Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-15-2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

After reading a bit more on this, the strongest evidence for dating the LXX appears to be linguistic. I've found a blog post that is informative (link). Here's the part that seems relevant:

John Lee has cautiously concluded his study of the vocabulary of the Septuagintal Pentateuch with the observation that, “our text is probably older than the middle of the second century B.C.” His work has supported the A. Deissmann understanding that the lexicography of the LXX should be categorized as reflecting a Koine that was used as a vernacular in Ptolemaic Egypt. T. V. Evans focused his study of the Greek Pentateuch on verbal syntax. He concludes that, “the features analysed in detail, as well as the general structural similarity of the Pentateuchal verbal system to that of the Attic system, are strongly suggestive of production early (probably very early) in the post-Classical period. They are thus consistent with the consensus view of a date of c. 280-250 BC.”

I haven't heard of any linguistic expert who allows for the species of Greek used in the Pentateuch to be dated to the Common Era. Unless such a person exists, I personally won't be persuaded by arguments over Aristeas or the date of the earliest citations.

From the blog you are citing, there are at least three Common Era dated fragments. One of your blogs also makes reference to another blog called Still no LXX.

Quote:

The Judean Desert has provided us with a total of 9 Greek biblical manuscripts, 8 at Qumran and the Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) at Nahal Hever. They are as follows:

1. 4QLXXLeva [(4Q119) Rahlfs 801] – some date it no later than the 1st century BCE because of the scriptio continua writing style, although Skehan dated it to the 1st century CE.

2. 4QpapLXXLevb [(4Q120) Rahlfs 802] – 1st century BCE, n.b. with the unique Ιαω for the Tetragrammaton.

3. 4QLXXNum [(4Q121) Rahlfs 803] – 1st century BCE.

4. 4QLXXDeut [(4Q122) Rahlfs 819] – Possibly early to mid second century BCE.

5. 4QUnidentified Text gr – (4Q126) – 1st century BCE or so.

6. 4QpapParaExod gr – (4Q127) – 1st century BCE to 1st century CE.

7. 7QpapLXXExod (7Q1) – too small a fragmentary to date.

8. 7QpapEpJer gr [(7Q2) Rahlfs 804] – too small a fragmentary to date.

9. 7QpapBiblical Texts? gr (7Q3-5) & 7QpapUnclassified Text gr (7Q6-19) – ?

10. 8HevXII gr – dated 50 BCE to 50 CE.

From the above 10 citations, only 7 are dated and three of these are represented as being datable to the common era.

I am still looking for articles that provide more of a background on how the authority of linguistic experts who are clearly following the Letter of Aristeas are justified. Repeating from your quoted source (my bolding):

Quote:

John Lee has cautiously concluded his study of the vocabulary of the Septuagintal Pentateuch with the observation that, “our text is probably older than the middle of the second century B.C.” His work has supported the A. Deissmann understanding that the lexicography of the LXX should be categorized as reflecting a Koine that was used as a vernacular in Ptolemaic Egypt.

I am only guessing here, because I have not read these authors, but it seems to me that they are looking at the Greek LXX as contained in some very specific series of sources dated no earlier than the Codex Vaticanus (except in the cases of fragments listed above). Does anyone know which source these authors are using for their linguistic conclusions?

The following is from here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Textual history

The inter-relationship between various significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some identified by their siglum). LXX here denotes the original septuagint.

Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BC. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BC), are tentative and without consensus.[5]

Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well attested, the most famous of which include the Three: Aquila (128 CE), Symmachus, and Theodotion. These three, to varying degrees, are more literal renderings of their contemporary Hebrew scriptures as compared to the Old Greek. Modern scholars consider one or more of the 'three' to be totally new Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible.[14]

The question of course is how recent is the LXX? It is claimed to be ancient via the Letter of Aristeas. But what is there other than this "evidence" to distinguish its antiquity? You see how critical a role is placed on Origen the Christian, who according to some of the world's foremost scholars and academics of 2011, lived at a time when there was another Origen, called Origen the Platonist, each with their own spiritual teachers, the former a pupil of Ammonias the Christian, the later a pupil of Ammonias Saccas the Father of Neoplatonism.

Quote:

Around 235 CE, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr. στἰχος) belonged.[15] Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column") was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed these to Lucian and Hesychius.[5]

mountainman · 06-30-2011, 10:36 PM

Draft tabulation of physical evidence presented (in addition to "linguistic analysis") in response to the question ....

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}

Century
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Evidence for the Greek LXX
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Notes
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}281-246 BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus Letter of Aristeas
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Forgery in Josephus
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}170-130 BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Estimated forgery of the Letter of Aristeas
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Also see "TF"
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}2nd Cen BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Papyrus Rylands 458
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}1st/2nd BCE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Greek papyri in the Qumran
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}LXX translations?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}050 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 3522 - Job 42.11,12
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}037-100 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Titus Flavius Josephus aka Joseph ben Mattathias
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Interpolated?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}100 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 4443 - Esther 6,7
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}150 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21-23; 15:5-9; 19:32-20:11;24:28-47; 27:32-33, 40-41
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically)
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}185-254 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Origen and the Hexapla
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Which Origen?
||
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}312-339 CE
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Eusebius got most, if not all, of his information about what Christian writings were accepted by the various churches from the writings and library of Origen
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Hmmm ....
[/T2]

There are other papyri to be added, but all of them without exception appear to have been dated paleographically. If the forgery in Josephus was deliberately planted by Eusebius, and re-inforced in his "Church History", then a large scale Greek LXX may have not been around at all in the epoch BCE and perhaps not until the time of Origen, in the 3rd century CE. How do readers view such a possibility? Do the "Church Fathers" cite the Greek LXX before Origen's Hexapla?

Can anyone provide any other substantial evidence in support for an early dating of the Greek LXX.

"Linguistic Analysis"?

I have read the sticky on the Documentary Hypothesis but it does not seem to explicitly state what Greek text everyone is using to conduct all these examinations, although I suspect it is some relative of that found in Codex Vaticanus, or Sinaticus, or Alexandrinus ... is this correct? If not, what is the Greek source being used. Thanks for any references.

avi · 07-01-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Can anyone provide any other substantial evidence in support for an early dating of the Greek LXX.

Hi Pete, this is probably not what you seek, but it may, or may not be relevant to your presentation, above.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....ammaton&page=2

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The DSS show that adonai was a later substitute for yhwh. That should still be the case for the Vorlage of the text that Philo had.

hjalti and I, separately, argued contrarily, that DSS did contain reference to Yahweh, and that the original Hebrew text, available to the 70 Alexandrian Scholars, also contained Yahweh, not Adonai. The substitution of Adonai for Yahweh and its portrait in the Greek Septuagint, as Kyrios, represents a forgery, in my view.

see post 32 from the link above, for further elaboration, if interested.
http://www.yahweh.com/images/yahweh/UntitHE2.JPG

regards,

avi

mountainman · 07-01-2011, 04:04 PM

Thanks very much for these links avi. These are all interesting discussions, but I didn't seem to be able to find any mention of chronologies. I think it is a reasonable conclusion to tentatively hold that the Hebrew bible was extant BCE because of the physical evidence in the DSS for example.

But here the OP is asking what evidence do we have for the existence of a very specific Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, that is called the LXX. As we can see in the above table, the evidence for the existence of the Greek LXX prior to the 3rd century CE and Origen is very fragmentary and there is not one unambiguous dated item to be examined, since the entire set of the physical evidence has been dated via palaeography. The key literary item is another slab of text which Eusebius apparently found in Josephus, and which he specifically repeats in his Church History, when he introduces the Bishop of Laodiciea named Anatolius, and associates this figure with Anatolius of Alexandria (the Platonist and mathematician).

Which complete Greek text of the LXX is the oldest, and is being used as today's source text? Does anyone know? Is it the one which appears in the earliest Greek new testament Codices for example?

I am finding it difficult to understand precisely what is being defined as the source Greek text for the Greek LXX.

But thanks for the related discussion and data. Everything is connected.
Enjoy midsummer in the northern hemi - midwinter down here is moving through.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 06:43 AM

It appears that the text of the LXX in Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century are being treated as the source Greek text for the LXX. These Greek codices in turn are treated as one of the 50 Constantine Bibles, or a copy thereof.

Just as Eusebius is our only tour guide in the history of the Greek new testament, it is evident that he is ALSO our only tour guide in the history of the Greek LXX. I guess it was really a package deal. This may be a cause of great concern. Eusebius should not be trusted in the 21st century. It's a pity none of these fragments tabulated above have been C14 dated.

Use of the Septuagint

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Jewish use

Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[6]. Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[26]

What was perhaps most significant for the LXX,[citation needed] as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[6] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies.

Christian use

The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums). The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it's not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2.15 and .23, John 19.37, John 7.38, 1 Cor. 2.9.[27] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts (Matt 2.23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Isaiah 11.1). Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[28]

In the Early Christian Church, the presumed fact was that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than (say, 2nd century) Hebrew texts, was taken as evidence, that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7.14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. And according to Irenaeus the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus: From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.[29]

When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint.[citation needed] He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.[6]

mountainman · 09-20-2011, 02:28 AM

Many readers are aware that Eusebius of Caesarea is suspected of the forgery of a number of key documents (such as the Agbar-Jesus letter exchange) and interpolations (such as the TF). The question here for discussion is whether or not it is reasonable to ask the question could Eusebius have also forged, and then interpolated the "Letter of Aristeas" into the books of Josephus Flavius.

Letter of Aristeas

Quote:

The so-called Letter of Aristeas or Letter to Philocrates is a Hellenistic work of the 2nd century BCE, one of the Pseudepigrapha.[1] Josephus[2] who paraphrases about two-fifths of the letter, ascribes it to Aristeas and written to Philocrates, describing the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-two interpreters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria, resulting in the Septuagint translation. Though some have argued that its story of the creation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is fictitious,[3]

Toto · 09-20-2011, 09:47 AM

Your previous thread on the Letter of Aristeas seems to make this unlikely.

Since the earliest text we have of Josephus dates to the 10th century and the chain of transmission probably at some point passed through Eusebius' scriptorium, this is technically possible, but it seems to be part of your fantasy of a grand conspiracy mastered by Eusebius and Constantine.

I will merge the threads.

mountainman · 09-20-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your previous thread on the Letter of Aristeas seems to make this unlikely.

The only items of evidence available have been tabulated above. Have a look at them all, and the methodology of the dating of the evidence. Without exception the available evidence - fragments from here and there - has been dated by palaeographical assessment.

Quote:

Since the earliest text we have of Josephus dates to the 10th century and the chain of transmission probably at some point passed through Eusebius' scriptorium, this is technically possible,

Thankyou. Of course it is possible. The question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that this is possible. We all know that Eusebius appears to have been very fond of quoting his own forged documents after they had been interpolated into various authors.

Quote:

but it seems to be part of your fantasy of a grand conspiracy mastered by Eusebius and Constantine.

This is a question about evidence and not fantasy legends, known to be embodied in manifestly forged documents.

What is the evidence by which we can clearly see that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible occurred before Eusebius found Origen's library? I dont seem to be able to find any secure and unambiguous evidence to support the fantasy legend of the BCE Ptolemaic LXX translation. I have listed what I have found. Does anyone know of any such evidence?

Toto · 09-20-2011, 06:27 PM

If you want to just reject all evidence from paleography, you will be talking to yourself.

mountainman · 09-20-2011, 07:16 PM

The standard process is to include the paleography evidence with all the other forms of evidence available. The question becomes what other forms of evidence are available aside from paleography. The answer appears to be none outside of Eusebius.

Can you or anyone else find any type of evidence other than paleographical to support the existence of a widespread Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible before the epoch of Origen?

Have any C14 tests been conducted on any suspected LXX fragments?

06-30-2011, 10:36 PM	#42
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Draft tabulation of physical evidence presented (in addition to "linguistic analysis") in response to the question .... [T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black} Century \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Evidence for the Greek LXX \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Notes \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}281-246 BCE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus Letter of Aristeas \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Forgery in Josephus \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}170-130 BCE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Estimated forgery of the Letter of Aristeas \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Also see "TF" \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}2nd Cen BCE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Papyrus Rylands 458 \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically) \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}1st/2nd BCE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Greek papyri in the Qumran \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}LXX translations? \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}050 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 3522 - Job 42.11,12 \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically) \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}037-100 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Titus Flavius Josephus aka Joseph ben Mattathias \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Interpolated? \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}100 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 4443 - Esther 6,7 \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically) \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}150 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}P.Oxy 656 (150 CE) Gen 14:21-23; 15:5-9; 19:32-20:11;24:28-47; 27:32-33, 40-41 \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}(assigned palaeographically) \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}185-254 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Origen and the Hexapla \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Which Origen? \|\| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}312-339 CE \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Eusebius got most, if not all, of his information about what Christian writings were accepted by the various churches from the writings and library of Origen \| {c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Hmmm .... [/T2] There are other papyri to be added, but all of them without exception appear to have been dated paleographically. If the forgery in Josephus was deliberately planted by Eusebius, and re-inforced in his "Church History", then a large scale Greek LXX may have not been around at all in the epoch BCE and perhaps not until the time of Origen, in the 3rd century CE. How do readers view such a possibility? Do the "Church Fathers" cite the Greek LXX before Origen's Hexapla? Can anyone provide any other substantial evidence in support for an early dating of the Greek LXX. "Linguistic Analysis"? I have read the sticky on the Documentary Hypothesis but it does not seem to explicitly state what Greek text everyone is using to conduct all these examinations, although I suspect it is some relative of that found in Codex Vaticanus, or Sinaticus, or Alexandrinus ... is this correct? If not, what is the Greek source being used. Thanks for any references.

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

07-01-2011, 04:04 PM	#44
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks very much for these links avi. These are all interesting discussions, but I didn't seem to be able to find any mention of chronologies. I think it is a reasonable conclusion to tentatively hold that the Hebrew bible was extant BCE because of the physical evidence in the DSS for example. But here the OP is asking what evidence do we have for the existence of a very specific Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, that is called the LXX. As we can see in the above table, the evidence for the existence of the Greek LXX prior to the 3rd century CE and Origen is very fragmentary and there is not one unambiguous dated item to be examined, since the entire set of the physical evidence has been dated via palaeography. The key literary item is another slab of text which Eusebius apparently found in Josephus, and which he specifically repeats in his Church History, when he introduces the Bishop of Laodiciea named Anatolius, and associates this figure with Anatolius of Alexandria (the Platonist and mathematician). Which complete Greek text of the LXX is the oldest, and is being used as today's source text? Does anyone know? Is it the one which appears in the earliest Greek new testament Codices for example? I am finding it difficult to understand precisely what is being defined as the source Greek text for the Greek LXX. But thanks for the related discussion and data. Everything is connected. Enjoy midsummer in the northern hemi - midwinter down here is moving through. Best wishes Pete

09-20-2011, 09:47 AM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your previous thread on the Letter of Aristeas seems to make this unlikely. Since the earliest text we have of Josephus dates to the 10th century and the chain of transmission probably at some point passed through Eusebius' scriptorium, this is technically possible, but it seems to be part of your fantasy of a grand conspiracy mastered by Eusebius and Constantine. I will merge the threads.

09-20-2011, 06:27 PM	#49
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you want to just reject all evidence from paleography, you will be talking to yourself.

09-20-2011, 07:16 PM	#50
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	The standard process is to include the paleography evidence with all the other forms of evidence available. The question becomes what other forms of evidence are available aside from paleography. The answer appears to be none outside of Eusebius. Can you or anyone else find any type of evidence other than paleographical to support the existence of a widespread Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible before the epoch of Origen? Have any C14 tests been conducted on any suspected LXX fragments?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.