I wonder, Richard, if you'd do me the kindness not only of defining for me what you mean by "the Septuagint", but of telling me (a) what the "three versions" of "the Septuagint" are/were and how they differ from one another, (b) what extant LXX MS(S) witness(es) to each of them respectively, and (c) which of these three versions of "the Septuagint" it is that "survives to the present day"?

As ever,

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith · 02-12-2007, 02:27 PM

I too am unclear as to what the three versions of the LXX are supposed to be. This is not about Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, is it? I am under the impression that those versions are not considered the same thing as the Septuagint.

Or perhaps it is about the three recensions that Jerome mentioned in his preface to Chronicles?

Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt.

Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint praise Hesychius as the author. [The region from] Constantinople until Antioch approves the exemplars of Lucian the martyr. The middle provinces between these read the Palestinian codices which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, having been labored over [or compiled] by Origen.

Is it certain that any of these recensions dates, as such, to the first century? If not, then what are the (at least) three versions under discussion?

Ben.

jakejonesiv · 02-12-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

I wonder, Richard, if you'd do me the kindness not only of defining for me what you mean by "the Septuagint", but of telling me (a) what the "three versions" of "the Septuagint" are/were and how they differ from one another, (b) what extant LXX MS(S) witness(es) to each of them respectively, and (c) which of these three versions of "the Septuagint" it is that "survives to the present day"?

As ever,

Jeffrey Gibson

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

Jake

02-12-2007, 01:17 PM	#7
Richard Carrier Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: California, USA Posts: 338	Confusing Texts with Manuscripts Okay, just a quick one-time stop-by to give a 2nd grade lesson in English comprehension: "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" It seems as if Steven Avery can't read English. He asks "if Richard has a 1st-century Greek OT, the whole Septuagint, this will revolutionize scholarship" etc., etc. Now, boys and girls, who knows how to read the sentences above? Did I say I had a manuscript of the Septuagint dating to the 1st century? Is it even remotely possible to think I meant any such thing? As for the point being made with this quotation, that's John Kesler's look out. If Avery wants to propose the hypothesis that the current text of the Septuagint deviates from its ancestors, and does so in exactly those ways that explain Matthew's text, there is nothing illigitimate about proposing such a hypothesis. Defending that hypotheses, even to the level of plausibility much less acceptable fact, is another story. I wish Avery luck with that. That indeed would be a great boon to the field and would be publishable in a peer reviewed journal in biblical studies. Unless he has no convincing or competent case to make. In which case he's just MSU...making shit up.

02-12-2007, 02:27 PM	#9
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	I too am unclear as to what the three versions of the LXX are supposed to be. This is not about Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, is it? I am under the impression that those versions are not considered the same thing as the Septuagint. Or perhaps it is about the three recensions that Jerome mentioned in his preface to Chronicles? Alexandria et Aegyptus in LXX suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt. Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint praise Hesychius as the author. [The region from] Constantinople until Antioch approves the exemplars of Lucian the martyr. The middle provinces between these read the Palestinian codices which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, having been labored over [or compiled] by Origen. Is it certain that any of these recensions dates, as such, to the first century? If not, then what are the (at least) three versions under discussion? Ben.

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

02-08-2007, 10:38 AM	#2
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	"Rabbit" Singer is wrong. We know from the prologue to the book of Ben Sira that there were Hebrew (i.e. Jewish) translations of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books" by the late second century BCE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.