spin

There are four Greek pentateuch texts from Qumran: 4Q119-122, 4QLXXLev^a, 4QLXXLev^b, 4QLXXNum & 4QLXXDeut. Ulrich, in the book I've already mentioned, looks at the variants in 4QLXXLev^a & 4QLXXNum and thinks that the fragments represent an earlier Greek than the LXX in common usage, though he couldn't say which form is likely to be closer to the original and both may have wandered away in their own directions.

avi

Apologies to all, if my writing conveyed the erroneous notion that I view myself as some sort of expert, on this or any other issue, ganz im gegenteil.

Text in the fragments found in Qumran differs from the text published in Codex Sinaiticus. The problem, in my opinion, is HOW the texts differ.

I obviously do not know what the original document from Alexandria looked like. I appreciate the notion that over time, with multiple copyings, some changes would be inevitable, and that, accordingly, EVERY edition of LXX will differ to some extent from the original version. What I also understand however, is that the Codex Sinaiticus version of the old testament has been deliberately doctored, compared with not only the fragments in Hebrew and Greek from Qumran, but also from the Masoretic text.

The changes, which I have observed, appear to my eye, to represent alterations, designed to offer the nascent Christian believer, seventeen centuries ago, an authoritative source, confirming the legitimacy of the New Testament, in those passages otherwise ambiguous, or contradictory to the text of the Gospels, as they appear in Codex Sinaiticus.

avi

PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

I agree, we do not possess an accurate copy of the Greek "Septuagint." The reason for this is that there never was a copy of the "Septuagint." The Septuagint is a myth. Expecting to find it is like expecting to find a table that King Midus touched and made into gold.

The Hebrew scriptures evolved over hundreds of years and each book went through numerous copying processes, so that by the time it became widespread there were numerous scrolls with both slight and enormous variations. In other words, if a person living in 50 C.E. had collected 100 scrolls of Greek versions of the Holy Scriptures of "Genesis," and looked up a particular sentence "A", they would have found it in 30 of them and not in 70 others. If they looked up sentence "B," it would have been in 60 of them and not in 40 others. Sentence "C" might appear in 90 of them or in only 10 of them.

It is not surprising that most of the sentences in the New Testament quoting the Hebrew Scriptures do not appear in our copies of them or appear in wildly different forms.

This is my general understanding of the situation.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

avi

In my overtly inexpert opinion, the resolution of this question is best addressed by answering the related question: Are there any OTHER documents, from third or fourth century CE, which either disappeared, or manifest obvious alterations?

Then, one wonders, were there any geopolitical upheavals at about that same time frame, that may have accounted for those dramatic changes?

"voluntary" abandonment is improbable, in my opinion, simply because folks really don't like to give up routines to which they have grown accustomed, often since childhood....

Asking a devout Jew to burn his/her LXX, and replace it with a shiny new copy, hot off the press, is unlikely, in my opinion, to meet with success.

Sending in the Gestapo, with instructions to loot, and burn ALL BOOKS, seems a more likely method, in my opinion.....

avi

avi

Thanks, Jay, always appreciate reading your input to the forum, no exception here!!!

Here are some references, in support of your suggestion:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_09.asp
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-....php?id=126047
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html
http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...he-septuagint/
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology...is_the_lxx.htm

I do accept the notion that there was a gathering of 70 native Greek speakers, with intimate, detailed knowledge of the scrolls and manuscripts available to scholars of that era, in Alexandria, about 220 BCE.

I imagine, perhaps in total error, that unlike our own notion of what life was like in those days, (chaos, filth, violence, and very short life span), that contrarily, Alexandria was a sort of oasis of learning, with many scholars, many opinions, many ancient texts to consult, and many very bright folks, living into their eighties, teaching younger scholars about the traditions of the past.

For example, one of my heroes is Aristarchus, former head Librarian in Alexandria. How was he able to compute the circumference of the earth, using only two sticks of wood? There were a LOT of very bright folks walking around in Alexandria, in those days....

So, no, I don't accept the hypothesis that it is far fetched to imagine a group of 70 scholars getting together in Alexandria, to create a unified text to remedy the problem of different Greek translations of the original Hebrew text causing confusion, leading to splinter groups, etc.....

I can appreciate that, from a Western European perspective, it seems contradictory to accept the idea that Alexandria, not Rome, was the center of the universe 2200 years ago....

avi

Toto

Most of the documents from the 3rd and 4th centuries have disappeared, mainly through neglect. There is no need to posit some jackbooted thugs who search out any stray manuscripts and burn them.

avi

Thanks, Toto, you are correct, of course. I err by going to extremes.

Perhaps through abysmal ignorance, or more simply, because of life long prejudice, I believe that the Roman Government behaved in an authoritarian fashion.

I have a problem imagining a "civil" administration, a secular government, operating at the behest of an omnipotent emperor, who has waged war for most of his life, often against relatives, competing for the crown, sometimes even against his own progeny, often against siblings, or other family members, suddenly behaving out of character, in a lax fashion, on issues which he himself deemed important.

I envision a demand for order, whenever disorder had arisen, and I envision religious splinter groups holding demonstrations, enacting boycotts, or otherwise disrupting the shipment of grain and cattle from Palestine/Egypt/Syria to Rome. I simply do not imagine, I cannot imagine, an emperor sitting on his throne, nodding his head, sipping his wine, and frowning upon learning that yet another splinter group had disrupted shipping operations, but then issuing no commands to his subordinates to suppress the rebellion.

I don't perceive the Roman demand of the Jews to recognize the deification of the emperors as some kind of religious token.

I envision that demand, to bow before the statue of the Roman emperor, (as supreme deity,) as indication that the Romans would tolerate no disruption of the flow of material to Rome. I don't know about jackboots, but I doubt that the response of the Roman military garrison, ruling Alexandria and Jerusalem, would have been all cupcakes and vanilla ice cream either. I think the military authorities would have reacted with a force disproportionately large, to enforce docility, in response to even the smallest opposition to Roman rule.

To me, it is simply a matter of logic, not history, that the omnipotent emperor, a military genius, would have relented and instructed his aides to forego the usual methods of interrogation, and instead plead with the civilian representatives of the rebels, to ask them please to turn in their old versions of LXX, and receive in place, a lovely new version.

If the Emperor had declared that Christianity was henceforth the state's religion, then, in my opinion, there would have been significant consequences of that declaration. Among those consequences, in my opinion, not fact, would have been an order to his subordinates to gather up all the obsolete versions, and issuance of new editions of the texts, to avoid confusion, prevent splinter groups, and promote efficiency. Maybe that process did not require jackboots. Maybe the populace went streaming out to the central market place, upon hearing the good news, of a new edition, to commence the exchange of old LXX for new LXX, peacefully, and without incident....

Perhaps, as you suggest, no one collected anything, and the old editions simply disintegrated over time....You are correct, Toto, there is no obligation to invoke jackboots--the Jews are renowned for their docility and cooperativeness with occupying military authorities.

avi

Toto

When did this happen? Why?

What does this have to do with anything? The Romans had worked things out with the Jews, so they tolerated the Jews refusal to worship the Roman emperors.

Now here, you've just lost me. Why is the Emperor replacing the LXX? Why would he care? Why would the Jews care, since they read their scriptures in Hebrew?

stephan huller

I can't believe that I am siding with avi in a sense but the basic idea that the government controled the books and practices that governed ancient religion isn't as wacky as you might think. We all remember 9/11 surely. Remember the distinction between 'good Islam' and 'bad Islam' that went around for a while which was wholly determined by how receptive Muslims were to Coca Cola and Katie Perry. It really had nothing to do with the proper exegesis of the Quran.

Islam may very well be the kind of religion conservative talk radio hosts in the United States say it is. I am not an expert on the development of Islam. All I am saying is that even in medieval Judaism for instance the question of what appeared in the Talmud was at the heart of the persecutions in Portugal and Spain. When you look at Nachmanides and the kind of questions that were thrown at him in his interrogation it is no wonder that the surviving copies of the Talmud are heavily redacted. References to Jesus altered beyond recognition.

The argument there was that the Jewish writings since the Mishnah acknowledged that Christ had come in the first century. Everyone laughs - Oh how stupid these Catholics were. But how sure are we that there wasn't something to this? The leading advocates for the Catholic Church were after all 'turn coat' Jews like Christiani. It's one of those things we will never know.

But when you go through history and you see the way the Samaritan literature was attacked by the Imperial government - it along with the priesthood being wiped out by Commodus - is it really crazy that the government had a hand in determining the shape of the religion in the late second century? I don't think it is that crazy. Indeed my friend Ruaridh Boid, Hans Kippenberg and others note that the earliest prayers from the Samaritan tradition) plainly say that they were written in response to an older theology which was 'incorrect.' The first prayer of the Marqe (which I posted here a while ago) basically has crucifixion (i.e. official persecution of the Samaritans) as its theme and saying - if you want to live a long life obey the Roman government.

It's no different with the Jews. They have this 'bad period' where they are rebelling against Roman authority and then they learn how to play the game. R. Judah haNasi is literally said to have been in bed with the Emperor (or with the Emperor bending over backwards to help him into bed). The Emperor (Antoninus) has halakhoth and hagaddoth preserved in his name in the rabbinic literature. Even if the 'Rebellious Elder' rule was invoked to curb heresy within the Jewish community who do you think determined who the leaders of the Jews were after the Jewish revolts? You the Roman government just said, 'well the Jewish people get to elect their leaders?' No, impossibile.

It also drives me to distraction when people accuse Marcus Julius Agrippa of being a 'puppet king.' Do you think that any of the client kings in history said 'fuck you' to their political masters? You think that any of the heads of the various temples throughout the Empire were these independent thinking types. The Empire was filled with yes men and religion was no different.

The Romans had their hands in manipulating the complexion of the Samaritan priesthood and the Jewish Nasi. Then we come to Christianity. How on earth could the Imperial government have been so cozy with the Roman Church of the late second and early third centuries without 'little suggestions' about the complexion of the religion.

It's just coincidence that the fourfold gospel gets introduced when Commodus, his Christian concubine Marcia and the eunuchs associated with them were absolutely cozy with Victor, Carpophorus and the rest of the leaders of the Roman Church? Marcia even has a hand in establishing the future Pope Callixtus. And no persecutions at all in the Roman Church while Alexandrian Christians are experiencing a holocaust.

And it is supposed to be coincidence that this was the age in which the Roman Church solidified its authority? Come on. Let's grow up. It's no different than when they had controversy with the mosque being built near the Twin Towers that the imam turns out to be ambassador of American to the Islamic world. He's like Mr. Rogers of the Muslim religion. The government always has its hands in religion. The kind of person who rises to the top of official organizations is agreeable and compliant to authority.

The reason I think Pete's theories are so stupid is because he assumes that all of what he claims was done at the time of Constantine. Idiotic. But certainly the Torah changed when it stopped being the exclusive domain of priesthood associated with Gerizim. The political leaders of the Jews changed most of the references which said Gerizim was the holy mountain of God. They erased the 'eleventh commandment' that only Gerizim could serve as the sanctuary of the true religion. In most of the disputes about readings between Jews and Samaritans the Samaritans are usually right

I tell you, my interpretation of the evidence from Qumran was that the Sadducees or groups within the Sadducees never quite accepted this political involvment. Gerizim was still holy to many and that's why Hippolytus mentions that the Jewish Sadducees resettled there in the period after the revolts. It would seem there were Samaritan and Jewish branches of the same Sadducees. Notice also that Epiphanius's Panarion assumes the Samaritans were older than the Jews and all the Jewish sects branched off from them.

And let us ask - why did the Jewish religion come out on top over the Samaritans? There are a lot reasons of course but let's not ignore the fact that the Samaritans were very close to the Persians (after all it was the Persians who allowed for self-rule in Palestine and naturally they went back to Gerizim). It was only when Alexander the Great came along that the Jews gained the upperhand exploiting the alliance between the Samaritans and the Persians (notice Persian elements in Genesis for another sign of Imperial ass kissing). Josephus always cites contemporary Greek historians from the time of Alexander to reinforce this. But it wasn't that Alexander actually liked the Jews. It's just how Imperial regime operate.

The point is no one should doubt that governments manipulated the holy texts of the Bible. Our canon is nothing but represented of layer after layer of such manipulations.

avi

amen