From Leviticus to Joshua: The Old Greek Text in Light of Two Septuagint Manuscripts from the Schøyen Collection

The texts of papyrus Schøyen MS 2648 (a Joshua codex) and MS 2649 (a Leviticus codex) belong to the Old Greek text tradition of the books of Joshua and Leviticus. But both codices attest not purely to the Old Greek text, but to an already slightly altered text. The Old Greek text of the two codices was already revised towards a Hebrew text, most often the Masoretic text. The two papyri are thus not witnesses for the Old Greek text as it left the hands of the first translators, but for an Old Greek text that was beginning to be revised towards the Hebrew text.

The Text of Jeremiah: Re-Examining the Evidence from Kings

Vetus Testamentum ◽

10.1163/15685330-12341457 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-14

Author(s):

James Frohlich ◽

Henk de Waard

Keyword(s):

Present Article ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Greek Text ◽

Greek Translation ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Hebrew Version ◽

Old Greek ◽

The Relationship ◽

Parallel Texts

Abstract Jeremiah 52 largely parallels 2 Kgs 25, and Jer 40–43 contains various sentences that are also found in 2 Kgs 25:22–26. The present article compares these parallel texts, in order to determine the relationship between the Masoretic text of Jeremiah and the book’s Old Greek translation. It concludes that this relationship is complex, but that the agreements between the Greek text of Jeremiah and the Hebrew text of Kings support the view that the Old Greek of Jeremiah reflects an early Hebrew version of the book.

The Slavonic Book of Esther: Translation from Hebrew or Evidence for a Lost Greek Text?

Harvard Theological Review ◽

10.1017/s0017816000030765 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 87 (3) ◽

pp. 347-362 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Horace G. Lunt ◽

Moshe Taube

Keyword(s):

Hebrew Bible ◽

Common Knowledge ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Greek Text ◽

Greek Translation ◽

Scholarly Literature ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Greek Tradition ◽

Fifty years ago, Charles C. Torrey, writing about Esther, asked on the pages of this journal, “Why is there no Greek translation of the Hebrew text? Every other book of the Hebrew Bible, whatever its nature, has its faithful rendering (at least one, often several) in Greek. For the canonical Esther, on the contrary, no such version is extant, nor is there evidence that one ever existed.” It is common knowledge that the extant Greek versions of Esther, both the longer Septuagint text and the shorter A-text, are textually distant from the Hebrew Masoretic version. Indeed, the distance is so great that when a passage in the Complutensian edition (5:1–2) does correspond to the Masoretic text, Robert Hanhart confidently labels it as “newly translated.” His characterization seems justified in this case; the two verses required a new translation because the original Septuagint text had been removed, along with the apocryphal addition D, and put at the end of the book in accordance with the Latin tradition. Hanhart correctly states, “It is improbable that such an intervention, which sacrifices the inner coherence of the Greek text to the benefit of the Masoretic text, belongs to old Greek tradition,” indicating “a scholarly re-working according to the Masoretic text in the period of the Renaissance”; his confidence, however, rests on the fact that scholarly literature contains nothing about a Greek Esther that resembles the Masoretic text.

The Books of Samuel

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.11 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 215-224

Author(s):

Anneli Aejmelaeus

Keyword(s):

Hebrew Text ◽

Greek Text ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Textual History ◽

History Of ◽

Books Of Samuel ◽

Textual Research

The textual history of the books of Samuel, both in Greek and in Hebrew, is laden with problems that the researcher needs to be acquainted with, whatever the focus of textual research. The Septuagint translation shows a close word-for-word correspondence to its Hebrew Vorlage, however, not without occasional freedom of translation, especially in lexical choices and grammatical forms, as well as erroneous translation due to defective knowledge of Hebrew. The Hebrew Vorlage used by the translator differed at times substantially from the later Masoretic Text, used for comparison during the early textual history of the Septuagint text as well as in research today. Not only is the Masoretic Text corrupted but it underwent editorial changes until the turn of the era. Textual differences caused by both the translator and the editors of the Hebrew text must have occasioned the repeated revisions of the Greek text by Jewish and Christian scribes.

Septuagintas betydning som en hellenistisk udgave af Det Gamle Testamente

Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift ◽

10.7146/dtt.v74i3.106389 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 74 (3) ◽

pp. 217-231

Author(s):

Mogens Müller

Keyword(s):

Old Testament ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Reception History ◽

Early Church ◽

Greek Text ◽

Greek Version ◽

History Of ◽

Old Greek ◽

The Church

The understanding of the role of the old Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, has undergone great changes in the last decennia. From looking upon the Hebrew text as the original and the Greek text as only a translation, it has now been common to view the Greek version as a chapter in a reception history of biblical traditions. By being used by New Testament authors and in the Early Church the Septuagint gained canonical status – alongside the Hebrew Bible. Thus the Old Testament of the Church in reality consists of both versions. The article argues for this also pointing to some of the theological consequences of viewing the connection between the two parts of the Christian Bible from the perspective of reception history.

Kaige and ‘Theodotion’

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.25 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 448-458

Author(s):

Siegfried Kreuzer

Keyword(s):

Hebrew Text ◽

Second Century ◽

First Century ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Meaningful Relationship ◽

This chapter examines the so-called Kaige and Kaige-Theodotion text of the Septuagint tradition. The Kaige Recension is a revision of the generally somewhat more freely translated original Septuagint (Old Greek) towards the now (late second-/early first-century bce) relevant form of the Hebrew text, the so-called proto-Masoretic text that at least started in the first century bce. The identification of the Kaige Recension also solved the problem that Theodotionic readings had been identified in writings from the first century ce, i.e. long before the traditional dating of the translator Theodotion in the late second century ce. However, there remains the question of a meaningful relationship between ‘Kaige’ and Theodotion.

Joshua and Judges

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.46 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 200-215

Author(s):

Natalio Fernández Marcos

Keyword(s):

Literary Criticism ◽

Present State ◽

Greek Text ◽

Greek Language ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Translation Technique ◽

History Of ◽

Old Greek ◽

The Relationship ◽

Structure Language

These two books are treated in the same chapter: they are contiguous in both Jewish and Christian collections, and LXX Joshua provides two extra verses that form a ‘bridge’ to Judges. Though their Septuagintal forms are dissimilar textually, they each present particular challenges to editors. LXX Joshua is shorter than the Hebrew MT, while LXX Judges displays a very different text in the two main codices, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. In both cases it is very difficult to determine what the original Greek translations would have looked like. The section on Joshua describes the present state of the question concerning the structure, language, and translation technique of the book. The conclusion indicates the most promising directions of the research, namely the analysis of the language in comparison with the other books of the Septuagint and with the history of the Greek language; the study of the Antiochian text in Joshua; the relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Greek text as well as between textual and literary criticism. The section on Judges classifies and describes the textual groups of Judges, including the present state of the question. Some of the most promising directions of research are the production of a critical edition of Judges in the Göttingen series maior; the analysis of the Antiochian text; the translation technique of the Old Greek and the relationship between the Masoretic Text and the different groups of Greek manuscripts, especially the groups A and B.

The Twice-Assembled Tabernacle

Journal of Ancient Judaism ◽

10.30965/21967954-00703002 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. 288-332

Author(s):

B. E. Bruning

Keyword(s):

Present Article ◽

Similar Pattern ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Second Temple ◽

Textual Evidence ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Multi Stage ◽

Dramatic Difference ◽

Stage Development ◽

Exodus 35–40, a text-critical and literary-historical crux, reports the construction of the Tabernacle in two forms, neither of which conforms exactly to the instructions for the Tabernacle that Moses receives in chapters 25–31. The two surviving forms of the construction report differ in both the length and the order of their reports: the shorter form of chapters 35–40, now attested only by the Old Greek (OG) translation of Exodus, and the longer, attested in all known Hebrew manuscripts. The most dramatic difference appears in the two forms of chapters 36–39, the manufacture of the Tabernacle’s components; but a similar pattern is also evident in the two forms of Exodus 40, where the assembly of the Tabernacle is related. In light of the evidence of textual pluriformity of scriptural books in the later Second-Temple claim and increasing scholarly confidence in the testimony of OG translators and its use, many now argue that literary edition, not translation, accounts for the diverging forms of Exodus 35–40. Further examination of Exodus 35–40 in light of this claim remains a desideratum. The present article examines Exodus 40 in its two forms, the shorter in OG and the longer in the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), as a means of exploring the implications of the claim that OG and MT (etc.) represent variant literary editions of Hebrew texts of Exodus 35–40. Not only does a shorter Hebrew text of Exodus 40 appear to be both the Vorlage of OG and the basis of a revised, expanded edition now attested in MT and SP, but it also suggests an even earlier form of Exodus 40, part of which is now incorporated into Leviticus 8. Recognition of this multi-stage development of Exodus 40 suggests that an already composite, pre-pentateuchal Tabernacle Account (now found in Exodus–Numbers) stands before the Pentateuch represented by the MT especially in Exodus–Numbers. If so, scholarly accounts of both the composition and the transmission of the Pentateuch – or rather, its composition-and-transmission history – are due significant revision, beginning with reassessment of the textual evidence of the Tabernacle chapters in OG Exodus.

What is Old Greek Daniel chapter 8 about?

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament ◽

10.1177/0309089219864611 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 44 (4) ◽

pp. 693-710

Author(s):

Ian Young

Keyword(s):

Greek Text ◽

Divine Intervention ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

The Old Greek text of Daniel chapter 8 exhibits many important differences compared to the Masoretic Text more familiar to most readers. Instead of a little horn who successfully challenges heaven, with a striking absence of divine intervention, the Old Greek tells of a strong horn who is thrown down by the heavenly powers and of a prince of the host who rescues the captives. This article attempts to give a coherent reading of the chapter in the Old Greek to bring out the quite different storyline and message of the Old Greek compared to the Masoretic Text.

Symmachus

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665716.013.27 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 467-479

Author(s):

Michaël N. van der Meer

Keyword(s):

Roman Empire ◽

Hebrew Bible ◽

Religious Affiliation ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Greek Text ◽

Greek Version ◽

Greek Translation ◽

The Third ◽

The discussion of the third of the Jewish revisers, Symmachus, focuses on the questions of authorship, religious affiliation, and political purposes of his Greek translation/revision of the Hebrew Bible. Special attention is given to the idea that this Symmachus was identical to a pupil of Rabbi Meir. Furthermore the motives behind the new revision are explored: it may well be that this new Greek version of the Hebrew Bible not only sought to bring the Old Greek translations into closer agreement with the standardized Hebrew text (MT) and accommodate the unintelligible Greek version of Aquila to a more lucid and understandable Greek text. The translation may also have tried to convey a policy of quietism and cohabitation with the Roman Empire as opposed to the more militant and messianic overtones in the works of its predecessors.

The Tyrian King in MT and LXX Ezekiel 28:12b–15

Religions ◽

10.3390/rel12020091 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 91

Author(s):

Lydia Lee

Keyword(s):

Late Antiquity ◽

Historical Development ◽

Hebrew Text ◽

Second Temple ◽

Critical Approach ◽

Second Temple Period ◽

Biblical Literature ◽

Israelite Religion ◽

Masoretic Text ◽

Fluid Boundary

The biblical prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 records a dirge against the king from Tyre. While the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) identifies the monarch as a cherub, the Greek Septuagint (LXX) distinguishes the royal from the cherub. Scholarly debates arise as to which edition represents the more original version of the prophecy. This article aims to contribute to the debates by adopting a text-critical approach to the two variant literary editions of the dirge, comparing and analyzing their differences, while incorporating insights gleaned from the extra-biblical literature originating from the ancient Near East, Second Temple Period, and Late Antiquity. The study reaches the conclusion that the current MT, with its presentation of a fluid boundary between the mortal and divine, likely builds on a more ancient interpretation of the Tyrian king. On the other hand, while the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 28:12b–15 resembles the Hebrew text of the MT, the Greek translator modifies the text via literary allusions and syntactical rearrangement, so that the final result represents a later reception that suppresses any hints at the divinity of the Tyrian ruler. The result will contribute to our understanding of the historical development of the ancient Israelite religion.