www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Unreliable LXX?

Also some Hebrew Scripture fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave Q4 support the Septuagint version in ways the Masoretic and even the Samaritain do not. Speculation among scholars about an ancient "Septuatint Vorlag" seems to have gained supporting evidence.

But among the Dead Sea Scrolls was also found samples of a version of the Hebrew Bible which favors neither the Masoretic nor the Septuagint. This family of manuscripts is called the "Palestinian". So, there were at least three ancient families of Hebrew manuscripts in circulation before 70 AD which did not agree in every respect

Regarding the ancient Greek Seventy, two things seem worth mention:

1) The earliest manuscripts of the Seventy are not the very same as what we have in print today. It is generally held that third century revisions by scholars like Origen, Theodotion and Lucian were eventually substituted into later manuscripts. We know two ancient Greek versions exist for a few books and these are represented in parallel in modern editions like Dr. A. Rhalf's 1934 "Septuaginta".

2) Some readings of known fourth and fifth century uncial manuscripts of the Greek Seventy, namely; codices, Sinaticus, Vaticanus B and Alexandrinus differ significantly in certain places. These differences are detailed in the Textual Apparatus of Dr. Rhalf's edition. Also in this connection reading the early Church Fathers in Greek, one may notice differences in their citations from the Seventy which might indicate inconsistencies of early manuscripts even in their day.

As indicated before, I do use the Greek Seventy in study and reference it often when teaching. But I also think it is prudent not to turn a blind eye to the known historical issues concerning it.



τω συστρατιωτης

Has anyone written a study as to how the divergence of the Latin West from the Septuagint (by replacing the LXX-based Itala with the Hebrew-based Vulgate) eventually impacted on the division between the Greek East and the Latin West?

And has anyone extensively studied the doctrinal import (if any) of the supposed divergence between the received Byzantine recension and the ancient Greek manuscripts of the LXX?

The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) has published a number of scholarly articles and books dealing with textual criticism and the differences between the Greek Seventy (modern and ancient) and the Masoretic Hebrew. These generally discuss individual books or portions of books rather than the whole testament. IOSCS generally do not deal with ecclesiastical issues.

May I inquire if a official published edition of the "received Byzantine recension" of the LXX is available for purchase somewhere? The only reference I have found is to one published at Moscow in 1828 (rarestuff unobtainum).

τω συστρατιωτης

Actually, it's not a modern innovation: it's ancient, and went into the creation of the Vulgate. St. Jerome removed the landmark his Fathers had set up, and translated from A (i.e. not the MT) Hebrew text. He also was the one to make distinctions between "deuterocanonical" and "canonical" i.e., in a Hebrew text. St. Augustine criticized him for forsaken the Way of the Apostles for the path of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Btw, you can tell from the MT that it is not orginal: Psalm 9 is split in two in the MT. However, as it is an acrostic poem, which lines in alphabetical Hebrew order end in the middle of the alphabet at the end of MT 9, and then continues on to finish the alphabet at the end of 10.

One reference I could certainly recommend regarding the Greek Seventy is: The Septuagint and Modern Study, by Sidney Jellicoe; 1978, Oxford University Press. It was reprinted by Eisenbrauns in 1993. Jellicoe is a formost LXX scholar. Even though the book is thirty years old, it remains the best handbook on the Seventy available.

τω συστρατιωτης

The Orthodox Marketplace has this:

http://www.orthodoxmarketplace.com/greek-koine-c-515.html
SKU: AOK-121241
Palaia Diathiki (Old Testament)

Published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia) - The Old Testament

Preserving the order and content according to the Septuagint.
Our price: $55.00

And also:

Diathiki (New Testament)

Published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia) - The New Testament

According to the translation approved by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Our price: $35.00

Waiting List

I ordered both but they haven't arrived yet. Happy hunting.

The Apostoliki Diakonia text editions are freely available online.

The Greek New Testament - Καινή Διαθήκη (Textus Receptus) is here:
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/b...d_testament/contents.asp&main=OldTes

The Greek Old Testament - Παλαιά Διαθήκη (LXX) is here:
http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=new_testament/contents.asp&main=

This Greek text of the LXX seems rather similar to Joannes E. Grabe's edition of the Septuagint published in four volumes between 1707-1720. Grabe's edition was based on the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus in possession of the British Museum. It differs in certain respects from both the famous Vatican/Sixtine editions (including Brenton's) and sometimes also Alfred Rahlf's cosmopolitan pocket edition.


μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

To follow up:

In my own feeble studies using the Apostoliki Diakonia LXX edition, "Ηε Παλαια Διαθηκη κατα τους Εβδομηκοντα" (Old Testament according to the Seventy), I have noticed a number of apparent typos and some omitted words in the text. Upon further investigation, I came across a post on another site submitted by Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg) Russian Orthodox; Professor of Theology, Leeds Trinity University College; and also, Fellow in Patristic Theology and Church History at Oxford University. Dr. Steenberg wrote:

The report that the Apostoliki Diakonia LXX follows Joannes E. Grabe's 1708-1720 work was in error and I stand thus corrected.

Therefore, I have resolved in principle to use Dr. Alfred Rahlf's fourth edition of the Greek Seventy making occasional reference to the excellent critical apparatus at the bottom of each page.


Respectfully submitted:

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

For those those who may be interested, some nineteenth century editions of the Greek Seventy have been posted as free PDF downloads on Google. These are good quality scans of hard to find editions. All represent editioral variations of the 1586 Sixtine text, authorized by Pope Sixtus V to aid the translators who were then revising the Latin Vulgate edition under order of the Council of Trent. This Sixtine LXX text represents the Greek Old Testament of Codex Vaticanus supplemented by Codex Alexandrinus and two other manuscripts and has often been regarded the "received text" of the Greek Septuagint.

The first is the second edition (1855) of Leander van Ess first published in 1824 as a non-critical Sixtine edition. It gained wide circulation and was oft reprinted.
Leander van Ess LXX 1855 [books.google.com]

Constantine Tischendorf's editions were the best scholarly critical editions of the Greek Seventy available from 1850 until H. B. Swete's editions began to be published in the late 1880s. Tischendorf himself published four editions before his decease in 1874. The fifth (1875) and sixth (1880) editions were edited by Eberhard Nestle.

Constantine Tischendorf's LXX 1880 Edition, Volume 1 [books.google.com]

Constantine Tischendorf's LXX 1880 Edition, Volume 2 [books.google.com]

The following four volumes by the well known Cambridge Greek scholar H. B Swete are available as Free PDF downloads from the Internet Archive site. The first one "An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek" is a very good handbook on the Greek Seventy in English. Swete's critical edition greatly improved on Tischendorf's and served scholars until publication of Alfred Rahlf's 1934 pocket critical edition.

An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900) [archive.org]

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 1 (1887) [archive.org]

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 2 (1891) [archive.org]

The Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint Volume 3 (1896) [archive.org]

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

Which ones? Can you elaborate more?


Which commentaries from before Christ say this? I would be interested to see the source. I'm not doubting you. I have just never heard this before.


Again, can you add a source for this?


Thanks!

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls antedate the Masoretic Text by at least ten centuries. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls scholars found three different Hebrew manscript families representing the scriptures.

1.) There is the so-called Propt-Masoretic text family which is similar to the Masoretic Text we know, but not the same in every way.

2.) There were a number of ancient scroll fragments found in cave four that support readings known in the Greek Septuagint. Scholars have long speclated that the Septuagint was translated from original Hebrew manuscripts that differed in certain ways from the Masoretic Text. Now we have evidence to support such claims.

3.) Scholars also found ancient Hebrew manuscripts that deviate from both the Masoretic and the Septuagint readings. This is now called the Palestinian text family. I am unaware if any English translations from these manuscripts have been published.

What is amply demonstrated by Dead Sea Scrolls it the degree of disorganization the Hebrew Bible was in at the time the Holy Spirit formed the Church. Thus it seems reasonable, that He rightly gave the Church the LXX as her scripture in support of the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. My own studies have convinced me that the ancient Greek Seventy is much more Messianic than the later Masoretic Text. And therefore I submit the LXX is better suited to the Church’s mission.

All known Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah 7:14 read “עלמה” (‘almah) where the KJV reads "virgin". The Hebrew word is rightly translated, "young woman" but “עלמה” (‘almah) has cognates which indicate seclusion even as young women in eastern society generally were secluded awaiting their wedding. Their fathers were under contract to deliver a virgin to a pre-arranged wedding. So in none of the four occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Testament should we understand it to mean anything other than a “virgin”. Her seclusion was intended to secure her virginity as her father’s personal honor was at stake. The error people in modern times often make is we interpret this Hebrew word lifting it from the historical context in which it was given.

That said, in Matt.1:23, Matthew cited Isaiah 7:14 from Greek Seventy, not the Hebrew. He vocabulary. Matthew’s citation is “ ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου Εμμανουηλ” (Matt.1:23 TR). The passage according to the Greek Seventy is: “ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει καὶ τεξεται υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου Εμμανουηλ · (Isa.7:14 LXX) The only difference is the way the verb translated “she shall call” [καλεω (kaleo)] is declined. The technicality does not make a translatable difference.

What is important to know however is that Matthew cited the verse from Isaiah 7:14 to establish the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ; and he cited the verse from the Greek Seventy where the word παρθενος (parthenos) literally means “virgin”. Since the Isaiah verse is of such importance to Christian doctrine, most English versions prepared for Christians actually substitute the LXX verse for the Hebrew one when translating Isaiah 7:14. One notable exception was the RSV of 1956 which translated the Hebrew literally and was eschewed by evangelicals for the departure.

The only commentaries I know of beyond those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a philosopher called Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary of our Lord on earth living until the middle first century. There is no evidence that Philo had any contact with our Lord or His Apostles. Philo did write commentaries on the Books of Moses and some other parts. But Philo, a Hellenized Jew cited all his scripture references from the Greek Seventy and none from the Hebrew Bible.


Jerome justified himself on several levels concerning his decision to translate his improved Latin version from the Hebrew instead of the Church’s traditional text the Greek Seventy. It was an unpopular idea among Jerome’s peers. I have a formed opinion regarding some of Jerome’s statements which I shall keep to myself, but he did write that certain scholars during the early third century introduced revisions to the Greek Seventy’s manuscripts circulating during his time. Among these were Origen who prepared revised LXX manuscripts which Eusibius and others are said to have published. Origin’s “revisions” are known as the “Hexaplaric Revisions” and scholars today busy themselves identifying them.

Also, quite early on a man called Theodotion prepared new Greek translations of certain books which were substituted in place of earlier translations in some later manuscripts of the Greek Seventy. We have some earlier manuscripts to compare with Theodotion’s work. Swete’s and Rahlf’s printed editions include both Old Greek and Theodotiontic versions of Judges and Daniel among other portions.

But it is important to understand that the revisers of the second and third centuries were attempting to make the Church’s Old Testament Bible agree better with whatever prevailing Hebrew version they knew. Modern scholars rightly try to regain the earliest form of the Greek Old Testament since it was a pivotal text to both the Church and the Greek New Testament.

μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης

Thank you, very much, for your thoughtful response.

Two nineteenth century English translations of the Greek Seventy in PDF format may now be freely downloaded.

Suggestion: With PDF books, save ink and paper; print the individual pages as needed for study.

In 1808 the American Patriot and Secretary to the Contiental Congress, Charles Thomson published English translations of the LXX Old Testament. Thomson's was the very first rendering of the Greek Seventy into English. Thomson's Septuagint was in two volumes:

Charles Thomson LXX in English Volume 1 [archive.org]
Charles Thomson LXX in English Volume 2 [archive.org]

Thomson's edition has no Greek text, only English and the Apocrypha are not included.

++++++

Sir Charles Breton's well known 1851 English translation is now available formatted in LARGE TYPE. The PDF's of the thirty-nine individual books of the Protestant canon are available. No Apocrypha nor Greek text are available at the site:

Brenton's LXX English Translation in 39 files [lxx-bible.org]

Of special note: Brenton did not translate the Apocrypha. The English Apocrypha translations published in the Bagster edition, (the Zondervan and Hendricks editions are reprints) came from the 1611 King James Version.

++++++

One modern translation, "New English Translation of the Septuigint" (NETS) 2005, is also downloadable as free PDFs. The apocrypha is available too. However, these PDFs may be viewed, but cannot be printed.

New English Translation of the Septuigint Online [ccat.sas.upenn.edu]

The NETS version is a GENDER NEUTRAL tranalstion based upon the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).


μιχαηλ τω συστρατιωτης