Septuagint

I'm reading up on the Greek OT. Presumably, the original Septuagint has been destroyed, leaving us with only duplicates. The Septuagint versions we have differ because the copies do not always agree. Is this presumption accurate? I am not really familar with this part of biblical studies and I would like to get updated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Not quite. Use one of your dictionaries to brush up on the LXX. It's interesting. If money, an LXX Intro.

First, there might have been an original Penteteuch, but even that was likely to have been preceded by individual translations, personal and group. But the expansion beyond the Penteteuch was largely piecemeal, differing styles, and so forth. And yes, copying problems.

Earlier today in your other thread, mentioned Origen's Hexipla, trying to iron out the differences. What is so fascinating is use of the Targums that you ran into.

MJ. Smith

Is this presumption accurate?

There is no reason to assume there was ever a single translation of all the books that was called the Septuagint. There is also no reason to assume there was ever a single canon that was considered the official Septuagint. For the earliest Septuagints we're talking scrolls not codices. Also remember that the Septuagint precedes the Masoretic text which fixed the Hebrew text (in the sense of freezing it to a particular text) so Septuagint texts may reflect differing Hebrew texts underlying it. [Which is why poor St. Jerome would have suffered greatly if the Dead Sea Scrolls had been discovered in his lifetime ... they undercut one of his major assumptions regarding the Hebrew text.] You also should look at the Peshitta translated from the Septuagint as it is a major source for attesting the text and canon of the Septuagint.

John

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1275800#Comment_1275800

they undercut one of his major assumptions regarding the Hebrew text.

What was the assumption? [:|]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1275855#Comment_1275855

What was the assumption?

That there were no variants in the Hebrew therefore it was the more accurate text.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1275870#Comment_1275870

That there were no variants in the Hebrew therefore it was the more accurate text.

That's a tough row to hoe. Today, the rabbit trail began with Lazarus' cave, whose greek lead to 'cave of brigands' (Jesus cleansing the Temple), which led to Jer 7:11 (similar), but ultimately to ...

Jerome's Jer 12:9 where he's not clear what to do with a hyena (Homilies on Mark 83.11.15–17). The LXX had cut to the chase.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1275977#Comment_1275977

I don't think Jerome is the only one who presumed there are no variants in the Hebrew. It might be some sort of pride to think the Hebrew text was unscathed and that the scribes had their act together. Humans just ain't so perfect no matter who they are.